The Kepler Space Telescope Mission Is Ending But Its Legacy Will Keep Growing.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
An illustration of the Kepler Space Telescope, which is on its very last legs.  As of October 2018, the planet-hunting spacecraft has been in space for nearly a decade. (NASA via AP)

 

The Kepler Space Telescope is dead.  Long live the Kepler.

NASA officials announced on Tuesday that the pioneering exoplanet survey telescope — which had led to the identification of almost 2,700 exoplanets — had finally reached its end, having essentially run out of fuel.  This is after nine years of observing, after a malfunctioning steering system required a complex fix and change of plants, and after the hydrazine fuel levels reached empty.

While the sheer number of exoplanets discovered is impressive the telescope did substantially more:  it proved once and for all that the galaxy is filled with planets orbiting distant stars.  Before Kepler this was speculated, but now it is firmly established thanks to the Kepler run.

It also provided data for thousands of papers exploring the logic and characteristics of exoplanets.  And that’s why the Kepler will indeed live long in the world of space science.

“As NASA’s first planet-hunting mission, Kepler has wildly exceeded all our expectations and paved the way for our exploration and search for life in the solar system and beyond,” said Thomas Zurbuchen, associate administrator of NASA’s Science Mission Directorate in Washington.

“Not only did it show us how many planets could be out there, it sparked an entirely new and robust field of research that has taken the science community by storm. Its discoveries have shed a new light on our place in the universe, and illuminated the tantalizing mysteries and possibilities among the stars.”

 

 


The Kepler Space Telescope was focused on hunting for planets in this patch of the Milky Way. After two of its four spinning reaction wheels failed, it could no longer remain steady enough to stare that those distant stars but was reconfigured to look elsewhere and at a different angle for the K2 mission. (Carter Roberts/NASA)

 

Kepler was initially the unlikely brainchild of William Borucki, its founding principal investigator who is now retired from NASA’s Ames Research Center in California’s Silicon Valley.

When he began thinking of designing and proposing a space telescope that could potentially tell us how common distant exoplanets were — and especially smaller terrestrial exoplanets like Earth – the science of extra solar planets was at a very different stage.

William Borucki, originally the main champion for the Kepler idea and later the principal investigator of the mission. His work at NASA went back to the Apollo days. (NASA)

“When we started conceiving this mission 35 years ago we didn’t know of a single planet outside our solar system,” Borucki said.  “Now that we know planets are everywhere, Kepler has set us on a new course that’s full of promise for future generations to explore our galaxy.”

The space telescope was launched in 2009.  While Kepler did not find the first exoplanets — that required the work of astronomers using a different technique of observing based on the “wobble” of stars caused by orbiting planets — it did change the exoplanet paradigm substantially.

Not only did it prove that exoplanets are common, it found that planets outnumber stars in our galaxy (which has hundreds of billions of those stars.)

In addition it found that small, terrestrial-size planets are common as well, with some 20 to 50 percent of stars likely to have planets of that size and type.  And what menagerie of planets it found out there.

Astrophysicist Natalie Batalha was the Kepler project and mission scientist for a decade. She left NASA recently for the University of California at Santa Cruz “to carry on the Kepler legacy” by creating an interdisciplinary center for the study of planetary habitability.

Among the greatest surprises:  The Kepler mission provided data showing that the most common sized planets in the galaxy fall somewhere between Earth and Neptune, a type of planet that isn’t present in our solar system.

It found solar systems of all sizes as well, including some with many planets (as many as eight) orbiting close to their host star.

The discovery of these compact systems, generally orbiting a red dwarf star, raised questions about how solar systems form: Are these planets “born” close to their parent star, or do they form farther out and migrate in?

So far, more than 2,500 peer-reviewed papers have been published using Kepler data, with substantial amounts of that data still unmined.

Natalie Batalha was the project and mission scientist for Kepler for much of its run, and I asked her about its legacy.

