What's super confusing to me is: If the planet is so much closer to its star, and the star is so much larger than ours, why does the artist's conception show the star as being so "small" (perceived size, not actual size) as viewed from the planet? Was the artist just not thinking straight that day, or am I missing something? Yes I understand it's an "artist's conception" but the question remains.
not too sure about how incorrect the artist's concept is, but we have to remember that Promixa Centauri is a red dward with about 1/10 the radius of our Sun.
Ah maybe when the article said the star is "bigger" than the Sun it meant "more massive." Which could explain the apparent contradiction, if it was more massive and smaller in radius. Of course then it would be denser than the sun, which would have to be the case for all of this to make sense.
