(Image credit: Getty Images (WLADIMIR BULGAR/SCIENCE PHOTO LIBRARY))
September 8th, 1966 was a Thursday. Not a fresh-start-Monday or an exciting Saturday. A regular old Thursday; except that this one catalysed a cultural phenomenon. This was the Thursday that "Star Trek" was first broadcast, drawing viewers across the United States into a space-age world that revolutionised television.The thing is, in 1966 no exoplanets (planets beyond our Solar System) had actually been discovered. Yet the franchise gave audiences a galaxy brimming with desert planets, ocean worlds, binary sunsets, and countless versions of Earth. Sixty years later, astronomers have confirmed more than 6,000 planets beyond the Solar System, known as exoplanets.But how well do "Star Trek"’s fictional worlds compare with those astronomers have actually discovered?When many of us think "Star Trek", the first planet that comes to mind is the dry, hot, and rocky Vulcan. Canonically, it orbits 40 Eridani A, a real star around 16 light-years from Earth. Real stars invite real observations, which led to astronomers announcing a possible planet in orbit in 2018. Of course, this was nicknamed Vulcan. However, later work has shown that this apparent signal was likely caused by stellar activity, rather than a planet in orbit.This is, unfortunately, a common issue. Stellar activity, such as starspots, convection, and other magnetic activity, is very good at producing signals that look incredibly planetary.
