https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2017/02/22/scientists-discover-seven-earthlike-planets-orbiting-a-nearby-star/?hpid=hp_rhp-more-top-stories_no-name%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.b66374ee9c1d

This is pretty cool.

The star is 1/10 the size of the sun and a quarter as warm. Seems like the goldilocks zone must be pretty narrow. I'm surprised all 7 planets are within this zone and are still there. Seems like they would have gravitationally interacted with each other (i.e. planets b&c would be 1.5 times the distance between the Earth & Moon from each other every few days, and these are earth sized planets), flinging some of the lighter ones out of the zone, or out of the system.

But yeah, pretty cool. Can't wait until the James Webb telescope is operational.

Dr. Watson said:

---

3 of them are in the Goldilocks zone. I believe most of them are closer to their sun than Mercury is to ours.

---

It does say that, but it also says "But TRAPPIST-1 is so cool that all seven of the bodies are bathed in just the right amount of warmth to hold liquid water", which confuses me, because I thought the Goldilocks zone meant there would be liquid water there.

Actually they're all well within the orbit of Mercury. Mercury is .38 AU, the furthest planet in that system is .06 AU.

Quote:

---

The star is 1/10 the size of the sun and a quarter as warm. Seems like the goldilocks zone must be pretty narrow. I'm surprised all 7 planets are within this zone and are still there. Seems like they would have gravitationally interacted with each other (i.e. planets b&c would be 1.5 times the distance between the Earth & Moon from each other every few days, and these are earth sized planets), flinging some of the lighter ones out of the zone, or out of the system.

---

I think the solution to that riddle is these planets are so small that they don't have the ability to do so, particularly this close to their star.

I wonder if St. Bernardus Abt 12 is too wordy for a planet name.

RAB91 said:

---

---

I just had the Trappistes Rochefort 10 for the first time last week. Delicious!

Solo Tetherball Champ said:

---

Quote:

---

The star is 1/10 the size of the sun and a quarter as warm. Seems like the goldilocks zone must be pretty narrow. I'm surprised all 7 planets are within this zone and are still there. Seems like they would have gravitationally interacted with each other (i.e. planets b&c would be 1.5 times the distance between the Earth & Moon from each other every few days, and these are earth sized planets), flinging some of the lighter ones out of the zone, or out of the system.

---

I think the solution to that riddle is these planets are so small that they don't have the ability to do so, particularly this close to their star.

---

Two earth sized planets within 350,000 miles would definitely interact with each other

This might be a good solar system to move to before the sun dies. Trappist-1 is 500 million years old and assuming it survives the Milky Way's collision with Andromeda it has another 4-5 trillion years to go.

SoulSlaveAG2005 said:

---

haaaayyy... if you were a planet, named after a beer. Would ya drink yourself???

I know I would, I'd be delicious.

---

The goldielocks zone planets permanently face the red dwarf on one side. Does this mean there would be a strip of habitable area circling the planets in between their cold and hot sides?

Quote:

---

The goldielocks zone planets permanently face the red dwarf on one side. Does this mean there would be a strip of habitable area circling the planets in between their cold and hot sides?

---

Other than the constant hurricane force winds at the terminus, yeah, it would be habitable.

I will put up $1M that there is zero life on any of those planets. Any suckers wanna bet?

AstroAg17 said:

---

Trillion?

---

That's right. Smaller stars last much longer.

I read that 3 are strictly in the goldilocks zone, but all seven could have liquid water under the right circumstances. For instance, a closer planet with a high albedo could be a little cooler than you would expect from just proximity to its star. The ones further out could have a heat trapping atmosphere or active geology generating that little extra needed
heat. They are all close enough to the zone that it is possible that little tweaks like that could mean they are habitable for life like us.

They were also apparently further out and are now closer in proximity to each other and their star. The scifi nerd in me wonders if we're seeing the results of alien planetary engineering

Looking in on the 7 exoplanets is Brother
Bernadus.

oldarmy1 said:

---

I will put up $1M that there is zero life on any of those planets. Any suckers wanna bet?

---

When exactly are you expecting a definitive word?

oldarmy1 said:

---

I will put up $1M that there is zero life on any of those planets. Any suckers wanna bet?

---

It does seem a bit hydrogen poor there (which organic molecules would need). Small star, haven't heard of any gas giants. The planets are rocky? Kind of strange though, hydrogen is the most abundant element.

SoulSlaveAG2005 said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

AstroAg17 said:

---

Trillion?

---

That's right. Smaller stars last much longer.

---

---

Rimshot

Dr. Watson said:

---

oldarmy1 said:

---

I will put up $1M that there is zero life on any of those planets. Any suckers wanna bet?

---

When exactly are you expecting a definitive word?

---

I already received the definitive word.