The 5 closest potentially habitable exoplanets

As of September 2019, these are the 5 potentially habitable exoplanets closer to Earth:

Source:

1.GLIESE 273 b
Gliese 283 b orbits the red dwarf star Luyten, located 12 light years away.
- The exoplanet is 84% similar to Earth.
- It has an orbital period of 18.6 days.
- A minimum mass 2 times higher than Earth.
- An average radius 40% higher.
- And an equilibrium temperature of 11 degrees more.

2. TEEGARDEN b
Teegarden b orbits the red dwarf star Teegarden, 12 light years away.
- The exoplanet is 95% similar to Earth.
- It has an orbital period of 5 days.
- A minimum mass and average radius only 5% higher than Earth.
- And an equilibrium temperature of 9 degrees more.

3. GLIESE 1061 c
Gliese 1061 c orbits the red dwarf star Gliese 1061, 12 light years away.
- The exoplanet is 88% similar to Earth.
- It has an orbital period of 6.7 days.
- A minimum mass 75% higher than Earth.
- And an equilibrium temperature of 20 degrees more.

4. TAU CETI e
Tau Ceti e orbits the solar-type star Tau Ceti, 12 light years away.
- The exoplanet is 74% similar to Earth.
- It has an orbital period of 163 days.
- A minimum mass 3 times higher than Earth.
- An average radius 60% higher.
- And an equilibrium temperature of 30 degrees more.

5. PROXIMA B
Finally, Proxima b orbits the red dwarf star Proxima Centauri, 4.2 light years away.
- The exoplanet is 87% similar to Earth.
- It has an orbital period of 11 days.
- A minimum mass 30% higher than Earth.
- An average radius 10% higher.
- And an equilibrium temperature of 28 degrees less.


To which of these exoplanets would you go to? why?

Teegardens, the obvious higher percentage is also a plus for higher percentage success.

They are all around 12 light years out, so we gotta overcome that hurdle.

Those planets with orbital periods of 5 to 18 days must be radioactive as hell! I don't see how they can say they're 'similar' to Earth at all! Radiation must not be a criteria in their similarity rating.

a reply to: Arnie123

Yep, and as I keep reminding people; Voyager 1 hasn't even traveled "one" light year yet. And, it's been gone from Earth for how long now...44 years? The nearest star is something like 1.7 light years distant, and Voyager is not even 1/4 of the way there yet. That's half of a human lifetime. So it will take over 2 generations to get 1.7 light years. Extrapolating, this means 12 light years would be roughly 12 generations (1,200 years) on Earth.

To put this into perspective, 1,200 years ago it was the year 1319 A.D. (12th Century). So, 1,200 years from today will be the year 3,219. Will the human race still even be alive on planet Earth in the year 3219? Add 12 years to get the first pictures back, it's the year 3231 A.D.

In the 1970's we would see cartoons with characters like George Jetson zooming around in flying cars and think by the year 2000 we'd really be doing that. Well, we aren't, and we aren't even close, now nearly 20 years later. But hey, at least we got cell phones.

Your math is a little off, it's not the year 2,519 right now. But, point taken.

a reply to: alfa015

I would wait until we get better data, atmospheric composition etc.

I'd also want to sent probes there first, followed by hardware/robots setting up camp for humans.

a reply to: HalWesten

Ah, you're right, I didn't divide by 2. It would only be 2619, as 12 light years would be 6 centuries at the speed of Voyager.

Good catch!

a reply to: alfa015

Most of the planets you cite have red dwarf parent stars

The orbital period are very short, less than week in some cases - this may mean the planet is tidally locked to the parent star where the same side faces the parent star

Red dwarf stars are also prone to sudden flare out bursts which would blast the planet with massive X Ray radiation surges

Tau Ceti e orbits spectral class G star, same as our sun, thou 3/4 the size of our sun with luminosity (light output) 1/2 of our sun

The composition of light should be similar to our sun , ie the visible light spectrum. with low UV radiation

The fact that the orbital period is 1/2 of earth with the star producing 1/2 the light of sun should balance out rather nicely

The James Webb telescope will give us enough data to see how these worlds are and then we’ll know. Flag for the thread and my best,

do any of those planets have moon

or artificial satellite like ours?

Very good question and something I wonder myself.

Our moon does effect life in profound ways, why not else where?

originally posted by: airforce47
The James Webb telescope will give us enough data to see how these worlds are and then we’ll know. Flag for the thread and my best,

ELT might do better.

a reply to: tulsi

As of today, we haven't discovered.

a reply to: airforce47

Thanks!

It's an interesting premise, but we as humans are masters of creating our own environment. A new planet sounds like too much work. This is a species that discovered freon just to be slightly more comfortable. New planet? Pfft.

a reply to: alfa015

I would require a planet that has seasons, maybe a bit tilted off it's axis.
I also prefer a longer winter than earth'.... : )

a reply to: alfa015

Close is so relative though. The first four are 210,000 years away using our most powerful rockets in a minimum-energy transfer orbit scenario. The last is right next door, at 70,000 years.

Closer to home, the money is all-in on capturing intra-solar clumps of rock, metal and ice in a bid to grow the planet's first trillionaire. There isn't any money for the exploration of habitable worlds, unless we are talking about local terraforming efforts, and even that is mid long term.