The Gale Winds of Venus Suggest How Locked Exoplanets Could Escape a Fate of Extreme Heat and Brutal Cold

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Two images of the nightside of Venus captured by the IR2 camera on the Akatsuki orbiter in September 2016 (JAXA).

 

More than two decades before the first exoplanet was discovered, an experiment was performed using a moving flame and liquid mercury that could hold the key to habitability on tidally locked worlds.

The paper was published in a 1969 edition of the international journal, Science, by researchers Schubert and Whitehead. The pair reported that when a Bunsen flame was rotated beneath a cylindrical container of mercury, the liquid began to flow around the container in the opposite direction at speeds up to four times greater than the rotation of the flame. The scientists speculated that such a phenomenon might explain the rapid winds on Venus.

On the Earth, the warm equator and cool poles set up a pressure difference that creates our global winds. These winds are deflected westward by the rotation of the planet (the so-called Coriolis force) promoting a zonal (east-west) air flow around the globe. But what would happen if our planet’s rotation slowed? Would our winds just cycle north and south between the equator and poles?

The Moon is tidally locked to the Earth, so only one hemisphere is visible from our planet (Smurrayinchester / wikipedia commons).

Such a slow-rotating scenario may be the lot of almost all rocky exoplanets discovered to date. Planets such as the TRAPPIST-1 system and Proxima Centauri-b all orbit much closer to their star than Mercury, making their faint presence easier to detect but likely resulting in tidal lock. Like the moon orbiting the Earth, planets in tidal lock have one side permanently facing the star, creating a day that is equal to the planet’s year.

The dim stars orbited by these planets can mean they receive a similar level of radiation as the Earth, placing them within the so-called “habitable zone.” However, tidal lock comes with the risk of horrific atmospheric collapse. On the planet side perpetually facing away from the star, temperatures can drop low enough to freeze an Earth-like atmosphere. The air from the dayside would then rush around the planet to fill the void, freezing in turn and causing the planet to lose its atmosphere even within the habitable zone.

The only way this could be prevented is if winds circulating around the planet could redistribute the heat sufficiently to prevent freeze-out. But without a strong Coriolis force from the planet’s rotation, can such winds exist?

A planet whose wind speeds exceed the rotation speed of the planet is said to have a “super-rotating” atmosphere. Global climate models of tidally locked planets have suggested that temperate conditions might be maintained by winds circulating between the night and day side in the same way as the Earth’s winds are generated between the equator and poles.

However, global climate models are extremely tricky, being computationally expensive and sensitive to a multitude of factors that are unmeasurable for exoplanets. As a result, it has not been possible to test if the climates produced by the computer could really exist, leaving the fate of tidally locked worlds uncertain.

 

Orbiting close to their star, the TRAPPIST-1 Earth-sized worlds are probably tidally locked, rotating just once per orbital period. This is an artist’s concept of the system, based on available data about the planets’ diameters, masses and distances from the host star, as of February 2018 (NASA/JPL-Caltech).

 

But there is a slowly rotating planet where one mechanism for super rotation can be explored. Venus is the only other Earth-sized planet we can reach by spacecraft and the planet has super rotating winds whose origin has been hotly debated for decades.

While Venus is not in tidal lock with the sun, its rotation is extremely slow. Our neighboring world takes 225 days to orbit the sun and rotates once every 243 Earth days, making the Venusian day (one rotation) longer than its year.

The planet’s thick carbon dioxide atmosphere provides Venus with the most powerful greenhouse effect in the solar system. This prevents nights on Venus from freezing and the planet maintains a fairly uniform surface temperature that is hot enough to melt lead. Yet despite the lack of a temperature gradient to drive winds, the upper atmosphere of Venus is a blistering gale. Winds whip around the planet with speeds that exceed 100 m/s (224 mph), traveling sixty times faster than the surface rotation. What could be driving this weather system?

 

A false color image of Venus with the IR2 camera on Akatsuki. 2.26 micron radiation (used in this work) is shown in red.

It is a question that returns us to the Bunsen flame experiment. Schubert and Whitehead speculated that the sun could replace the Bunsen flame in driving the Venusian winds rapidly around the planet. However, skeptics to this claim argued that the sun could only influence the cloud tops of Venus, whereas super-rotation had been observed to extend much deeper into the planet’s thick cloak of gases.

