Talk:Kepler-62

Habitable Zone
Not sure about the habitable zone claim for kepler 62 e and f. Kepler 62 e's closeness to the star should make it way too hot to be sensibly considered to be in the habitable zone and it's likely tidally locked anyway. Even an Earth sized planet at Kepler 62 e's position should've tidally locked after around 6 billion years. So, a larger planet almost certainly is locked after 7 billion years. Kepler 62 f could be made out to be in the habitable zone but only if you assume it has a much, much higher proportion of carbon dioxide in its atmosphere than Earth. Very high levels, lethal levels, a whole atmosphere of CO2, at least! A planet whose atmosphere no human could breathe or inhabit without massive modification.


 * Not sure where you getting your research from, but almost everything stated above is incorrect. Planet e is too far away from its star to be tidally locked.  It's temperature is a bit higher than Earth's but near the poles it could be just right.  It's expected temperature is within the "habitable" range as defined by scientists.  Planet f doesn't need higher levels of CO2 to be habitable.  With the higher gravity, this planet should have a thicker atmosphere.  Even with the same partial pressure of CO2 as Earth, the thicker atmosphere would substantially warm the planet and increase the greenhouse effect.  Martin Cash (talk) 23:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I think you need to understand the definition of "habitable" in the context of habitable zone. It doesn't need to have human breathable air to be habitable ... it just needs to potential to possess water.  Even if it had a "lethal" atmosphere of CO2, it could possess water and therefore be habitable ... we can't breathe in the ocean either ;) --EvenGreenerFish (talk) 09:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Images
I wonder if it's feasible to add an image which depicts the whole Kepler-62 system instead of just Kepler-62e and Kepler-62f. --Artman40 (talk) 18:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ - hope the Kepler-62 System image posted in the article is ok - entirely ok to rv/mv/ce of course - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Habitable or hydrogen?
This paper predicts that the planets Kepler-62e and Kepler-62f are likely to have retained thick hydrogen atmospheres and are probably uninhabitable. 77.56.99.23 (talk) 22:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Good find. Perhaps this should be mentioned, though the usage of "habitable" is so vague that a thick hydrogen atmosphere would not necessarily be a disqualifier. If they have hundreds or thousands of oceans equivalent hydrogen atmospheres then they are certainly not "Earth-like".

Qemist (talk) 15:47, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Table improvement
The table might be improved by adding the irradiation of each planet relative to Earth's. That would make it clearer why e and f are considered potentially habitable. I think it would also be improved by removing the inclination column, which is fairly meaningless and likely to confuse readers. Qemist (talk) 15:29, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kepler-62. 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.

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

Why 990 light-years?
[3] Clearly states that Kepler-62 is ~1200 ly away. Did I miss something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebanflo24 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I think the 990 ly value comes as a derived value calculated from the parallax data in the starbox. Searching in the |NASA Exoplanet Archive under "Kepler 62" will give you a distance value of 368 pc, i. e. 1200 ly. This should be scientifically more accurate than the infobox parallax data (origins?), so I've changed the text. I couldn't change the values in the infobox, though, but I hope no one will try to eliminate the discrepancy by disimproving and "wrong-correcting" it back to 990 ly. 2003:CD:DF1D:5169:FC0A:EFA1:551A:3BD5 (talk) 21:37, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I've looked at the reference you provide (I needed to turn on Astrometry :: Parallax and Distance in the left-hand column), 1200 ly comes from the value of 368 pc from Borucki et al. 2013 which is for some reason highlighted in the results. 990 ly corresponds to the other distances listed, which are from more recent sources. Perhaps we should mention both distances? The article could usefully link to this database somehow. --Mirokado (talk) 23:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Reversed my own edit back to 990 ly. I now assume that the "1200 ly" comes from the Exoplanet Archive stellar fact sheet for Kepler 62, which dates back to 2013. However, 990 ly would be the mathematical result of GAIA's parallax measures from 2016, which are currently "the thing" (-> values in the info box, see: http://webviz.u-strasbg.fr/viz-bin/VizieR-5?-out.add=.&-source=I/345/gaia2&-c=283.21256214630%20%2b45.34969915196,eq=ICRS,rs=0.005 s. v. "Plx"). Thus, the "1200 ly" sources are quoting outdated science. 2003:CD:DF1D:5169:FC0A:EFA1:551A:3BD5 (talk) 00:03, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


 * @ Mirokado: Sorry, I saw your response just now. Thanks for giving it a thought. If you think it fit to mention both distances, why not? However, the GAIA measurements represent the current scientific standard and are the best and most accurate data that we presently have. So I would leave it at 990 ly. Greetings! 2003:CD:DF1D:5169:FC0A:EFA1:551A:3BD5 (talk) 00:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The value is OK as it is now, with your further explanation. --Mirokado (talk) 00:25, 13 August 2019 (UTC)