This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
The US Military is funding the Allen Radio Telescope Array to search for signals from Kepler-22. Thought that it might be a useful addition to the page. [1]. I also would like to suggest that the artist's conception be moved up, not to primary image status but to the point where it is not just touching the notes. Wer900 ( talk) 23:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Anyone know how far away it is? 198.2.4.2 ( talk) 19:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
"Zero Thrust", does that refer to any theories of space travel? Interesting idea... 205.169.70.175 ( talk) 19:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Yeah it's not to far, I've been there last summer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.11.87.161 ( talk) 20:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
We seem to have an estimate of it's size. Can we get a window of the planets mass and therefor density from its orbital period around its star? 198.2.4.2 ( talk) 13:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
i say its far but might have life on it its worth a shot even if it is too far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.222.248.61 ( talk) 14:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
It has been estimated that it is probably a "Neptunian" (i.e. mass similar to Neptune[9]) planet with a mass of ~35 Earth masses
External links should not be in the main body of the article, they should all be filed under external links Ottawakismet ( talk) 18:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't know how to do those, but the constellation, as well as other times, is not showing. 205.169.70.175 ( talk) 19:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
If it has a planet like this, it deserves an article, if only first a stub. 205.169.70.175 ( talk) 19:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Can we seriously be using space.com and BBC news as astronomy resources in anything other than an article on media's role popularizing astronomy? -- G. Robert Shiplett 20:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Space.com is highly respected and always uses science sources. 64.134.124.157 ( talk) 23:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't know about bogus sources, but the guy that started this section is using a bogus username (take a closer look). 64.134.124.157 ( talk) 00:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
We need to make it where "Kepler 22b" redirects people to this article via the search bar. As of now it only comes up when you type "Kepler-22b" (with the hyphen). Samcashion ( talk) 22:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Udnduenimexim — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.21.173.46 ( talk) 18:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Is this really the first planet in the habitable zone? I thought there were some planets discovered earlier that fit that criteria, yet are unable to support life as we know it for other reasons (as gas giants IIRC). 178.190.34.207 ( talk) 22:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
That would be a great secondary picture (the artists conception should stay at the top). 64.134.124.157 ( talk) 23:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
This would be of interest to both scientists and non scientists, allowing people to know where it is located in the sky. 64.134.124.157 ( talk) 23:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
What is the reason behind using secondary or even tertiary sources, such as space.com, when all information is available on the official Kepler Mission report at http://kepler.nasa.gov? -- Hatteras ( talk) 02:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
From the article: "At 2.4 times the size of the Earth, the planet may be too large for life to exist on the surface."
This sentence should be reworked. Is the author saying that life supporting planets have a size/mass limit? Or is s/he referring to gravity in relation to Earth? Life can be anything from single cell microbes (which, floating in a vast planetary ocean, wouldn't be too bothered by gravity a few times stronger than Earth's) to beings who could be looking right back at us wondering how anything could survive OUTSIDE a planetary ocean.
Certainly, "life as we know it" may not be possible on this world, but life most certainly is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.251.20.61 ( talk) 21:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry that was my fault. I should have quoted the speaker from the article. Kirsten Z Jacob 08:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
The gravity isn't clear yet, it will depend on the planets density. But even a rocky 2.4 Earth-mass planet could support life as we know it, given the presence of other factors like the right atmosphere and the presence of water.
