There Are No Habitable Exoplanets. But Why? 

this is all caused by one large misconception, that any planet in the "habitable" zone (which is actually called the goldilocks zone) is habitable, which is not true.

I think it's fair to type that some planets have their own separate habitable zones, where conditions are stable enough for life. A star might have a habitable zone for Earth-like planets, but not all lively-hood objects have the same characteristics as the Earth. Thicker atmospheres require a further placement from the star, varying of other percentages with the ingredients necessary for the chemical reactions. Some require completely different parameters to make them habitable. I suppose this can be a topic for another discussion.

Not habitable for "Earth's Inhabitants" at least. It's possible that there are lifeforms there that evolve in order to adapt in those planets' environment. As long as the environment is not very extreme, it's still possible for lifeforms to to exist and thrive.

3:05 did not expected that

Water worlds are perfectly habitable. Earth used to be one. It's just that *humans* can't populate a water world because they live on land. Also, there could be lots of rocky exoplanets that aren't too big, and we just have a harder time detecting small exoplanets. Edit: Atmospheres and oceans can help tidally locked planets have more even temperatures (tidally locked planets still aren't ideal, and red dwarfs still hve the problem of solar storms).

Astrocat got one of the best science videos

Ocean planets are not a problem, we can just live on ships. Same for tidally locked ones, those will most likely require some work, but people still can live there. Super earths are not a problem per se too, make it harder to get out, but not to get in. Even oxygen can be created via anaerobic bacteria. Toxic or no atmosphere, not enough water and radiation will be the major issues during colonization

A little rough around the edges, but I liked the discussion! I even learned some fun stuff for my own little worldbuilding project! I would like to add, though, that just because a planet isn't exactly like Earth doesn't mean it can't be inhabited. *"Earth-like" and "Habitable" are not synonyms.* Any of these worlds in the habitable zones could feasibly be terraformed or have bio-domes, and serve as extrasolar colonies if and when we get ourselves off Earth for good. Likewise, just because a planet isn't habitable by our standards doesn't mean that life of some kind cannot exist on its surface; it might be very different from Terran life, but if conditions and components are present, it isn't impossible to imagine alien life arising on these worlds.

DIGITAL HALLUCINATIONS got me hahaha

7:20 That’s Orion’s Paradise In Celestia

We want ur voice, not an AI voice!!

7:02 *Democracy intensifies*

The fact is, we don't know for certain yet because even the best telescopes and other devices can only tell us so much. That's why there is so much more emphasis right now on gathering information on them, as opposed to developing the technology to send and support a person there. While other countries may feel differently, the U.S. is a firm believer in "be prepared" and "know before you go". After all, even ten light years or less is a long way to go only to find out the destination isn't what you thought it was. When push comes to shove and things start getting less comfortable on earth, there will be more drive to move outwards. But realistically, barring sudden breakthroughs that make it easier and cheaper, our generations will be very lucky to see a manned Mars landing in our lifetime.

This gave me ideas for drawing earth like planets

Venus is in the habitable zone but it's so hot there due to it's atmosphere that the Soviet Unions Vanera Probs which were built to resist the harsh climate & atmospheric pressure on the surface that they only lasted an hour before the equipment failed.

LOL I LOVE WHEN NEPTUNE JUST POPPED UP AND SAID "yay" 😭

3:04 LOL

Just something to share; A rocky planet can have an extremely thick atmosphere, making a rocky world look like a gas giant but it actually has a surface. Plus, if it’s big enough, the pressure could be decent (So the atmosphere can be similar to Earths atmosphere.) Making it hospitable. If you’ve found anything against this, do let me know.

They should refer to these as habitable zone planets or potential liquid water planets. Most of what we've been seeing are either: 1. Receive more starlight than Earth and are therefore most hot houses where only extremophiles could thrive on the arid and decidedly not moist surface (example: Venus over a billion years ago) 2. Receive much more starlight than Earth and are therefore literally hell (Venus after the resurfacing event and CO2 atmosphere) 3. Are super Earth's more than ~2 Earth masses and retain thick helium atmospheres that probably make surface conditions too hot. 4. Are much too large and not dense enough and therefore mini-neptunes with literally a significant fraction of their volume being gases 5. Are around M-type stars that may cause too severe flares and definitely will make the planet tidally locked (that may not be terrible though).

It’s just that we haven’t discovered it yet, plus having intelligent life is just a bonus, all u need to be habitable is to have atleast some form of life

5:15 so planets outside the habitable zone could be habitable? 6:11 Destroyer/Observer/Creatir of Worlds. 7:12 phon 7:32 that’s what it has been leading up to

Glad that one of the biggest questions I had in mychildhood got answered

Even a planet that's "too far away" from it's parent star can be habitable if there's a strong enough greenhouse effect on the planet.

