At the risk of sounding like I'm ranting (because I am), I'm seeing an error in the second and third hand reporting about this. There's no indication of liqud water running on the surface. If you look closely, what is reported is that if there is water, the temperature is in the right range for it to exist as a liquid.

For all we know, there may be no atmosphere (not likely, but possible), or there could be an atmosphere like Venus' - in either instance, there'd be no water running on the surface.

The other aspect to consider is that if this planet has approximately 5 times the Earth's mass, then gravity at the surface will be roughly 5 times strong than the Earth's (yes, there's a lot of handwaving and shortcutting in that statement, but you know what I mean).

→ Posted by: Robert Hook at April 26, 2007 2:20 AM

It's good of the BBC to mention in their headline that this new planet was found “in space”. Otherwise I'd've thought it had been found under the sea, and that would've made me look foolish.

→ Posted by: Greg K Nicholson at April 26, 2007 4:51 AM

"... models predict that the planet should be either rocky - like our Earth - or covered with oceans."

I love the mental image that this conjures of Kate & Naomi debating the likely properties of this planet.

→ Posted by: Hg at April 26, 2007 9:03 AM

if there isn't, how easy would it be to introduce some?

Bloody hell, Coates, you really are a Whig. A Hippie Whig to be precise (unfortunate phrase, but never mind) - or to be more precise a Hippie Reformer. Which would rather neatly explain why I feel like you're talking sense half the time and raving the other half (me Hippie Historian).

→ Posted by: Phil at April 26, 2007 10:02 AM

"How easy would it be to introduce some"?

You've got your eye on the long game, eh?

→ Posted by: Robert Andrews at April 26, 2007 1:09 PM