64.134.236.146 ( talk) 01:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm trying to find out the rating based on NASA/SETI's new ESI ratings system. Anyone know whether it has a higher score than Gliese 581 d ? If so it would officially be the most similar known planet yet to Earth. -- EvenGreenerFish ( talk) 21:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
"Natalie Batalha, one of the scientists on the poject, speculated"
Should be spelled "project". -- nexxai ( talk) 14:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Various media reports have made mention of atmospheric conditions conducive to live, however I haven't been able to find anything that specifically mentions if an atmosphere has been confirmed for the planet. Certainly being one of the first of its kind identified via the transit method and has transited 3 times, no doubt someone has done some spectroscopy on this planet's atmosphere if it exists and drawn some basic conclusions. It would be very interesting to know if any biosignatures have been detected although possibly NASA would have ruled this out before making the media release. -- EvenGreenerFish ( talk) 21:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
64.134.236.146 ( talk) 00:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
OK all you garage-lab geniuses, get to work! -- 64.134.236.146 ( talk) 01:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
The first calculation is incorrect. Volume of a sphere is not approximately r cubed. The volume of a sphere is approximately 4 times r cubed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.55.58 ( talk) 23:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
This article or section possibly contains
synthesis of material which does not
verifiably mention or
relate to the main topic. |
This article possibly contains
original research. |
This planet could still be a hellhole depending on the eccentricity of orbit, and the atmosphere. 24.79.40.48 ( talk) 08:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Planets: | Earth | Kepler 22b | ||||||||||
Eccentricity: | 0.01671123 | 0.01671123 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.05 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.3 | ||||
Perihelion | Irradiance: | 103.43% | 121.18% | 121.99% | 124.52% | 129.82% | 144.64% | 183.06% | 239.11% | |||
Semi-Maj. Axis | Irradiance: | 100.00% | 117.16% | 117.16% | 117.16% | 117.16% | 117.16% | 117.16% | 117.16% | |||
Aphelion | Irradiance: | 96.74% | 113.34% | 112.61% | 110.44% | 106.27% | 96.83% | 81.36% | 69.33% | |||
Variance | Ranges: | 6.69% | 7.84% | 9.38% | 14.08% | 23.55% | 47.82% | 101.70% | 169.78% |
For comparison only, not for the article. Until an eccentricity is publish, it is only a guessing game. 24.79.40.48 ( talk) 09:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
The article is all quotes from mainstream news articles and online NASA press releases. I don't see anything remotely original. Unless I am missing something, can someone point out where that is? Thanks, 129.82.55.209 ( talk) 04:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
its a long shot to see if it has life on it but lets give it a try. get to work people!!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.222.248.61 ( talk) 14:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
This chart is copied straight out of the article for
Gliese 581 g.
Does anyone else think it would be a good idea to make it a standard chart for all extra-solar planets that are compared to Earth?
With the relevent values swapped in of course.
24.79.40.48 (
talk)
17:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Temperature comparisons |
Venus | Earth | Gliese 581 g | Mars |
Global equilibrium temperature |
307 K 34 °C 93 °F |
255 K −18 °C −0.4 °F |
209 K to 228 K −64 °C to −45 °C −83 °F to −49 °F |
206 K −67 °C −88.6 °F |
+ Venus' GHG effect |
737 K 464 °C 867 °F |
|||
+ Earth's GHG effect |
288 K 15 °C 59 °F |
236 K to 261 K −37 °C to −12 °C −35 °F to 10 °F |
||
+ Mars' GHG effect |
210 K −63 °C −81 °F | |||
Tidally locked |
Almost | No | Probably | No |
Global Bond Albedo |
0.9 | 0.29 | 0.5 to 0.3 | 0.25 |
Refs. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] |
Temperature comparisons |
Venus | Earth | Kepler 22b | Mars |
Global equilibrium temperature |
307 K 34 °C 93 °F |
255 K −18 °C −0.4 °F |
-11 °C | 206 K −67 °C −88.6 °F |
+ Venus' GHG effect |
737 K 464 °C 867 °F |
|||
+ Earth's GHG effect |
288 K 15 °C 59 °F |
♦ ?? ♦ | ||
+ Mars' GHG effect |
210 K −63 °C −81 °F | |||
Tidally locked |
Almost | No | ♦ ?? ♦ | No |
Global Bond Albedo |
0.9 | 0.29 | ♦ ?? ♦ | 0.25 |
Refs. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] |
24.79.40.48 ( talk) 07:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I do think Earth's comparable figure should be included. I believe it is 14C from the article Earth. Comparison with Earth is I imagine a point of great interest in an article like this 86.184.160.59 ( talk) 12:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I would also have to agree with this. Thing that makes this planet have such hype about it and a reason we are all here making edits is the fact that it is comparable to earth. I think it important to have an easy chart like this to allow us to see the details quick and easy. Also it allows a spot of the information to be added quickly as it continues to come out. MathewDill ( talk) 16:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
the references have to be corrected as they didn't copy over correctly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gliese_581_g#Temperatures
24.79.38.15 (
talk)
22:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Vogt
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Stephens
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
In citation #7 it suggest that the gavity for the two different types of planets it could be. That is 1.75 for rocky planet and 6.17 for a neptune like planet. Would it be worth noting that is has an estimated gravity range between 1.75-6.17 or is this to early to even suggest? MathewDill ( talk) 16:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
It's not too early to suggest a range of masses and thus gravities. Something that size and dark must be planetary in composition. It must be in the earth-neptune range of densities.
