January 19, 2009

Scientists closing in on Earth-size exoplanets

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

An international consortium of researchers a few months ago reported what appeared to be the smallest planet yet detected orbiting a star other than our own sun. Such objects are known as extrasolar planets, or exoplanets, and most of the 300-plus so far discovered are quite large in size compared to Earth. But a new estimate of the size of the smallest exoplanet, known as MOA-2007-BLG-192Lb, reportedly brings its mass down even further—and even closer to that of Earth. (An even smaller object had been observed in 1992, but it orbits a stellar remnant known as a pulsar.)

Astrophysicist Jean-Philippe Beaulieu of the Institute of Astrophysics in Paris, a member of the team that discovered MOA-2007-BLG-192Lb, presented his new estimate at a recent meeting of the Royal Astronomical Society in London, according to the New Scientist. Whereas the original estimate for the exoplanet's mass was roughly three Earths, the new number is a mere 1.4 Earth-masses. (Beaulieu could not be reached for comment today.)

Although seeking out Earth-size planets is considered a prime avenue for discovering habitable worlds, MOA-2007-BLG-192Lb does not appear particularly enticing in that regard. Its host star was originally believed to be a brown dwarf—a failed star too small to initiate fusion. The new data apparently point to a red dwarf, which is somewhat larger and hotter but still far cooler than the sun.

Credit: NASA

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American