Three Potentially Habitable Planets Found Orbiting Gliese 667C

Nearby star Gliese 667C might have three potentially habitable planets. Credit: Planetary Habitability Laboratory, University of Puerto Rico Arecibo.

A closer look at the previously-studied nearby star Gliese 667C has revealed a treasure trove of planets – at least six – with three super-Earths in the habitable zone around the star. Gliese 667C is part of a triple star system (Gliese 667) and is just over one third of the mass of our Sun. Now that we know there are multiple planets in the so-called Goldilocks zone – a region where liquid water could exist — Gliese 667C might be the best candidate for harboring habitable exo-worlds.

“We knew that the star had three planets from previous studies, so we wanted to see whether there were any more,” said Mikko Tuomi from the University of Hertfordshire in the UK, one of the astronomers who led the new study of Gliese 667C. “By adding some new observations and revisiting existing data we were able to confirm these three and confidently reveal several more. Finding three low-mass planets in the star’s habitable zone is very exciting!”

Artist’s conception of the seven planets possibly found orbiting Gliese 667C. Three of them (c, f and e) orbit within the habitable zone of the star. Image is courtesy of Rene Heller/ Carnegie Institution for Science.
Artist’s conception of the seven planets possibly found orbiting Gliese 667C. Three of them (c, f and e) orbit within the habitable zone of the star. Image is courtesy of Rene Heller/ Carnegie Institution for Science.

Tuomi, along with Guillem Anglada-Escudé of the University of Göttingen, Germany looked at existing radial velocity data from the HARPS spectrograph at ESO’s 3.6-metre telescope in Chile. The team said they are extremely confident on the data on the first five planets, while the sixth is tentative, and a potential seventh planet even more tentative.

The team writes in their paper:

Up to seven periodic signals are detected in the Doppler measurements of GJ 667C data, being the last (seventh) signal very close to our detection threshold.

The significance of the signals is not affected by correlations with activity indices and we could not identify any strong wavelength dependence with any of them.

The first six signals are strongly present in subsamples of the data. Only the seventh signal is unconfirmed using half of the data only. Our analysis indicates that any of the six stronger signals would had been robustly spotted with half the available data if each had been orbiting alone around the host star.

If all seven planets are confirmed, the system would consist of three habitable-zone super-Earths, two hot planets further in, and two cooler planets further out.

This diagram shows the system of planets around the star Gliese 667C. A record-breaking three planets in this system are super-Earths lying in the zone around the star where liquid water could exist, making them possible candidates for the presence of life. This is the first system found with a fully packed habitable zone. The relative approximate sizes of the planets and the parent star are shown to scale, but not their relative separations. Credit: ESO
This diagram shows the system of planets around the star Gliese 667C. A record-breaking three planets in this system are super-Earths lying in the zone around the star where liquid water could exist, making them possible candidates for the presence of life. This is the first system found with a fully packed habitable zone. The relative approximate sizes of the planets and the parent star are shown to scale, but not their relative separations. Credit: ESO

But the team said the three in the habitable zone are confirmed to be super-Earths. These are planets more massive than Earth, but less massive than planets like Uranus or Neptune. This is the first time that three such planets have been spotted orbiting in this zone in the same system.

“The number of potentially habitable planets in our galaxy is much greater if we can expect to find several of them around each low-mass star,” said co-author Rory Barnes from the University of Washington, “instead of looking at ten stars to look for a single potentially habitable planet, we now know we can look at just one star and find several of them.”

Gliese 667 (a.k.a GJ 667) is 22 light-years away from Earth in the constellation of Scorpius.
The planets in the habitable zone and those closer to the star are expected to always have the same side facing the star, so that their day and year will be the same lengths, with one side in perpetual sunshine and the other always night.

The researchers say that the ‘f’ planet is “a prime candidate for habitability.”

“It likely absorbs less energy than the Earth, and hence habitability requires more greenhouse gases, like CO2 or CH4,” the team wrote in their paper. “Therefore a habitable version of this planet has to have a thicker atmosphere than the Earth, and we can assume a relatively uniform surface temperature.”

The other stars in the triple system would provide a unique sunset: the two other suns would look like a pair of very bright stars visible in the daytime and at night they would provide as much illumination as the full Moon.