I think citation #7 is wrong. If the object has the same density as earth, its surface gravity would be 2.4G. If it is neptune-like with a density of 1.7 then its 'surface' gravity would be 0.75G. (i.e. as compared to earth, 2.4^3 volume. 2.4 farther away. 1/2.4^2 for 1/r^2 so for same density 2.4G. For (1.7/5.5) times the density, 2.4*1.7/5.5=0.75G)
Please be skeptical about citation #7.
This should be on the newsfeed at the front wiki page --NarlySai — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.184.75 ( talk) 16:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Okay everyone. Firstly, there is not enough information currently available about the planet. Secondly, too much information is being added which is either irrelevant or repetitive then being removed by one Wikipedian, whilst being reverted by another. This has got to stop. This shouldn't be the most massive article or even an average sized one. The amount of actual data available should be reflected in the article's size and if this means just one paragraph and an infobox, so be it. I just wanted to stress this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KirtZJ ( talk • contribs)
Exoplanet has updated it to .21 jupiter radi from .234? Some good news. http://www.exoplanet.eu/catalog-all.php?&munit=&runit=&punit=&mode=-7&more=
-- Matthurricane ( talk) 03:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
This line from the page is misreported in the media and makes no sense whatsoever.
"It has been estimated that it is probably a "Neptunian" gas planet with a mass of ~35 Earth masses, but in the "best case" it could be an ocean world with only some 10 Earth masses."
A Neptunian planet would have a low density, so for a fixed radius it would have a low mass. A more earth like ocean planet would have a higher density, so for a fixed radius it would have a higher mass. The referenced article either transposed the numbers or the writer doesn't understand basic math. If you watch Bill Boruki's presentation at the Kepler Science Conference he shows a slide presenting the different composition possibilities for Kepler-22b. You can see from the slide that a higher mass planet would be a denser more ocean like planet. I tried to correct this error in the article, but someone reverted it. This should be fixed, since it is an obvious error in the referenced article. Martin Cash ( talk) 16:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
The article says that additional confirmation data was provided by ground based telescopes, but doesn't clarify exactly which method/s were used. Would it be correct in assuming that it is also the transit method based on subsequent transits or was it observed also using another different method ? -- EvenGreenerFish ( talk) 20:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Is the Article Title Name best phrased as: "Kepler-22b" (hyphen/no-space) - Or - "Kepler-22 b" (hyphen/space) - Or - "Kepler 22 b" (space/space) - Or - "Kepler 22-b" (space/hyphen) - Or - "Kepler 22b" (space/no-space) - Or - Some Other? - Seems there may be ample examples for the various phrasings - For Example, see " Kepler-10b" and " Kepler-16b" and " Kepler-22b" (per SIMBAD) - AS WELL AS - " Kepler-22 b" (per UPR Arecibo) and " Kepler-22 b" (per EPE) and " Kepler-22 b" (per EDE) and " Kepler-10 b" (per NASA) - AS WELL AS - " Gliese 581 d" and " Gliese 581 g" - AS WELL AS - " Kepler 22-b" (per Sci Am) - AS WELL AS - " Kepler 22b" (per CAS) - ALSO SEE - the Official Wikipedia "Extrasolar Planet" Naming Convention - AND - Nomenclature of "Extrasolar Planets" - AND - Astronomical Naming of "Extrasolar Planets" - AND - an earlier related Naming Discussion (thanks to Aldaron) - AND - the Official IAU "Extrasolar Planet" Naming Convention - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 23:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
As Wikipedia:Naming conventions (astronomical objects)#Extrasolar planets states that either form is acceptable and neither name has particular prominence on Google scholar, I'd like to suggest just leaving it be. Regards, RJH ( talk) 16:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
I notice that certain notable exo-bodies get proper names (like Wolf, or Lalande, Crab Nebulae etc...) will Kepler 22b receive one? As it seems that it certainly does qualify. 64.134.29.243 ( talk) 19:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to know more accurate list of transit dates for this object. The current dates mentioned in the article are far too vague (ie 1st - "mid-2009". 3rd - "late 2010"). If the orbital period is 290 days (article also contradicts by claiming 289 on same page), then one should be able to accurately extrapolate a complete list of transit dates. -- EvenGreenerFish ( talk) 05:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I believe that this is misleading. It depicts a blue/green planet with clouds much like Earth, although little is actually known of whether there is even an atmosphere and may mislead people into making superficial assumptions about habitability. I propose that it should be replaced by a nondescript ball with a comparison in size to the Earth (and possibly Neptune) similarly to many similar articles and the artists conception should be moved to the "Possible Composition and Structure" section. -- EvenGreenerFish ( talk) 05:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
In the infobox, the mass is marked as .97 Solar Mass, whereas the actual text gives an estimate by the Habitable Exoplanets Catalog which provides a figure of 6.36 earth masses. Someone should check/update the infobox or the text, whichever is is need of more update. 68.190.33.136 ( talk) 15:03, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
