Talk:TRAPPIST-1d

Move TRAPPIST-1d to TRAPPIST-1g or 1h

Updated per new Nature paper Quantanew (talk) 01:35, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

The TRAPPIST-1d candidate reported in 2016 was based on two transits that are now known to have been two different objects. The planet candidate originally described here has been dropped altogether. It is not equivalent to either g or h, which have new articles in any case. Perhaps this article should just be revised to reflect the results for the new '1d' reported this month. --Robert.Allen (talk) 04:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I second the notion that this article needs to be updated. I have changed what values I can see and have added a "needs updating" template to draw attention to the fact that some data may be out of date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caelus5 (talk • contribs) 05:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I have added details about the revised version of the planet. --GwydionM (talk) 09:33, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

References

New Paper

Here is a new paper that simulates different configurations of land/sea coverage and depth in order to determine if there are habitable regimes. https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.00132 Pre-Print paper, but once published information should be added to this article relating that if Trappist-1 can keep an atmosphere and different levels of water that while there are runaway regimes, some regimes are either habitable or 'dead' (I believe this means regimes where life cannot develop/sustain itself (such as lack of water), but not ones where a runaway greenhouse effect has taken place). Limeysoda (talk) 16:35, 4 February 2025 (UTC)