We find evidence for a bimodal distribution of small planet sizes. Sub-Neptunes and super-Earths appear to be two distinct planet classes. Planets tend to prefer radii of either ∼1.3 R⊕ or ∼2.4 R⊕, with relatively few planets having radii of 1.5–2.0 R⊕.
And now, a team of international astronomers has announced the discovery of an extra-solar body that is similar to another terrestrial planet in our own Solar System. It’s known as Kepler-1649b, a planet that appears to be similar in size and density to Earth and is located in a star system just 219 light-years away. But in terms of its atmosphere, this planet appears to be decidedly more “Venus-like” (i.e. insanely hot!)The team’s study, titled “Kepler-1649b: An Exo-Venus in the Solar Neighborhood“, was recently published in The Astronomical Journal. Led by Isabel Angelo – of the SETI Institute, NASA Ames Research Center, and UC Berkley – the team included researchers also from SETI and Ames, as well as the NASA Exoplanet Science Institute (NExScl), the Exoplanet Research Institute (iREx), the Center for Astrophysics Research, and other research institutions.
Astronomers have detected an atmosphere around the super-Earth GJ 1132b. This marks the first detection of an atmosphere around a low-mass super-Earth, in terms of radius and mass the most Earth-like planet around which an atmosphere has yet been detected. Thus, this is a significant step on the path towards the detection of life on an exoplanet. The team, which includes researchers from the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy, used the 2.2-m ESO/MPG telescope in Chile to take images of the planet's host star, GJ 1132, and measured the slight decrease in brightness as the planet and its atmosphere absorbed some of the starlight while passing directly in front of their host star.
The team used the GROND imager at the 2.2-m ESO/MPG telescope of the European Southern Observatory in Chile to observe the planet simultaneously in seven different wavelength bands. GJ 1132b is a transiting planet: From the perspective of an observer on Earth, it passes directly in front of its star every 1.6 days, blocking some of the star's light.The size of stars like GJ 1132 is well known from stellar models. From the fraction of starlight blocked by the planet, astronomers can deduce the planet's size—in this case around 1.4 times the size of the Earth. Crucially, the new observations showed the planet to be larger at one of the infrared wavelengths than at the others. This suggests the presence of an atmosphere that is opaque to this specific infrared light (making the planet appear larger) but transparent at all the others. Different possible versions of the atmosphere were then simulated by team members at the University of Cambridge and the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy. According to those models, an atmosphere rich in water and methane would explain the observations very well.The discovery comes with the usual exoplanet caveats: while somewhat larger than Earth, and with 1.6 times Earth's mass (as determined by earlier measurements), observations to date do not provide sufficient data to decide how similar or dissimilar GJ 1132b is to Earth. Possibilities include a "water world" with an atmosphere of hot steam.The presence of the atmosphere is a reason for cautious optimism. M dwarfs are the most common types of star, and show high levels of activity; for some set-ups, this activity (in the shape of flares and particle streams) can be expected to blow away nearby planets' atmospheres. GJ 1132b provides a hopeful counterexample of an atmosphere that has endured for billion of years (that is, long enough for us to detect it). Given the great number of M dwarf stars, such atmospheres could mean that the preconditions for life are quite common in the universe.In any case, the new observations make GJ 1132b a high-priority target for further study by instruments such as the Hubble Space Telescope, ESO's Very Large Telescope, and the James Webb Space Telescope slated for launch in 2018.
Stargazing Live viewers find four-planet solar system via crowd-sourcing projecthttp://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-06/stargazing-live-four-planets-discovered-in-new-solar-system/8423142
Interesting 3:2 orbital resonances between planets b and c, c and d, and d and e.
Updated Masses for the TRAPPIST-1 Planets (arXiv)QuoteThe newly detected TRAPPIST-1 system, with seven low-mass, roughly Earth-sized planets transiting a nearby ultra-cool dwarf, is one of the most important exoplanet discoveries to date. The short baseline of the available discovery observations, however, means that the planetary masses (obtained through measurement of transit timing variations of the planets of the system) are not yet well constrained. The masses reported in the discovery paper were derived using a combination of photometric timing measurements obtained from the ground and from the Spitzer spacecraft, and have uncertainties ranging from 30\% to nearly 100\%, with the mass of the outermost, P=18.8d, planet h remaining unmeasured. Here, we present an analysis that supplements the timing measurements of the discovery paper with 73.6 days of photometry obtained by the K2 Mission. Our analysis refines the orbital parameters for all of the planets in the system. We substantially improve the upper bounds on eccentricity for inner six planets (finding e<0.02 for inner six known members of the system), and we derive masses of 0.79±0.27M⊕, 1.63±0.63M⊕, 0.33±0.15M⊕, 0.24+0.56−0.24M⊕, 0.36±0.12M⊕, 0.566±0.038M⊕, and 0.086±0.084M⊕ for planets b, c, d, e, f, g, and h, respectively.QuoteFigure 4 indicates that – to within the errors of our determinations – the four most distant planets are consistent with pure water compositions, and in any event, are substantially less dense either Mars or Venus.