It is listed here as a "Start Class" article, but that is hardly the case anymore. Cliffswallow-vaulting ( talk) 03:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Kepler-22b. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
The section Orbit states "It has an eccentricity of 0, meaning its orbit is basically circular.[2]", which is not supported by the source and is contradicted in later information on the page. 2003:6F:8F18:C300:288D:9EA3:B14:94AD ( talk) 12:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
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. I'm opening discussion as to why ...
The habitable zone diagram belongs in the orbit section, not in the infobox.
-- EvenGreenerFish ( talk) 09:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Kepler-22b. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Planet Manley, Planet manley and Christmas planet all link here (since 2011). Are any of these names recognised? If they are they the text ought to mention them, if not should there be links pointing here? Martin of Sheffield ( talk) 09:22, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
In the first paragraph, it is stated that Kepler-22b is 600 light years or 180 parsecs away from the earth, but under physical characteristics, it's stated that the planet is 620ly and 190pc away. Both of these statements are cited in the article, but from different sources. I recommend amending the first paragraph to read 620ly, as that statement has more corroborated sources supporting it and also question whether the Brian Dunbar source is entirely accurate. A minor thing, but one that makes us look contradictory and sloppy. 103.251.15.64 ( talk) 03:16, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
The US Military is funding the Allen Radio Telescope Array to search for signals from Kepler-22. Thought that it might be a useful addition to the page. [1]. I also would like to suggest that the artist's conception be moved up, not to primary image status but to the point where it is not just touching the notes. Wer900 ( talk) 23:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Anyone know how far away it is? 198.2.4.2 ( talk) 19:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
"Zero Thrust", does that refer to any theories of space travel? Interesting idea... 205.169.70.175 ( talk) 19:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Yeah it's not to far, I've been there last summer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.11.87.161 ( talk) 20:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
We seem to have an estimate of it's size. Can we get a window of the planets mass and therefor density from its orbital period around its star? 198.2.4.2 ( talk) 13:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
i say its far but might have life on it its worth a shot even if it is too far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.222.248.61 ( talk) 14:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
It has been estimated that it is probably a "Neptunian" (i.e. mass similar to Neptune[9]) planet with a mass of ~35 Earth masses
External links should not be in the main body of the article, they should all be filed under external links Ottawakismet ( talk) 18:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't know how to do those, but the constellation, as well as other times, is not showing. 205.169.70.175 ( talk) 19:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
If it has a planet like this, it deserves an article, if only first a stub. 205.169.70.175 ( talk) 19:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Can we seriously be using space.com and BBC news as astronomy resources in anything other than an article on media's role popularizing astronomy? -- G. Robert Shiplett 20:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Space.com is highly respected and always uses science sources. 64.134.124.157 ( talk) 23:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't know about bogus sources, but the guy that started this section is using a bogus username (take a closer look). 64.134.124.157 ( talk) 00:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
We need to make it where "Kepler 22b" redirects people to this article via the search bar. As of now it only comes up when you type "Kepler-22b" (with the hyphen). Samcashion ( talk) 22:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Udnduenimexim — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.21.173.46 ( talk) 18:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Is this really the first planet in the habitable zone? I thought there were some planets discovered earlier that fit that criteria, yet are unable to support life as we know it for other reasons (as gas giants IIRC). 178.190.34.207 ( talk) 22:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
That would be a great secondary picture (the artists conception should stay at the top). 64.134.124.157 ( talk) 23:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
This would be of interest to both scientists and non scientists, allowing people to know where it is located in the sky. 64.134.124.157 ( talk) 23:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
What is the reason behind using secondary or even tertiary sources, such as space.com, when all information is available on the official Kepler Mission report at http://kepler.nasa.gov? -- Hatteras ( talk) 02:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
From the article: "At 2.4 times the size of the Earth, the planet may be too large for life to exist on the surface."
