Researchers Create 'Habitability Index' For Exoplanets 52
hypnosec writes: The Kepler Space Telescope has allowed astronomers to detect and catalog thousands of exoplanets and exoplanet candidates. With more powerful telescopes like the James Webb Space Telescope scheduled for launch, scientists will be able to check if any of these exoplanets are habitable. But these space telescopes are expensive to create, and access time is coveted. This means simply pointing telescopes to random exoplanets isn't a practical proposition. That's why researchers have created what they call a "habitability index for transiting planets," with which astronomers will be able to prioritize the use of space telescopes for finding habitable planets. Their paper is available at the arXiv.
We already had one (Score:5, Funny)
The most habitable worlds, of course, are class M.
Next ... the 'climate change' index ... (Score:1)
Don't ever forget 'climate change', you insensitive clod!
Re: (Score:1)
You do realize that those classes are fictional, don't you? And according to those classifications, other classes besides M are habitable though perhaps not by humans. Looking through the solar system, here's how I'd classify the planets:
Mercury: Class K (because of the lack of atmosphere, but sufficient gravity)
Venus: Class N (generally these are planets with high CO2 and sulfides in a very thick atmosphere, though class N has been used for other purposes, too)
Earth: Class M
Mars: Class K (again because of
Re:We already had one (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, they're fictional, but it's a good start, since after all it proves that modern-day researchers weren't the first people to think of classifying planets by their habitability characteristics. Also, the simple "class [letter]" scheme is easy to remember and use; I sure hope they don't come up with some arcane, complicated system instead. Finally, they should definitely use "Class M" to refer to Earth-like planets simply to pay homage to Star Trek. Everyone and his brother knows what a "Class M" planet is, as long as they watched some Star Trek within the last 50 years.
It looks like you got your classes from Star Trek too, as seen here [wikia.com], but with some differences. I'm not sure where you got Class Q or I. The system probably does need a little revision though. Class H's "generally uninhabitable" doesn't tell you why. The Class P (see appendices) for icy planets is a good example. Class N for "sulphuric" really isn't sufficient; Venus is more like the Class Y "demon planet" except there's no dilithium-based biomimetic lifeforms, but the fact that Venus is so hot is important it needs to be classified that way. If a planet is too cold or too hot to live on, that's an important factor for humans. Same if there's no atmosphere. A planet (or moon) that's not too warm or hot but has no atmosphere can still be inhabited using domes or other sealed habitats, so that should be a class by itself. Mercury probably wouldn't fit there however, because it's much too hot. But it's hot in a different way than Venus, so they should have different classifications (hot because it's too close to the star, vs. hot because it has a thick atmosphere and runaway greenhouse effect). Finally, moons and planets should be classified together. The orbital path doesn't really matter (except insofar as it affects the climate/temperature). There could very well be Earth-like moons out there somewhere, so those should be Class M (like the moon in "Avatar").
So here's my proposal which borrows from ST:
Class M - Earth-like, small, rocky, oxygenated atmosphere, right temperature
Class D - small, rocky, little to no atmosphere, right temperature, inhabitable with sealed habitats (e.g. Mars)
Class J - gas giant (any size; this may be expanded later after we explore more star systems and decide we need to classify them further)
Class E - small, rocky, little to no atmosphere, too cold (e.g. Pluto)
Class F - small, rocky, little to no atmosphere, too hot (e.g. Mercury)
Class G - small, thick atmosphere, too hot (e.g. Venus)
Class A - very very small, not spherical (e.g. moons of Mars, captured asteroids)
Class B - very small, spherical but extremely low gravity (e.g. Sedna, Ceres, Pluto, dwarf planets in general)
I'm probably missing something here, perhaps planets with only liquid surfaces. I avoided calling Venus "Class N" because it sounds too much like "Class M".
Re: (Score:2)
It does seem like having multiple letters (or numbers) is starting to look very useful, because several of these characteristics can apply to the same planet; for instance, Venus would be class S and K, so maybe it should be "Class SK", while Mercury would be "Class CHT".
