Skip to footer

What makes a planet livable? Five things scientists look for.

Since 1995, astronomers have been hunting in earnest for possible havens for life outside the solar system. So far, they've detected more than 550 extrasolar planets, or exoplanets. Another 2,000-plus possible planets are waiting in the wings for confirmation. Researchers are working on ways to identify a "potentially Earth-like" planet – even if it isn't an identical twin. One group, led by Washington State University astrobiologist Dirk Schulze-Makuch, has proposed a way to rate any planet's potential habitability and how similar some of its basic properties are to Earth's. Based on the rating systems, published in a recent issue of the journal Astrobiology, here is what the team looks for.

1. Is the planet similar to Earth?

Planetary Habitability Laboratory @ UPR Arecibo, 2011
The size of Gliese 667Cc (r.), an exoplanet, is compared here with Earth and Mars. It is one of four planets identified so far as Earth-like.

  • By Pete Spotts Staff writer

Look to a planet's mass, radius, and surface temperature for a first-cut answer. Radius and mass allow an estimate of density, which provides clues to the planet's bulk composition. Mass and radius also allow scientists to calculate the planet's escape velocity, the speed at which an object must travel to escape the planet's gravity.

Combine escape velocity with surface temperature and you glean a planet's ability to hold on to an atmosphere, which is a key factor in determining whether liquids exist on the planet. Estimates of the planet's surface temperature are based mostly on the planet's distance from its star and the star's surface temperature.

Using the rating system, scientists have labeled four confirmed exoplanets as similar to Earth. The most Earth-like are: Gliese 667Cc, followed by HD 85512b, Kepler 22b, and Gliese 581d. All are planets with masses larger than Earth's – so-called super Earths. (Kepler 22b could well fall off the list with additional data, says Abel Mendez, who heads the Planetary Habitability Laboratory at the University of Puerto Rico at Arecibo and is a member of the team that designed the rating system.)

1 of 5
Mark Sappenfield
Editor

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

Subscribe to insightful journalism

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.