Talk:HD 40307 g

German article info
This German article contains key information and quotes further sources (which probably contain that info in English): http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/weltall/exoplanet-hd-40307-g-super-erde-koennte-lebensfreundlich-sein-a-866023.html

High Eccentricity means not habitable
The data page in the extra solar planet catalogue lists the Eccentricity of this planet is anywhere from 0 to 0.58 (0.29 +/- 0.29), and anything above the median would mean a temperature swing from Venus-like to Mars-like for the 6.5 month period. This isn't habitable at all, not just for the extreme temperatures, but the extremely harsh weather would scour the planet clear of any life on the surface, that was not perhaps aquatic, protected from the weather effects. Let's stick with the mathematical facts and not hipe false ideas. 24.79.38.15 (talk) 23:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Your arguments are correct, if the planet indeed has a high eccentricity. However, anything between 0.0 and 0.58 is probable atm. So, unless there is a detailed study examining the habitibility, I think the current style of the article is just right, as it describes the admittedly vague guesses of experts on the subject. Ruling it out by doing math on Wikipedia would be original research, I suppose. -- Aepsil0n (talk) 16:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC) yeah, no since original research is for what doesn't belong in an article, discountng something with simple math is common sense. 24.79.38.15 (talk) 09:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Math
For users interested in the irradiance (Watts/ meter squared) comparisons. Rs=0.72, Ts=4977, Dp=0.600, e=0.29 =(((0.72*695500000)^2)*(0.0000000567051)*(4977^4))/((0.6-(0.6*0.29))*149597870690)^2 DISTANCE, ..........Watts/m^2, ......Earth=100% Perihelion, ............2124.43,........155.51% Semi-Major Axis,... 1070.93,......78.39%	 Aphelion, ...............643.55,.........47.11% Rs=0.72, Ts=4977, Dp=0.600, e=0.6. =(((0.72*695500000)^2)*(0.0000000567051)*(4977^4))/((0.6-(0.6*0.29))*149597870690)^2 DISTANCE, ..........Watts/m^2, ......Earth=100% Perihelion, ............6693.29,........489.96% Semi-Major Axis,... 1070.93,......78.39%	 Aphelion, ...............418.33,.........30.62% Sun & Earth's irradiance variance for comparison. Rs=1.0, Ts=5778, Dp=1.0, e=0.01671123 =(((1.00*695500000)^2)*(0.0000000567051)*(5778^4))/((1.0-(1.0*0.01671123))*149597870690)^2 DISTANCE, ..........Watts/m^2, ......Earth=100% Perihelion, ............1412.91,........103.43% Semi-Major Axis,... 1366.08,...... 100%	 Aphelion, ...............1321.54,........96.74% 24.79.38.15 (talk) 15:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The Mikko Tuomi citation
From Article: 'Lead author Mikko Tuomi, also of the University of Hertfordshire, stated "If I had to guess, I would say 50-50, But the truth at the moment is that we simply do not know whether the planet is a large Earth or a small, warm Neptune without a solid surface."[7]'

I'm not THE expert on the so called Ice giants (Uranus & Neptune). But I would think that the 'cores' of Neptune & Uranus are made of ices (from water, ammonia, methane) and rock. So if the destinction between the gas giants (Saturn & Jupiter) and the Ice giants is that a large amount of the gasses are in a frozen icy state and that there's a solid core:

How can Tuomi's assumption be explained, that HD40307g is a 'warm Neptune without a solid surface' ? If it's warm (habitable zone!) than it's not an icy neptunian world. If it doesn't have a solid surface it's just another gas planet.

Just irritated...92.230.80.255 (talk) 12:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Experience the gravity of a super earth
You may want to add this retro-style poster promoting "tourism" in the planet. --Error (talk) 20:54, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Why? --JorisvS (talk) 21:19, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It is an artist rendition of how the planet could be and I like the picture. --Error (talk) 21:23, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It does not give an indication of how the planet could be, not even of how its gravity could be. And "I like the picture" is the worst reason ever. There is absolutely no encyclopedic value to it. --JorisvS (talk) 11:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

What is wrong with size comparison?
removed by User:MarioProtIV without discussion. The radius is known. I find the comparison extremely useful and relevant. I'm opening discussion as to why it was deleted ... if it is because the planet is too big, then a comparison with Neptune would also be useful.

--EvenGreenerFish (talk) 09:31, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

The only External Link in the page, to news.discovery.com, is broken
I was unable to find the original article anywhere but others should look to double check me. I only found it in the Internet Archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20121108084742/http://news.discovery.com/space/habitable-zone-exoplanet-super-earth-121107.html Wherbert (talk) 21:18, 19 May 2020 (UTC)