Are there more planets to be found in this abundant system? Perhaps, but not in the habitable zone. The team said the new planets completely fill up the habitable zone of Gliese 667C, as there are no more stable orbits in which a planet could exist at the right distance to it.

An artist’s impression of the orbits of the planets in the Gliese 667C system:

Read the team’s paper.

Sources: ESO, Carnegie , Planetary Habitability Laboratory

Blocking Light Sheds New Light on Exoplanet Atmospheres

Kepler-16b is but one example of an uncanny world. It orbits two suns. Credit: Discovery

Exoplanets are uncanny. Some seem to have walked directly out of the best science-fiction movies. For example, we’ve discovered a planet consisting purely of water (GJ 1214b) and one with two suns (Kepler 16b). Some planets nearly scrape their host stars once every orbit, while others exist in darkness without a host star at all. The field of exoplanet research is moving beyond detecting exoplanets to characterizing them – understanding which molecules are present and if they might possibly harbor life.

A key research element in characterizing these alien worlds is observing their atmospheres. But how exactly do astronomers do this? We can’t simply tug the planet toward us to get a closer look.  It’s also incredibly difficult to directly image their atmospheres from afar.  Why? Stars are incredibly bright in comparison to their puny, barely reflective, and nearby exoplanets. So a direct image of an exoplanet’s atmosphere seemed out of the question – until recently.

It may be tricky to directly image an exoplanet’s atmosphere, but astronomers always have quite a few tricks up their sleeves. The first one is in mounting an instrument called a coronagraph on your telescope.  This instrument blocks out the star’s light, leaving an image of the exoplanet alone.  Another trick, known as adaptive optics, is to send a laser beam through the atmosphere.  The changes in the laser allow us to monitor changes in the atmosphere, providing corrections to clean and smooth the image.

HR 8799, a large star orbited by four known giant planets, is relatively nearby (remember that ‘nearby’ is an astronomers way of saying that it is still pretty far, or in this case 130 light years away). In 2008, three of the planets were directly imaged using the Gemini and Keck telescopes on Mauna Kea, Hawaii.  In 2010, the fourth planet, which was closest to the star and therefore the most difficult to see was directly imaged by the Keck telescope.

Direct image of the HR 8799 system.  The star has been blocked and all four planets can clearby be seen. Credit: Oppenheimer et al. 2013
Direct image of the HR 8799 system. The star has been blocked and all four planets can clearby be seen. Credit: Oppenheimer et al. 2013

A direct image of an exoplanet’s atmosphere may tell us what color the atmosphere appears to be, and how thick the atmosphere is, but it gives us little more information.  We need to know the atmospheric composition – the specific molecules and their abundances that are present within the atmosphere itself.  If we’re looking at the question of habitability we need to know if there is water in the atmosphere or maybe carbon dioxide.

The key is in mounting a spectrograph on the telescope.  Instead of collecting the overall light from the planet, that light is broken up into a spectrum of wavelengths.  Imagine seeing a rainbow after a thunderstorm.  That rainbow is simply the light from the sun broken up across all visible wavelengths due to ice crystals in our atmosphere.  Molecules emit light at specific wavelengths, leaving well-known fingerprints that may be identified in a lab on Earth, in a rainbow in the sky, or in the spectrum of an exoplanet located 130 light years away.

When astronomers mounted their instrumentation (i.e. a coronagraph, an adaptive optics system, and a spectrograph) known as Project 1640 onboard the Palomar 5m Hale Telescope, they were able to shed new light on the HR 7899 system.  Only last month one of its exoplanets revealed a mixture of water vapor and carbon monoxide in its atmosphere, but the story has changed. See a previous article in Universe Today.

Project 1640 observed not one – but four atmospheres at once.  Gautam Vasisht of JPL explains, “in just one hour, we were able to get precise composition information about four planets around one overwhelmingly bright star.”  These four exoplanets are believed to be coeval, in that they formed from a protoplanetary disk at roughly the same time.  They also have the same luminosity and temperature, leading to the assumption that they are roughly similar to each other.  But results show that they all have radically different spectra, and therefore different chemical compositions!

