Talk:CoRoT-9b

SIMBAD

The SIMBAD link in the infobox is broken. Here is the correct query link.—RJH (talk) 22:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do we fix that? And it's interesting because it shows that SIMBAD is kinda wrong (still using the obsolete Exo, even on a planet discovered after it was changed) and is a reminder that Wikipedia is also kinda wrong (to use COROT instead of CoRoT). Thoughts? — Aldaron • T/C 23:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Habitable moons?! / Not at all Habitable, 6x heat of Earth

From the discovery paper, the effective temperature and radius of the star are 5625 K and 0.94 times solar respectively, which yields a luminosity of 0.8 times solar. Scaling the orbit of this planet to the location in our solar system where it would receive an equivalent amount of stellar radiation would put it at about 0.46 AU from our Sun, which is just within Mercury's aphelion distance. Talking of habitable moons here is ridiculous. Icalanise (talk) 09:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some relevant points from one of the authors of the discovery paper: [1][2] Icalanise (talk) 09:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In order to make moons habitable, these moons must have thick atmospheres with a lot of anti-greenhouse gases that would block out much of heat from stellar radiation that would otherwise be too hot for life. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 18:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

=(((0.94*695500000)^2)*(0.0000000567051)*(5625^4))/(0.407*149597870690)^2 = 6545 W/m^2 (479% of Earth's) Average.
=(((0.94*695500000)^2)*(0.0000000567051)*(5625^4))/((0.407-(0.407*0.11))*149597870690)^2 = 8263 W/m^2 (605% of Earth's) at Periastron.
Nice to see there is some sensability at Wikipedia, and damn the writers of those sensationalizing articles that say otherwise. 24.78.170.218 (talk) 10:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]