These exoplanet candidates are similar in size to Jupiter, Saturn and Neptune, and were discovered using data from Nasa’s Transitioning Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS).

TESS enables scientists to observe dips in the brightness of stars, known as transits, caused by objects passing in front of them.

Typically, at least three transits need to be seen to discover an exoplanet in this way, in order to determine how long they take to orbit their star.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I think it's also fair to say that "too cold" is generally more livable than "too hot". It's quite a bit easier to generate and conserve heat than to ward it off, and even a planet that is so cold that its atmosphere has precipitated into snow could theoretically be survivable with habitat domes or the like, much like a proposed moon base. "Too hot," on the other hand, can potentially be hot enough to melt basically anything we send there, which is why there's a lot more focus on colonizing Mars right now than Venus.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Yeah, I had that in my comment originally (we have people living in Antarctica, but not too many volcano explorers) but it was getting a bit wordy and didn’t seem to fit terribly well because, I believe, “too cold” takes that into consideration already. It would be planets without any liquid water at all because it’s all completely frozen (at those temps it could be a real struggle to produce enough heat to prevent equipment seizing, depending on the heat source, and it may cause batteries and such to freeze up). But NASA believes even snowball planets completely covered in ice shells which are outside the habitable zone may have liquid oceans beneath the surface ice, as long as they have internal heating, like Europa and Enceladus do. And we can probably work with that the same way we do geothermal here.

When I was writing that comment I went looking for stats on rocky planets considered too cold, and there isn’t much. A few papers about land masses/liquid oceans/geysers on snowball planets, one paper about what makes a planet uninhabitably cold (spoiler, it’s a lack of atmospheric co2, to the surprise of absolutely no-one), and a ton of articles that have nothing to do with too-cold exoplanets, just the habitable zone generally. It’s sort of a weird gap, but I think it’s because snowballs tend not to be in the habitable zone (and were likely booted out of it, so less common) so we aren’t really looking for them for habitability, we can handle cold better, and we know how to warm a planet.. :(