The newly detected TRAPPIST-1 system, with seven low-mass, roughly Earth-sized planets transiting a nearby ultra-cool dwarf, is one of the most important exoplanet discoveries to date. The short baseline of the available discovery observations, however, means that the planetary masses (obtained through measurement of transit timing variations of the planets of the system) are not yet well constrained. The masses reported in the discovery paper were derived using a combination of photometric timing measurements obtained from the ground and from the Spitzer spacecraft, and have uncertainties ranging from 30\% to nearly 100\%, with the mass of the outermost, P=18.8d, planet h remaining unmeasured. Here, we present an analysis that supplements the timing measurements of the discovery paper with 73.6 days of photometry obtained by the K2 Mission. Our analysis refines the orbital parameters for all of the planets in the system. We substantially improve the upper bounds on eccentricity for inner six planets (finding e<0.02 for inner six known members of the system), and we derive masses of 0.79±0.27M⊕, 1.63±0.63M⊕, 0.33±0.15M⊕, 0.24+0.56−0.24M⊕, 0.36±0.12M⊕, 0.566±0.038M⊕, and 0.086±0.084M⊕ for planets b, c, d, e, f, g, and h, respectively.
Figure 4 indicates that – to within the errors of our determinations – the four most distant planets are consistent with pure water compositions, and in any event, are substantially less dense either Mars or Venus.
Cross-posting from the 'NASA's Trappist-1 Announcement - Feb 22, 2017' thread.Quote from: CuddlyRocket on 04/17/2017 07:58 amUpdated Masses for the TRAPPIST-1 Planets (arXiv)QuoteThe newly detected TRAPPIST-1 system, with seven low-mass, roughly Earth-sized planets transiting a nearby ultra-cool dwarf, is one of the most important exoplanet discoveries to date. The short baseline of the available discovery observations, however, means that the planetary masses (obtained through measurement of transit timing variations of the planets of the system) are not yet well constrained. The masses reported in the discovery paper were derived using a combination of photometric timing measurements obtained from the ground and from the Spitzer spacecraft, and have uncertainties ranging from 30\% to nearly 100\%, with the mass of the outermost, P=18.8d, planet h remaining unmeasured. Here, we present an analysis that supplements the timing measurements of the discovery paper with 73.6 days of photometry obtained by the K2 Mission. Our analysis refines the orbital parameters for all of the planets in the system. We substantially improve the upper bounds on eccentricity for inner six planets (finding e<0.02 for inner six known members of the system), and we derive masses of 0.79±0.27M⊕, 1.63±0.63M⊕, 0.33±0.15M⊕, 0.24+0.56−0.24M⊕, 0.36±0.12M⊕, 0.566±0.038M⊕, and 0.086±0.084M⊕ for planets b, c, d, e, f, g, and h, respectively.QuoteFigure 4 indicates that – to within the errors of our determinations – the four most distant planets are consistent with pure water compositions, and in any event, are substantially less dense either Mars or Venus.
What to make of Fergus Simpson’s new paper on waterworlds, suggesting that most habitable zone planets are of this type? If such worlds are common, we may find that most planets in the habitable zones of their stars are capable of evolving life, but unlikely to host technological civilizations. An explanation for the so-called ‘Fermi Paradox’? Possibly, but there are all kinds of things that could account for our inability to see other civilizations, most of them covered by Stephen Webb in his If the Universe Is Teeming with Aliens … Where Is Everybody? (2nd ed., Springer 2015), which offers 75 solutions to the problem.Simpson (University of Barcelona) makes his case in the pages of Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, arguing that the balance maintained by a planetary surface with large amounts of both land and water is delicate. The author’s Bayesian statistical analysis suggests that most planets are dominated either by water or land, most likely water. Earth may, then, be something of an outlier, with most planets over 90 percent covered in water.
There seems to be a confusion in terminology prevalent. Is a waterworld a world covered in water, but which, like the Earth, is predominately made of rock and metal; or is a waterworld one which is predominately made of water (ice, actually)?I think of a waterworld as being the latter, with the former described as an oceanworld. But I could be under a misapprehension!
Small planets may be common around ultracool dwarfs, an idea that previous microlensing discoveries reinforce, along with the work on protoplanetary disks and the seven planets orbiting TRAPPIST-1. As to our expectations regarding planets in the galactic bulge as opposed to the disk, the jury is still out. The planets Spitzer has thus far found in its microlensing campaign for the galactic distribution of planets are all located in the disk. We have two upcoming Spitzer microlensing campaigns, one this year and one next, which should offer additional insights. The key question: Is the galactic bulge deficient in planets?
Is it a trick question?"(hundreds of billions of dollars) to send a robotic probe to that planet over a distance of, say, 20 lightyears" - well, such a probe could reach its destination somewhere in the year 50000, at best. Does not make sense, if you ask me...
Poll:If & when a future ultra-sensitive spectroscope detects chlorophyll in an exoplanet's atmosphere -- meaning ongoing photosynthesis by abundant plant life -- will NASA (plus maybe other government's space agencies) mount a hugely expensive effort (hundreds of billions of dollars) to send a robotic probe to that planet over a distance of, say, 20 lightyears? Knowing that radio transmission of results won't be received by anyone currently living? And with no guarantee of success?Yes: Explore & investigate is in our genes, must find out if this is a Second Earth that can be our lifeboat & refugeNo: We will never leave solar system, age of discovery is over