The alternative theory was that small contrasts in heat on the planet’s surface could set up circulations to drive the super-rotating winds. A challenge here was that such models appeared very sensitive to the exact starting conditions, suggesting that Venus’s super-rotating winds were a rare outcome for the planet. If true, the same mechanism was not likely to be acting on tidally locked worlds around other stars.

At the end of last year, a paper in the Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series was published that provided a heap of new data about Venus’s atmosphere. The research was led by Javier Peralta, a postdoctoral fellow at the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA). Using data from JAXA’s Venus orbiter, Akatsuki, Peralta had painstakingly tracked the Venusian winds.

The IR2 camera onboard Akatsuki captures images in the infrared at a wavelength of 2.26 microns. On the dayside of Venus, clouds in the upper atmosphere sitting at 60 – 70 km (37 – 44 miles) above the planet’s surface strongly reflect ultraviolet and infrared from the Sun. However, the nightside illumination comes from infrared heat emanating from Venus’s hot surface. This is partially blocked by clouds deeper in the atmosphere at altitudes between 48 – 60 km (30 – 37 miles). As the clouds have a varying transparency to this infrared glow, their shapes become visible when viewed through Akatsuki’s IR2 camera. It was these deeper, nightside clouds, that Peralta tracked.

Dr Javier Peralta, lead author of this work, is a postdoctoral researcher at JAXA.

By comparing results from 2,947 wind measurements, Peralta spotted a pattern. The winds acceleration was tied to the position of the sun, suggesting that the giant Bunsen-flame of our nearest star was indeed driving super-rotation deep in the Venusian atmosphere. It was a result that suggested this super-rotation mechanism could be common on many more planets, as it required only the heat from the star.

Yet, Peralta was quick to note that this was not a “case closed” for the Venusian winds. While they had not detected a north-south component to the winds that would have supported the alternative theory of a surface-driven origin for the super-rotating, it might have just been below the level they could detect.

“This was one reason why we made our wind measurements publicly available,” Peralta said. “Sharing measurements is critical nowadays since the new generation of computer models are able to incorporate this observational data to predict how an atmosphere will evolve.”

Peralta hopes that results from Venus can used with climate models for slow rotating worlds, helping scientists understand both our nearest neighbor and the conditions that might be present on tidally locked planets by providing comparative measurements for at least one type of super rotation generation.

 

Artist’s impression of JAXA’s Akatsuki Venus Climate Orbiter at Venus (JAXA / Akihiro Ikeshita)

As well as using results from Akatsuki, Peralta also looked at wind speed measurements from previous missions and ground observations of Venus. Comparing data since the late 1970s, his team noted a variation in the recorded wind speeds. While it is challenging to compare results from different instruments (which have different error estimates), this might suggest that the Venusian weather pattern has varied over time scales of decades.

Such variation could also support the sun being the main driver for the winds. Changes in the cloud’s reflectivity would alter how much solar radiation is absorbed, adjusting the efficiency of this driving force. If true, this could be used to calibrate models further for different reflectivity conditions.

Peralta’s results underline the importance of our solar system in understanding exoplanets. The comparison of the weird and wonderful climates among our neighboring worlds can help us explore the next Earth-sized discovery and these worlds are within the reach of our spaceships.

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Weird Planets

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

 

 

Artist rendering of an “eyeball world,” where one side of a tidally locked planet is always hot on the sun-facing side and the back side is frozen cold.  Definitely a tough environment, but  might some of the the planets be habitable at the edges?  Or might winds carry sufficient heat from the front to the back?  (NASA/JPL-Caltech)

The very first planet detected outside our solar system powerfully made clear that our prior understanding of what planets and solar systems could be like was sorely mistaken.

51 Pegasi was a Jupiter-like massive gas planet, but it was burning hot rather than freezing cold because it orbited close to its host star — circling in 4.23 days.  Given the understandings of the time, its existence was essentially impossible. 

Yet there it was, introducing us to what would become a large and growing menagerie of weird planets.

Hot Jupiters, water worlds, Tatooine planets orbiting binary stars, diamond worlds (later downgraded to carbon worlds), seven-planet solar systems with planets that all orbit closer than Mercury orbits our sun.  And this is really only a brief peak at what’s out there — almost 4,000 exoplanets confirmed but billions upon billions more to find and hopefully characterize.

