IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

85 Pages V  « < 81 82 83 84 85 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Kepler Mission
dvandorn
post Aug 5 2015, 08:45 PM
Post #1231


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 3419
Joined: 9-February 04
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA
Member No.: 15



Very, very good points, JRehling. You're absolutely right. And I think JohnVV has a good point, too -- and one that the team who announced this discovery mentioned -- that 452b may very well be a giant Venus at this point, what with the extra insolation it's getting now due to its star's advancing age.

The rate at which water would be driven off by the solar wind, as seems to have happened on Venus, would also depend on whether or not 452b has a magnetic field, would it not?

-the other Doug


--------------------
“The trouble ain't that there is too many fools, but that the lightning ain't distributed right.” -Mark Twain
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mongo
post Aug 6 2015, 01:05 AM
Post #1232


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 723
Joined: 13-June 04
Member No.: 82



A paper with interesting implications is out on arXiv:

High Order Harmonics in Light Curves of Kepler Planets

QUOTE
The Kepler mission was launched in 2009 and has discovered thousands of planet candidates. In a recent paper, Esteves et al. (2013) found a periodic signal in the light curves of KOI-13 and HAT-P-7, with a frequency triple the orbital frequency of a transiting planet. We found similar harmonics in many systems with a high occurrence rate. At this time, the origins of the signal are not entirely certain.

We look carefully at the possibility of errors being introduced through our data processing routines but conclude that the signal is real. The harmonics on multiples of the orbital frequency are a result of non-sinusoidal periodic signals. We speculate on their origin and generally caution that these harmonics could lead to wrong estimates of planet albedos, beaming mass estimates, and ellipsoidal variations.


QUOTE
Tidal effects. By applying the analysis in Morris & Naftilan (1993), we conclude that tidal effects cannot be the sole contributor to high order harmonics. The measured values of the high order harmonics exceeds what tidal effects predict by a range of a factor of 2 up to many orders of magnitude. It is possible that tidal effects between planet-star and star-star are significantly different, but unlikely to make up for the huge orders of magnitude.

Non-sinusoidal periodic light curve variations. In our tests, we found that non-sinusoidal variations can indeed replicate large amplitude higher harmonics, and depending on the shape of the variations, different combinations of higher order harmonics can be excited. Non-sinusoidal light curves might for example be caused by non-isotropic reflection or thermal emission from the planet’s surface.

An error in the Kepler pipeline. Although unlikely, there could in principle be an error introduced early on in the Kepler pipeline. A more sophisticated pixel-level analysis of Kepler data could provide further insight into the signal’s origin.

At the present, we speculate that the most likely cause of these high order harmonics are non-sinusoidal periodic light curve variations. We note that there is a weak correlation between the amplitude of the high order harmonics and the planet’s radius, but no obvious correlation to period.


To me, the most obvious source of "Non-sinusoidal periodic light curve variations" would be permanent or quasi-permanent static features on the visible surface of the planet -- either geological features or (for completely cloud-enshrouded planets) long-lived weather features like Jupiter's Great Red Spot. A first step towards exo-planetary cartography?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JRehling
post Aug 6 2015, 06:36 PM
Post #1233


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2530
Joined: 20-April 05
Member No.: 321



QUOTE (Mongo @ Aug 5 2015, 06:05 PM) *
To me, the most obvious source of "Non-sinusoidal periodic light curve variations" would be permanent or quasi-permanent static features on the visible surface of the planet -- either geological features or (for completely cloud-enshrouded planets) long-lived weather features like Jupiter's Great Red Spot. A first step towards exo-planetary cartography?


The light being detected here is (almost) 100% from the star, not the planet, so features on the planet are completely out of the question as a cause. The Great Red Spot changes Jupiter's light curve (although very slightly), but it doesn't change the Sun's light curve.

