The Architecture of Solar Systems

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
The architecture of planetary systems is an increasingly important factor to exoplanet scientists.  This illustration shows the Kepler-11 system where the planets are all roughly the same size and their orbits spaced at roughly the same distances from each other.  The the planets are, in the view of scientists involved with the study, “peas in a pod.” (NASA)

Before the discovery of the first exoplanet that orbits a star like ours, 51 Pegasi b, the assumption of solar system scientists was that others planetary systems that might exist were likely to be like ours.  Small rocky planets in the inner solar system, big gas giants like Jupiter, Saturn and Neptune beyond and, back then, Pluto bringing up the rear

But 51 Peg b broke every solar system rule imaginable.  It was a giant and hot Jupiter-size planet, and it was so close to its star that it orbited in a little over four days.  Our Jupiter takes twelve years to complete an orbit.

This was the “everything we knew about solar systems is wrong” period, and twenty years later thinking about the nature and logic of solar system architecture remains very much in flux.

But progress is being made, even if the results are sometimes quite confounding. The umbrella idea is no longer that solar, or planetary, systems are pretty much like ours, but rather that the galaxy is filled with a wild diversity of both planets and planetary systems.

Detecting and trying to understand planetary systems is today an important focus 0f  exoplanet study, especially now that the Kepler Space Telescope mission has made clear that multi-planet systems are common.

As of early July, 632 multi planet systems have been detected and 2,841 stars are known to have at least one exoplanets.  Many of those stars with a singular planet may well have others yet to be found.

An intriguing newcomer to the diversity story came recently from University of Montreal astronomer Lauren Weiss, who with colleagues expanded on and studied some collected Kepler data.

What she found has been deemed the “peas in a pod” addition to the solar system menagerie.

Weiss was working with the California-Kepler Survey, which included a team of scientists pouring over, elaborating on and looking for patterns in, among other things, solar system architectures.

Weiss is part of the California-Kepler Survey team, which used the Keck Observatory to obtain high-resolution spectra of 1305 stars hosting 2025 transiting planets originally discovered by Kepler.

From these spectra, they measured precise sizes of the stars and their planets, looking for patterns in, among other things, solar system architectures.  They focused on 909 planets belonging to 355 multi-planet systems. By improving the measurements of the radii of the stars, Weiss said, they were able to recalculate the radii of all the planets.

So Weiss studied hundreds systems and did find a number of surprising, unexpected patterns.

In many systems, the planets were all roughly the same size as the planet in orbit next to them. (No tiny-Mars-to-gigantic-Jupiter transitions.)  This kind of planetary architecture was not found everywhere but it was quite common — more common than random planet sizing would predict.

“The effect showed up with smaller planets and larger ones,” Weiss told me during last week’s University of Cambridge Exoplanets2 conference. “The planets in each system seemed to know about the sizes of the neighbors,” and for thus far unknown reasons maintained those similar sizes.

What’s more, Weiss and her colleagues found that the orbits of these “planets in a pod” were generally an equal distance apart in “multi” of three planets or more. In other words, the distance between the orbits of planet A and planet B was often the same distance as between the orbits of planet B and planet C.

Lauren Weiss at the W.M Keck Observatory.

So not only were many of the planets almost the same size, but they were in orbits spaced at distances from each other that were once again much more similar than a random distribution would predict. In the Astronomical Journal article where she and her colleagues described the phenomena, they also found a “wall” defining how close together the planets orbited.

The architecture of these systems, Weiss said, reflected the shapes and sizes of the protoplanetary in which they were formed.  And it would appear that the planets had not been disrupted by larger planets that can dramatically change the structure of a solar system — as happened with Jupiter in our own.

But while those factors explain some of what was found, Weiss said other astrophysical dynamics needed to be at play as well to produce this common architecture.  The stability of the system, for instance, would be compromised if the orbits were closer than that “wall,” as the gravitational pull of the planets would send them into orbits that would ultimately result in collisions.

The improved spectra of the Kepler planets were obtained from 2011 to 2015, and the targets are mostly located between 1,000 and 4,000 light-years away from Earth.

The architectures of California-Kepler study multi-planet systems with four planets or more.  Each row corresponds to the planets around one and the circles represent the radii of planets in the system.  Note how many have lines of planets that are roughly the same size. (Lauren Weiss, The Astronomical Journal.)

Planetary system architecture was a significant topic at the Cambridge Exoplanets2 conference.  While the detection of individual exoplanets remains important in the field, it is often treated as a precursor to the ultimate detection of systems with more planets. 

The TRAPPIST-1 system, discovered in 2015 by a Belgian team, is probably the most studied and significant of those discovered so far.

The ultra-cool dwarf star hosts seven Earth-sized, temperate exoplanets in or near the “habitable zone.” As described by one of those responsible for the discovery, Brice-Olivier Demory of the Center for Space and Habitability University of Bern, the system “represents a unique setting to study the formation and evolution of terrestrial planets that formed in the same protoplanetary disk.”

The Trappist-1 architecture features not only the seven rocky planets, but also a resonance system whereby the planets orbits at paces directly related to the planets nearby them.  In other words, one planet may make two orbits in exactly the time that it takes for the next planet to make three orbits.

All the Trappist-1 planets are in resonance to another system planet, though they are not all in resonance to each other.

The animation above from the NASA Ames Research Center shows the orbits of the Trappist-1 system.  The planets pass so close to one another that gravitational interactions are significant, and to remain stable the orbital periods are nearly resonant. In the time the innermost planet completes eight orbits, the second, third, and fourth planets complete five, three, and two respectively.