I thought it might be useful — and fun — to take a look at some of the unusual planets found to learn what they tell us about planet formation, solar systems and the cosmos.

 


Artist’s conception of a hot Jupiter, CoRoT-2a. The first planet discovered beyond our solar system was a hot Jupiter similar to this, and this surprised astronomers and led to the view that many hot Jupiters may exist. That hypothesis has been revised as the Kepler Space Telescope found very few distant hot Jupiters and now astronomers estimate that only about 1 percent of planets are hot Jupiters. (NASA/Ames/JPL-Caltech)

 

Let’s start with the seven Trappist-1 planets.  The first three were detected two decades ago, circling a”ultra-cool” red dwarf star a close-by 40 light years away.  Observations via the Hubble Space Telescope led astronomers conclude that two of the planets did not have hydrogen-helium envelopes around them, which means the probability increased that the planets are rocky (rather than gaseous) and could potentially hold water on their surfaces.

Then in 2016 a Belgian team, using  the Transiting Planets and Planetesimals Small Telescope (TRAPPIST) in Chile, found three more planets, and the solar system got named Trappist-1.  The detection of an additional outer planet was announced the next year, and in total three of the seven planets were deemed to be within the host star’s habitable zone — where liquid water could conceivably be present.

So, we have a most interesting 7-planet solar system quite close to us, and not surprisingly it has become the focus of much observation and analysis.

But consider this:  all seven of those planets orbits Trappist-1 at a distance much smaller than from our sun to the first planet, Mercury. The furthest out planets orbits the star in 19 days, while Mercury orbits in 88 days.

 

 

The Trappist-1 solar system, with the transit data used to detect the presence of seven planets, each one blocking the light curve at different locations. (NASA/JPL-Caltech)

 

Given this proximity, then, why are the Trappist-1 planets so interesting, especially in terms of habitability?  Because Trappist-1 puts out but .05 percent as much energy as our sun, and the furthest out planet (though very close to the star by the standards of our solar system) is nonetheless likely to be frozen.

So Trappist-1 a mini-system, with seven tidally-locked (never-rotating) planets that happen to orbit in resonance to each other.  Just because it is so different from our system doesn’t mean it isn’t fascinating, instructive, and even possibly the home of planets that could potentially support life.

And since red dwarf stars are the most common type of star in the Milky way (by lot), red dwarf solar system research is an especially hot field.

So there are mini planets and systems and massive planets in what used to be considered the impossibly wrong place.  And then there are planets with highly eccentric orbits — very different from the largely circular orbits of planets in our system.

The eccentricity of HD20782b superimposed onto our circular-orbiting inner solar system planets. (Stephen Kane)

The most extreme eccentric orbit found so far is HD 20782, measured at an eccentricity of .96. This means that the planet moves in a nearly flattened ellipse, traveling a long path far from its star and then making a fast and furious slingshot around the star at its closest approach. 

Many exoplanets have eccentricities far greater than what’s found in our solar system planets but nothing like this most unusual traveler, which has a path seemingly more like a comet than a planet.

Researchers have concluded that the eccentricity of a planet tends to relate to the number of planets in the system, with many-planeted systems having far more regularly orbiting planets.  (Ours and the Trappist-1 system are examples.)

Unusual planets come in many other categories, such as the chemical makeup of their atmospheres, surfaces and cores.  Most of the mass of stars, planets and living things consists of hydrogen and helium, with oxygen, carbon, iron and nitrogen trailing far behind.

Solid elements are exceptionally rare in the overall scheme of the solar system. Despite being predominant on Earth, they constitute less than 1 percent of the total elements in the solar system, primarily because the amount of gas in the sun and gas giants is so great.  What is generally considered the most important of these precious solid elements is iron, which is inferred to be in the core of almost all terrestrial planet.

The amount of iron or carbon or sulfur or magnesium on or around a planet generally depends on the amount of these “metals” present in the host star, and then in molecular protoplanetary disc remains of the star’s formation.  And this is where some of the outliers, the apparent oddities, come in.

