FeatureRush

Why not the Moon? It's seem to be better first target than asteroids in any way I can think about it...

• You do not need to look for it with telescope,
• it's close - so probably will cost less and will be easier to control,
• we have experience in sending things up there,
• it has more resources in both volume and diversity,
• it's great place to start building infrastructure for next missions
• ...

Someone just needs to send one robot able to 3d print base out of dirt and that's it:) So why not Moon?

First, congratulation on the discovery and well done conference!

• Would the planets be close enough to each other to produce tides if there were oceans on them or maybe even close enough to make them seismically active?

• Is this a stable system? (as planet impacts each other's orbits enough to change timings of transitions)

• On the animation showing transits as "dips" dimming the star there were also spikes, what are those?

• Would you expect asteroid belt to exist somewhere in that system?

• Because of Sun's emission spectrum we evolved to see in visible spectrum and trees are green to take advantage of the spectrum's maximum, or so I've heard. The other explanation says that this is all related to atmosphere absorption... so all alien trees could be green. Which is true? How is this new star different from the Sun in this aspect?

• Would the composition of the new system be much different from our system (total % of iron, carbon, heavy elements etc)? Can this be calculated only from star's spectrum or is other data also needed?

• Is it true that we could only discover this system because of conveniently directed axis of rotation of the star/system? Do those axes for other stars are totally random or somehow related to the galaxy's axis? How this impacts our exoplanet discovery rate and is it hard to establish such axis for any given star?