The system is very flat and compact. All seven of TRAPPIST-1’s planets orbit much closer to their star than Mercury orbits the sun. Except for TRAPPIST-1b, they orbit farther than the Galilean moons — three of which are also in resonance around Jupiter.

The distance between the orbits of TRAPPIST-1b and TRAPPIST-1c is only 1.6 times the distance between the Earth and the Moon.  A year on the closest planet passes in only 1.5 Earth days, while the seventh planet’s year passes in only 18.8 days.

Given the packed nature of the system, the planets have to be in particular orbits that keep them from colliding.  But they also have to be in orbits that ensure that all or most of the planets aren’t on the same side of the star, creating a severe imbalance that would result in chaos.

“The Trappist-1 system has entered into a zone of stability,” Demory told me, also at the Exoplanets2 conference.  “We think of it as a Darwinian effect — the system survives because of that stability created through the resonance.  Without the stability, it would die. ”

He said the Trappist-1 planets were most likely formed away from their star and migrated inward.  The system had rather a long time to form, between seven and eight billion years.

The nature of some of the systems now being discovered brings to mind that early reaction to the detection of 51 Pegasi b, the world’s first known exoplanet.

The prevailing consensus that extra-solar systems would likely be similar to ours was turned on its head by the giant planet’s closeness to its host star.  For a time many astronomers thought that hot Jupiter planets would be found to be common.

But 20 years later they know that hot Jupiters — and the planetary architecture they create — are rather unusual, like the architecture of our own solar system.

With each new discovery of a planetary system, the understanding grows that while solar systems are governed by astrophysical forces, they nonetheless come in all sizes and shapes. Diversity is what binds them together.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Marc Kaufman
Marc Kaufman is the author of two books about space: "Mars Up Close: Inside the Curiosity Mission” and “First Contact: Scientific Breakthroughs in the Search for Life Beyond Earth.” He is also an experienced journalist, having spent three decades at The Washington Post and The Philadelphia Inquirer. While the “Many Worlds” column is supported and informed by NASA’s Astrobiology Program, any opinions expressed are the author’s alone.

To contact Marc, send an email to marc.kaufman@manyworlds.space.

Exoplanet Science Flying High

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
An artist’s concept shows what the TRAPPIST-1 planetary system may look like, based on available data about the planets’ diameters, masses and distances from the host star, as of February 2018. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech

 

Early this spring, the organizers of an exoplanet science gathering at Cambridge University put out the word that they would host a major meeting this summer.  Within a week, the 300 allotted slots had been filled by scientists aspiring and veteran, and within a short time the waiting list was up to 150 more.

Not the kind of reaction you might expect for a hardcore, topic-specific meeting, but exoplanet science is now in a phase of enormous growth and excitement.  With so many discoveries already made and waiting to be made, so many new (and long-standing) questions to be worked on, so much data coming in to be analyzed and turned into findings,  the field has something of a golden shine.

What’s more, it has more than a little of the feel of the Wild West.

Planet hunters Didier Queloz and Michel Mayor at the European Southern Observatory’s La Silla site. (L. Weinstein/Ciel et Espace Photos)

Didier Queloz, a professor now at Cambridge but in the mid 1990s half of the team that identified the first exoplanet, is the organizer of the conference.

“It sometimes seems like there’s not much exploration to be done on Earth, and the opposite is the case with exoplanets,” he told me outside the Cambridge gathering.

“I think a lot of young scientists are attracted to the excitement of exoplanets, to a field where there’s so much that isn’t known or understood.”

Michel Mayor of the Observatory of Geneva — and the senior half of the team that detected the first exoplanet orbiting a star like our sun, 51 Pegasi b– had opened the gathering with a history of the search for extra-solar planets.

That search had some conceptual success prior to the actual 1995 announcement of an exoplanet discovery, but several claims of having actually found an exoplanet had been made and shown to be wanting.  Except for the relative handful of scientists personally involved, the field was something of a sideshow.

“At the time we made our first discovery, I basically knew everyone in the field.  We were on our own.”

Now there are thousands of people, many of them young people, studying exoplanets.  And the young people, they have to be smarter, more clever, because the questions are harder.”

And enormous progress is being made.

The pace of discovery is charted here by Princeton University physicist and astronomer Joshua Winn. First is a graphic of all the 3,735 exoplanet discoveries made since 1995, and then the 1943 planets found just from 2016 to today.

The total number and distribution of known exoplanets, identified by the mass of the planet and their distance from their host star. A legend to the four major techniques for finding exoplanets is in the lower right The circled planets in green are those in our solar system. All the data comes from the NASA Exoplanet archive. (Joshua Winn, Princeton University)

 

Based on published papers, Winn found that the discovery of 1,943 new planets had been announced in papers between 2016 and today. Winn said the number is not formal as some debate remains whether a small number are planets or not.

Many of the planets discovered via the transit method come from the Kepler and K2 missions.  Kepler revolutionized the field with its four years of intensively observing a region of the sky for planet transits in front of their star.

The K2 mission began after the second of Kepler’s four stabilizing wheels failed. But adjustments were made and the second incarnation of Kepler has continued to find planets, though in a different way.

While a majority of exoplanets have been detected via the transit method, the first exoplanet was discovered by Mayor and Queloz via the radial velocity method — which involves ground-based measurements of the “wobble” of a star caused by the gravitational pull of a planet.

Many astronomers continue to use the technique because it provides more information about the minimum mass and orbital eccentricity of planet.  In addition, two high-precision, next-generation spectrometers for radial velocity measuring are now coming on line and are expected to significantly improve the detection of smaller planets using that method.