A super-Earth, planet 55 Cancri e, was reported to be the first known planet to have huge layers of diamond, due in part to the high carbon-to-oxygen ratio of its host star. That conclusion has been disputed,  but the planet is nonetheless unusual.  Above is an artist’s concept of the diamond hypothesis. (Haven Giguere/Yale University)

The planet 55 Cancri e, for instance, was dubbed a “diamond planet” in 2012 because the amount of carbon relative to oxygen in the star appeared to be quite high.  Based on this measurement, a team hypothesized that the surface presence of abundant carbon likely created a graphite surface on the scalding super-Earth, with a layer of diamond beneath it created by the great pressures.

“This is our first glimpse of a rocky world with a fundamentally different chemistry from Earth,” lead researcher Nikku Madhusudhan of Yale University said in a statement at the time. “The surface of this planet is likely covered in graphite and diamond rather than water and granite.”

As tends to happen in this early phase of exoplanet characterization, subsequent measurements cast some doubt on the diamond hypothesis.  And in 2016, researchers came up with a different scenario — 55 Cancri e was likely covered in lava.  But because of heavy cloud and dust cover over the planet, a subsequent group raised doubts about the lava explanation. 

But despite all this back and forth, there is a growing consensus that 55 Cancri e has an atmosphere, which is pretty remarkable given its that its “cold” side has temperatures that average of 2,400 to 2,600 degrees Fahrenheit (1,300 to 1,400 Celsius), and the hot side averages 4,200 degrees Fahrenheit (2,300 Celsius). The difference between the hot and cold sides would need to be more extreme if there were no atmosphere.

 

Could super-Earth HD 219134 b be a sapphire planet? (Thibaut Roger/University of Zurich)

And then there’s another super-earth, HD 219134, that late last year was described as a planet potentially featuring vast collections of different precious stones.

To back up for a second, researchers study the formation of planets using theoretical models and compare their results with data from observations. It is known that during their formation, stars such as the sun were surrounded by a disc of gas and dust in which planets were born. Rocky planets like the Earth were formed out of the solid bodies left over when the protoplanetary gas disc cooled and dispersed.

Unlike the Earth however, HD 219134 most likely does not have a massive core of iron — a conclusion flowing from measurements of its density.  Instead, through modeling of formation scenarios for a scalding super-Earth close to its host star, the researchers conclude the planet is likely to be rich in calcium and aluminum, along with magnesium and silicon.

This chemical composition would allow the existence of large quantities of aluminum oxides. On Earth, crystalline aluminum oxide forms the mineral corundum. If the aluminum oxide contains traces of iron, titanium, cobalt or chromium, it will form the noble varieties of corundum, gemstones like the blue sapphire and the red ruby.

“Perhaps it shimmers red to blue like rubies and sapphires, because these gemstones are aluminum oxides which are common on the exoplanet,” said Caroline Dorn, astrophysicist at the Institute for Computational Science of the University of Zurich.

 

 

A variation on the “eyeball planet” is a water world where the star-facing side is able to maintain a liquid-water ocean, while the rest of the surface is ice. (eburacum45/DeviantArt)

 

Super-Earths, which are defined as having a size between that of Earth and Neptune, are also inferred to be the most likely to be water worlds.

At a Goldschmidt Conference in Boston last year, a study was presented that suggests that some super-Earth exoplanets are likely extremely wet with water – much more so than Earth. Astronomers found more specifically that exoplanets which are between two and four times the size of Earth are likely to have water as a dominant component.  Most are thought to be rocky and to have atmospheres, and now it seems that many have ocean, as well.

The new findings are based on data from the Kepler Space Telescope and the Gaia mission, which show that many of the already known planets of this type (out of more than 4,000 exoplanets confirmed so far) could contain as much as 50 percent water. That upper limit is an enormous amount, compared to 0.02 percent of the water content of Earth.

This potentially wide distribution of water worlds is perhaps not so surprising given conditions in our solar system, where Earth is wet, Venus and Mars were once wet, Neptune and Uranus are ice giants and moons such as Europa and Enceladus as global oceans beneath their crusts of ice.

 

Might this be the strangest planet of all? (NASA)

 

As is apparent with the planetary types described so far, whether a planet is typical or atypical is very much up in the air.  What is atypical this year may be found to be common in the days ahead.

The Kepler mission concluded that small, terrestrial planets are likely more common than gas giants, but our technology doesn’t let us identify and characterize many of those smaller, Earth-sized planets.