Dang bro i did not expect to see that vid😮

Nice video! Keep it up don’t give up!❤

Hey im ur old subscriber I was interested that are you gonna upload music videos in ur second channel

The Factors that makes a exoplanet habitable 1:Mass equal ore less more than earth 2:Gravity over equal and 2x more 3:Distance, in order for a habitable planet to exist, its distance must be 1.00 AU or 1.12 AU away from its star, 4:Size, the size of a planet must be 2x or equal to the size of earth, 5:Rotational Period, in order to find a habitable planet with day night cycle, is to had a 24 hours rotation, or 18 less, (without rotation the temperature wont stabilize in different sides)

This what you talk about it’s a kind rare Earth hypothesis, just a hypothesis among others, because habitable planets could be very resilient, for example there is studies showing that’s possible atmospheric distribution in tidally lock red dwarf exoplanet that would make it habitable.

Based on our knowledge of animals and plants living in extreme conditions on this planet, it seems likely that whether an exoplanet is mostly land or mostly water, life can evolve and adapt to survive extreme conditions on them.

nice video

1:00 might be red giant or smth Does that look like normal star?

Thalassa, Marica, Faunus and Earth: Nah, just us

"Beetlejuice" 💀

Another thing to note is that our sun is a yellow dwarf. Yellow dwarfs are pretty rare. And we don't know how important a star being one is towards it being safe for us. Red dwarfs for example will probably randomly kill us. Where as our sun is less likely to do that.

Finally New Vidio

MORE VIDEOS OF MY FAV ASTRONOMY RU-vidR :D

These are the list that requirements order them for suitable for us: - It wouldn't be small because the gravity so weak that the molecules on their atmosphere would easily reach escape velocity. - It wouldn't be large because gravity pulls towards you. - The atmosphere won't be thin because the UV radiation would increase drastically and ozone layer would be also perish. - The atmosphere won't be thick because the atmosphere would prevent sunlight travelling towards the ground. - The planet wouldn't be dominated by oceans because it has less ideal colonies. - The planet wouldn't be dominated by land because it lacks of agriculture and transportation. - The temperature wouldn't cool or hot because the vegetation would destroyed. - The planet orbit wouldn't be elliptic because the natural disasters would kill you. - The daylight cycle would be similar to Earth in order to meditate the ratio of water and temparetures. - The planet wouldn't be tidally locked because of the temperatures. - The photosynthesis wouldn't be different on Earth because it lacks or overly of carbon dioxide. - The star wouldn't be red dwarf because the solar flares is strong and causing tidal locking. - The star wouldn't be white or blue dwarf because they use hydrogen too much that it is easily runaway the Goldilocks zone and also have shortened lifespan therefore can't evolve species much more complex. - The planet wouldn't have gas giant in the habitable zone because they disturbing smaller objects flings towards to candidate planets and also altered their orbit. - The planet must not contain very harmful microbiological life. - The planet must contain edible vegetation for humans. - The planet must not contain larger predators it won't kill many humans. - The atmosphere won't any have that could toxic to humans.

What was your old name?

nice

7:10 isn't one of conditions to be considered a "Super Earth" being a rocky planet?

5:46 *planet 4546b intensifies*

While amazing we are able to find so many rocky planets both of the right size and within the habitable zone. This is more of a step one. Step two would be analyzing the atmospheres of these planets, which is something scientists have only just begun doing. Another problem is that we just don't know if life can exist on certain planets like either tidally locked planets or ocean planets. While the planet hunting front has been doing an amazing job, less than a millionth of the planets within our own galaxy have been found.

This is without keeping in mind our planet is in fact double planet system. Which is important part of supporting geological processes, magnetic field, which is important parts on supporting our atmosphere. Bruh

The biggest problem with finding another "home for humaity" is that any exoplanet we can survive on without needing spacesuits will likey already be inhabited. Otherwise how else will its atmosphere accumulate the oxygen we need? And the problem with setting foot on an already-inhabited planet, is extremely high likelyhood that the microbiology of that planet would wreak havoc on our bodies, killing us within weeks if not days.

Science teachers should show these

I think the idea of making a advanced space station to orbit some of these planet would probably be a better idea.

Technically próxima b is in a three body system so it's not always tidally locked (probably)

I really think maybe we should first find a way to send people farther than maybe just the oort cloud and THEN can we start even thinking of landing anyone to any exoplanet

Yes

Damn we really got a Catboy science channel before GTA6

Fun fact, its beleved that both Venus and Mars are in the goldylocks zone, (albit in the extream areas). the fact that these guys exist should be evidence that we should be more skeptikle.

