Kepler Mission |
Kepler Mission |
Sep 15 2011, 08:18 PM
Post
#946
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 507 Joined: 10-September 08 Member No.: 4338 |
I noticed at the press conference they flashed a graphic of a representation of the Alpha Centauri system. I suppose the implication is that this discovery increases the plausibility that the Alpha Centauri binary may have planets.
If it does, their orbital plane (and presumably that of the binary) must be nearly perpendicular to the line of sight; otherwise, we would have seen something in radial velocity measurements by now. Even so, shouldn't we have noticed timing variations in the orbit of the binaries caused by the tug of planets? |
|
|
Sep 16 2011, 01:54 AM
Post
#947
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 293 Joined: 29-August 06 From: Columbia, MD Member No.: 1083 |
I noticed at the press conference they flashed a graphic of a representation of the Alpha Centauri system. I suppose the implication is that this discovery increases the plausibility that the Alpha Centauri binary may have planets. If it does, their orbital plane (and presumably that of the binary) must be nearly perpendicular to the line of sight; otherwise, we would have seen something in radial velocity measurements by now. Even so, shouldn't we have noticed timing variations in the orbit of the binaries caused by the tug of planets? There's been several studies that have shown that planets in sufficiently close orbits would be stable around Alpha Centauri A or B. Their average separation distance is something like 20 AU. I think orbits within a couple AU of each star are gravitationally stable. So I don't think Alpha Centauri is a true analog of this system. |
|
|
Sep 16 2011, 04:49 AM
Post
#948
|
|
Junior Member Group: Members Posts: 87 Joined: 17-May 08 Member No.: 4114 |
for those having access to Science, Kepler-16: A Transiting Circumbinary Planet For those without, a preprint can be found at http://exoplanet.eu/star.php?st=Kepler-16%20%28Ab%29 edit: Also on arxiv now http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.3432 Related paper on arxiv http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.3198 "Spin-Orbit Alignment for the Circumbinary Planet Host Kepler-16A." which has some discussion of the age (the Science paper basically says "we don't know".) |
|
|
Sep 16 2011, 01:53 PM
Post
#949
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 723 Joined: 13-June 04 Member No.: 82 |
This one almost slipped past me, but if their adjustments are confirmed, this is HUGE.
Near-Infrared Spectroscopy of Low-Mass Kepler Planet-Candidate Host Stars: Effective Temperatures, Metallicities, Masses and Radii Abstract: We report stellar parameters for low-mass planet-candidate host stars recently announced by the Kepler Mission. We obtained medium-resolution, K-band spectra of 84 low-mass Kepler Objects of Interest (KOIs). We identified one KOI as a giant; for the remaining dwarfs, we estimated effective temperatures by comparing measurements of K-band regions dominated by H2O opacity with predictions of synthetic spectra for low-mass stars. We measured overall metallicities ([M/H]) using the equivalent widths of Na I and Ca I absorption features and an empirical metallicity relation calibrated with nearby stars. With effective temperatures and metallicities, we estimate the masses and radii of the low-mass KOIs by interpolation onto evolutionary isochrones. The resultant stellar radii are roughly half of the values reported in the Kepler Input Catalogue and, by construction, correlate better with effective temperature. Our results significantly reduce the sizes of the corresponding planet-candidates, with many less than 1 Earth radius. Recalculating the equilibrium temperatures of the planet-candidates from the implied stellar luminosities and masses, and assuming Earth's albedo and re-radiation fraction, we find that six of the planet-candidates are terrestrial-sized with orbital semi-major axes that lie within the habitable zones of their low-mass host stars. The stellar parameters presented in this letter serve as a resource for further characterization of the planet-candidates. ****** Scaling the Earth’s equilibrium temperature of 255 K by the orbital semi-major axis, stellar Teff and stellar radius of the KOIs in this letter, we find that KOIs 463.01, 1422.02, 947.01, 812.03, 448.02 and 1361.01 all have equilibrium temperatures between 217 K and 261 K: the limits of the habitable zone as described in Kasting et al. (1993). ****** The six habitable zone candidates. Assuming that the planet densities are equal to that of the Earth, the surface gravity varies directly with the radius (Mass varies with radius cubed, but gravitational force varies with mass over distance (radius) squared, leaving the surface gravity directly proportional to the radius) KOI 448.02 (M0-V Primary) -- Radius 1.85 Earth -- 240 K -- Year 43.62 days KOI 463.01 (M3-V Primary) -- Radius 0.93 Earth -- 232 K -- Year 18.48 days KOI 812.03 (M0-V Primary) -- Radius 1.16 Earth -- 228 K -- Year 46.19 days KOI 947.01 (M1-V Primary) -- Radius 1.24 Earth -- 254 K -- Year 28.60 days KOI 1361.01 (M0-V Primary) -- Radius 1.58 Earth -- 232 K -- Year 59.88 days KOI 1422.02 (M2-V Primary) -- Radius 0.85 Earth -- 249 K -- Year 19.85 days There is another candidate (with a calculated radius that is a close match to that of Earth) that has a calculated equilibrium temperature just above the upper limit given above, which I think should be considered as well: KOI 494.01 (M1-V Primary) -- Radius 1.05 Earth -- 268 K -- Year 25.70 days |
|
|
Sep 16 2011, 10:21 PM
Post
#950
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 3516 Joined: 4-November 05 From: North Wales Member No.: 542 |
Thanks Reed for those links. I don't fully trust the integration of the orbital motion over 2 million years, and in any case that's a very short time in cosmic terms.