“When I think of Kepler’s influence across all of astrophysics, I’m amazed at what such a simple experiment accomplished,” she wrote in an email. “You’d be hard-pressed to come up with a more boring mandate — to unblinkingly measure the brightnesses of the same stars for years on end. No beautiful images. No fancy spectra. No landscapes. Just dots in a scatter plot.

“And yet time-domain astronomy exploded. We’d never looked at the Universe quite this way before. We saw lava worlds and water worlds and disintegrating planets and heart-beat stars and supernova shock waves and the spinning cores of stars and planets the age of the galaxy itself… all from those dots.”

 

The Kepler-62 system is put one of many solar systems detected by the space telescope. The planets within the green discs are in the habitable zones of the stars — where water could be liquid at times. (NASA)

 

While Kepler provided remarkable answers to questions about the overall planetary makeup of our galaxy, it did not identify smaller planets that will be directly imaged, the evolving gold standard for characterizing exoplanets.  The 150,000 stars that the telescope was observing were very distant, in the range of a few hundred to a few thousand light-years away. One light year is about 6 trillion (6,000,000,000,000) miles.

Nonetheless, Kepler was able to detect  the presence of a handful of Earth-sized planets in the habitable zones of their stars.  The Kepler-62 system held one of them, and it is 1200 light-years away.  In contrast, the four Earth-sized planets in the habitable zone of the much-studied Trappist-1 system are 39 light-years away.

Kepler made its observations using the the transit technique, which looks for tiny dips in the amount of light coming from a star caused by the presence of a planet passing in front of the star.  While the inference that exoplanets are ubiquitous came from Kepler results, the telescope was actually observing but a small bit of the sky.  It has been estimated that it would require around 400 space telescopes like Kepler to cover the whole sky.

What’s more, only planets whose orbits are seen edge-on from Earth can be detected via the transit method, and that rules out a vast number of exoplanets.

The bulk of the stars that were selected for close Kepler observation were more or less sun-like, but a sampling of other stars occurred as well. One of the most important factors was brightness. Detecting minuscule changes in brightness caused by transiting planet is impossible if the star is too dim.

 

The artist’s concept depicts Kepler-186f, the first validated Earth-size planet to orbit a distant star in the habitable zone. (NASA Ames/SETI Institute/JPL-Caltech)

 

Four years into the mission, after the primary mission objectives had been met, mechanical failures temporarily halted observations. The mission team was able to devise a fix, switching the spacecraft’s field of view roughly every three months. This enabled an extended mission for the spacecraft, dubbed K2, which lasted as long as the first mission and bumped Kepler’s count of surveyed stars up to more than 500,000.

But it was inevitable that the mission would come to an end sooner rather than later because of that dwindling fuel supply, needed to keep the telescope properly pointed.

Kepler cannot be refueled because NASA decided to place the telescope in an orbit around the sun that is well beyond the influence of the Earth and moon — to simplify operations and ensure an extremely quiet, stable environment for scientific observations.  So Kepler was beyond the reach of any refueling vessel.  The Kepler team compensated by flying considerably more fuel than was necessary to meet the mission objectives.

The video below explains what will happen to the Kepler capsule once it is decommissioned.  But a NASA release explains that the final commands “will be to turn off the spacecraft transmitters and disable the onboard fault protection that would turn them back on. While the spacecraft is a long way from Earth and requires enormous antennas to communicate with it, it is good practice to turn off transmitters when they are no longer being used, and not pollute the airwaves with potential interference.”

 

 

And so Kepler will actually continue orbiting for many decades, just as its legacy will continue long after operations cease.

Kepler’s follow-on exoplanet surveyor — the Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite or TESS — was launched this year and has begun sending back data.  Its primary mission objective is to survey the brightest stars near the Earth for transiting exoplanets. The TESS satellite uses an array of wide-field cameras to survey some 85% of the sky, and is planned to last for two years.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Water Worlds, Aquaplanets and Habitability

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
This artist rendering may show a water world — without any land — or an aquaplanet with lots of more shallow water around a rocky planet. (NASA)

 

The more exoplanet scientists learn about the billions and billions of celestial bodies out there, the more the question of unusual planets — those with characteristics quite different from those in our solar system — has come into play.

