Vastator
Platinum Member
- Oct 14, 2014
- 23,002
- 10,644
- 950
I think that often times, in the search for habitable bodies in space; the field of view is unnecessarily narrowed. I don't think moons are given enough consideration. Take Jupiter for example. So, so many moons. A few of which are candidates for being capable of life in some form or another. When people started looking out into space the majority of planets seen were gas giants, and were written off for not being rocky, and or in the Goldilocks zone. It seems that if we focus on only rocky planets in the Goldilocks zone, we're eliminating at least half of the potential worlds that can have, host, or sustain life.3 of the 7 planets are in the habitable zone and they are only 40 light years away. I don't think it will get much better than thisBefore you get too excited you may want to look at the distances from their parent star. And their orbital period. These planets are much, much closer to thier star than earth.
The same around a G-class star with planets rotating + large moons = better.