Talk:Kepler-62e

Distance

distance: according to the habitable planets catalogue the distance from Kepler 62 to Sol is 1200 ly, maybe its worth mentioning 217.89.117.154 (talk) 07:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Thank You for your suggestion - the "1200 ly" distance (edit summary: "added => | dist_ly = ~1200 | dist_pc = ~368< ref name="Borucki" />") is now properly posted & fully visible (and not hidden - as before) in the info planetbox - as well as noted in the lede - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hot & Cold?

Stellar flux (F⊙) 1.2 ± 0.2 ⊕
Temperature (T) 270 K (−3 °C; 26 °F)

no one else noticed this contradiction?
Take the upper error range for the irradiance, 1.4
you get 40% more heat than Earth, yet they they quoted either an
Equilibrium Temperature that is -3°C, 30 degrees hotter than Earth,
or a global average temperature that is 12°C colder than Earth.
I don't know which because it just says temperature,
but people are referring to this as an ocean planet when it isn't
(http://laughbus.com/10-mind-boggling-oceans-that-exist-in-space/),
and this article is contributing to these misconceptions.
You should be clearer about what type of temperature that is,
Global Average or Equilibrium. Probably a 43°C global average!
-18+33 = +15°C
-3+(33*1.4) = +43°C
Since this planet could be four times the mass of the Earth
we could guesstimate a global GHG effect of the same,
and we could say -3+(1.4*(33*4.17)) = +195°C as a top extreme.
Oh, BTW, water vapor is a green house gas.
24.79.36.94 (talk) 19:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Ice VII

Ice VII is about pressure and crystal structure, and it's solid.
So it's not going to be an "Ocean Planet" by any stretch of those definitions.
Like Dry Ice it would sublimate, and then due to the high flux dissociate,
or simply reach escape velocity first anyway.
At that flux the dissociated Hydrogen would most definiately reach escape velocity,
just as it did on Venus, and so once again, a Super-Venus.
I'm not disagreeing that Oceans of other types can exist,
just that this planet would have water in any form.
24.79.36.94 (talk) 12:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect Planetbox usage

The image in the infobox should not be used as it does not follow the usage guide for the template:

This template is part of a group of templates that are used to display information about a specific extrasolar planet.
Images of published planetary properties are preferred where available, especially when they are available from cited publications.
Artist's conception, regardless of the source, should be avoided.
Examples of acceptable images include
* direct images, such as one used for GJ 758 b, in the rare cases where these are available;
* output of a model that is integral to a cited paper, such as the image used in HD 80606 b;
* user-generated images that clearly illustrate published properties, such as the size comparisons currently used in GJ 1214 b or Gliese 436 b.

My edits followed these guidelines but were revered by User:MarioProtIV. I'm opening discussion as to why ...

--EvenGreenerFish (talk) 09:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would like if the discussion was held here, rather then on all of the other pages. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 11:15, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kepler-62e. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:28, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kepler-62e. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141207205111/https://science.house.gov/hearing/subcommittee-space-and-subcommittee-research-joint-hearing-exoplanet-discoveries-have-we to https://science.house.gov/hearing/subcommittee-space-and-subcommittee-research-joint-hearing-exoplanet-discoveries-have-we

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

why is this information not merged with the Kepler-62 page?

I find it strange that both Kepler 62e and 62f have there own page, instead of just sections op the page on Kepler 62 (which only has b and c mentioned as planets). I see no need for this and I think it would be preferable if all exoplanets remains topics on the page that describes the system of their star.

I suspect it was done because unlike the others they are possible rocky planets in the habitable zone of their star, and so are arguably notable in their own right due to their implications for exobiology. That said, I wouldn't object to merging them with the main article either as there is unlikely to be much more information on them for some time. ChiZeroOne (talk) 18:53, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]