One is the ESPRESSO instrument (the Echelle SPectrograph for Rocky Exoplanet and Stable Spectroscopic) recently installed by the European Southern Observatory on the Very Large Telescope in Chile. The other newcomer is EXPRES, developed by scientists at Yale University, with support for the National Science Foundation.  The instrument, designed go look for Earth-sized planets, has been installed on the Lowell Observatory Discovery Channel Telescope in Arizona.

 

The Echelle SPectrograph for Rocky Exoplanet and Stable Spectroscopic Observations (ESPRESSO) will search for exoplanets with unprecedented precision by looking at the minuscule changes in the properties of light coming from their host stars. This picture shows the front-end structure where the light beams coming from the four Very Large Telescopes are brought together and fed into fibers. They then deliver the photons to a spectrograph in another room, which makes the radial velocity measurements. (Giorgio Calderone, INAF Trieste)

The conference, which will go through the week, focuses both generally and in great detail on many of the core questions of the field:  how exoplanets are formed, what kind of stars are likely to produce what kinds of planets, the makeup and dynamics of exoplanet atmospheres, planet migration, the architecture of planetary systems.

And, of course, where new exoplanets might be found.  (Mostly around red dwarf stars, several scientists argued, and many in the relatively near neighborhood.)

Notably, many of the exoplanet questions being studied have clear implications for better understanding our own solar system.  In fact, it is often said that we won’t really understand the workings and history of our solar system, planets, moons, asteroids and more until we know a lot more about the billions and billion of other planetary systems in our galaxy.

Also notable for this conference is the lack of emphasis on biosignatures, habitability and the search for life beyond Earth.  The conference is billed as being about “exoplanet science,” and Queloz explained the absence of habitability and life-detection talks was based on the scientific progress made, or not made, in the past two years.

When it comes to planet detection, however, theory and practice are coming together in searches for exoplanets around smaller and cooler stars, and even around young stars where planets are just forming.  Such a planet discovery was announced this week coming from the European Space Agency’s Spectro-Polarimetric High-contrast Exoplanet REsearch (SPHERE) instrument.

 

The first clear image of a planet caught while being formed,around the dwarf star PDS 70. The planet is visible as a bright point to the right of center. The star at the center is blacked out by a coronagraph mask that blocks its blinding light. The SPHERE instrument is on the European Southern Observatory’s Very Large Telescope (A. Müller et al./ESO)

 

The Cambridge exoplanet conference is the second in a series begun two years ago by Queloz and Kevin Heng, an exoplanet atmosphere theoretician at the University of Bern and director of the Center for Space and Habitability.

The two had been struck by how European exoplanet conferences seemed to be dominated by senior scientists, with little time or space for the many younger men and women coming up in the field.  The presentations also seemed more long and formal than needed.

So using funds from their own institutions to seed the conferences, Heng set up the first in Davos, Switzerland and Didier the second in Cambridge.  The idea has caught on, and similar gathering are now scheduled at two year intervals in Heidelberg, Las Vegas, Amsterdam, Porto and hopefully later in Asia, too.

There is no dearth of other exoplanet gatherings around the world, and attendees report that they are also very well attended.

But given sheer amount of work now being done in the field that was so lonely only twenty years ago,  they surely appear to be warranted.

And newsworthy, though no always reportable.

Three of the papers discussed in the Cambridge conference, for instance, are under reporting embargo from the journal Nature. And information from George Ricker, principal investigator for NASA’s Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS), about the early days of the mission are also under embargo.  Suffice it to say, however, that Ricker reported that things are going well for the exoplanet-hunting telescope.

 

This test image from one of the four cameras aboard the Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS) captures a swath of the southern sky along the plane of our galaxy. TESS is designed to study exoplanets around the brightest stars, and is expected to cover more than 400 times the amount of sky shown in this image. (NASA/MIT/TESS)

While the initial discovery of an exoplanet was difficult for sure, what the much, much larger field is grappling with now is clearly even more challenging.  With that in mind, I asked Queloz what he hoped to see from exoplanets in the years ahead.

“We have reached the point where we know stars usually have planets.  But what we are still looking for is an Earth twin — a planet clearly like ours.  That we have not found.  Before I retire, what I hope for is the discovery of that Earth twin.”

 

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Marc Kaufman
Marc Kaufman is the author of two books about space: "Mars Up Close: Inside the Curiosity Mission” and “First Contact: Scientific Breakthroughs in the Search for Life Beyond Earth.” He is also an experienced journalist, having spent three decades at The Washington Post and The Philadelphia Inquirer. While the “Many Worlds” column is supported and informed by NASA’s Astrobiology Program, any opinions expressed are the author’s alone.

To contact Marc, send an email to marc.kaufman@manyworlds.space.

Asteroid Remains Around Dead Stars Reveal the Likely Fate of Our Solar System

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Artist concept of an asteroid breaking up. (NASA/JPL-Caltech)

(This column was written by my colleague Elizabeth Tasker, now at the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA), Institute of Space and Astronautical Sciences (ISAS).  Trained as an astrophysicist, she researches planet and galaxy formation and also writes on space science topics.  Her book, “The Planet Factory,” came out last year.)

June 30th has been designated “Asteroid Day” to promote awareness of these small members of our solar system. But while asteroids are often discussed in the context of the risk they might pose to the Earth, their chewed up remains around other stars may also reveal the fate of our solar system.

It is 6.5 billion years into our future. The sun has fused hydrogen into a core of heavier helium. Compressed by its own gravity, the helium core releases heat and the sun begins to swell. It is the end of our star’s life, but what will happen to the solar system?

