# Talk:HD 28185 b

This isn't a term used on the web at all according to Google (0 hits), so I suppose it should be changed in case someone know exactly what method is talked about here. I noticed this while correcting spelling and grammar mistakes in the article, so I suspect the strange term is used here due to the article originally being written by a foreign Wikipedian making a sort of direct translation. I personally don't have enough experience in this field to correct the term though. -- Jugalator 23:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Nasa produced text is in the public domain,  so this can't be a copyvio. Night Gyr 21:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The section "speculation" is a direct copy of text at [1]. While this is not a copyright violation as NASA text is in the public domain, it isn't particularly good to just have a massive bunch of copied text sitting there.
The passage also seems to be confused about which object the moon would be tidally locked to - the description about sunlight implies the moon would be locked to the star rather than the planet, which is incorrect.
I'm also not entirely convinced we need quite so much outright speculation here. Chaos syndrome 09:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

It's looking good, keep at it! I'm sorry to hear it was AfD'd. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

My theory, is that many life forms will 
exist on moons (earth size or smaller)
around "warm jupiters". This configuration
solves all the "problems" of the rare earth hypothesis
and tidal interaction between multiple moons creates volcanism (like on Io)
T.Neo 12:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I would be happy to find this planet and/or it's star named. It has a significant importance since the Exoplanet raises many questions in the scientific community, especially the topic about rocky moons. On searching I found a name suggestion for the planet to be Aegina. 

Of course naming astronomical entities is always hard and slow and is usually decided by the International Astronomical Union (IAU). If someone in position could bring this up I, and many others would be very grateful.
Lacking any skill in Wikipedia editing I call for others of better experience and mutual interests to bring this forward as well. King Regards //Nick 81.234.194.133 (talk) 13:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Naming extrasolar planets is quite difficult to begin with.  The main reason that Bellerophon and Osiris are commonly used is because the names proposed to them became very popular and used in official setting (like news articles and NASA).  When Gliese 581 c was discovered, the name Ymir was proposed for the planet.  Though not as widely used as the other two, it is being mentioned more and more (which is why it is mentioned in the article).  However, the name "Ageina" is only shown in one reference and is not in wide use, so mentioning it on the article is not wise to do.  However, I do believe that this planet does deserve a name. — NuclearVacuum 17:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer and for the short explanation. My primary thought was to bring up the discussion of naming it, thrown almost out of the blue Aegina is only a suggestion. Keep up the good work on other extrasolar planets by the way. //Nick 81.234.194.133 (talk) 19:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
If you want, you can look at my planet naming suggestions [2].  Its not much, but worth a look at. — NuclearVacuum 20:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


### References
The radius and temperature values in the article are highly misleading. They come from the now-defunct website Extrasolar Visions, which basically takes the minimum mass of the planet and puts it through a theoretical model. Unfortunately, this is a case of garbage-in-garbage-out: the true mass of the planet is unknown, it could potentially be much higher than the minimum, and since the radius is NOT a monotonic function of planetary mass it is difficult to state even what the most likely radius is going to be. Furthermore, the composition of the planet is unknown: we do not know if it has a massive core for example, which would affect the radius.
Similarly the temperature value is a wild guess: we don't know how much energy the atmosphere reflects back into space instead of absorbing it, we do not know the greenhouse properties of the atmosphere, and we don't know how much internal heat the planet puts out (this latter factor is the major contribution to the temperature of the gas giants in our solar system). Putting these values into the infobox is misleading: this is an Encyclopaedia and we should not pretend that more is known about this planet than is actually the case. 86.171.72.213 (talk) 11:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I could not find anyplace on the Extrasolar Visions web site where the apparently anonymous author explained the method used to derive either the radius or the temperature. [S]he does say the Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia was used as the primary source, but the latter lists neither parameter. Without knowing how the numbers were derived, it seems awful shaky to be using them. My preference would be to use primary sources, where such are available, and leave out WAGs (however intelligent) by anonymous authors.—RJH (talk) 21:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Planets and Moons" articles. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have made several minor corrections throughout the article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2006. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. I would recommend going through all of the citations and updating the access dates and fixing any dead links. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 07:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious as to why the speculation about the possibility of specifically an earth-sized moon around gas giants in habitable zone of their stars is regularly mentioned in articles about such planets. Much smaller moons would seem to be just as good candidates for life around it, would they not? I think I saw a paper concluding less than a mars sized one would certainly be sufficient, not sure how to go about digging up that reference again, but in any case, whats the reference for any particular significance of having an exactly earth-sized moon?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.139.77.118 (talk) 20:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC) 

Why is there a link to a fictional moon here? 76.202.230.74 (talk) 13:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe this planet is in the inner area of the star's habitable zone. I don't understand where people get this. I can do the irradiance calculations, and compared to Earth's solar constant this planet has 93.687% / 81.03% / 70.775% of Earth's 100% Average, for its Periastron / Semi-major Axis / Apastron irradiance.  This puts it towards the cooler/outer side of the habitable zone. 24.79.40.48 (talk) 23:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok I'll bite. Star radius is 1.04 times solar, temperature is 5705 K compared to the sun 5780 K. Irradiance is given by bolometric luminosity divided by square of distance, so relative to Earth

  
    
      
        
          
            f
            
              f
              
                ⊕
              
            
          
        
        =
        
          
            (
            
              
                
                  R
                  
                    ∗
                  
                
                
                  R
                  
                    ⊙
                  
                
              
            
            )
          
          
            2
          
        
        
          
            (
            
              
                
                  T
                  
                    ∗
                  
                
                
                  t
                  
                    ⊙
                  
                
              
            
            )
          
          
            4
          
        
        
          
            (
            
              
                d
                
                  1
                   
                  A
                  U
                
              
            
            )
          
          
            −
            2
          
        
      
    
    {\displaystyle {\frac {f}{f_{\oplus }}}=\left({\frac {R_{\ast }}{R_{\odot }}}\right)^{2}\left({\frac {T_{\ast }}{t_{\odot }}}\right)^{4}\left({\frac {d}{\mathrm {1\ AU} }}\right)^{-2}}
  

Plugging in values for periastron (0.959 AU), semimajor axis (1.031 AU) and apastron (1.102 AU) I get irradiances 1.12, 0.966 and 0.845 times that of the Earth. These values straddle those for the Earth. which is itself located close to the inner edge of the habitable zone. Furthermore if you take a look at reference 2 in the article, the HZ limits for this star are estimated at 0.911 and 1.799 AU, the planet is clearly located closer to the inner limit. 46.126.76.193 (talk) 17:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on HD 28185 b. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060713024330/http://www.edpsciences.org/articles/aa/abs/2001/45/aah3054/aah3054.html to http://www.edpsciences.org/articles/aa/abs/2001/45/aah3054/aah3054.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060929070638/http://nai.nasa.gov/news_stories/news_detail.cfm?ID=126 to http://nai.nasa.gov/news_stories/news_detail.cfm?ID=126
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:16, 27 October 2017 (UTC)