Hot Jupiters, super-Earths, planets orbiting much smaller red dwarf stars — they are all grist for the exoplanet mill, for scientists trying to understand the planetary world that has exploded with possibilities and puzzles over the past two decades.

Another important category of planets unlike those we know are the loosely called “water worlds” (with very deep oceans) and their “aquaplanet” cousins (with a covering of water and continents) but orbiting stars very much unlike our sun.

Two recent papers address the central question of habitability in terms of these kind of planets — one with oceans and ice hundreds of miles deep, and one particular and compelling planet (Proxima Centauri b, the exoplanet closest to us) hypothesized to have water on its surface as it orbits a red dwarf star.

The question the papers address is whether these watery worlds might be habitable.  The conclusions are based on modelling rather than observations, and they are both compelling and surprising.

In both cases — a planet with liquid H20 and ice many miles down, and another that probably faces its red dwarf sun all or most of the time — the answers from modelers is that yes, the planets could be habitable.   That is very different from saying they are or even might be inhabited.  Rather,  the conclusions are based on computer models that take into account myriad conditions and come out with simulations about what kind of planets they might be.

This finding of potential watery-world habitability is no small matter because predictions of how planets form point to an abundance of water and ice in the planetesimals that grow into planets.

As described by Eric Ford, co-author of one of the papers and a professor of astrophysics at Pennsylvania State University, “Many scientists anticipate that planets with oceans much deeper than Earths could be a common outcome of planet formation. Indeed, one of the puzzling properties of Earth is that it has oceans that are just skin deep” compared to the radius of the planet.

“While some planets very close to their star might loose all their water, it would take a delicate balancing act to remove many ocean’s worth of water and to leave a planet with oceans as shallow as those on Earth.”

An interesting place to start.

 

Artist’s conception of a planet covered with a global ocean. A new study finds that these wate rworlds could maintain stable climates and perhaps sustain life under certain conditions. (ESO/M. Kornmesser)

 

It should first be said that many scientists are dubious that extreme water worlds can support life or can support detectable life.  My colleague Elizabeth Tasker wrote a column — Can You Overwater a Planet? — focused on this view last year.

The first of the two new exoplanets/ocean papers involves planets with very deep oceans. Written by Edwin Kite of the University of Chicago and Ford of Penn State, the paper in the Astrophysical Journal concludes that even a planet with such super deep oceans could — under certain conditions — provide habitable conditions.

This finding is at odds with previous simulations, and Kite says that is part of its significance. The scientific community has largely assumed that planets covered in a deep ocean would not support the cycling of minerals and gases that keeps the climate stable on Earth, and thus wouldn’t be friendly to life.

But the Kite and Ford study found that ocean planets (with 10 to 1000 times as much water as Earth) could remain habitable much longer than previously assumed. The authors performed more than a thousand simulations to reach that conclusion.

Eric Ford is a professor astrophysics at Penn State and a specialist in planet formation. (Penn State)

“This really pushes back against the idea you need an Earth clone—that is, a planet with some land and a shallow ocean,” said Edwin Kite, assistant professor of geophysical sciences at the University of Chicago and lead author of the study.

Edwin Kite is an assistant professor of planetary sciences at the University of Chicago. (Univ. of Chicago)

Because life needs an extended period to evolve — and because the light and heat on planets can change as their stars age — scientists usually look for planets that have both some water and some way to keep their climates stable over time. The method for achieving this steady state that we know is, of course, how it works on Earth. Over eons, our planet has cooled itself by drawing down atmospheric greenhouse gases into minerals and warms itself up by releasing them via volcanoes.

But this model doesn’t work on a water world, with deep water covering the rock and suppressing volcanoes.

Kite and Ford wanted to know if there was another way to achieve a balance. They set up a simulation with thousands of randomly generated planets, and tracked the evolution of their climates over billions of years.