While very massive stars end their element-fusing days in a colossal explosion known as a supernovae, the majority of stars in our galaxy will take a less dramatic exit.

Our sun’s helium core will fuse to form carbon but there is not enough mass to achieve the crushing compression needed for the creation of heavier elements. Instead, the outer layers of the dying star will be blown away to leave a dense remnant with half the mass of our current sun, but squeezed down to the size of the Earth. This is a white dwarf; the most common of all stellar ends.

 

The life cycle of our sun

The white dwarf rapidly cools to become a dim twinkle in the sky. Within a few million years, our white dwarf will be less luminous that the sun today. Within 100 million years, it will be dimmer by a factor of 100. But examination of white dwarfs in our galaxy reveals this gentle dimming of the lights is not as peaceful as first appears.

The remnants of stars too light to fuse carbon, white dwarfs have atmospheres that should be thin shells of residue hydrogen and helium. Instead, observations have detected 20 different heavy elements in this envelope of gases that include rock-forming elements such as silicon and iron and volatiles such as carbon and nitrogen.

Infrared observations of over forty white dwarfs have additionally revealed compact dusty discs circling the dead stars. Sitting within the radius of a regular star, these could not have formed before the star shrank into a white dwarf. These must be the remains of what occurred as the star morphed from a regular fusion burner into a white dwarf.

This grizzly tale begins with the star’s expansion. Inflated by the heat from the helium core, our sun will increase to 230 times its current size. The outer layers will cool to emit a red hue that earns this bloated dying star the name “red giant”.

The outer layers of our red giant will sweep outwards and engulf Mercury and Venus, possibly stopping just short of the Earth’s position. But for any life remaining on our planet’s surface, the difference between envelopment and near-envelopment is rather moot.

The sun’s luminosity will peak at about 4000 times its current value, roasting Mars and triggering a whole new set of chemical reactions in Jupiter’s huge atmosphere. As the outer layers blow away and the red giant shrinks in mass, the surviving planets will drift outwards onto longer orbits, circling the white dwarf remnant at around twice their current distance from the sun.

The asteroids in our solar system discovered between 1980 – 2015. (Scott Manley)

But if the surviving planets are pushed outwards and the innermost worlds engulfed and vaporized, what is the origin of the compact disc and rocky pollutants? The answer, explains Dimitri Veras, explains Dimitri Veras, a planetary scientist at the University of Warwick in the UK, is asteroids.

Sitting between Mars and Jupiter, the asteroid belt is a band of rocky rubble left over from the planet formation process.

Occasionally, a kick from Jupiter’s gravity can send these space rocks skittering towards the Earth. These become known as “Near-Earth Objects” (NEOs) and are studied both for the potential threat to our planet should they collide, and also for their scientific value as time capsules from the earliest stages of planet formation.

At the moment, two missions are en-route to bring a sample from two different asteroids back to Earth. Japan’s Hayabusa2 mission has just arrived at asteroid Ryugu, returning stunning images of the asteroid to Earth. The NASA OSIRIS-REx mission is traveling to asteroid Bennu, and will arrive later this year.

 

Asteroid Ryugu images by the ONC-T camera onboard Hayabusa2 between June 18 – 20, 2018.  (JAXA, University of Tokyo, Kochi University, Rikkyo University, Nagoya University, Chiba Institute of Technology, Meiji University, University of Aizu and AIST)

 

But sitting further out than Mars, should not the majority of these small celestial bodies be unaffected by the sun’s demise? The problem turns out to be radiation.

Walk outside on a sunny afternoon and you are likely to notice that the ground beneath your feet is hottest at around 2pm in the afternoon, several hours after the sun has moved from directly overhead. This is because it takes time for the pavement to warm and re-emit the solar radiation as heat.

During that time, the Earth has rotated so that this heat radiation is released in a different direction to the absorbed radiation. Like catching a ball and throwing it away at an angle, this difference in direction gives the planet a small kick.

This kick is too small to make a difference to the Earth, but it can have a much more significant result on the evolution of an asteroid. The result is known as the YORP effect (standing for the Yarkovsky-O’Keefe-Radviesvki-Paddock effect, after the mouthful of researchers who developed the theory) and the related phenomenon named after the same first researcher, the Yarkovsky effect. Stemming from the push due to the uneven absorption and emission of radiation, the YORP effect causes a turning torque on asymmetric bodies while the Yarkovsky effect results in a push.

 

The Yarkovsky Effect describes how outgoing infrared radiation on an asteroid can speed up or slow down its motion, and in time change its orbit.  (A. Angelich, NRAO/AUI/NSF)

 

As radiation absorption and emission depends on the individual asteroid’s composition and topology, these forces are immensely hard to predict. This point was driven home in February 2013, when the world was primed for the close approach of asteroid Duende.

While everyone watched the sky in one direction, a second asteroid shot towards the Earth and exploded above Russia. This was the Chelyabinsk meteorite whose collisional path had not been anticipated. Studying the changes in an asteroid’s path due to radiation is therefore one of the primary goals of the OSIRIS-REx mission.

Given these challenges at the sun’s current level of radiation, it perhaps is not surprising that the red giant phase has more violent consequences.

Too small for gravity to pull them into a sphere, asteroids are typically lumpy rocks resembling potatoes or dumplings, like the rocky destination of Hayabusa2 and its predecessor which visited asteroid Itokawa. This asymmetry causes differences in the radiative force across the asteroid and creates a torque. This is the YORP effect and it spins the asteroid. As these small bodies typically have a weak tensile strength, the asteroid can self-destruct by spinning itself to pieces.