My first grasp at an explanation would be that in systems with an observable transiting planet, there may be a large, close-in planet that is not being observed because of orbital inclination, and it is that planet which both locked the observable planet in its orbital period and creates tidal effects that alter the star's light curve.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mongo
post Aug 7 2015, 02:49 PM
Post #1234


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 723
Joined: 13-June 04
Member No.: 82



QUOTE (JRehling @ Aug 6 2015, 07:36 PM) *
The light being detected here is (almost) 100% from the star, not the planet, so features on the planet are completely out of the question as a cause. The Great Red Spot changes Jupiter's light curve (although very slightly), but it doesn't change the Sun's light curve.


From the paper:

Non-sinusoidal light curves might for example be caused by non-isotropic reflection or thermal emission from the planet’s surface.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mongo
post Aug 7 2015, 04:39 PM
Post #1235


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 723
Joined: 13-June 04
Member No.: 82



Is Kepler 452b a Rocky Planet or Not?

A couple of weeks ago, the media was filled with reports about the discovery of Kepler 452b. While NASA’s Kepler mission had found a number of potentially habitable planets earlier, all of these previous discoveries orbited dim K and M-dwarf stars which are very different than our Sun and present a number of still unresolved issues affecting habitability (see A Review of the Best Habitable Planet Candidates in Centauri Dreams for a full review of earlier finds). What made this new Kepler find unique was that Kepler 452b was a nearly-Earth-sized planet orbiting inside the HZ of a Sun-like star – the first of potentially many more such exoplanets to come from the continuing analysis of Kepler’s data set. But being a bit of a skeptic when it comes to often overhyped media reports about the potential habitability of any newly discovered exoplanet, I wanted to dig deeper into this claim.

Is It in the Habitable Zone?

According to the discovery paper submitted for publication in The Astronomical Journal with Jon Jenkins (NASA Ames Research Center) as the lead author, Kepler 452 is a G2 type star like the Sun with a surface temperature of 5757±85 K, a mass of 1.04±0.05 times that of the Sun and a radius of 1.11 +0.15/-0.09 times the Sun’s. Based on these data, it can be calculated that Kepler 452 has a luminosity about 20% greater than that of the Sun making this it a slightly heavier and brighter version of the Sun. Comparison of the known properties of this star with standard models of stellar evolution yields an age of 6±2 billion years or about 1˝ billion years older than the Sun and its system of planets. Compared to the stars earlier announced with potentially habitable exoplanets, Kepler 452 was certainly quite Sun-like.

While a full assessment of the habitability of any exoplanet would require very detailed information about all of its properties, obtaining such information is simply beyond the reach of our current technology. At this early stage in our search for other Earth-like worlds, the best we can do is compare what properties we can derive to our current expectations of the range of properties for habitable worlds to determine if a new find is potentially habitable. One of those important set of properties is the orbit of an exoplanet. According to Jenkins et al., Kepler 452b is in a 384.84-day orbit with an average orbital radius of Kepler 452b is 1.046 +0.019/-0.015 AU. This orbital radius is far outside that where a planet would become tidally locked and be affected by severe stellar flare activity – two unresolved issues that call into question the potential habitability of worlds tightly orbiting much dimmer stars like those found to date.

This orbital radius combined with the stellar properties yields an effective stellar flux for Kepler 452b that is 1.10 +0.29/-0.22 times that the Earth receives from the Sun. This effective stellar flux places Kepler 452b just inside the conservative HZ of a Sun-like star as defined by the runaway greenhouse limit. Given the current uncertainties in the properties of Kepler 452b and the star it orbits, Jenkins et al. calculate that there is only a 28.0% probability that Kepler 452b actually orbits inside of the conservatively defined HZ but there is a 96.8% chance that it orbits inside a more optimistic definition of the HZ corresponding to early conditions on Venus. However, it appears that Jenkins et al. used a definition of the HZ limits for an Earth mass planet. If Kepler 452b has a mass closer to five times that of the Earth (or 5 ME), which is likely to be the case, the effective stellar flux for the inner edge of the HZ increases from 1.10 to 1.18 times that of the Earth raising the chances that Kepler 452b orbits inside of the HZ to probably better than even odds. And since Kepler 452, like all stars, would have been dimmer in its youth, Kepler 452b would have been even more comfortably inside the HZ for billions of years. Considering all these facts combined with the limitations of current models in defining the true inner boundary of the HZ, this is close enough even for this skeptic to consider Kepler 452b as potentially habitable at least in terms of its orbit and effective stellar flux.