“The surprise was that many of them stay stable for more than a billion years, just by luck of the draw,” Kite said. “Our best guess is that it’s on the order of 10 percent of them.”

These planets sit in the right location around their stars. They happened to have the right amount of carbon present, and they don’t have too many minerals and elements from the crust dissolved in the oceans that would pull carbon out of the atmosphere. They have enough water from the start, and they cycle carbon between the atmosphere and ocean only, which in the right concentrations is sufficient to keep things stable.

None of this means that such a planet exists — our ability to detect oceans worlds is in its infancy.  The issue is rather that Kite and Ford conclude that a deep ocean planet could potentially be habitable if other conditions were met.

 

Artist rendering of Proxima Centauri b orbiting its red dwarf host star. (ESO/L.Calçada/Nick Risinger)

 

Anthony Del Genio and his team of modelers at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York used their state-of-the-art climate simulations to look at another aspect of the exoplanet water story, and they chose Proxima Centauri b as their subject.  The roughly Earth-sized planet was discovered in 2016 and is the closest exoplanet to Earth.

Scientists determined early on that it is a rocky (as opposed to gaseous) planet and that it orbits its host star every 11 days.  If that star was as powerful as our sun, there would be no talk of possible habitability on close-in Proxima b.  But the star is a red dwarf and puts out only a fraction of the radiation coming from a host star like our sun.

Still, the case for habitability on Proxima b was initially considered to be weak, in part because the planet is tidally locked by its closeness to the host star.  In other words, it would most likely not spin to create days and nights as it orbits, but rather would have a sun-facing side and a space-facing side — making the temperature differences great.

Our ability to characterize a small planet like Proxima b remains very limited, and so it is unknown whether the planet has water or whether it has an atmosphere.  So those two essential components of the habitability question are missing.

But Del Genio’s team decided to model the dynamics of Proxima b with a presumed ocean, though not one that is many miles deep.  In Earth science parlance, what Del Genio referred to as an “aquaplanet.” And using their sophisticated models, they would simulate “dynamic” oceans with currents like our own, rather than the stationary oceans modeled earlier on exoplanets.

And rather to their surprise, they reported in the journal Astrobiology that their model of ocean behavior showed that the planet would not have only small areas of potential habitability — the earlier proposed habitable “eyeball” scenario — but rather much of the planet could be habitable.  That could include some of the normally space-facing side.

 

One type of possible water world is an “eyeball” planet, where the star-facing side is able to maintain a liquid-water ocean, while the rest of the surface is ice. (Image via eburacum45/DeviantArt)

 

“Our group said let’s hook up an atmosphere to a dynamic ocean rather than a static one,” Del Genio said.  “That way you get ocean currents like those on our coasts, and they move water of different temperatures around.

“If you have a real and dynamic ocean in your model, then we found that the eyeball goes away.  Usually the currents go west to east and they carry warmer water even to the night side.”

Anthony Del Genio, leader of NASA’s GISS team that  uses cutting edge Earth climate models to better understand conditions on exoplanets.

So using this more sophisticated model, not insignificant areas of Proxima b, or any other planet like it orbiting a red dwarf star, could be habitable, they concluded.  But again, that is assuming some pretty big “ifs” — the presence of an ocean and an atmosphere.

And then the team added variables such as a thick nitrogen and carbon atmosphere or a thin one, fresh water or salty water, a planet that is firmly locked and never rotating, or one that rotates a modest amount — giving the dark side some light.  Del Genio said that with all these added factors, a substantial portion of the surface of Proxima b, or a planet like it, would have liquid water and potentially habitable conditions.

This focus on watery worlds — including those that would be extreme compared with Earth today — makes sense in the context of the history of Earth.

While there is no direct evidence of this, many scientists think that the very early Earth was covered for a period of time with water with little or no land.

And then after land appeared, it still took some three billion years for any life form — bacteria, early planets — to colonize the land, and another half billion years for animals to come ashore.  Yet the oceans were long habitable and inhabited, as early a 3.8 billion years ago.

