Talk:Kepler-452b

We could live there after death. It’s another dimension where your spirit would transcend to. Like a connection to another website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9008:1900:6E9D:8D50:525F:1A1E:1DB (talk) 12:54, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

"clearly an unthinkable amount of time."

This is a false statement. I'm an average human and I can think about how much time that would be. This part of the statement is sensationalist and should be removed in the interest of neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.223.208 (talk) 22:07, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Untitled

Some images I pulled from the broadcast. http://imgur.com/a/7lFEl

Images used for the broadcast can be found at http://www.nasa.gov/keplerbriefing0723/ TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 16:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

"It is the second-most Earth-like planet known to date" ???

Shouldn't that be "It is the most Earth-like planet known to date" ?
E.g., see: "Astronomers at NASA have identified Kepler-452b, a planet 1,400 light years away from Earth, as the most Earth-like planet they've found to date": “In my mind, this is the closest thing we have to another planet like the Earth,” astronomer Jon Jenkins, with the U.S. space agency's Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, California, told reporters on a conference call.
Ronbarak (talk) 00:51, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

• Wouldn't the more Earth-like planet be the Earth itself? This guy could be pretty close, depending on what further observations reveal, but it is still in second place. Earth is the most Earth-like and everything else comes after that. Nutster (talk) 06:48, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • That's taking it too far. In saying "Earth-like", it indicates that they obviously are not including Earth itself. Dustin (talk) 18:11, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

imaginary ESI index

As today, the NASA official Kepler web site does not report the mass of the planet http://kepler.nasa.gov/Mission/discoveries/ so while the planet radius is know with good approximation, the density is unknown. Many speculating web site report values from 5 EM to <1. So the ESI index for 452b reported in the article is completely arbitrary, remove it from an enciclopedia--Efa (talk) 20:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

• • I also think it should be removed, also the value of the mass in the table should be removed, the paper of the discovery says it does not have a mass measurement, only an estimation based on statistical models. --User:D. Allepuz

Kepler-452 Star Info

Is there any data on the star itself, apparent magnitude and the like? I'd be nice to add it to List of Stars in Cygnus

Kepler-452 b info

Any info on orbital eccentricity? Does it freeze or boil when close or far from the Kepler-452 Star? Telecine Guy 17:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

References

EPE

The EPE entry lists a semi-major axis of 1,046.0+0.15
−0.19 AU. It appears to be off by a few orders of magnitude. Did somebody put the decimal in the wrong place? Praemonitus (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Calculated temperature: 220.5 K (-52.65°C) is also very wrong, I don't trust this source at all. 24.79.40.162 (talk) 04:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Comparison section

Might it be more useful to modify the table in the comparison section to add more traditional planetary characteristics like mass, radius, semimajor axis, equilibrium temperature, et cetera? For one, these are more well-defined than the ESI and other indicators, and are the fundamental characteristics that go into making the determinations of the ESI and other indices listed. Wer902 (talk) 18:17, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

We ought to take care, as well, not to offend the inhabitants of this world, as they are undoubtedly strong and warlike. Pandeist (talk) 18:42, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I think that whole section should be split into a separate article, provided such a comparison is supported by sources to prove GNG AadaamS (talk) 09:05, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

In the News Nomination

This article has been proposed to be linked on the Front Page in the WP:ITN section. The nomination and voting can be found here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:38, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Irradiance 120% of Earth's

With a larger mass you can expect more GHG naturally, but with the irradiance of this planet being 20% more than Earth's you can expect it to be Venus-like.
R= 1, 1.1
T= 5778, 5905.064936
d= 1, 1.05
f= 1366.078686, 1635.577202
f%= 100.00%, 119.73%

• L=R²T⁴
T=(L/R²)^^0.25
1.021991162
5905.064936
24.79.40.162 (talk) 23:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

It is claimed in the article, "...it is likely to have an estimated mass of 5 M⊕, which would prevent Kepler-452b from succumbing to the runaway greenhouse effect for another 500 million years...". That claim is wrong, because a higher mass wouldn't by itself necessarily prevent Kepler-452b succumbing to a greenhouse effect. Actually, in general, you would logically expect, because of its larger mass, that it should have been able to hold onto a thicker atmosphere and so to have succumbed to a runaway greenhouse effect sooner, rather than later, than Earth. Ok, it is true that a larger than Earth massed planet could in theory hold onto to just one atmosphere, and in that perhaps unlikely situation the atmosphere on that planet would have less width and volume to it than one atmosphere on Earth would, because a larger massed planet normally has a higher gravity and that higher gravity compresses any atmosphere down onto the surface with greater force and, following on from that, a comparatively thinner atmosphere is required to generate one atmosphere pressure onto the larger massed planet's surface. In that unlikely situation the runaway greenhouse effect could take longer due to the thinner atmosphere providing less insulation to heat loss from the planet. But, it is obviously (unless Earth is a freak) far more likely that Kepler-452b, exactly because it is more massive than Earth, would have a thicker rather than a thinner atmosphere so it is a bit of a moot point really. So, I would rewrite the claim, to at least make it sound vaguely credible, as "..it is likely to have an estimated mass of 5 M⊕, which could prevent Kepler-452b from succumbing to the runaway greenhouse effect for another 500 million years...", replacing the "would" with "could". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.152.61.111 (talk) 02:07, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Temperature?

