The Kepler Mission

[TheBrett]

Awesome!

It's interesting that there's a bulge in the "super-Earth" and "Neptune" sized planets category. Is that probably just a result of limitations in Kepler's ability to detect planets?

[Extrasolar]

It's interesting that there's a bulge in the "super-Earth" and "Neptune" sized planets category. Is that probably just a result of limitations in Kepler's ability to detect planets?

I think Kepler is able to see planet sizes at least as small as Earth, and maybe even as small as Mercury. Some of the first light curves even suggested a moon around one of the planets if memory serves me right.

[iquestor]

Here is a link to Jill tartar's presentation on Earth Analogs. enjoy!

PS - she doesn't look anything like Jody Foster

[PraedSt]

Kepler finds red giants with rapidly spinning cores.
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-12-...ore-stars.html

"An international team of astronomers led by PhD student Paul Beck from Leuven University in Belgium have managed to look deep inside some old stars and discovered that their cores spin at least ten times as fast as their surfaces. The result appeared today in the journal Nature.

It has been known for a long time that the surfaces of these stars spin slowly, taking about a whole year to complete one rotation. The team has now discovered that the cores at the heart of the stars spin much faster with about one rotation per month. The discovery was made possible because of the ultra high precision of the data from NASA's Kepler space telescope."

[Extrasolar]

I just found this site that launched 4 days ago. The address is http://exoplanetarchive.ipac.caltech.edu/.

What is the NASA Exoplanet Archive?

The NASA Exoplanet Archive collects and serves public data to support the search for and characterization of extra-solar planets (exoplanets) and their host stars. The data include published light curves, images, spectra and parameters, and time-series data from surveys that aim to discover transiting exoplanets. Tools are provided to work with the data, particularly the display and analysis of transit data sets from Kepler and CoRoT. All data are validated by the Exoplanet Archive science staff and traced to their sources. The Exoplanet Archive is the U.S. data portal for the CoRoT mission.

[Frodz]

It used to be the NASA Star and Exoplanet Database (NStED), it's just been overhauled to provide improved facility.

[Extrasolar]

It used to be the NASA Star and Exoplanet Database (NStED), it's just been overhauled to provide improved facility.

Cool. I wasn't aware of this one. Hopefully others that have questions like:

It's interesting that there's a bulge in the "super-Earth" and "Neptune" sized planets category. Is that probably just a result of limitations in Kepler's ability to detect planets?

Will have other resources in addition to asking questions if they want to check out the data for themselves. Too bad they don't have the addition 1000+ planet candidates from the announcement on Dec 5th on that site. [yet]

[Sporally]

Has it been anounced at what time we will get the next results from the Kepler search? AFAIK the current search only includes the findings until summer of 2011 since the rest needs more processing time.

*Defined as 0.5 - 2 Me, in habitable zone (taking atmosphere in account) and with unstable atmosphere impossible to explain by non-biological processes.

Yes, we do have the technology to find an atmosphere with non-biological processes, but our current telescopes including Kepler aren't really capable of this. Spitzer has done a little if i remember correct, but i guess we can't find a planet which is impossible to explain by non-biological procrsses as of yet.

I think Kepler is able to see planet sizes at least as small as Earth, and maybe even as small as Mercury. Some of the first light curves even suggested a moon around one of the planets if memory serves me right.

Really? Do you have a link for this? I've always found it interesting since i believe we some time in the future will find more moons with life than planets.

I just found this site that launched 4 days ago. The address is http://exoplanetarchive.ipac.caltech.edu/.

Great site, thanks! Really didn't think anyone would release data on candidates since no one ever talked about their caractaristics other than the amount of candidates like the newly 1,000+ released candidates.

[Extrasolar]

Has it been anounced at what time we will get the next results from the Kepler search? AFAIK the current search only includes the findings until summer of 2011 since the rest needs more processing time.

I've been searching pretty regularly for details on the newest batch of more than 1000, but haven't found them so far.

Really? Do you have a link for this? I've always found it interesting since i believe we some time in the future will find more moons with life than planets.