This effect is seen in our solar system as there is a sharp cut-off in the population for asteroids around 250m in size with rotation periods shorter than 2.33 hours.

As the radiation from our swollen red giant beats down on the asteroid belt, these space rocks will start to spin and fission. The pieces will form a disc of dust around the dying star as it becomes a white dwarf, slowly accreting onto the dead remnant to pollute its atmosphere .

So is this now the end of our tale? A white dwarf surrounded by the fissioned remains of the asteroid belt, orbited by our more distant planets on wide orbits? It could be, depending on the existence of Planet 9.

Proposed by Mike Brown and Konstantin Batygin at the California Institute of Technology, Planet 9 is a possible addition to our solar system that sits on a very distant orbit beyond Neptune. Its presence is suggested by the alignment of six small objects in the Kuiper belt, a second outer band of rocky rubble that includes the dwarf planet, Pluto.

How Planet 9 might have formed remains a subject of debate. A likely scenario is that the planet formed in the neighborhood of the gas giants, but was thrown outwards in a game of gravitational pinball during a chaotic period as our planet-forming disc was evaporating. If this is true, the planet may be able to enact a terrible revenge.

 

The six most distant objects in the solar system with orbits exclusively beyond Neptune (magenta) all line up in a single direction, indicating the presence of an outside force from an unseen Planet 9. (Caltech/R. Hurt; IPAC)

Running a set of 300 simulations, Veras discovered that the fate of Planet 9 will depend on the planet mass, the distance of its current orbit and how rapidly the sun loses its mass. In the most benign outcome, Planet 9 meets the same fate as the gas giants and drifts outwards onto an even longer orbit. However, there are two situations in which this expansion causes the orbit of Planet 9 to bend.

If a star loses mass gradually, then the orbiting planets will gently spiral outwards and keep their nearly circular paths. But if the stellar mass loss is more rapid, then very distant planets that are more loosely held by the star’s gravity may undergo a runaway expansion of their orbits. As the planet shoots away, its orbit can become bent into an ellipse.

Dimitri Veras is an astrophysicist who researches the contents of planetary systems, including our own, at the University of Warwick, United Kingdom.

Such distant worlds also risk becoming susceptible to the gravitational tug of the surrounding stars in the galaxy. Known as the “galactic tide”, this force is much too weak to affect the planets in their current positions. Yet if Planet 9 drifts too far outwards, then the tidal forces could become strong enough to bend the planet’s orbit.

On an elliptical path, Planet 9 could move from its distant location to swing into the neighborhood of the gas giants. If the planet is massive enough, this could result in either Uranus or Neptune being ejected from the solar system to become rogue worlds: a fitting, final revenge for Planet 9.

Veras’s calculations suggest the most risky discovery for internal harmony would be a Jupiter-sized Planet 9 on an orbit beyond 300 AU, or 300 times the current distance between the Earth and the sun. For comparison, Neptune sits at 30 AU and the dwarf planet Sedna is three times as far, at about 86 AU. Alternatively, a smaller super-Earth Planet 9 could pose a risk if it was further out than 3000 AU.

Observing the gory remains of this process in other star systems provides us with more than just an eerie snapshot of our future. The crushed up asteroids in the atmosphere of white dwarfs reveal the composition of that planetary system.

“There’s no other way of performing an exoplanet autopsy,” explains Veras.

The results can reveal whether the asteroids and planets that orbited the star have a similar composition to our own or something more exotic. So-called “carbon worlds” have been proposed to orbit stars more carbon-rich than our own, whose rocky base may contain graphite and diamond rather than silicates.

So far, the planet autopsy has shown Earth-like remnants, but this is one area in which we would love to see more dead remains.

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Marc Kaufman
Marc Kaufman is the author of two books about space: "Mars Up Close: Inside the Curiosity Mission” and “First Contact: Scientific Breakthroughs in the Search for Life Beyond Earth.” He is also an experienced journalist, having spent three decades at The Washington Post and The Philadelphia Inquirer. While the “Many Worlds” column is supported and informed by NASA’s Astrobiology Program, any opinions expressed are the author’s alone.

To contact Marc, send an email to marc.kaufman@manyworlds.space.

Back to the Future on the Moon

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
There have been no humans on the surface of the moon since the Apollo program ended in 1972.  Now, in addition to NASA, space agencies in India, China, Russia, Japan and Europe and developing plans to land humans on the moon. (NASA/Robin Lee)

What does NASA’s drive to return to the moon have to do with worlds of exoplanets and astrobiology that are generally discussed here?  The answer is actually quite a lot.

Not so much about the science, although current NASA plans would certainly make possible some very interesting science regarding humans living in deep space, as well as some ways to study the moon, Earth and our sun.

But it seems especially important now to look at what NASA and others have in mind regarding our moon because the current administration has made a top priority of returning landers and humans to there, prospecting for resources on the moon and ultimately setting up a human colony on the moon.

This has been laid out in executive directives and now is being translated into funding for NASA (and commercial) missions and projects.

There are at least two significant NASA projects specific to the moon initiative now planned, developed and in some cases funded.  They are the placement of a small space station that would orbit the moon, and simultaneously a series of robotic moon landings — to be conducted by commercial ventures but carrying NASA and other instruments from international and other commercial partners.

The goal is to start small and gradually increase the size of the landers until they are large enough to carry astronauts.

And the same growth line holds for the overall moon mission.  The often-stated goal is to establish a colony on the moon that will be a signal expansion of the reach of humanity and possibly a significant step towards sending humans further into space.

A major shift in NASA focus is under way and, most likely in the years ahead, a shift in NASA funding.