Is It a Rocky Planet?

The other important planetary property we can measure using current detection techniques is the size of a planet. Unfortunately, it is here where many past discoveries have run into trouble. It has been suspected for some time now that somewhere between the size of the Earth (or 1 RE) and Neptune with a radius of 4 RE, planets transition from being predominantly rocky with some chance of being habitable like the Earth to being rich in volatiles such as water, hydrogen and helium becoming mini-Neptunes with little chance of being habitable in the conventional sense. Based on recent analyses of Kepler data on the radius of exoplanets smaller than Neptune combined with independently derived masses from radial velocity measurements and other techniques, we now know that this transition from predominantly rocky worlds to predominantly volatile-rich worlds occurs somewhere around 1˝ to 2 RE although the precise value and nature of this transition is uncertain due to the small number of planets with measured radii and precisely determined masses in this size range as well as the measurement uncertainties of those values (see The Transition from Rocky to Non-Rocky Planets in Centauri Dreams).

While many earlier claims of finding potentially habitable planets have run afoul of this transition and turned out to be much more likely to be mini-Neptunes than rocky terrestrial planets, in recent months astronomers have started making some effort to address this issue in discovery papers of potentially habitable planets including Jenkins et al.. Based on the analysis of the Kepler photometric data and the properties of the star, Jenkins et al. report that Kepler 452b has a radius of 1.63 +0.23/-0.20 RE which is close to the transition value. Based on their calculations, Jenkins et al. claimed that there was a better than 50% chance that Kepler 452b is a rocky planet. But how did they arrive at this figure?

Jenkins et al. used two different distributions of probable radius values for Kepler 452b and compared them to two different published mass-radius relationships for sub-Neptune sized planets to calculate the odds that their find has a density consistent with a predominantly rocky composition. The radius value distributions were derived from the measured 1.63 +0.23/-0.20 RE radius of Kepler 452 combined with two different models used to determine the host star’s properties. The first model, SPC (Spectral Parameter Classification), determines the star’s parameters by comparing its spectrum to a collection of synthetically generated stellar spectra to find the best fit. The second model, called SpecMath, is considered more conservative and compares the star’s spectrum to a collection of 800 well-studied stellar spectra to derive the star’s properties.

To calculate the probability that Kepler 452b is a rocky planet based on those radius distributions, Jenkins et al. used two different mass-radius relationships. The first was formulated by graduate student Lauren Weiss and famed exoplanet hunter Geoff Marcy (University of California – Berkeley) which was published in March 2014. Weiss and Marcy fitted radius and mass data for 65 exoplanets to come up with a deterministic mass-radius function where a particular radius value corresponds to a single mass value. While simple, this model admittedly does not reflect the fact that exoplanets with a particular radius value can actually have a range of possible mass values reflecting a variety of bulk compositions.

The second mass-radius relationship used by Jenkins et al. was derived by Angie Wolfgang (University of California – Santa Cruz), Leslie A. Rogers (California Institute of Technology), and Eric B. Ford (Pennsylvania State University) and was submitted for publication in April of 2015. They evaluated data for 90 exoplanets using a hierarchal Bayesian technique which allowed them not only to derive the parameters for a best fit of the available data, but also to quantify the uncertainty in those parameters as well as the distribution of actual planetary mass values. Using their approach, they derived a probabilistic mass-radius relationship where the most likely mass and the distribution of likely values are determined that better reflects the uncertainties in the data and the fact that exoplanets with a particular radius value can have a range of actual masses (for a detailed discussion of this work, see A Mass-Radius Relationship for ‘Sub-Neptunes’ in Centauri Dreams).