More specifically, HR 8799 b and d contain carbon dioxide, b and c contain ammonia, d and e contain methane, and b, d, and e contain acetylene.  Noticing a few trends? There really aren’t any! Not only are these planets different from each other, they are also different from any other known objects. Acetylene, for example, has never been convincingly identified in a sub-stellar object outside the solar system.  While the varying spectra pose many questions, one thing is clear: the diversity of planets must be greater than previously thought!

This is only the first exoplanet system for which we’ve obtained direct spectra of all exoplanet atmospheres. Project 1640 will conduct a 3-year survey of 200 nearby stars. The hope is to find hot Jupiters located far from their host star.  While this is what the current technique allows astronomers to detect, it will also teach astronomers how Earth-like planets form.

“The outer giant planets dictate the fate of rocky ones like Earth. Giant planets can migrate in toward a star, and in the process, tug the smaller, rocky planets around or even kick them out of the system. We’re looking at hot Jupiters before they migrate in, and hope to understand more about how and when they might influence the destiny of the rocky, inner planets,” explained Vasisht.

In an attempt to understand our own blue marble, astronomers point their telescopes at uncanny worlds light years away. Project 1640 will block the light of distant stars in order to shed light on distant worlds as well as our own.

Sources: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and B. R. Oppenheimer et al. 2013 ApJ 768 24

 

Watch Live Hangout: TESS and the Search for Exoplanets

Artist's rendition of TESS in space. (Credit: MIT Kavli Institute for Astrophysics Research).

Last month, NASA announced plans to launch the Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS) in 2017. This is a satellite that will perform an all-sky survey to discover transiting exoplanets in orbit around the brightest stars in the Sun’s neighborhood. “TESS will carry out the first space-borne all-sky transit survey, covering 400 times as much sky as any previous mission,” said George Ricker, the mission’s principal investigator. “It will identify thousands of new planets in the solar neighborhood, with a special focus on planets comparable in size to the Earth.”

Read more about the TESS mission here.

Today, Wednesday May 1, at 19:00 UTC (12:00 p.m. PDT, 3:00 pm EDT) you can take part in a live Google+ Hangout, and have your questions answered about TESS and the search for exoplanets with three leading members of NASA’s TESS mission:

George Ricker is principal investigator of the TESS mission and a senior research scientist at the MIT Kavli Institute for Astrophysics and Space Research (MKI) in Cambridge, Mass.

Sara Seager is a professor of planetary science and physics at MKI and a member of the TESS team. Seager’s research focuses on computer models of exoplanet atmospheres, interiors and biosignatures.

Joshua Winn is an associate professor of physics at MKI and deputy science director for the TESS mission. Winn is interested in the properties of planets around other stars, how planets form and evolve, and whether there are habitable planets beyond Earth.

Watch in the viewer above, or at the Kavli Foundation website.

Questions can be submitted ahead of and during this special event via Twitter using the hashtag #KavliAstro and by email to [email protected].

Habitable Worlds? New Kepler Planetary Systems in Images

Relative sizes of Kepler habitable zone planets discovered as of 2013 April 18. Left to right: Kepler-22b, Kepler-69c, Kepler-62e, Kepler-62f, and Earth (except for Earth, these are artists' renditions). Credit: NASA/Ames/JPL-Caltech.

The Kepler mission has discovered two new planetary systems that include three super-Earth-size planets in the “habitable zone,” the range of distance from a star where the surface temperature of an orbiting planet might be suitable for liquid water.

The Kepler-62 system has five planets; 62b, 62c, 62d, 62e and 62f. The Kepler-69 system has two planets; 69b and 69c. Kepler-62e, 62f and 69c are the super-Earth-sized planets. (Read all the details in our full article here.)

The new planets brings the number of confirmed exoplanets to 861. According to the Planetary Habitability Laboratory, there are now nine potential habitable worlds outside of our solar system, with 18 more potentally habitable planetary candidates found by Kepler waiting to be confirmed. Additionally, astronomers predict there are 25 potentially habitable exomoons.

