3 ms·
> By definition, super-Earths have many of the attributes of a super habitable planet. Is that true? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-Earth https://en.wiki
by awb 4y ago
> By definition, super-Earths have many of the attributes of a super habitable planet.
Is that true?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-Earth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-Earth
> A super-Earth is an extrasolar planet with a mass higher than Earth's, but substantially below those of the Solar System's ice giants, Uranus and Neptune, which are 14.5 and 17 times Earth's, respectively.[1] The term "super-Earth" refers only to the mass of the planet, and so does not imply anything about the surface conditions or habitability.
- uup 4y agoThat's mentioned in the article: > A super-Earth is any rocky planet that is bigger than Earth and smaller than Neptune. If you read further in the article, it explains why super-Earths are a good target to look at for extraterrestrial life.
- awb 4y agoBut the “by definition” part seems incorrect. Nothing in the definition of “Super Earth” indicates superior habitability.
- uup 4y agoThe author goes on to explain why super earths are a good place to look for habitable planets. It’s the entire point of the article. Planets meeting this definition also tend to have other characteristics as well.
- shagmin 4y agoIt may not be worded well but it does state why. Planets of this size are more likely to be geologically active, a sufficient size to retain an atmosphere thick enough for life, a strong enough magnetic field, etc.,. Just due to their size, they are better suited to support life then (at least as we know the conditions necessary). I mean between the other options - planets so small they're basically rocks in space and giant gas planets with a bunch of other issues - it seems this classification of planets indeed offer superior habitability.