So, surface gravity about twenty-five percent higher than that of Earth. We're looking at Antares-level of redness for color. Occupies a large portion of the sky. Good candidate for tidal lock, at which point a lot of the habitability issues become debatable.
They don't know the mass of the planet yet, so surface gravity is an unknown as of yet. The paper suggests two scenarios: a rocky world (~7 earth masses) or a water world (~2 earth masses).
Surface gravity would be 38m/s² for a rocky planet (~390% earth's surface gravity) and 8.2m/s² for a water world (~84% earth's surface gravity). I'm not an astronomer so I don't know if anything in between those values is a realistic scenario, but I wonder how you got your 125% of earth's surface gravity.
I read somewhere, slightly higher than Earth gravity would actually be better for life. So on that metric this is interesting. Magnetic field is likely another need and our single large moon helps a lot here too.
I kind of despise these press releases because they almost never attempt to show anything other than what other astronomers might care about.
Surface gravity? I just computed that. Color temp? Had to check the ole memory banks.
They should be doing stuff like computing how much of the sky this sun occupies, so you could get a sense of it, with the color. Is it tidally locked? Or at least does it fit the criteria?
The distance, eccentricity (which here leaves the distance a constant), and temperature of the associated star could be used to give some kind of insolation number, and from there a very casual steady-state blackbody temperature of the planet, which is a start and is better than nothing. At that point you can start looking up what gases would stay and which would go as kind of a maximum before you started thinking about stellar winds and the like.