Using the radius distributions for Kepler 452b derived from SPC and SpecMath, Jenkins et al. found that the mass-radius relationship created by Weiss and Marcy yielded 64% and 40% probabilities, respectively, that their new find has a bulk density consistent with models of rocky planets. When employing the mass-radius relationship of Wolfgang et al., they found a 49% and 62% probability, respectively, that Kepler 452b is a rocky planet. The average of these results is the origin of the quoted greater than 50% odds that the new find is a rocky planet.

Is It Really a Rocky Planet?

While this is a clever solution to a difficult problem, there are problems with this approach. First of all, while the work of Weiss and Marcy was an excellent first attempt to derive the mass-radius relationship using the newly available Kepler data set, the relationship derived by Wolfgang et al. is superior since it uses more data of higher quality that is analyzed in a mathematically more rigorous way. While Jenkins et al. recognize this and prefer the higher probabilities calculated using Wolfgang et al., they used the parameters of the mass-radius relationship derived using all 90 planets with radii up to 4 RE in the original analysis. Based on earlier work by Leslie Rogers, it was recognized that the transition from being predominantly rocky to predominantly volatile-rich takes place at radius values no greater than 1.6 RE (for a full discussion of this work, see Habitable Planet Reality Check: Terrestrial Planet Size Limit on my web site, Drew Ex Machina).

When Wolfgang et al. analyzed just the subset of exoplanets with radii less than 1.6 RE, they derived different parameters for the mass-radius relationship for these smaller planets. For a planet with a radius of 1.6 RE, for example, the most probable mass when using parameters derived from fitting all planets with radii less than 4 RE, as used by Jenkins et al., comes out to about 5 ME. If the parameters derived from just smaller planets with radii less than or equal to 1.6 RE are used, a smaller probable mass value of 4 ME is found. As a result, the probabilities derived by Jenkins et al. are biased towards higher mass outcomes with corresponding higher probabilities of finding Kepler 452b to be a rocky planet.

A better approach for determining the probability that Kepler 452b is a rocky planet would be to compare its properties directly to the population of exoplanets with known radii and accurately determined masses. Unfortunately, Rogers’ paper does not include a simple function that others can use to calculate such a probability since this was outside the scope of her work. Despite this shortcoming, the title of her paper published in March 2015 in The Astrophysical Journal really says it all: “Most 1.6 Earth-Radius Planets are not Rocky”. In other words, Kepler 452b with a radius of 1.63 RE is most likely not a rocky planet but is a mini-Neptune instead, contrary to the claims by Jenkins et al..

Other astronomers trying to calculate the odds that their finds are rocky planets or not have derived probabilities in different ways. Guillermo Torres (Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics) on January 6, 2015 announced the discovery of eight habitable zone planets using Kepler data where they quantified the probabilities that their finds were rocky (see Habitable Planet Reality Check: 8 New Habitable Zone Planets on my web site, Drew Ex Machina). Although somewhat different from the method used by Rogers, the approach used by Torres et al. to calculate the probability that a planet with a particular radius is rocky gives qualitatively similar results. Using their model, the chances that Kepler 452b is rocky is about 45%. This is closer to the low-end 40% figure derived by Jenkins et al. than the often quoted “greater than 50%” figure.

