Nearby star should harbor detectable, Earth-like planets

What more could habitable planet searchers have wanted. A potential earthlike planet rotating around our nearest neighbor.
Certainly adds to the odds of planets all over the place too.

A possible Earth like planet so close to home is intriguing

This is the most exciting news in the extra-solar planet hunt in some time:). I hope these simulations pan out once the fine observations of the Alpha Centauri system come in:).

I want to believe that the likelihood of habitable planets exist around the nearest stars is pretty good... But i did read an article which listed SOME of the factors that made earth a "habitable" planet.

1. The "perfect" mass of the earth and
2. its velocity allow it to have an
3. orbit of one year(even distribution of heat)
4. which is not extremely elliptical(requirement)
5. sun`s intensity is perfect for the earth`s
orbital distance, keeping us from
freezing/boiling
6. Our moon keeps the earth from shifting around
its spin axis(now at 20 something?)
7. Rotation period around its axis at 24 hrs(one
day.. too long or too short would at least
slow down "evolutionary" progress maybe even
stop it)
8. The right mix of elements allowing life to
form
9. non-binary system a MUST..
apparently about half of the stars in the sky
are binary or three stars in close proximity

10. Must be in a non-cluttered area of the galaxy
(along spiral arms somewhere i guess)

There must be other factors as well but i dont remember them/dont know them/havent been discovered yet.

the more time i spent looking at the article, the more i realised that "habitable" planets are not too easy to come by...

But how are the bars on this new planet? Are they trendy? Are the women attractive, so-so or "beasts"? How is the food? I don't want to travel all the way there to find ring worms a delicacy! These questions must be answered before we plan a trip.

zbarlici, almost all of those things are a load of ****:). At some point (like, 50 years ago) some of those were believed to be true, but not any more.

1) Earth doesn't have a "perfect mass". It has approximately the minimum mass for Plate Tectonics (could be a bit smaller, but not much). Anything larger than Earth, but small enough to have a reasonable surface gravity will do.

2) Orbital velocity is meaningless to life. Can you feel how fast the Earth is moving? No? Me either.

3) Orbital period is meaningless to life.

4) Yeah, overly elliptical isn't good. But Earth's orbit isn't all that circular. As long as it isn't TOO elliptical, it's fine. Other planets in the Sol system have orbits more circular than Earth's orbit.

5) The sun's intensity doesn't matter. As long as it is a stable, long lived star, and the planet is at the correct distance from that particular star for liquid water to form, it's all cool.

6) That one is kinda funny, cause I've read that before too in old books (not about the moon, but about Earth having the "right" axial tilt). However, more recent research has found that Earth has the SECOND WORST POSSIBLE axial tilt, other than having the poles pointed straight at the sun (70 to 110 degrees is the worst). Our axial tilt makes Earth's environment highly unstable and non-conductive to life.

7) Rotation period isn't all that important. If the planet were tidally locked it would decrease the likelyhood of life, but other than that, anything is fine.

8) Well, what's the right mix? Both Oxygen and water are highly corrosive, incredibly dangerous substances. In fact, our bodies spend a good portion of their energy repairing the constant, nagging damage done to us by the very air that we breath and water that we are made out of. What exists on Earth is the right mix for us because this is were we evolved. If different compounds had existed here (or if the amounts of the current ones were way different), then we would be different to compensate.

9) Not true. Stable planetary systems are more than capable of forming in binary systems. At least, as long as the stars aren't in a weird orbit around each other (... what were the numbers... I don't quite remember... something like... if they are more than 0.1AUs apart AND closer than 6 AUs then a planetary system couldn't form. The numbers were something like that. If they are closer together than 0.1 AU then the planets circle both stars. If they are farther than 6 AU apart then both stars can have their own, separate planets. I don't believe that a figure 8 around both stars is stable though (unfortunately, cause that would just be cool:)).

10) Yup. More or less anyway. It's less likely that a planet will be murdered by a supernovae, radiationed to death by nearby stars, or be tossed out of its orbit if it is in the "habitable zone" of a galaxy. Planets can still form in other locations, but it is less likely that life will be able to live there due to less than stellar conditions (or TOO stellar hehe).

I wonder why they havn't examined the Alpha Centauri system years ago.

'Our axial tilt makes Earth's environment highly unstable and non-conductive to life.'

Or could that actually mean more conductive to life since it would potentially mean more biodiversity and more motive to adapt?