Here is some of the imagery (sorry, but they are artists concepts!), graphs and video used in today’s briefing about the new discoveries, as well as some some from the Planetary Habitability Laboratory:

Here’s a flythrough of the Kepler 62 system:

The diagram compares the planets of the inner solar system to Kepler-69, a two-planet system about 2,700 light-years from Earth. Image credit: NASA Ames/JPL-Caltech
The diagram compares the planets of the inner solar system to Kepler-69, a two-planet system about 2,700 light-years from Earth.
Image credit: NASA Ames/JPL-Caltech
Much like our solar system, Kepler-62 is home to two habitable zone worlds. The small shining object seen to the right of Kepler-62f is Kepler-62e. Orbiting on the inner edge of the habitable zone, Kepler-62e is roughly 60 percent larger than Earth. Image credit: NASA Ames/JPL-Caltech.
Much like our solar system, Kepler-62 is home to two habitable zone worlds. The small shining object seen to the right of Kepler-62f is Kepler-62e. Orbiting on the inner edge of the habitable zone, Kepler-62e is roughly 60 percent larger than Earth. Image credit: NASA Ames/JPL-Caltech.
The diagram compares the planets of the inner solar system to Kepler-62, a five-planet system about 1,200 light-years from Earth. Image credit: NASA Ames/JPL-Caltech
The diagram compares the planets of the inner solar system to Kepler-62, a five-planet system about 1,200 light-years from Earth. Image credit: NASA Ames/JPL-Caltech
Current known potentially habitable exoplanets. Credit: Planetary Habitability Laboratory/University of Puerto Rico, Arecibo.
Current known potentially habitable exoplanets. Credit: Planetary Habitability Laboratory/University of Puerto Rico, Arecibo.
Current potentially habitable exoplanets showing the new additions, Kepler-62e and Kepler-62f. Credit: Planetary Habitability Laboratory/University of Puerto Rico, Arecibo.
Current potentially habitable exoplanets showing the new additions, Kepler-62e and Kepler-62f. Credit: Planetary Habitability Laboratory/University of Puerto Rico, Arecibo.
Comparison of the orbit and size of the exoplanets of Kepler-62 with the terrestrial planets of our Solar Systems. The darker green shaded area corresponds to the 'conservative habitable zone' while its lighter borders to its 'optimistic habitable zone' extension. Planet sizes and orbits are not to scale between them. Credit: Planetary Habitability Laboratory/University of Puerto Rico, Arecibo.
Comparison of the orbit and size of the exoplanets of Kepler-62 with the terrestrial planets of our Solar Systems. The darker green shaded area corresponds to the ‘conservative habitable zone’ while its lighter borders to its ‘optimistic habitable zone’ extension. Planet sizes and orbits are not to scale between them. Credit: Planetary Habitability Laboratory/University of Puerto Rico, Arecibo.

Kepler Team Finds System with Two Potentially Habitable Planets

The newly discovered planets named Kepler-62e and -f are super-Earths in the habitable zone of a distant sun-like star. The largest planet in the image, Kepler-62f, is farthest from its star and covered by ice. Kepler-62e, in the foreground, is nearer to its star and covered by dense clouds. Closer in orbits a Neptune-size ice giant with another small planet transiting its star. Both habitable-zone planets may be capable of supporting life. Credit: David A. Aguilar (CfA)

This might be the most exciting exoplanet news yet. An international team of scientists analyzing data from NASA’s Kepler mission has found a planetary system with two small, potentially rocky planets that lie within the habitable zone of their star. The star, Kepler-62, is a bit smaller and cooler than our Sun, and is home to a five-planet system. Two of the worlds, Kepler-62e and Kepler-62f are the smallest exoplanets yet found in a habitable zone, and they might both be covered in water or ice, depending on what kind of atmosphere they might have.

“Imagine looking through a telescope to see another world with life just a few million miles from your own. Or, having the capability to travel between them on a regular basis. I can’t think of a more powerful motivation to become a space-faring society,” said Harvard astronomer Dimitar Sasselov, who is co-author of a new paper describing the discovery.

