Hi Board

I said...

"I will remain skeptical of naysayers who say planets are rare. We need a broad statistical survey like Kepler before we can tell with any degree of certainty."
**********************************************

Could not agree more with your attitude towards Kepler and such, but your scepticism is more wishful thinking.

[wishful thinking? Let me see... we've eliminated jovians in SHORT PERIOD orbits for 94% of stars, but are yet to have made sufficient observations to see them in Jupiter/Saturn-like orbits. Wishful thinking or caution?]

We have now surveyed HUNDREDS of stars

[out of billions...]

and less than 10% of them have Saturn mass planets or larger, out to around 4 AU. This does indicate that planets are likely NOT normal.

[or the planets seen are not normal...]

Another decade of these surveys and Kepler-like missions (which somehow never get funded) will provide a more reliable answer. But the 1st evidence is against planets as commonplace.

[...large planets in short period orbits]

Not only that but well over 90% of the ~60 planetary systems detected show wild elliptical orbits, not the circular orbits of our rarer still solar system.

[since NONE probably formed where found then pathological orbits are to be EXPECTED]

-philw (the universe is what it is, not what we want it to be)

[on this we agree... I read an estimate that put planets around 1/24 of stars - the current ~ 5% of G-type stars is roughly following that figure, but for odd-ball planets - perhaps...]

The Universe will surprise us yet, but I tend to agree with the view that earth-like planets will be few and far between. But planets in general? I think most stars will have, at least, belts of 'roids - in which case ETIs might prefer free-space to messy old planets.

Adam