Given the potential size and importance of the moon initiative — and its potential consequences for NASA space science — it seems valuable to both learn more about it.

 

Cislunar space is, generally speaking, the area region between the Earth and the moon. Always changing because of the movements of the two objects.

Development work is now under way for what is considered to be the key near-term and moon-specific project.  It used to be called the the Deep Space Gateway as part of the Obama administration proposal for an asteroid retrieval mission, but now it’s the Lunar Orbital Platform-Gateway (LOP-G.)

If built, the four-person space station would serve as a quasi-permanent outpost orbiting the moon that advocates say would enhance exploration and later commercial exploitation of the moon.  It would provide a training area and safe haven for astronauts, could become a center for moon, Earth and solar science, and could continue and expand the international cooperation nurtured on the International Space Station (ISS) project for several decades.

In its Gateway Memorandum, published last month, NASA and the administration also made clear that the station would have, as a central goal, geopolitical importance.

As stated in the memorandum, “the next step in human spaceflight is the establishment of U.S. preeminence in cislunar space through the operations and the deployment of a U.S.-led lunar orbital platform,  “Gateway.”  (“Cislunar space” is the region lying  between the Earth and the moon.)

The administration requested $500 million for planning the LOP-G project in fiscal 2019.  The first component to be built and hopefully launched into cislunar space under the plan is the “power and propulsion element.”

 

An artist version of a completed Gateway spaceport with the Orion capsule approaching. (NASA)

Five companies have put together proposals for the “PPE,” and NASA officials have said they are ready to move ahead with procurement.

During a March meeting of the NASA Advisory Council’s human exploration and operations committee, Michele Gates, director of the Power and Propulsion Element at NASA Headquarters, said the agency will be ready to move ahead with procurement of the module when the five industry proposals are completed.

Some of those companies had been involved in studies for the cancelled Asteroid Redirect Mission and Gates said, “Our strategy is to leverage all of the work that’s been done, including on the Asteroid Redirect Mission.”

Five different companies have contracts to design possible space station habitation modules as well.

So the plan has some momentum.  If all moves ahead as described, NASA will launch the components of the Gateway in the early to mid 2020s.  More than a dozen international agencies have voiced interest in joining the project, including European, Japanese, Canadian and other ISS partners.

As part of that outreach, an informal partnership agreement has already been signed with Roscosmos, the Russian space agency, with the possibility of using a future Russian heavy rocket to help build the station and ferry crew.

 

Astronaut John Young of the Apollo 16 mission on the moon. The primary goal of the NASA moon initiative is to return astronauts to the surface.(NASA)

The other NASA moon initiative involves an effort to send many robotic landers to the moon to look for potential water and fuel (hydrogen) to be collected for a cislunar and ultimately lunar economy.

NASA had worked for some time on what was called a Resource Prospector, a mission to study water ice and other volatiles at the lunar poles.  But this spring NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine announced the Prospector was being cancelled because it was not suited to the what is called the new Exploration Campaign — NASA’s concept for a series of missions that will initially use small, commercially developed landers, followed by larger landers.

So the Prospector project is now considered “too limited in scope for the agency’s expanded lunar exploration focus,” the agency said in a statement. “NASA’s return to the moon will include many missions to locate, extract and process elements across bigger areas of the lunar surface.”

The agency also says it will rely on private companies to design and build the landers, as well as launching them into space.

So these are the out-of-the gate projects NASA has in mind for the moon. They, however, are hardly where the big money is going.  That is directed to the heavy rocket under development and construction for more than a decade (the Space Launch System, or SLS) and the Orion space capsule.

They are designed to be the main conduits to the Gateway and perhaps beyond some day, and they have been enormously costly to build — at least $22 billion to construct up through 2021, NASA officials told the Government Accounting Office in 2014. And that doesn’t include the more costly second SLS rocket scheduled for 2023 with a crew aboard.

What’s more, it is estimated to cost at least $1.5 billion to launch each SLS/Orion voyage in years ahead.

 

Astronauts go into an Orion capsule mock-up. The un-manned spacecraft is expected to be ready for launch in 2020. (NASA/ Bill Stafford and Roger Markowitz)

 

Another mock-up of the inside of the Orion crew module, which carries four astronauts and is scheduled to launch in 2023. It has 316 cubic feet of habitable space, compared with 210 cubic feet for the Apollo capsules. (NASA)

 

Since this column is primarily about space and origins science, I was drawn to the conference held late Feb. in Denver — billed as the Deep Space Gateway Concept Science Workshop.  The idea, surely, was to share and showcase what science might be achievable on the mini-space station.

As you might imagine, a major scientific focus was on the challenges to humans of living in deep space and techniques that might be used to mitigate problems. Abstracts included studies of the effects of radiation on astronauts, on drugs, on food, on the immune system and more.

NASA and others have studied for years radiation and micro-gravity effects on astronauts aboard the International Space Station, but conditions in a deep space environment would be quite a bit different.  Probably most importantly, astronauts aboard the Gateway would be exposed to much more dangerous radiation than those in the ISS because that low-Earth orbit station is protected by the Van Allen radiation belts.

There was also an intriguing proposal to study the ability of lunar regolith (the rock, dust and gravel on the surface) to shield growing plants on the station from radiation, and others on the role and usefulness of plants and micro-organisms in deep space.

Scientists also proposed many different ways to study the moon, the Earth and the sun.  Harley Thronson of NASA Goddard, one of the moderators of the conference, said that sun scientists seemed especially excited by the opportunities the Gateway could offer.

