Search Unearths Plethora of Earth-Mass Planets

Analysis of 166 stars found almost a quarter--much more than expected--had small, rocky planets, which should force a change in thinking on the overall frequency of such bodies. Adam Hinterthuer reports

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

If there's a line in Vegas on the odds of life on another planet, now might be a good time to place a wager. A study in the journal Science examined 166 sun-sized stars and found nearly one in four had rocky, earth-sized planets in close, Earth-like orbits. The finding might chart a new course for extrasolar planet research.

Most planet-formation models predict a “planet desert” within one astronomical unit (or the average distance from the Earth to the sun) of a host star. Gaseous planets like Jupiter or Saturn, which form much farther away, on the cold side of what’s called the “ice line,” are thought to be more common.

But a team of researchers at Hawaii's Keck observatory cast their eyes on stars similar to our sun. Twenty-three percent of those stars had small, rocky planets orbiting right in the range where the predicted “planet desert” should be. [Andrew Howard et al., "The Occurrence and Mass Distribution of Close-in Super-Earths, Neptunes, and Jupiters"]

The researchers say their discovery calls for substantial revisions to current astronomical models. It also makes the possibility of life on some similar planet spinning a similar, habitable distance from its sun seem like a better bet.

—Adam Hinterthuer


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.


[The above text is an exact transcript of this podcast.]

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

Subscribe