Mahal Ko Ang Iyong Videos!

7:20 Thumbs Up

We'd survive but not thrive

its more of the problem of that it needs to be Carbon habitable rather than just being habitable because any planet could be habitable with the way life could evolve, titan being one of them.

Ok I lose my way of saying this animation is good the limit exploded, but anyways this is interesting 🎉!

Planets of all sizes are going to be evenly distributed across the universe, and it is way too premature to conclude which size is the most common. Super Earths are just currently more easily found, because they are bigger and more massive. Moreover, I think we are only able to detect them around Red Dwarfs, since those stars are relatively small and dim. It's no coincidence that the first planets we detected were massive gas giants. Size and mass matters, because we cannot see exoplanets directly, we can only detect their gravitational influence, and occasionally a periodic dimming of the host star (If the passing planet has an atmosphere, the star's light spectrum will also change slightly during such transits).

But bro the universe is gigantic. There's gonna be a LOT of habitable planets

The part in this video where I don’t know what screen the voice or whatever the voices saying wait, 45,000,000,000 km is funny also that is not quite Neptunes orbit either

i really dont know if people believe that some exoplanets are habitable. bcuz that not even what they tell us, these exoplanets are candidates to have life, being in the goldilock zone its just another detail in favor of their hypothesis, and also planets believed to hospitable arent even exclusive exoplanets or in the goldilock zone. like Europa and Titan.

How common is it for planets to have a magnetic field that's good enough for humans to be outside without a suit?

Hello. I am not an AstroCat hater, but I really dislike the narration in the background. I like the planets having subtitles on their side with a good background music instead. I don’t know why did that change(I think it’s probably because of increased users from TikTok which had pathetically lost their attention span), but I just would like to say, do not please them. As a fan who watched this channel for more than 2 years, I have enjoyed the content in the past way more than the new ones. Like this comment if you agree with what I have said, if you don’t, please dislike it.

Astrocatz is under rated

The "habitable zone" is a zone that is considered habitable based on what worked for life on Earth, particularly ideal for liquid water (as this is the universal solvent of all living things here). A planet may be in the habitable zone, but that doesn't mean it has the conditions life on Earth has evolved to survive in, such as: -An atmosphere with 78.08% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon and 0.04% other trace gases -An atmosphere thick enough to protect the planet's surface from harmful radiation -An atmosphere thin enough to prevent runaway greenhouse effects -Earth-like gravity -The presence of water at all -Photosynthetic systems But then again, we are looking for what supports our understanding of life. Who knows what else may be out there that evolved under other conditions we have not?

A planet may even be habitable for complex life but this life's biochemistry is different enough from ours that we can't eat anything which lives there.

I think switching Venus to Earth's location is gonna do some complicated stuff to the carbon and sulfuric acid (and therefore water) cycles. I'm not saying it would become habitable but if you can get it cool enough to stop baking the carbon out of rocks and maybe let the sulfuric rain reach the surface, weathering might actually start removing the CO2 atmosphere which could allow some of the sulfuric acid to convert back to water. At the very least you might have some semblance of the carbon silicate cycle start cooling the planet back to merely an absolutely terrible place to live rather than a vision of hell over a couple hundred million years or something.

Since back then I don't really think many Kepler planets that was found on habitable zones are promising, because: - We don't know the masses of those planets. They could have large iron core or dominated by ice/water. While their radius are known, their composition is still unknown since there are no certain data of their masses. - Their radius are pretty big. Many of them are basically larger than Earth. This is related to point one, if it had large iron core it would have crushingly high gravity, if it had global super ocean then it would be way less than ideal to place colony, much less for mini ice giants. Even if it assumed with Earth-like proportions (70 percent rocks, 30 percent iron) it is still a problem because high gravity, though not as painful if it is an iron-dominated planets like Mercury. - The most promising ones I can think of are Kepler-186 f, Kepler-62 f and Kepler-442 b, based on their physical characteristics. Both Kepler-62 f and Kepler-186 f must have thick atmosphere if they have to retain habitability, since they located at the outer edge of their respective habitable zone. Kepler-442 b don't need as thick as Kepler-62 f and Kepler-186 f, but the way we don't know all of their atmosphere still remain a roadblock. Note: These all assume if they are terrestrial and not oceanic or mini ice giant planets.