As far as I could tell, there was but one proposal that involved astrobiology or exoplanets.  It was a plan by scientists from SETI and NASA Ames to study Earth with a spectrometer as a way to understand and measure potential bio-markers on exoplanets.

So there’s undoubtedly good science to be done on a lunar space port regarding human space flight, the moon, the Earth and sun.

What I wonder is this:  Will this new, intense and costly lunar focus on the moon take away from what I like to think of as The Golden Age of Space Science — the unending breakthroughs of recent decades in understanding planets and distant moons in our solar system, detecting and characterizing the billions and billions of exoplanets out there,  as well as revealing the structure and history of the cosmos.

 

The Sombrero Galaxy, as imaged by the Hubble Space Telescope, NASA’s Flagship observatory of the 1990s. The James Webb Space Telescope is delayed but is expected to provide the same remarkable images and science as Hubble once it’s up and working.  WFIRST, the planned flagship observatory of the 2020s was cancelled by the administration earlier this year because of a NASA funding shortfall, but its fate remains undecided. (NASA)

I’m not thinking about today but about when costly NASA flagship space observatories or major planetary missions come up for approval, or non-approval, in the future.  Will the funding, and the deep interest, still be there?

Others more knowledgeable about the mechanics of space travel also criticize the Gateway as a costly detour from what long has been considered the main goal of space exploration — sending humans to Mars — and as redundant when it comes to accessing and studying the moon.

On a more encouraged note, a lunar station and lunar base could become part of a much larger space architecture that will allow for all kinds of advances in the decades ahead.  This is precisely the kind of build-out that Thronson, who is Senior Scientist for Advanced Astrophysics Mission Concepts at NASA Goddard and Chief Technologist for the Cosmic Origins and Physics of the Cosmos Program Offices, has been working towards for years.

Ever mindful of the uses of such a space architecture, he pointed out one potential use of a lunar space station that is seldom heard:  If a powerful new telescope in deep space needs repair or upgrading, he wrote in an email, there’s no way to get humans to it now.  The Hubble Space Telescope could be fixed because it was not in deep space and astronauts could get to it.

Thronson sees a potential parallel use for the Gateway, as he described in an email. “My astronomy colleagues, including myself, have been for many years advocating using a Gateway-type facility to assemble, repair, and upgrade the next generation (and beyond) of major astronomical missions. Nothing beats having a human on site, if there are complicated activities that need to be carried out.”

 

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Marc Kaufman
Marc Kaufman is the author of two books about space: "Mars Up Close: Inside the Curiosity Mission” and “First Contact: Scientific Breakthroughs in the Search for Life Beyond Earth.” He is also an experienced journalist, having spent three decades at The Washington Post and The Philadelphia Inquirer. While the “Many Worlds” column is supported and informed by NASA’s Astrobiology Program, any opinions expressed are the author’s alone.

To contact Marc, send an email to marc.kaufman@manyworlds.space.

Planets Still Forming Detected in a Protoplanetary Disk

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
An artist rendering of infant star HD 163296 with three protoplanets forming in its disk  The planets were discovered using a new mode of detection — identifying unusual patterns in the flow of gas within a protoplanetary disk. (NRAO/AUI/NSF; S. Dagnello)

Just as the number of planets discovered outside our solar system is large and growing — more than 3,700 confirmed at last count — so too is the number of ingenious ways to find exoplanets ever on the rise.

The first exoplanets were found by measuring the “wobble” in their host stars caused by the gravitational pull of the planets, then came the transit technique that measured dips in the light from stars as planets passed in front of them, followed by the direct imaging of moving objects deemed to be planets, and numerous more.

A new technique can now be added to the toolkit, one that is useful only in specific galactic circumstances but is nonetheless ingenious and intriguing.

By detecting unusual patterns in the flow of gas within the protoplanetary disk of a young star, two teams of astronomers have confirmed the distinct, telltale hallmarks of newly formed planets orbiting the infant star.

In other words, the astronomers found planets in the process of being formed, circling a star very early in its life cycle.

These results came thanks to the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA), and are presented in a pair of papers appearing in the Astrophysical Journal Letters.

Richard Teague, an astronomer at the University of Michigan and principal author on one of the papers, said that his team looked at “the localized, small-scale motion of gas in a star’s protoplanetary disk. This entirely new approach could uncover some of the youngest planets in our galaxy, all thanks to the high-resolution images coming from ALMA.”

ALMA image of the protoplanetary disk surrounding the young star HD 163296 as seen in dust. ( ALMA: ESO/NAOJ/NRAO; A. Isella; B. Saxton NRAO/AUI/NSF.

To make their respective discoveries, each team analyzed the data from various ALMA observations of the young star HD 163296, which is about 4 million years old and located about 330 light-years from Earth in the direction of the constellation Sagittarius.

Rather than focusing on the dust within the disk, which was clearly imaged in an earlier ALMA observation, the astronomers instead studied the distribution and motion of carbon monoxide (CO) gas throughout the disk.

As explained in a release from the National Radio Astronomy Observatory, which manages the American operations of the multi-national ALMA, molecules of carbon monoxide naturally emit a very distinctive millimeter-wavelength light that ALMA can observe. Subtle changes in the wavelength of this light due to the Doppler effect provide a glimpse into the motion of the gas in the disk.

If there were no planets, gas would move around a star in a very simple, predictable pattern known as Keplerian rotation.

“It would take a relatively massive object, like a planet, to create localized disturbances in this otherwise orderly motion,” said Christophe Pinte of Monash University in Australia and lead author on the other of the two papers. 

And that’s what both teams found.

