Kepler-452
Kepler-452 is a Sun-like G2 star about 1,800 light-years away in Cygnus, almost a twin of our own Sun. It hosts Kepler-452 b — announced in 2015 as the first near-Earth-size planet in the habitable zone of a Sun-like star. The planet's statistical validation was later questioned, but the newest and most rigorous re-analysis (2025) supports it, so it is shown here with that honest, on-balance favourable caveat.
Key facts
Science
Classification
- Type
- Sun-like (G2) single-star system
- Central star
- Kepler-452 — G2, ~5757 K, 1.04 M☉ (a solar twin)
Planets
- Shown
- Kepler-452 b — disputed, likely · 1.6 R⊕, 385-day orbit in the habitable zone of a Sun-like star
- Latest evidence
- Favourable
Distance
- Distance
- ~1,800 light-years · in Cygnus, the Swan
How we know
- Note
- Kepler-452 b transits, so its SIZE is measured (1.6 Earth radii); its mass is only size-estimated, so no density is quoted. Its statistical validation was questioned (Mullally et al. 2018, Burke et al. 2019) and the NASA Exoplanet Archive flags it controversial — but a 2025 reassessment (Robnik & Seljak, PNAS) with a more rigorous false-alarm method placed it below 1% false-alarm probability, among its highest-confidence candidates. So it is shown here as a disputed-but-likely world whose latest evidence is FAVOURABLE — clearly labelled, not passed off as certain, and not framed as gloomily as the weaker Kepler-186 f. Never independently mass-confirmed. Placed at its real position, ~1,800 light-years away.
Discovery & history
- Name
- A Kepler-mission catalogue designation (the 452nd planet-hosting star confirmed); the star has no proper name.
NASA's Kepler telescope validated Kepler-452 b in 2015, to worldwide attention as the closest thing yet to an 'Earth 2.0' — a 1.6-Earth-radius world in the temperate zone of a star much like the Sun. Because such faint, long-period signals are hard to validate on statistics alone, later work (Mullally et al. 2018, Burke et al. 2019) questioned its reliability and the NASA Exoplanet Archive flags it controversial. But a 2025 reassessment (Robnik & Seljak, PNAS) with a more rigorous false-alarm method placed it below 1% false-alarm probability — among its highest-confidence candidates.
Images
Images from open archives · credit shown per image