Neither of these rang a bell with me, but they illustrate the point.

Academia.edu

TrES-2b: Pushing Exomoon Limits

Great site, thanks! Really didn't think anyone would release data on candidates since no one ever talked about their caractaristics other than the amount of candidates like the newly 1,000+ released candidates.

That's a good one, and here's a couple other good ones.

Kepler Planet Candidate Data Explorer
The Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia
Catalog of Exoplanets from the Planetary Society

[Sporally]

Thanks for the links. Can't see where to find the candidates of the exoplanets though if that was what i was suppose to find it the provided links.

[Scriitor]

Listen in to latest Kepler planet discoveries.

[Scriitor]

And confirmed planets just jumped from 28 to 33. All 5 orbit the same star, Kepler 20, G-type, with a system of 5 planets. They include Kepler 20 E and F, Earth-sized but probably uninhabitable. One is only 3% larger than Earth, the other smaller than both Earth and Venus. They don't have the means to measure the masses of these planets via radial velocity - yet. They are hopeful for the near future.

[Scriitor]

Planets proceeding outwards from Kepler 20 are "Neptune-like, rocky, Neptune, rocky, Neptune", all very close. Within a Mercury orbit, I think was said, but I might have misheard. They're proposing this challenges all planet-formation theories. They're challenging the astronomical community to come up with a way how this alternating planetary sequence might have come about.

[Scriitor]

Kepler 20F, closest to Earth-sized, is too hot to have water now, but apparently might have held it for "several billion years" previously. They are hopeful of finding a true Earth-twin within a year or two, but it might take an extended mission of 4-5 years, as sensitivity improves.

And yes, they are hopeful of detecting moons, but via gravity "wobble", not the visual transit method, except for possibly the smaller stars.

[Extrasolar]

And confirmed planets just jumped from 28 to 33. All 5 orbit the same star, Kepler 20, G-type, with a system of 5 planets. They include Kepler 20 E and F, Earth-sized but probably uninhabitable. One is only 3% larger than Earth, the other smaller than both Earth and Venus. They don't have the means to measure the masses of these planets via radial velocity - yet. They are hopeful for the near future.

I'm wondering if this is KOI 921? I missed it if they said. If so, then only 3 of these were ever on the list published in Feb of this year. Can't wait to see the updated list.

[Swift]

Kepler 20F, closest to Earth-sized, is too hot to have water now, but apparently might have held it for "several billion years" previously. They are hopeful of finding a true Earth-twin within a year or two, but it might take an extended mission of 4-5 years, as sensitivity improves.

And yes, they are hopeful of detecting moons, but via gravity "wobble", not the visual transit method, except for possibly the smaller stars.

CNN's headline on this was kind of funny, saying NASA scientists had discovered the first Earth-sized planets. Uh... I'm thinking they are the second and third Earth-sized planets humans have discovered; the first didn't require a telescope.

[NEOWatcher]

CNN's headline on this was kind of funny, saying NASA scientists had discovered the first Earth-sized planets. Uh... I'm thinking they are the second and third Earth-sized planets humans have discovered; the first didn't require a telescope.

Actually; it says "found" (at least the link did). I don't think we ever lost the first one.

[Garrison]

Planets proceeding outwards from Kepler 20 are "Neptune-like, rocky, Neptune, rocky, Neptune", all very close. Within a Mercury orbit, I think was said, but I might have misheard. They're proposing this challenges all planet-formation theories. They're challenging the astronomical community to come up with a way how this alternating planetary sequence might have come about.

To date it is looking like that nice neat orderly sequence we see in the solar system is just pure chance, there's nothing that actually favours it. Of course you have to wonder if the arrangement in Kepler 20 had anything to do with the two M-Class, *ahem* I mean Earth type() planets spiralling in so close to their sun.

[MaDeR]

I do not understand why no one remembered pulsar planets? i looked everywhere - forums, space portals, news, and nowhere this issue it talked about. So lets say this: "first ever planet smaller than Earth discovered in history" or other statements like this are pure **.