This sentence should be reworked. Is the author saying that life supporting planets have a size/mass limit? Or is s/he referring to gravity in relation to Earth? Life can be anything from single cell microbes (which, floating in a vast planetary ocean, wouldn't be too bothered by gravity a few times stronger than Earth's) to beings who could be looking right back at us wondering how anything could survive OUTSIDE a planetary ocean.
Certainly, "life as we know it" may not be possible on this world, but life most certainly is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.251.20.61 ( talk) 21:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry that was my fault. I should have quoted the speaker from the article. Kirsten Z Jacob 08:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
The gravity isn't clear yet, it will depend on the planets density. But even a rocky 2.4 Earth-mass planet could support life as we know it, given the presence of other factors like the right atmosphere and the presence of water.
64.134.236.146 ( talk) 01:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm trying to find out the rating based on NASA/SETI's new ESI ratings system. Anyone know whether it has a higher score than Gliese 581 d ? If so it would officially be the most similar known planet yet to Earth. -- EvenGreenerFish ( talk) 21:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
"Natalie Batalha, one of the scientists on the poject, speculated"
Should be spelled "project". -- nexxai ( talk) 14:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Various media reports have made mention of atmospheric conditions conducive to live, however I haven't been able to find anything that specifically mentions if an atmosphere has been confirmed for the planet. Certainly being one of the first of its kind identified via the transit method and has transited 3 times, no doubt someone has done some spectroscopy on this planet's atmosphere if it exists and drawn some basic conclusions. It would be very interesting to know if any biosignatures have been detected although possibly NASA would have ruled this out before making the media release. -- EvenGreenerFish ( talk) 21:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
64.134.236.146 ( talk) 00:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
OK all you garage-lab geniuses, get to work! -- 64.134.236.146 ( talk) 01:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
The first calculation is incorrect. Volume of a sphere is not approximately r cubed. The volume of a sphere is approximately 4 times r cubed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.55.58 ( talk) 23:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
This article or section possibly contains
synthesis of material which does not
verifiably mention or
relate to the main topic. |
This article possibly contains
original research. |
This planet could still be a hellhole depending on the eccentricity of orbit, and the atmosphere. 24.79.40.48 ( talk) 08:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Planets: | Earth | Kepler 22b | ||||||||||
Eccentricity: | 0.01671123 | 0.01671123 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.05 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.3 | ||||
Perihelion | Irradiance: | 103.43% | 121.18% | 121.99% | 124.52% | 129.82% | 144.64% | 183.06% | 239.11% | |||
Semi-Maj. Axis | Irradiance: | 100.00% | 117.16% | 117.16% | 117.16% | 117.16% | 117.16% | 117.16% | 117.16% | |||
Aphelion | Irradiance: | 96.74% | 113.34% | 112.61% | 110.44% | 106.27% | 96.83% | 81.36% | 69.33% | |||
Variance | Ranges: | 6.69% | 7.84% | 9.38% | 14.08% | 23.55% | 47.82% | 101.70% | 169.78% |
For comparison only, not for the article. Until an eccentricity is publish, it is only a guessing game. 24.79.40.48 ( talk) 09:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
The article is all quotes from mainstream news articles and online NASA press releases. I don't see anything remotely original. Unless I am missing something, can someone point out where that is? Thanks, 129.82.55.209 ( talk) 04:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
its a long shot to see if it has life on it but lets give it a try. get to work people!!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.222.248.61 ( talk) 14:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
This chart is copied straight out of the article for
Gliese 581 g.
Does anyone else think it would be a good idea to make it a standard chart for all extra-solar planets that are compared to Earth?
With the relevent values swapped in of course.