Re: (Score:2)
If we're grading planets according to habitability, it's fairly binary - habitable or non habitable. Until we've mastered the effects of low or high gravity on people anything not almost exactly earthlike is going to be more effort for less return than a large space station. You might fine tune it a bit by adding a third category - habitable with modifications, like say a semi toxic atmosphere you can survive with air filters. Even then considering how much of the earth's atmosphere is a result of its biosp
Re: (Score:2)
Classifying and indexing aren't the same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
If you invent such a schema then Class-E is obviously "earth like".
There is absolutely nothing "easy to remember" in your schema.
Re: (Score:2)
That's fine, it implies suitable for humans or similar advanced life as necessary zombie-fodder. It implies a level of non-human sentience too for zombies to vocally express the longing for braaaaaaaiiiiiinnnssssss. Finding a class Z is a win-win
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Class H's "generally uninhabitable" doesn't tell you why.
It's typically because there is a giant blob of an amorphic entity bent on making doppelgangers of anyone who steps foot on them. Also the atmospheres are typically highly corrosive. The "H" in "Class H" is short for "Hell."
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, they're fictional, but it's a good start,
Perfectly appropriate too, since habitation off of earth is also fictional.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, you should at least find plenty of Roddenberries.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I note you link to a biased source rather than the peer reviewed truth of the timecube website
Re: (Score:2)
We can tell how habitable it is by how much it causes a start to warble
Chirp chirp chirp, triiiiiiiiiiiillll, triiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilllll! Chirp triiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillll! Coooo-oooo! Cooooo-oooo! Chirp chirp chirp!!!
Re: (Score:2)
repeating the same tired space age clichés that will never, ever happen, ever.
I think it is you that is living in fantasyland. You are claiming that it will never happen, which the evidence contradicts.
Re: (Score:2)
It is certainly within the ability of current human scientific and engineering ability to send an unmanned probe to the nearest three stars in less than two centuries with nuclear fission power alone
Anything voted most livable exoplanet (Score:2)
Will likely be invaded by freeloading yuppies the following year.
Re: (Score:2)
The bastards. At least with hipsters you know they'll be gone after a year or two, when it's gone mainstream.
Re: (Score:3)
I think it's silly in the regards that we have precisely one datapoint about the sort of environments in which life may exist, which is pretty terrible in terms of making any sort of definitive statement. I'd much rather they keep their options open, check out a wide range of environments, and just look for signs of "things that are hard to explain", whatever they may be. "Hmm, this body has both a strong oxidizer and a strong reducing agent in its atmosphere - how is that happening?"
I'm not saying "check
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, there's only one data point of a planet supporting life. While we can't draw conclusions from that about which planets are habitable, it's very important for at least a couple of reasons:
1) We have no evidence that any planets of any other types are capable of supporting life. We've only seen one planet known to support life, especially intelligent life. That is, of course, Earth. Why not start by looking at planets like the only one we are certain is capable of supporting intelligent life?
2) If life e
Re: (Score:3)
I have no clue where you're coming from. You rightly point out that life takes energy, but then proceed to consider internal sources of energy as worthless, when in reality in the universe far more things are exposed to internal energy than external. And radioactive decay-driven energy sources are only one. For example, Encelaldus's heat seems to be driven by the serpentization of rock, which also releases hydrogen, a potential food source to microorganisms. There are numerous chemical means which can relea
Re: (Score:2)
** I should clarify that when I say "mollusks", I mean like cephlapods, not like snails ;)
Re: (Score:2)
But my analogy is this. Say that you're a pearl diver. You're browsing along a dive forum one day and see a picture from someone on their vacation to a remote tropical island holding a large, rare pearl that they found on a dive. You ask them where they found it, and they tell you they only did one dive and found it in waters of about 15 meter depth off the shore. Wanting to find many of these such pearls, you head out to the island. Now, you have two approaches you could take.
1. Spend a long time carefull
Dang. (Score:2)
I thought that said "hitability".
Re: (Score:2)
There is thriving (non-sentient) life there already, they're called mormons
Trying to resist... (Score:1)