Thought it was interesting that they are so excited about such a small system. But it doesn't have interesting, or detectable, radio transmissions from any of the 7 planets (there might be more). Until there are more capable tools, we won't know anything about their geological composition and if they have magnetic fields like the Earth.
The star having more metal content than our Sun is interesting because that means the disk that the planets formed from could also have been much richer as well. They might have big molten metallic cores and so robust magnetic fields.
Any indications of life coming from the further study of the composition of the atmospheres of the first 3 planets would be interesting because they are locked around the star. One side is hot and lit and the other isn't. That means there's a region on these planets that is partly lit and partly cold. And there would be crazy high winds. That's good for surface chemistry as long as those winds aren't so powerful that they strip the surface.
One of the panelists says they wouldn't have negligible tidal forces.. that means liquid water would move around. Being close to a star means further forces, potentially like atmospheric storms depending on surface topology, that could ensure complex surface chemistry.
This is when you start asking some of those 'what does it take' questions. What benefits are there in that system, on those planets, which could have led to the development of life and its evolution into anything complex? could they support a civilization like humanity. Or any complex species found on earth like insects.. or even ocean based life since the panelists claim there should be water on most of those 7 planets.
If life there is mostly aquatic that would cover the lack of radio transmissions. Even hot boiling oceans on the near worlds becomes ideal as we know complex life can thrive in boiling hot ocean environments. They'd be less susceptible to damage from high UV damage in the deeper waters. Which would suck though because water being much more dense than a gas atmosphere anything born in those oceans might not understand what the sky, or space is even though the other worlds would be so close that they could see them in the sky similarly to what had up until today been a sci-fi setting only acceptable in Star Wars (so many potentially habitable planets so close together). Going back to the atmosphere and what type of weather there is.. maybe the skies aren't clear enough for anything that could have evolved eyes and brains to even see space and those nearby planets.
Another interesting thing is that the panelists suggest that as these are common stars the probability of there being more system like this is massive.
What seems clear is that these worlds are highly ideal for life if not future colonization. Being that they are so large they most likely have enough mass to have gravity similar to Earth. I'd love to know how active they are geologically speaking. If plate tectonics are a thing. If there are active volcanoes etc that make the surface interesting. One question asked something like if they are close enough that an active geology could spread life around the system. Easily since the system is so small. But only simple life would manage to survive.
One of the question asked was how old this system is. The answer wasn't clear because we don't know how long the planet's orbits have been stable. And if it really is currently stable. Is it so old that the rocky planets cores have cooled? Not having dynamic molten cores would be a big downer.
Also the host star being smaller and less reactive than our sun is interesting. The question came in as how dynamic is the host star and the answer was not very. That's not necessarily good. Many theories regarding evolution through genetic mutation suggest that many important mutations come from solar radiation. Too much and life cooks. Too little and maybe that rate of mutation would be too slow.
Here on Earth we benefit from that dynamic sunlight, even just because of the planet rotating around its axis resulting in a day night cycle if vitally important to complex life. Is it required? Not sure. Earth has two radiation shields. The Earth's magnetic field and the ozone layer. If there's more infrared radiation and life there managed to reach a microbial stage.. maybe they'd pump out carbon dioxide to block that IR radiation. OR rather some microbial life would benefit from IR radiation and pump out carbon dioxide as a waste product which would then benefit anything that would evolve later. Even that asks what's the carbon cycle like on those worlds? Is there much free surface carbon for complex surface chemistry?
Both of those radiation shields on Earth are Dynamic. Life started before the ozone layer even formed.. but could complex life have survived without it? Is it the same elsewhere?