24.79.40.48 (
talk)
17:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Temperature comparisons |
Venus | Earth | Gliese 581 g | Mars |
Global equilibrium temperature |
307 K 34 °C 93 °F |
255 K −18 °C −0.4 °F |
209 K to 228 K −64 °C to −45 °C −83 °F to −49 °F |
206 K −67 °C −88.6 °F |
+ Venus' GHG effect |
737 K 464 °C 867 °F |
|||
+ Earth's GHG effect |
288 K 15 °C 59 °F |
236 K to 261 K −37 °C to −12 °C −35 °F to 10 °F |
||
+ Mars' GHG effect |
210 K −63 °C −81 °F | |||
Tidally locked |
Almost | No | Probably | No |
Global Bond Albedo |
0.9 | 0.29 | 0.5 to 0.3 | 0.25 |
Refs. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] |
Temperature comparisons |
Venus | Earth | Kepler 22b | Mars |
Global equilibrium temperature |
307 K 34 °C 93 °F |
255 K −18 °C −0.4 °F |
-11 °C | 206 K −67 °C −88.6 °F |
+ Venus' GHG effect |
737 K 464 °C 867 °F |
|||
+ Earth's GHG effect |
288 K 15 °C 59 °F |
♦ ?? ♦ | ||
+ Mars' GHG effect |
210 K −63 °C −81 °F | |||
Tidally locked |
Almost | No | ♦ ?? ♦ | No |
Global Bond Albedo |
0.9 | 0.29 | ♦ ?? ♦ | 0.25 |
Refs. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] |
24.79.40.48 ( talk) 07:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I do think Earth's comparable figure should be included. I believe it is 14C from the article Earth. Comparison with Earth is I imagine a point of great interest in an article like this 86.184.160.59 ( talk) 12:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I would also have to agree with this. Thing that makes this planet have such hype about it and a reason we are all here making edits is the fact that it is comparable to earth. I think it important to have an easy chart like this to allow us to see the details quick and easy. Also it allows a spot of the information to be added quickly as it continues to come out. MathewDill ( talk) 16:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
the references have to be corrected as they didn't copy over correctly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gliese_581_g#Temperatures
24.79.38.15 (
talk)
22:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Vogt
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Stephens
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
In citation #7 it suggest that the gavity for the two different types of planets it could be. That is 1.75 for rocky planet and 6.17 for a neptune like planet. Would it be worth noting that is has an estimated gravity range between 1.75-6.17 or is this to early to even suggest? MathewDill ( talk) 16:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
It's not too early to suggest a range of masses and thus gravities. Something that size and dark must be planetary in composition. It must be in the earth-neptune range of densities.
I think citation #7 is wrong. If the object has the same density as earth, its surface gravity would be 2.4G. If it is neptune-like with a density of 1.7 then its 'surface' gravity would be 0.75G. (i.e. as compared to earth, 2.4^3 volume. 2.4 farther away. 1/2.4^2 for 1/r^2 so for same density 2.4G. For (1.7/5.5) times the density, 2.4*1.7/5.5=0.75G)
Please be skeptical about citation #7.
This should be on the newsfeed at the front wiki page --NarlySai — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.184.75 ( talk) 16:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Okay everyone. Firstly, there is not enough information currently available about the planet. Secondly, too much information is being added which is either irrelevant or repetitive then being removed by one Wikipedian, whilst being reverted by another. This has got to stop. This shouldn't be the most massive article or even an average sized one. The amount of actual data available should be reflected in the article's size and if this means just one paragraph and an infobox, so be it. I just wanted to stress this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KirtZJ ( talk • contribs)
Exoplanet has updated it to .21 jupiter radi from .234? Some good news. http://www.exoplanet.eu/catalog-all.php?&munit=&runit=&punit=&mode=-7&more=
-- Matthurricane ( talk) 03:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
This line from the page is misreported in the media and makes no sense whatsoever.
"It has been estimated that it is probably a "Neptunian" gas planet with a mass of ~35 Earth masses, but in the "best case" it could be an ocean world with only some 10 Earth masses."
