I can see that more data might improve knowledge of Planetary formation Theory … maybe. We know there are distinguishable, predictable patterns between say mass and orbits, but there are other complexities which impact how and why a planet forms where it does. Does more observational data necessarily contribute to this story … especially when the phenomenon almost certainly contains a large component of randomness? More data in this case, doesn't necessarily lead to more understanding.
There was a press release today, which has found that a new batch of Jupiter-like planets (18) had mainly circular orbits ... as opposed to a mix of elliptical and circular. Perhaps this points towards the presence of unpredictable influences in the initial establishment conditions of a planetary orbit ? How can the gathering of more exo-orbital data lead to anything worthwhile (in this instance), if the fundamental underlying phenomenon is not as predictable as we thought in the first place?
The current search always seems to focus on aspects we already know are predictable … but what about the random components in planetary formation ?
As far as I can see, the exo-life enquiry will gain almost nothing, as these planets are way too far away to plausibly infer the establishment of life (or otherwise). I mean, we can't even detect life on a planet as close as Mars (if it were there) … let alone Jupiters tens to hundreds, to thousands of light years distant. The life thing is surely, purely fuel for hyper-active imaginations ??
Cheers