[Garrison]

I do not understand why no one remembered pulsar planets? i looked everywhere - forums, space portals, news, and nowhere this issue it talked about. So lets say this: "first ever planet smaller than Earth discovered in history" or other statements like this are pure **.

Because they are irrelevant to the topic at hand? These are the first earth size or smaller planets discovered orbiting a main sequence star; and a G type star similar to our own sun to boot.

[Ilya]

And yes, they are hopeful of detecting moons, but via gravity "wobble", not the visual transit method, except for possibly the smaller stars.

How can gravity wobble possibly detect moons? Especially with Kepler, which is not really designed for that process?

[Extrasolar]

How can gravity wobble possibly detect moons? Especially with Kepler, which is not really designed for that process?

This is the website of an investigator of exomoons.

http://www.homepages.ucl.ac.uk/~ucapdki/exomoons.html

[MaDeR]

These are the first earth size or smaller planets discovered orbiting a main sequence star;

This quantificator is not present in any report seen by me about this discovery. I will repeat: "first ever planet smaller than Earth discovered in history" (and this is what these reports essentially saying, flat out FIRST EVER) is lie. Will you deny it?

How can gravity wobble possibly detect moons? Especially with Kepler, which is not really designed for that process?

Very precise timing of transitions.

[Extrasolar]

Two papers on Transit Timing Variations from the Kepler team:

arXiv:1201.1892 - Transit Timing Observations from Kepler: VI. Transit Timing Variation Candidates in the First Seventeen Months from Polynomial Models

arXiv:1201.1873 - Transit Timing Observations from Kepler: VII. Potentially interesting candidate systems from Fourier-based statistical tests

[ToSeek]

NASA's Kepler Mission Finds Three Smallest Exoplanets

Astronomers using data from NASA's Kepler mission have discovered the three smallest planets yet detected orbiting a star beyond our sun. The planets orbit a single star, called KOI-961, and are 0.78, 0.73 and 0.57 times the radius of Earth. The smallest is about the size of Mars.

All three planets are thought to be rocky like Earth but orbit close to their star, making them too hot to be in the habitable zone, which is the region where liquid water could exist. Of the more than 700 planets confirmed to orbit other stars, called exoplanets, only a handful are known to be rocky.

"Astronomers are just beginning to confirm the thousands of planet candidates uncovered by Kepler so far," said Doug Hudgins, Kepler program scientist at NASA Headquarters in Washington. "Finding one as small as Mars is amazing, and hints that there may be a bounty of rocky planets all around us."

[Garrison]

I suppose given the duration so far of the Kepler mission that the earth sized(or smaller) planets detected are almost bound to be close to their stars?

[MaDeR]

AFAIK Kepler was supposed to be able to detect earth-sized planet in habitable zone of sun-like star within primary mission time, so not that close to star.

But there is one problem. Stars osciliate too much, more than expected, making measurements harder. So successfully confirmed detection of this kind of planet require mission extension.

[Extrasolar]

I suppose given the duration so far of the Kepler mission that the earth sized(or smaller) planets detected are almost bound to be close to their stars?

The probability of an Earth sized planet at 1 AU transiting the star from our point of view is 1 in 212, 1 in 106 at 0.5 AU, and 1 in 21 at 0.1 AU.

[kamaz]

The probability of an Earth sized planet at 1 AU transiting the star from our point of view is 1 in 212, 1 in 106 at 0.5 AU, and 1 in 21 at 0.1 AU.

Do the published numbers of expected planet population in the Galaxy take this into account?

[Extrasolar]

Do the published numbers of expected planet population in the Galaxy take this into account?

I have no Idea for sure, but I imagine it is. I've heard Boroucki say that if an Earth size planet were detected at 1 AU around a solar like star, then the estimate would be 200 times that, and that is based on probability. The problem I have with that statistic is if we were 1000 light years away, and were looking in the direction of Earth, we would also apply that formula. So the number would at least be 200 Earth like planets per 150,000 stars from that perspective. Should we include ourselves in a survey of 150,000?