3 ms·

Sorry for in advance for the dumb question... Are red dwarf planets over represented due to detection methods? Or is there some sort of astrophysics related r

Sorry for in advance for the dumb question... Are red dwarf planets over represented due to detection methods? Or is there some sort of astrophysics related reason red dwarfs would be more likely to have super earth class planets in orbit? Basically should we hold out hope that with better detection techniques we will be able to detect more planets that are similar to our own.

ramraj07 4y ago
My understanding is it’s a combination of both - red dwarfs are the most numerous and super earths are the most easiest to detect with them (smaller star, larger the effect of the planet on its characteristics and luminosity). I am also convinced we will find planets better suited for us than earth eventually. But I doubt any of them would be in any meaningful close distance. Even if you can imagine a 100 year or 500 year ship (like in Expanse) that can get to a planet 10 LYs away, imagine if it’s 100 or more. We might be SOL.
- bagels 4y ago
  Better suited in what way? Humans are pretty well adapted to Earth specifically.
  - midoridensha 4y ago
    Humans are well adapted to the Earth of thousands of years ago, up until the 1800s or so. The Earth of the future, not so much.
    - Thiez 4y ago
      Sure, depending on how far you want to go into the future, eventually the sun will grow so bright that all our water will boil away... but barring a catastrophe that destroys (almost) all life (nearby supernova, collision with a large space rock, ...) I'm pretty sure that earth will remain more hospitable to human life for tens of thousands of years than any planet we will find.
    - SamPatt 4y ago
      The rapid expansion of human population since 1800 challenges this claim. We don't need an ideal climate to flourish. That's part of our species' strength: our remarkable ability to adapt.
      - midoridensha 4y ago
        Humans aren't going to be able to adapt to an irradiated wasteland.
  - ramraj07 4y ago
    More space? Less extreme weather? Lots of accessible mining? Etc

ramraj07 4y ago

My understanding is it’s a combination of both - red dwarfs are the most numerous and super earths are the most easiest to detect with them (smaller star, larger the effect of the planet on its characteristics and luminosity). I am also convinced we will find planets better suited for us than earth eventually. But I doubt any of them would be in any meaningful close distance. Even if you can imagine a 100 year or 500 year ship (like in Expanse) that can get to a planet 10 LYs away, imagine if it’s 100 or more. We might be SOL.

bagels 4y ago
Better suited in what way? Humans are pretty well adapted to Earth specifically.
- midoridensha 4y ago
  Humans are well adapted to the Earth of thousands of years ago, up until the 1800s or so. The Earth of the future, not so much.
  - Thiez 4y ago
    Sure, depending on how far you want to go into the future, eventually the sun will grow so bright that all our water will boil away... but barring a catastrophe that destroys (almost) all life (nearby supernova, collision with a large space rock, ...) I'm pretty sure that earth will remain more hospitable to human life for tens of thousands of years than any planet we will find.
  - SamPatt 4y ago
    The rapid expansion of human population since 1800 challenges this claim. We don't need an ideal climate to flourish. That's part of our species' strength: our remarkable ability to adapt.
    - midoridensha 4y ago
      Humans aren't going to be able to adapt to an irradiated wasteland.
- ramraj07 4y ago
  More space? Less extreme weather? Lots of accessible mining? Etc