4 ms·
Especially since their year would be much much shorter than ours
by QuadmasterXLII 3y ago
Especially since their year would be much much shorter than ours
- Terr_ 3y ago> much much shorter My napkin math yields "as short as 1/3 Earth year", however I'm not sure I'd call that much^2 shorter, given some of the variety out there. I'm eyeballing the graph in the linked blogpost, which has a dashed line for 4.5by solar-system age versus the optimistic "habitable" ranges. In particular, minimizing the distance gives (distance=0.4, star_mass=0.4) and trading off a bit for a more massive star (distance=0.5, star_mass=1.0). The period of a circular orbit is proportional to (distance^3 / star_mass)^0.5 [0], so when I plug those pairs in I get orbital periods of ~0.4 to ~0.35 Earth years, respectively. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_period https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_period
- QuadmasterXLII 3y agoI haven't done math, but my mental prototype of a "tidally locked potentially habitable planet" TRAPPIST-1e, which has a period of six days. Maybe it is unusually fast? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRAPPIST-1#List_of_planets https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRAPPIST-1#List_of_planets
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]