So until astronomy and exoplanet science develop the needed instruments and scientists acquire the observed knowledge of conditions on water worlds, progress will come largely from modelling that tells us what might be possible.

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

A New Frontier for Exoplanet Hunting

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
The spectrum from the newly-assembled EXtreme PREcision Spectrometer (EXPRES)  shines on Yale astronomy professor Debra Fischer, who is principal investigator of the project. The stated goal of EXPRES is to find many Earth-size planets via the radial velocity method — something that has never been done. (Ryan Blackman/Yale)

The first exoplanets were all found using the radial velocity method of measuring the “wobble” of a star — movement caused by the gravitational pull of an orbiting planet.

Radial velocity has been great for detecting large exoplanets relatively close to our solar system, for assessing their mass and for finding out how long it takes for the planet to orbit its host star.

But so far the technique has not been able to identify and confirm many Earth-sized planets, a primary goal of much planet hunting.  The wobble caused by the presence of a planet that size has been too faint to be detected by current radial velocity instruments and techniques.

However, a new generation of instruments is coming on line with the goal of bringing the radial velocity technique into the small planet search.  To do that, the new instruments, together with their telescopes. must be able to detect a sun wobble of 10 to 20 centimeters per second.  That’s quite an improvement on the current detection limit of about one meter per second.

At least three of these ultra high precision spectrographs (or sometimes called spectrometers) are now being developed or deployed.  The European Southern Observatory’s ESPRESSO instrument has begun work in Chile; Pennsylvania State University’s NEID spectrograph (with NASA funding) is in development for installation at the Kitt Peak National Observatory in Arizona; and the just-deployed EXPRES spectrograph put together by a team led by Yale University astronomers (with National Science Foundation funding) is in place at the Lowell Observatory outside of Flagstaff, Arizona.

The principal investigator of EXPRES, Debra Fischer, attended the recent University of Cambridge Exoplanets2 conference with some of her team, and there I had the opportunity to talk with them. We discussed the decade-long history of the instrument, how and why Fischer thinks it can break that 1-meter-per-second barrier, and what it took to get it into attached and working.

 

This animation shows how astronomers use very precise spectrographs to find exoplanets. As the planet orbits its gravitational pull causes the parent star to move back and forth. This tiny radial motion shifts the observed spectrum of the star by a correspondingly small amount because of the Doppler shift. With super-sensitive spectrographs the shifts can be measured and used to infer details of a planet’s mass and orbit. ESO/L. Calçada)

One of the earliest and most difficult obstacles to the development of EXPRES, Fischer told me, was that many in the astronomy community did not believe it could work.

Their view is that precision below that one meter per second of host star movement cannot be measured accurately.  Stars have flares, sunspots and a generally constant churning, and many argue that the turbulent nature of stars creates too much “noise” for a precise measurement below that one-meter-per-second level.

Yet European scientists were moving ahead with their ESPRESSO ultra high precision instrument aiming for that 10-centimeter-per-second mark, and they had a proven record of accomplishing what they set out to do with spectrographs.

In addition to the definite competiti0n going on, Fisher also felt that radial velocity astronomers needed to make that leap to measuring small planets “to stay in the game” over the long haul.

She arrived at Yale in 2009 and led an effort to build a spectrograph so stable and precise that it could find an Earth-like planet.  To make clear that goal, the instrument is at the center of a project called “100 Earths.”

Building on experience gained from developing two earlier spectrographs, Fischer and colleagues began the difficult and complicated process of getting backers for EXPRES, of finding a telescope observatory that would house it (The Discovery Channel Telescope at Lowell) and in the end adapting the instrument to the telescope.

And now comes the actual hard part:  finding those Earth-like planets.

As Fischer described it:  “We know from {the Kepler Telescope mission} that most stars have small rocky planets orbiting them.  But Kepler looked at stars very far away, and we’ll be looking at stars much, much closer to us.”

Nonetheless, those small planets will still be extremely difficult to detect due to all that activity on the host suns.