Many of the planets discovered so far are quite close to their host stars and thus are scalding hot. Planets orbiting red dwarf stars are an exception, but if you’re looking for habitable planets — and many astronomers are — then red dwarf planets come with other problems in terms of habitability.  They are usually tidally locked and they start their days bathed in very high-energy radiation that could stertilize the surface for all time.

A prime goal of the Kepler mission had been to find a planet close enough in character to Earth to be considered a twin.  While they have some terrestrial candidates that could be habitable, no twin was found.  This may be a function of lacking the necessary technology, or it’s certainly possible (if unlikely) that no Earth twins are out there.  Or at least none with quite our collection of conditions favorable to habitability and life. 

With this in mind, my own current candidate for an especially unusual planet is, well, our own.   Planet-hunting over the past almost quarter-century leads to that conclusion — for now, at least.

And it may be that solar systems like ours are highly unusual, too.  Pretty surprising, given that not long ago it was considered the norm.

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

A National Strategy for Finding and Understanding Exoplanets (and Possibly Extraterrestrial Life)

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
The National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine took an in-depth look at what NASA, the astronomy community and the nation need to grow the burgeoning science of exoplanets — planets outside our solar system that orbit a star. (NAS)

 

An extensive, congressionally-directed study of what NASA needs to effectively learn how exoplanets form and whether some may support life was released today, and it calls for major investments in next-generation space and ground telescopes.  It also calls for the adoption of an increasingly multidisciplinary approach for addressing the innumerable questions that remain unanswered.

While the recommendations were many, the top line calls were for a sophisticated new space-based telescope for the 2030s that could directly image exoplanets, for approval and funding of the long-delayed and debated WFIRST space telescope, and for the National Science Foundation and to help fund two of the very large ground-based telescopes now under development.

The study of exoplanets has seen remarkable discoveries in the past two decades.  But the in-depth study from the private, non-profit National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine concludes that there is much more that we don’t understand than that we do, that our understandings are “substantially incomplete.”

So the two overarching goals for future exoplanet science are described as these:

 

  • To understand the formation and evolution of planetary systems as products of star formation and characterize the diversity of their architectures, composition, and environments.
  • To learn enough about exoplanets to identify potentially habitable environments and search for scientific evidence of life on worlds orbiting other stars.

 

Given the challenge, significance and complexity of these science goals, it’s no wonder that young researchers are flocking to the many fields included in exoplanet science.  And reflecting that, it is perhaps no surprise that the NAS survey of key scientific questions, goals, techniques, instruments and opportunities runs over 200 pages. (A webcast of a 1:00 pm NAS talk on the report can be accessed here.)

 


Artist’s concept showing a young sun-like star surrounded by a planet-forming disk of gas and dust.
(NASA/JPL-Caltech/T. Pyle)

These ambitious goals and recommendations will now be forwarded to the arm of the National Academies putting together 2020 Astronomy and Astrophysics Decadal Survey — a community-informed blueprint of priorities that NASA usually follows.

This priority-setting is probably most crucial for the two exoplanet direct imaging missions now being studied as possible Great Observatories for the 2030s — the paradigm-changing space telescopes NASA has launched almost every decade since the 1970s.

HabEx (the Habitable Exoplanet Observatory) and LUVOIR (the Large UV/Optical/IR Surveyor) are two direct-imaging exoplanet projects in conception phase that would indeed significantly change the exoplanet field.

Both would greatly enhance scientists’ ability to detect and characterize exoplanets. But the more ambitious LUVOIR in particular, would not only find many exoplanets in all stages of formation, but could readily read chemical components of the atmospheres and thereby get clear data on whether the planet was habitable or even if it supported life.  The LUVOIR would provide either an 8 meter or a record-breaking 15-meter space telescope, while HabEx would send up a 4 meter mirror.

HabEx and LUVOIR are competing with two other astrophysics projects for that Great Observatory designation, and so NAS support now and prioritizing later is essential if they are to become a reality.

 

An artist notional rendering of an approximately 15-meter telescope in space. This image was created for an earlier large space telescope feasibility project called ATLAST, but it is similar to what is being discussed inside and outside of NASA as a possible great observatory after the James Webb Space Telescope and the Wide-Field Infrared Survey Telescope. (NASA)

These two potential Great Observatories will be costly and would take many years to design and build.  As the study acknowledges and explains, “While the committee recognized that developing a direct imaging capability will require large financial investments and a long time scale to see results, the effort will foster the development of the scientific community and technological capacity to understand myriad worlds.”