Unfortunately, the chance that Kepler 452b is a terrestrial planet might not be as good as even 40%. Recent work by Rebekah I. Dawson, Eugene Chiang and Eve J. Lee (University of California – Berkeley) recently submitted for publication in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society strongly suggests that planets with masses greater than about 2 ME (which would have a radius of about 1.2 RE, assuming an Earth-like bulk composition) which orbit stars with a high metallicity are more likely to be mini-Neptunes. This is because stars with higher metallicities tend to have more solid material available to form planetary embryos more quickly making it more likely for them to acquire some gas directly from the protoplanetary disk before it dissipates. Only 1% or 2% of a planet’s total mass in hydrogen and helium is sufficient to puff up its observed radius and make it a mini-Neptune. Stars with lower metallicity values tend to form planetary embryos more slowly and they might not reach the required 2 ME mass threshold fast enough to begin to acquire any more than trace amounts of gas before it has already dissipated from the protoplanetary disk. With a iron-to-hydrogen ratio about 60% higher than the Sun, Kepler 452 has a slightly higher metallicity than the Sun increasing the odds somewhat that Kepler 452b is a mini-Neptune. Taken together with Rogers work, this strongly suggests that the odds that Kepler 452b is a rocky planet are less than 50% not greater as is being claimed.

Conclusion

To be perfectly honest, quibbling over a couple of tens of percent probability one way or the other about the nature of Kepler 452b is most likely not all that important considering the uncertainties in its properties as well as the still substantial uncertainties in the mass-radius relationships available at this time. In the end, we will have to wait for a more definitive derivation of the mass-radius relationship and a more quantitative description of the nature of the transition from rocky planet to mini-Neptune to settle this question more accurately. Despite the outstanding issue of the nature of Kepler 452b, it still has very real prospects of being potentially habitable. But even if it proves not to be, future studies of its properties will provide scientists with vital information on the limits of planetary habitability.

While some might be disappointed by this less rosy assessment, it should be remembered that scientists are still actively analyzing the Kepler data set and performing follow up observations. There are already several potentially habitable Earth-size planet candidates found orbiting Sun-like stars that are being actively studied by members of the Kepler science team and their colleagues. It is only a matter of time before the discovery of true “Earth twins” is announced.

The preprint of the Kepler 452b discovery paper by Jenkins et al., “Discovery and Validation of Kepler-452b: A 1.6-RE Super Earth Exoplanet in the Habitable Zone of a G2 Star”, can be found here.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JRehling
post Aug 7 2015, 06:13 PM
Post #1236


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2530
Joined: 20-April 05
Member No.: 321



QUOTE (Mongo @ Aug 7 2015, 07:49 AM) *
From the paper:

Non-sinusoidal light curves might for example be caused by non-isotropic reflection or thermal emission from the planet’s surface.


I stand corrected, Mongo! Although, like work on the Pioneer acceleration anomaly, I think some of what they're including is to be logically inclusive and at the far ranges of plausibility.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ZLD
post Aug 7 2015, 10:08 PM
Post #1237


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 555
Joined: 27-September 10
Member No.: 5458



Thats a lot of great information mongo. Depending on the trajectory change(s), perhaps New Horizons could get an extended mission to view transits of the local planets to further the understanding of mass and radius, though I think its probably too far out of the ecliptic.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JRehling
post Aug 8 2015, 04:16 AM
Post #1238


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2530
Joined: 20-April 05
Member No.: 321



QUOTE (ZLD @ Aug 7 2015, 03:08 PM) *
Thats a lot of great information mongo. Depending on the trajectory change(s), perhaps New Horizons could get an extended mission to view transits of the local planets to further the understanding of mass and radius, though I think its probably too far out of the ecliptic.


Do you mean local extrasolar planets? New Horizon's location would have almost zero effect on whether or not it would witness transits of any given extrasolar planet. The distance it has traveled from Earth is negligible compared to interstellar distances.

Also, it is not designed to perform precision photometry. And even if it were, that wouldn't provide any information about mass.