Mongo - thanks also for your reporting. |
|
|
Sep 16 2011, 10:44 PM
Post
#951
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2073 Joined: 13-February 10 From: Ontario Member No.: 5221 |
Mind, these are still only 'candidates', and unconfirmed so not time to party just yet (but worth keeping and eye on!)
|
|
|
Sep 17 2011, 05:10 AM
Post
#952
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2492 Joined: 15-January 05 From: center Italy Member No.: 150 |
so many M-class possible planets!
-------------------- I always think before posting! - Marco -
|
|
|
Sep 17 2011, 11:47 AM
Post
#953
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 293 Joined: 29-August 06 From: Columbia, MD Member No.: 1083 |
Mind, these are still only 'candidates', and unconfirmed so not time to party just yet (but worth keeping and eye on!) Yes, but the Kepler team has done a variety of studies to show that their false positive rate is very small. So 95-99% of their "candidates" are planets. |
|
|
Sep 17 2011, 10:57 PM
Post
#954
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 1018 Joined: 29-November 05 From: Seattle, WA, USA Member No.: 590 |
Does the full paper discuss the stability of this arrangement? It's in the "Supporting Online Information," and it references these two papers: An Emperical Condition for Stability of Hierarchical Triple Systems Long-Term Stability of Planets in Binary Systems The SOI says that in addition to the criteria given in these two papers, their own long-term integration suggests the orbit is stable. --Greg |
|
|
Sep 18 2011, 08:50 AM
Post
#955
|
|
Merciless Robot Group: Admin Posts: 8783 Joined: 8-December 05 From: Los Angeles Member No.: 602 |
It's an exciting discovery, but frankly I'm not surprised.
One thing we seem to find with almost repetitive regularity is that Nature always finds a way to do the unexpected. That's probably entirely due to the fact that we are limited in our imaginative capability...but, that's okay. That's precisely why we explore. -------------------- A few will take this knowledge and use this power of a dream realized as a force for change, an impetus for further discovery to make less ancient dreams real.
|
|
|
Sep 18 2011, 10:09 AM
Post
#956
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 3516 Joined: 4-November 05 From: North Wales Member No.: 542 |
|
|
|
Sep 18 2011, 07:30 PM
Post
#957
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 1018 Joined: 29-November 05 From: Seattle, WA, USA Member No.: 590 |
So if I understand correctly the newly discovered planet is close to the inner limit for stability That's what I get. The report puts the planet at 0.70 AU from the barycenter. Using the formula from Holman and Wiegert, the limit for stability around the pair is at about 0.65 AU, so we probably shouldn't expect anything closer, unless it just orbited one of the two stars. In that case, though, the outer stability limits are 0.068 and 0.032 AU (respectively), so they'd be quite toasty. By contrast, the limit around Alpha Centauri AB is 87 AU, so nothing closer than that is likely to orbit the pair. On the other hand, the individual limits for A and B are 2.8 and 2.5 AU, respectively, so planets in the habitable zone of either star should be quite stable; there just likely wouldn't be any outer planets. --Greg |
|
|
Sep 19 2011, 10:45 PM
Post
#958
|
|
Junior Member Group: Members Posts: 35 Joined: 10-July 11 Member No.: 6055 |
By contrast, the limit around Alpha Centauri AB is 87 AU, so nothing closer than that is likely to orbit the pair. On the other hand, the individual limits for A and B are 2.8 and 2.5 AU, respectively, so planets in the habitable zone of either star should be quite stable; there just likely wouldn't be any outer planets. So if planets were actually orbiting in the habitable zone, they'd likely have little protection from bombardment? -kap |
|
|
Sep 19 2011, 10:55 PM
Post
#959
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 540 Joined: 17-November 05 From: Oklahoma Member No.: 557 |
If you're talking about the lack of gas giants, who needs them when each star has the other star? Sounds like everything out to 87 au will be cleared out.
|
|
|
Sep 19 2011, 11:50 PM
Post
#960
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 1018 Joined: 29-November 05 From: Seattle, WA, USA Member No.: 590 |
Yep. No stable orbits from about 2.5 AU out to 87 AU. Any debris would be swept into one or the other star or ejected from the system entirely. This occurs very quickly--millions of years at most.
--Greg |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 19th March 2024 - 06:28 AM |
RULES AND GUIDELINES Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting. IMAGE COPYRIGHT |
OPINIONS AND MODERATION Opinions expressed on UnmannedSpaceflight.com are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of UnmannedSpaceflight.com or The Planetary Society. The all-volunteer UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderation team is wholly independent of The Planetary Society. The Planetary Society has no influence over decisions made by the UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderators. |
SUPPORT THE FORUM Unmannedspaceflight.com is funded by the Planetary Society. Please consider supporting our work and many other projects by donating to the Society or becoming a member. |