So a lot is at stake.  But with budget and space priorities in flux, the fate of even the projects given the highest priority in the Decadal Survey remains unclear.

That’s apparent in the fact that one of the top recommendations of today’s study is the funding of the number one priority put forward in the 2010 Astronomy and Astrophysics Decadal Survey — the Wide Field Infrared Survey Telescope (WFIRST.)

The project — which would boost the search for exoplanets further from their stars than earlier survey mission using microlensing– was cancelled in the administration’s proposed 2019 federal budget.  Congress has continued funding some development of this once top priority, but its future nonetheless remains in doubt.

WFIRST could have the capability of directly imaging exoplanets if it were built with technology to block out the blinding light of the star around which exoplanets would be orbiting — doing so either with internal coronagraph or a companion starshade.  This would be novel technology for a space-based telescope, and the NAS survey recommends it as well.

 

An artist’s rendering of a possible “starshade” that could be launched to work with WFIRST or another space telescope and allow the telescope to take direct pictures of other Earth-like planets. (NASA/JPL-Caltech)

The list of projects the study recommends is long, with these important additions:

That “ground-based astronomy – enabled by two U.S.-led telescopes – will also play a pivotal role in studying planet formation and potentially terrestrial worlds, the report says. The future Giant Magellan telescope (GMT) and proposed Thirty Meter Telescope (TMT) would allow profound advances in imaging and spectroscopy – absorption and emission of light – of entire planetary systems. They also could detect molecular oxygen in temperate terrestrial planets in transit around close and small stars, the report says.”

The committee concluded that the technology road map to enable the full potential of GMT and TMT in the study of exoplanets is in need of investments, and should leverage the existing network of U.S. centers and laboratories. To that end, the report recommends that the National Science Foundation invest in both telescopes and their exoplanet instrumentation to provide all-sky access to the U.S. community.

And for another variety of ground-based observing the study called for the funding of a project to substantially increase the precision of instruments that find and measure exoplanets using the detected “wobble” of the host star.  But stars are active with or without a nearby exoplanet, and so it has been difficult to achieve the precision that astronomers using this “radial velocity” technique need to find and characterize smaller exoplanets.

Several smaller efforts to increase this precision are under way in the U.S., and the European Southern Observatory has a much larger project in development.

Additionally, the report recommends that the administrators of the James Webb Space Telescope give significant amounts of observing time to exoplanet study, especially early in its time aloft (now scheduled to begin in 2021.)  The atmospheric data that JWST can potentially collect could and would be used in conjunction with results coming from other telescopes, and to further study of exoplanet targets that are already promising based on existing theories and findings.

 

Construction has begun on the Giant Magellan Telescope at the Carnegie Institution’s Las Campanas Observatory in Chile. This artist rendering shows what the 24.5 meter (80 foot) segmented mirror and observatory will look like when completed, estimated to be in 2024. (Mason Media Inc.)

 

While the NAS report gives a lot of attention to instruments and ways to use them, it also focuses as never before on astrobiology — the search for life beyond Earth.

Much work has been done on how to determine whether life exists on a distant planet through modeling and theorizing about biosignatures.  The report encourages scientists to expand that work and embraces it as a central aspect of exoplanet science.

The study also argues that interdisciplinary science — bringing together researchers from many disciplines — is the necessary way forward.  It highlights the role of the Nexus for Exoplanet System Science, a NASA initiative which since 2015 has brought together a broad though limited number  of science teams from institutions across the country to learn about each other’s work and collaborate whenever possible.

The initiative itself has not required much funding, instead bringing in teams that had been supported with other grants.   However, that may be changing. One of the study co-chairs, David Charbonneau of Harvard University, said after the release of the study that the “promise of NExSS is tremendous…We really want that idea to grow and have a huge impact.”

The NAS study itself recommends that “building on the NExSS model, NASA should support a cross-divisional exoplanet research coordination network that includes additional membership opportunities via dedicated proposal calls for interdisciplinary research.”

The initiative, I’m proud to say, sponsors this interdisciplinary column in addition to all that interdisciplinary science.

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