I'm not sure what you're proposing here. I may have misunderstood.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Explorer1
post Aug 8 2015, 04:25 AM
Post #1239


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2073
Joined: 13-February 10
From: Ontario
Member No.: 5221



I remember Deep Impact had an extended mission that did this sort of thing, but the HRI on that was quite different from LORRI, right?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
brellis
post Aug 8 2015, 06:29 AM
Post #1240


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 754
Joined: 9-February 07
Member No.: 1700



Perhaps ZLD is referring to having NH look back at our own solar system to view transits?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ZLD
post Aug 8 2015, 08:38 AM
Post #1241


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 555
Joined: 27-September 10
Member No.: 5458



brellis had the right idea. Its a pretty slim shot that there would be any transits between NH and the sun that would be measurable. All of the planets would miss the plane of view I think but I was thinking large asteroids, comets or KBOs that might transit after the current proposed extended mission. Was only considering that NH has a unique view of the Solar System where the Sun isn't anything but another star and this effect is just going to grow 5 years from now. May not be precise enough, as mentioned though.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JRehling
post Aug 9 2015, 10:58 AM
Post #1242


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2530
Joined: 20-April 05
Member No.: 321



NH looking back at the Sun could "see" in the form of transits any object that happened to pass through the tiny fraction of its FOV that wandered into the way of the Sun, and an unknown asteroid (25 km) would block such a tiny fraction of the Sun's light that the signal would be impossible to pull out of the noise.

Meanwhile, a telescope on Earth looking back at the same object would be able to detect any such object against the black background, regardless of its position, and the signal to noise would be much greater.

Basically, any amateur with a 3" scope is better suited to find asteroids than NH looking for them to transit the Sun.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ZLD
post Aug 9 2015, 12:58 PM
Post #1243


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 555
Joined: 27-September 10
Member No.: 5458



The point wouldn't be to find new objects. The point was to look at known objects so that we could get a better understanding of the mass-radius of <1.6RE bodies. If we could view distant transits of objects that otherwise have a pretty good estimated mass already, it would give a little in the way of a control for the mass-radius relationship that is being disputed among scientists.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JRehling
post Aug 10 2015, 03:59 AM
Post #1244


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2530
Joined: 20-April 05
Member No.: 321



There are no distant objects with a good estimated mass, besides the few with an orbiting companion or that a spacecraft has flown by closely. Small objects have very little gravity and don't influence other objects unless they are exceedingly close.

Even if an object transited the Sun as seen from NH, the signal-to-noise would be much worse than observing the same object from Earth against a black background. It is nearly impossible to notice the signal even of Mercury transiting the Sun vs. the noise, and every object larger than Mercury has already been measured very well.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hendric
post Aug 10 2015, 05:41 PM
Post #1245


Director of Galilean Photography
***

Group: Members
Posts: 896
Joined: 15-July 04
From: Austin, TX
Member No.: 93



For measuring transiting exoplanets, having a defocused image is actually better than an in-focus image - spreading out the signal helps prevent saturation of the star's light on the imager. Deep Impact's EPOCh (part of the EPOXI extended misision) used the HRIs aberration in a similar way.

Assume the PSF for LORRI is 1 pixel - then the minimum signal detection is the change of that pixel by 1 unit. At far distances, the change in signal due to an eclipse is going to be the ratio of the effective sky area of the two objects, or Re^2/Rs^2. So the effect of the Earth on the Sun's brightness would be 3.2e-5, or assuming 12 bit pixels, about .13 units. So a perfect LORRI with no noise could not detect the Earth pass in front of a perfect Sun with no noise. Now, if the PSF spread out over 100 pixels, then you can detect a change of 1/sqrt(100) or .1 units across all the pixels (I think it's sqrt because that's normally how signal adds on more samples), so just barely detectable assuming perfect conditions.


--------------------
Space Enthusiast Richard Hendricks
--
"The engineers, as usual, made a tremendous fuss. Again as usual, they did the job in half the time they had dismissed as being absolutely impossible." --Rescue Party, Arthur C Clarke
Mother Nature is the final inspector of all quality.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

85 Pages V  « < 81 82 83 84 85 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 28th March 2024 - 07:44 PM
RULES AND GUIDELINES
Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting.

IMAGE COPYRIGHT
Images posted on UnmannedSpaceflight.com may be copyrighted. Do not reproduce without permission. Read here for further information on space images and 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.