Talk:Kepler-1625

Gentlemen, if I am reading these masses and distances correctly, this would, indeed, be an exo-double-planet, because the baricenter would be clearly outside the larger object, and they would be orbiting an common center of gravity rather than an actual physical object. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.182.252.170 (talk) 18:19, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

If more massive object has 10 Jupiter masses and the other object is like Neptune, then we have a mass ratio of 1:200. That is clearly a planet with a moon. Anyway, the source calls it (potential) moon, and we should stick to what the sources say. --mfb (talk) 20:05, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Planet/moon parameters

With the huge uncertainty on the star parameters, I think we shouldn't calculate anything beyond what is given in the sources. 20 times the planetary radius yes, absolute numbers no (as the absolute planetary radius will need a proper estimate of the star radius, which depends on the star distance). I guess Gaia will help, at hundreds of µas it should be able to measure the parallax accurately. --mfb (talk) 00:39, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

October 2017 transit analyzed

Still looks like a moon (secondary source). Transit timing variation (planet 80 minutes earlier than anticipated) and probably a secondary object in the transit. --mfb (talk) 00:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Star Age

According to a newer article, https://www.space.com/42008-first-exomoon-discovery-kepler-1625b.html , Kepler-1625 is close to 10 billion years old and not 4.36 billion old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.242.214.5 (talk) 17:09, 4 November 2018 (UTC)