 

EXPRES in its vacuum-sealed chamber at the Lowell Observatory. will help detect Earth-sized planets in neighboring solar systems. (Ryan Blackman/Yale)

 

 

The 4.3 meter Discovery Channel Telescope in the Lowell Observatory in Arizona.  The photons collected by the telescope are delivered via optical fiber to the EXPRES instrument. (Boston University)

Spectrographs such as EXPRES are instruments astronomers use to study light emitted by planets, stars, and galaxies.

They are connected to either a ground-based or orbital telescope and they stretch out or split a beam of light into a spectrum of frequencies.  That spectrum is then analyzed to determine an object’s speed, direction, chemical composition, or mass.  With planets, the work involves determining (via the Doppler shift seen in the spectrum) whether and how much a sun is moving to and away from Earth due to the pull of a planet.

As Fisher and EXPRES postdoctoral fellow John Brewer explained it, the signal (noise) coming from the turbulence of the star is detectably different from the signal made by the wobble of a star due to the presence of an orbiting planet.

While these differences — imprinted in the spectrum captured by the spectrograph — have been known for some time, current spectrographs haven’t had sufficient resolving power to actually detect the difference.

If all works as planned for the EXPRES, Espresso and NEID spectrographs, they will have that necessary resolving power and so can, in effect, filter out the noise from the sun and identify what can only come from a planet-caused wobble.  If they succeed, they provide a major new pathway to  for astronomers to search for Earth-sized worlds.

“This is my dream machine, the one I always wanted to build,” Fischer said. “I had a belief that if we went to higher resolution, we could disentangle (the stellar noise from the planet-caused wobble.)

“I could still be wrong, but I definitely think that trying was the right choice to make.”

This image shows spectral data from the first light last December of the ESPRESSO instrument on ESO’s Very Large Telescope in Chile. The light from a star has been dispersed into its component colors. This view has been colorised to indicate how the wavelengths change across the image, but these are not exactly the colors that would be seen visually. (ESO/ESPRESSO)

While Fischer and others have very high hopes for EXPRES, it is not the sort of  big ticket project that is common in astronomy.  Instead, it was developed and built primarily with a $6 million grant from National Science Foundation.

It was completed on schedule by the Yale team, though the actual delivering of EXPRES to Arizona and connecting it to the telescope turned out to be a combination of hair-raising and edifying.

Twice, she said, she drove from New Haven to Flagstaff with parts of the instrument; each trip in a Penske rental truck and with her son Ben helping out.

And then when the instrumentation was in process late last year, Fischer and her team learned that funds for the scientists and engineers working on that process had come to an end.

Francesco Pepe of the University of Geneva. He is the principal scientist for the ESPRESSO instrument and gave essential aid to the EXPRES team when they needed it most.

She was desperate, and sent a long-shot email to Francesco Pepe of University of Geneva, the lead scientist and wizard builder of several European spectrographs, including ESPRESSO. In theory, he and his instrument — which went into operation late last year at the ESO Very Large Telescope in Chile — will be competing with EXPRES for discoveries and acknowledgement.

Nonetheless, Pepe heard Fischer out and understood the predicament she was in.  ESPRESSO had been installed and so he was able to contact an associate who freed up two instrumentation specialists who flew to Flagstaff to finish the work.  It was, Fischer said, an act of collegial generosity and scientific largesse that she will never forget.

Fischer is at the Lowell observatory now, using the Arizona monsoon as a time to clean up many details before the team returns to full-time observing.  She write about her days in an EXPRES blog.  Earlier, in March after the instrumentation had been completed and observing had commenced, she wrote this:

“Years of work went into EXPRES and as I look at this instrument, I am surprised that I ever had the audacity to start this project. The moment of truth starts now. It will take us a few more months of collecting and analyzing data to know if we made the right design decisions and I feel both humbled and hopeful. I’m proud of the fact that our design decisions were driven by evidence gleaned from many years of experience. But did I forget anything?”

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

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

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