If an exoplanet orbits in its star's habitable zone and has the right mass and composition, even if it is not habitable itself, it could still be turned into one by terraforming. It would take time and effort, but if a civilization is capable of reaching the stars, it is also fully capable of scouring around for an unlimited amount of resources to be used to modify any kind of environment. A planet has no water? You can drain it from interstellar comets or just send them to the planet themselves. A planet has too much atmosphere? Just suck the part in excess away or put some reactors to turn it into rocks or useful materials. The real obstacle could be the lack of a magnetosphere. That is a problem which is not really easy to solve. It would also be good to have or to be able to start plate tectonics, since that feature allows the planet to recycle itself on the long time.

I have been saying this since they started finding these exoplanets. Until they find something like Earth around a Sun type star , then I take it with a pinch of salt. Also the fact they orbit in a few days also puts me off.

Re: moving Mars to Earth's orbit? I think you might get enough CO2 in the atmosphere to allow liquid water on the surface somewhere other than the deepest canyons as the icecaps and other trapped CO2 and water escapes solid confinement. Where Mars would run into some pretty big issues is that it lacks tectonics. Maybe occasional volcanism (and moving it would certainly generate some off gassing but nothing to properly recycle crust). Therefore I predict Mars would end up with actually a bit much CO2 and go from being too cold and freezing out CO2, to too hot and potentially getting close to a moist greenhouse, though the low water availability near the surface should prevent an actual moist greenhouse. I think you'd see some water for awhile but I don't know that it would be stable in the long run.

Ok

Otherwise Super-earths can be super-cool for some life we don't know

Kerbal space program soundtrack

New ai voice is needed for security. It’s understandable

The desert/glacier/habitable strip model for tidally locked planets is outdated.

Thanks. It irks me that all and sundry exoplanets are hailed as "habitable", with caveats like "Oh, they have this one little drawback, but there may be ways to overcome it..." Sure! Tell that to Mars and Venus!

It seems very likely that if we ever find a earthlike planet, the gravity will be too strong, and will have to wear some sort of powered suit just to walk around. Though if its like more than twice the size of earth, landing on it would probably instantly break your kneecaps. I been playing No Man's Sky, and finding a good looking earthlike planet on there is even hard; and that game is fictional. In that game you probably have to search at least a few hundred star systems to find a nice earthlike planet without bad weather, and with a nice moon is even harder; gravity isn't even a factor in that game to deal with (sure is low gravity, but I haven't seen any planets with deadly gravity yet).

well its also the fact that they are so many light years away we don't even know the current state of them either

Sweet

Mars and Venus are also within the Sun's "habitable" zone.

Clearly. The odds that everything went exactly the way we need them to go is extraordinary slim. However, these are the worlds that are the easiest to terraform and colonize. What, you thought humans could spread life on those worlds without putting any work into it?

ITS UNDERGROUND! 2:04 (water)

I don’t see why if we have the technology to go to other stars we can’t just make wherever we want habitable

It’s actually true, They are not habitable When you see BUT they don’t claim to be UNLESS we find one like Trappist

Do not forget Proximal centuari b

I feel like some parts of the script are written by ChatGPT, idk what about this but they just feel a little unnatural. Especially the description, i REALLY doubt that there's actually gonna be discussions with leading experts on a semi professional space channel

Gotta be careful about drawing conclusions about how common earth massed planets are from existing data, since existing data is still biased towards detecting larger objects. Other than that very good video.

Hi 👋🏿

umm you not bunny bye 😢 hello? 0:01

What's your ai voice

0:24 for some reasons I thought of maimai Milk

I watched this vid when it was about 1 hour old

7:03, “Planets you are more likely to find anywhere except our solar systems are called *Super Earths*.” *FREEDOM NEVER SLEEPS!*

I feel like we should be calling them either potentially habitable or something similar rather than just habitable

You've got to watch "Atlas Pro" and his justification for thinking that exo-moons could have a better chance for exo-biology to exist than exo-planets

0:25 Or 10,5 Light-Years Away!

3:02 ok how is there ditgtal cirucus here

Instead of 'habitable' they should be called 'not outright inhabitable at our first look'. Moreover, it wouldn't do us much good, as we can't reach any of those world in a decent amount of time, and won't be able to, for the foreseeable future. Except perhaps for discovering _alien_ life rather than a second home for humanity.

Yeah because like after all It's just "Habitable" zones not a zone where it's completely habitable, it just meant that the temperature for an EARTH-like planet would be marked in that zone. There's other criteria to come for a truly "Habitable" planet. 🤓:Umm but it can be called as "Goldilock Zone"

We found a habitable planet: YIPIIII It's 100 trillion kilometers away: AWWWWWWWWWWWWWW