The mean temperature of the planet is listed as 5700+ K. That is not the habitable zone; that is the roasting zone. It won't we water flowing on the surface, but iron and tungsten. Can we get a better mean temperature or a better explanation of where that number came from? Nutster (talk) 07:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

The described temperature is the surface of the parent star. The temperature of the planet is not known for certain, but is obviously much lower than that. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 07:11, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

• Yeah, I caught that when I re-read the article. I did not realize that red dwarfs got that cool. Nutster (talk) 07:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

For comparison, the temperature of the Sun is about 5780 K. To help future confused readers, I added a rough estimated temperature of the planet. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 08:01, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

According to the discoverer, it is not likely that the planet is undergoing a venus run-away at least not for another billion years. The interview can be heard here: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/go-for-launch/os-live-nasa-earthlike-kepler452b-20150725-htmlstory.html and the relevant discussion at ~29.00 minutes. The reference to runaway seems to be speculation from a science blog/news channels so I suggests deleting the suggestion of it being a venus runaway. Comments? 137.222.248.231 (talk) 11:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

According to the link that is supposed to be the source of the venus run-away comment, it's density should be enough to prevent this from happening. From my reading of the article this comment is misleading and should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.171.130.176 (talk) 20:28, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Near Earth sized?

Looking at the data the plant weighs about 5 earth masses and has a radius of 1.63 Earth radius. According to PHL's definition of a near Earth sized planet states the following: subterran = 0.1 — 0.5 ME or 0.4 — 0.8 RE, terran = 0.5 — 5 ME or 0.8 — 1.5 RE, superterran = 5 — 10 ME or 1.5 — 2.5 RE. ME = Earth masses, and RE = Earth radii. In conclusion this planet is superterran aka a Super-Earth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidbuddy9 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Comparison to Kepler-186f?

I'd like to see another comparison to Kepler-186f - better than just the figure, which doesn't say much. I consider 186f to be more "Earth-like" thank 452b (the latter is much bigger than the Earth; it's year-length mean nothing when it comes to astrobiology), and would like to know why 452b is touted as more Earth-like by some. CielProfond (talk) 13:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

The primary difference between Kepler-186f and Kepler-452b is that the former orbits a red dwarf star, while the latter orbits a very sun-like star. A planet around a red dwarf can be prone to trouble, due to the proximity needed to be in the habitable zone, including the large flares of M-dwarfs, and the assumed tidal locking of the system, again do to its proximity. Basically, while Kepler-452b itself is likely less Earth-like than Kepler-186f, Kepler-452b orbits are more habitable star. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 06:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

There has to be a reference for such a comparison and then we can add it to the article. AadaamS (talk) 06:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Obvious copy-paste under "Observation and Exploration" Sub

The paragraph has been copy-pasted from source. I have converted units from English to metric in the mean time. However, a rewrite and reorganization of the sub's contents is due. --Arquenevis (talk) 00:39, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect Planetbox usage

The image in the infobox should not be used as it does not follow the usage guide for the template:

This template is part of a group of templates that are used to display information about a specific extrasolar planet.
Images of published planetary properties are preferred where available, especially when they are available from cited publications.
Artist's conception, regardless of the source, should be avoided.
Examples of acceptable images include
* direct images, such as one used for GJ 758 b, in the rare cases where these are available;
* output of a model that is integral to a cited paper, such as the image used in HD 80606 b;
* user-generated images that clearly illustrate published properties, such as the size comparisons currently used in GJ 1214 b or Gliese 436 b.

My edits followed these guidelines but were revered by User:MarioProtIV.

A useful radius comparison to Earh in the relevant section of the article was also removed.

The nicknames are also sensationalism and outdated.

I'm opening discussion as to why ...

--EvenGreenerFish (talk) 09:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I would like if the discussion was held here, rather then on all of the other pages. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 11:11, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kepler-452b. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131105082102/http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/kepler/main/index.html to http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/kepler/main/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:28, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Removed section on radio observation

In the section describing the difficulty to determine the exact mass of Kepler 452b due to its distance the last part generally reviews plans for the next exoplanet observing telescopes to make the point that they are focused on nearby exoplanets. At the end of this section there was a statement about potential improvements in radio telescopes which seemed too general to be of relevance in the article which I removed. Because someone went to the trouble to collect references, I preserve it here. It might better fit into a wikipedia page about radio astronomy within a general discussion about improvements in instrumentation.

"Additionally the Square Kilometer Array would significantly improve radio observations over the Arecibo Observatory and Green Bank Telescope."

Domandologo (talk) 21:00, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Confirmation questioned?

Re-Evaluating Small Long-Period Confirmed Planets From Kepler Using the final Data Release 25 (DR25) Kepler planet candidate catalog statistics, we find that the previously confirmed single planet system Kepler-452b no longer achieves a 99% confidence in the planetary hypothesis and is not considered statistically validated in agreement with the finding of Mullally et al.(2018). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomruen (talk • contribs) 19:37, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Distance

Within the German language Article on Kepler-452b, and also within the English language article on its host star Kepler-452, the distance is written to be about 1,800&mbsp;ly, not 1,400 ly. Why that discrepancy? Slow Phil (talk) 21:58, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

how far?

The lede says "about 1,402 light-years (430 pc) from Earth" and "The planet is about 1,400 light-years away from the Solar System". This indicates the article needs editing. --142.163.195.48 (talk) 20:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Since distances are estimated from change of angles from fixed stars, the numbers given can be significantly (perhaps 1 to 10%) off from reality. And 1400 is just a rounded value from 1402. Dhrm77 (talk) 12:14, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Is it’s temperature 452B 265 K (−8 °C; 17 °F) or 393 K (120 °C; 248 °F)?

This wiki is telling me two different things. 86.30.123.22 (talk) 18:17, 2 July 2022 (UTC)