A Neptunian planet would have a low density, so for a fixed radius it would have a low mass. A more earth like ocean planet would have a higher density, so for a fixed radius it would have a higher mass. The referenced article either transposed the numbers or the writer doesn't understand basic math. If you watch Bill Boruki's presentation at the Kepler Science Conference he shows a slide presenting the different composition possibilities for Kepler-22b. You can see from the slide that a higher mass planet would be a denser more ocean like planet. I tried to correct this error in the article, but someone reverted it. This should be fixed, since it is an obvious error in the referenced article. Martin Cash ( talk) 16:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
The article says that additional confirmation data was provided by ground based telescopes, but doesn't clarify exactly which method/s were used. Would it be correct in assuming that it is also the transit method based on subsequent transits or was it observed also using another different method ? -- EvenGreenerFish ( talk) 20:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Is the Article Title Name best phrased as: "Kepler-22b" (hyphen/no-space) - Or - "Kepler-22 b" (hyphen/space) - Or - "Kepler 22 b" (space/space) - Or - "Kepler 22-b" (space/hyphen) - Or - "Kepler 22b" (space/no-space) - Or - Some Other? - Seems there may be ample examples for the various phrasings - For Example, see " Kepler-10b" and " Kepler-16b" and " Kepler-22b" (per SIMBAD) - AS WELL AS - " Kepler-22 b" (per UPR Arecibo) and " Kepler-22 b" (per EPE) and " Kepler-22 b" (per EDE) and " Kepler-10 b" (per NASA) - AS WELL AS - " Gliese 581 d" and " Gliese 581 g" - AS WELL AS - " Kepler 22-b" (per Sci Am) - AS WELL AS - " Kepler 22b" (per CAS) - ALSO SEE - the Official Wikipedia "Extrasolar Planet" Naming Convention - AND - Nomenclature of "Extrasolar Planets" - AND - Astronomical Naming of "Extrasolar Planets" - AND - an earlier related Naming Discussion (thanks to Aldaron) - AND - the Official IAU "Extrasolar Planet" Naming Convention - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 23:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
As Wikipedia:Naming conventions (astronomical objects)#Extrasolar planets states that either form is acceptable and neither name has particular prominence on Google scholar, I'd like to suggest just leaving it be. Regards, RJH ( talk) 16:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
I notice that certain notable exo-bodies get proper names (like Wolf, or Lalande, Crab Nebulae etc...) will Kepler 22b receive one? As it seems that it certainly does qualify. 64.134.29.243 ( talk) 19:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to know more accurate list of transit dates for this object. The current dates mentioned in the article are far too vague (ie 1st - "mid-2009". 3rd - "late 2010"). If the orbital period is 290 days (article also contradicts by claiming 289 on same page), then one should be able to accurately extrapolate a complete list of transit dates. -- EvenGreenerFish ( talk) 05:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I believe that this is misleading. It depicts a blue/green planet with clouds much like Earth, although little is actually known of whether there is even an atmosphere and may mislead people into making superficial assumptions about habitability. I propose that it should be replaced by a nondescript ball with a comparison in size to the Earth (and possibly Neptune) similarly to many similar articles and the artists conception should be moved to the "Possible Composition and Structure" section. -- EvenGreenerFish ( talk) 05:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
In the infobox, the mass is marked as .97 Solar Mass, whereas the actual text gives an estimate by the Habitable Exoplanets Catalog which provides a figure of 6.36 earth masses. Someone should check/update the infobox or the text, whichever is is need of more update. 68.190.33.136 ( talk) 15:03, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
It is listed here as a "Start Class" article, but that is hardly the case anymore. Cliffswallow-vaulting ( talk) 03:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Kepler-22b. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
The section Orbit states "It has an eccentricity of 0, meaning its orbit is basically circular.[2]", which is not supported by the source and is contradicted in later information on the page. 2003:6F:8F18:C300:288D:9EA3:B14:94AD ( talk) 12:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
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. I'm opening discussion as to why ...
The habitable zone diagram belongs in the orbit section, not in the infobox.
-- EvenGreenerFish ( talk) 09:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Kepler-22b. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Planet Manley, Planet manley and Christmas planet all link here (since 2011). Are any of these names recognised? If they are they the text ought to mention them, if not should there be links pointing here? Martin of Sheffield ( talk) 09:22, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
In the first paragraph, it is stated that Kepler-22b is 600 light years or 180 parsecs away from the earth, but under physical characteristics, it's stated that the planet is 620ly and 190pc away. Both of these statements are cited in the article, but from different sources. I recommend amending the first paragraph to read 620ly, as that statement has more corroborated sources supporting it and also question whether the Brian Dunbar source is entirely accurate. A minor thing, but one that makes us look contradictory and sloppy. 103.251.15.64 ( talk) 03:16, 9 November 2022 (UTC)