ALMA is a radio astronomy array located in Chile and set 16,000 feet above sea level. It’s a partnership between the European Southern Observatory (ESO), the National Science Foundation (NSF) of the United States and the National Institutes of Natural Sciences (NINS) of Japan in collaboration with the Republic of Chile. ALMA, which began operations in 2013, is used to observe light from space in comparatively long radio wavelengths. ((ESO/José Francisco Salgado )

Detecting planets within a protoplanetary disk — or finding theorized planets within those disks — is a big deal. 

That’s because information about the characteristics of very young planets orbiting young stars can potentially add substantially to one of the long-debated questions of planetary science:  How exactly did those billions upon billions of planets out there form?

The leading theory of planet formation, the “core accretion model,” has planets forming slowly — with dust, small objects and then planetesimals smashing into a rocky core and leaving matter behind.  In this model, the planet building takes place in a region close to the protoplanet’s stars.

Another theory looks to gravitational instabilities in the disk, arguing that giant planets can form quickly and far from their host stars.

The distribution of current solar system planets and beyond can give some clues based on the size, type and distribution of those planets.  But planets migrate and evolve, and they have never been studied before they had a chance to do much of either.

The techniques currently used for finding exoplanets in fully formed planetary systems — such as measuring the wobble of a star or how a transiting planet dims starlight — don’t lend themselves to detecting protoplanets.

With this new method for looking into those early protoplanetary disks, the hunt for infant planets becomes possible.  And the results in terms of understanding planet formation look to be very promising.

“Though thousands of exoplanets have been discovered in the last few decades, detecting protoplanets is at the frontier of science,” said Pinte.

 

These earlier images from ALMA reveal details in the planet-forming disk around a nearby sun-like star, TW Hydrae, including an intriguing gap at the same distance from the star as the Earth is from the sun. This structure may mean that an infant version of our home planet is beginning to form there, although these dust gaps are considered to be suggestive rather than conclusive. ( S. Andrews; Harvard-Smithsonian CfA, ALMA (ESO/NAOJ/NRAO)}ALMA

This is not the first time that ALMA images of protoplanetary disks have been used to identify what seem to be protoplanets.

In 2016, a team led by Andrea Isella of Rice University reported the possible detection of two planets, each the size of Saturn, orbiting the same star that is the subject of this week’s report, HD 163296.

These possible planets, which are not yet fully formed, revealed themselves by the dual imprint they left in both the dust and the gas portions of the star’s protoplanetary disk.

But at the time that paper was published, in Physical Review Letters, Isella said the team was focused primarily on the dust in the disks and the gaps they created, and as a result they could not be certain that the features they found were created by a protoplanet.

Teague’s team also studied the dust gaps in the disk of HD 163296, and concluded they provided only  circumstantial evidence of the presence of protoplanets.  What’s more, that kind of detection could not be used to accurately estimate the masses of the planets.

“Since other mechanisms can also produce ringed gaps in a protoplanetary disk,” he said, “it is impossible to say conclusively that planets are there by merely looking at the overall structure of the disk.”

But studying the behavior of the gas allowed for a much greater degree of confidence.

 

Composite image of the protoplanetary disk surrounding the young star HD 163296. The inner red area shows the dust of the protoplanetary disk. The broader blue disk is the carbon monoxide gas in the system. ALMA observed dips in the concentration and behavior of carbon monoxide in outer portions of the disk, strongly suggesting the presence of planets being formed. ALMA (ESO/NAOJ/NRAO); A. Isella; B. Saxton (NRAO/AUI/NSF)

The team led by Teague identified two distinctive planet-like patterns in the disk, one at approximately 80 astronomical units (AU) from the star and the other at 140 AU. (An astronomical unit is the average distance from the Earth to the sun.)  The other team, led by Pinte, identified the third at about 260 AU from the star. The astronomers calculate that all three planets are similar in mass to Jupiter.

The two teams used variations on the same technique, which looked at anomalies in the flow of the gas – as seen in the shifting wavelengths of the CO emission — that would indicate it was interacting with a massive object.

Teague and his team measured variations in the gas’s velocity. This revealed the impact of several planets on the gas motion nearer to the star.

Pinte and his team more directly measured the gas’s actual velocity, which is better precise method when studying the outer portion of the disk and can more accurately pinpoint the location of a potential planet.

“Although dust plays an important role in planet formation and provides invaluable information, gas accounts for 99 percent of a protoplanetary disks’ mass,” said coauthor Jaehan Bae of the Carnegie Institute for Science.

So while those images of patterns within the concentric rings of a protoplanetary disk are compelling and seem to be telling an important story, it’s actually the gas that is the key.

This is all an important coup for ALMA, which saw its first light in 2013.  The observatory was not designed with protoplanet detection and characterization as a primary goal, but it is now front and center.

Coauthor Til Birnstiel of the University Observatory of Munich said the precision provided by ALMA is “mind boggling.” In a system where gas rotates at about 5 kilometers per second, he said,  ALMA detected velocity changes as small as a few meters per second.

“Oftentimes in science, ideas turn out not to work or assumptions turn out to be wrong,” he said. “This is one of the cases where the results are much more exciting than what I had imagined.

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Marc Kaufman
Marc Kaufman is the author of two books about space: "Mars Up Close: Inside the Curiosity Mission” and “First Contact: Scientific Breakthroughs in the Search for Life Beyond Earth.” He is also an experienced journalist, having spent three decades at The Washington Post and The Philadelphia Inquirer. While the “Many Worlds” column is supported and informed by NASA’s Astrobiology Program, any opinions expressed are the author’s alone.

To contact Marc, send an email to marc.kaufman@manyworlds.space.