Planetary habitability is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia articles
I wonder if it is appropriate to include a brief section on some of the space missions (Viking, Phoenix, Curiosity, ExoMars, 2020 Mars rover), that had an emphasis in habitability assessment. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified 5 external links on Planetary habitability. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to trueorfailed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
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.
The "habitable zone" is defined as water habitable zone, looks to be the only determinate for the habitability of a planet here. But, new measurements show there are other habitable zones. Planetary habitability for life must simultaneously reside in all of the 9 known habitable zones: water, ultraviolet, photosynthetic, ozone, rotation rate, obliquity, tidal, atmosphere, and atmospheric electric field.
I understand that specialists in a narrow field love to submerge in their own slang, but I think one role of the encyclopedia is to open the field to the public by translating the slang to a generally understandable language. To an average user it would be obvious that planet that is uninhabitable is unsuitable for colonization from the outside. That's the dictionary meaning of the word: a house is not habitable - you can travel there, but cannot live there. Reading this article, it implies that a planet that is not "habitable" (in the scientific slang sense) can be perfectly suitable for settlers. (Example? A huge star offers 100 thousand years stability, insufficient for "habitable", very much sufficient for colonization.) Is it possible to find a reliable source for an explanation that would clear this up? I volunteer to write the explanation, but I cannot find any source. --Kubanczyk (talk) 12:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
♠While I'd take issue with "slang" ("jargon", perhaps, if that wasn't a bit pejorative for my liking), let me try & explain as I understand it. "Habitable" is "can be lived on without special equipment" (pressure suit, diving gear); "colonizable" (if that's a word...) includes planet (such as Mars) where either or both would be needed.
♠In the scientific community, the usage is a bit different still: they tend to mean "suitable for the evolution & current existence of a life form like us" (which is a desperately anthropocentric kind of bias...). TREKphilerany time you're ready, Uhura20:13, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Habitability ONLY refers to the innert physical and chemical environment. Therefore it is possible to find a habitable planet that is sterile and uninhabited. 98.100.145.6 (talk) 20:28, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Habitability has been defined as the potential of an environment (past or present) to support life of any kind." NASA ASTROBIOLOGY STRATEGY 2015
Is a sterile planet at all likely to have a human-breathable atmosphere? If not, habitability cannot include the scenario of a sterile planet that we could colonize. Dysamoria (talk) 16:42, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified 6 external links on Planetary habitability. 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:
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.
Planetary Characteristics: Orbit & Rotation: The two articles cited for a possible prior habitability of Mercury refer to a source paper that does not seem to mention life or habitability. Did I miss the relevant content behind a paywall? Dysamoria (talk) 16:45, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One is a newspaper report and the other says "Metastable and potentially habitable conditions might have developed episodically or transiently within these crustal materials". This does not support the comment in the article so I will delete. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:14, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]