Masses and sizes for selected planets. The curves show the mass-radius-relation (average density) for different types of planets: The blue line indicates the loci of planets made mostly (75%) of water, the black line that of planets like our Earth that consist almost exclusively of rock (represented here by the mineral Enstatite, MgSiO3, a member of the pyroxite silicate mineral series that makes up most of the Earth's mantle), and so on. The measured radii of Kepler-62e and Kepler-62f plus an estimate of their mass places them in a region (blue areas) where it is highly probable for them to be earth-like planets, that is: planets with a solid (if possibly covered in water) surface. Kepler-11f, on the other hand, is a Mini-Neptune, showing clearly that a comparatively low mass does not necessarily make for a solid planet. Image: L. Kaltenegger (MPIA)
Masses and sizes for selected planets. The curves show the mass-radius-relation (average density) for different types of planets: The blue line indicates the loci of planets made mostly (75%) of water, the black line that of planets like our Earth that consist almost exclusively of rock (represented here by the mineral Enstatite, MgSiO3, a member of the pyroxite silicate mineral series that makes up most of the Earth’s mantle), and so on. The measured radii of Kepler-62e and Kepler-62f plus an estimate of their mass places them in a region (blue areas) where it is highly probable for them to be earth-like planets, that is: planets with a solid (if possibly covered in water) surface. Kepler-11f, on the other hand, is a Mini-Neptune, showing clearly that a comparatively low mass does not necessarily make for a solid planet. Image: L. Kaltenegger (MPIA)

Kepler-62 in the constellation Lyra, and is about 1,200 light-years from Earth.

62e is 1.61 times Earth’s size, circles the star in 122.4 (Earth) days. 62f is 1.4 times the size of Earth, and orbits its star in 267.3 days. Previously, the smallest planet with known radius inside a habitable zone was Kepler-22b, with a radius of 2.4 times that of the Earth.

A third planet in another star system was also announced at a press briefing today. Kepler-69c is 70 percent larger than the size of Earth, and orbits in the habitable zone of a star similar to our Sun. Researchers are uncertain about the composition of Kepler-69c, but astronomer Thomas Barclay from the BAER Institute said its closer orbit of 242 days around a Sun-like star means it is likely more like a super-Venus rather than a super-Earth.

The habitable zone (in which liquid water on a planet's surface can exist) for different types of stars. The inner planets of our Solar System are shown on top, with Earth and Mars in the habitable zone. Kepler-62 is a notably cooler star, and Kepler-62e and -62f are in its habitable zone. For Kepler-69c, another planet announced today by NASA, the error bars for the star's radiation are such that it could possibly in the habitable zone as well. Kepler-22b, the smallest planet found in a habitable zone before the recent discoveries, is very likely a Mini-Neptune, and not a solid planet. In what is denoted the empirical habitable zone, liquid water can exist on the surface of a planet if that planet has sufficient cloud cover. In the narrow habitable zone, liquid water can exist on the surface even without the presence of a cloud cover. Image: L. Kaltenegger (MPIA)
The habitable zone (in which liquid water on a planet’s surface can exist) for different types of stars. The inner planets of our Solar System are shown on top, with Earth and Mars in the habitable zone. Kepler-62 is a notably cooler star, and Kepler-62e and -62f are in its habitable zone. For Kepler-69c, another planet announced today by NASA, the error bars for the star’s radiation are such that it could possibly in the habitable zone as well. Kepler-22b, the smallest planet found in a habitable zone before the recent discoveries, is very likely a Mini-Neptune, and not a solid planet. In what is denoted the empirical habitable zone, liquid water can exist on the surface of a planet if that planet has sufficient cloud cover. In the narrow habitable zone, liquid water can exist on the surface even without the presence of a cloud cover. Image: L. Kaltenegger (MPIA)

The team says that while the sizes of Kepler 62e and 62f are known, their mass and densities are not. However, every planet found in their size range so far has been rocky, like Earth.

Kepler-62 system. Five planets, two of which are in the Habitable Zone. Credit: NASA
Kepler-62 system. Five planets, two of which are in the Habitable Zone. Credit: NASA

“These planets are unlike anything in our solar system. They have endless oceans,” said lead author Lisa Kaltenegger of the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy and the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. “There may be life there, but could it be technology-based like ours? Life on these worlds would be under water with no easy access to metals, to electricity, or fire for metallurgy. Nonetheless, these worlds will still be beautiful blue planets circling an orange star — and maybe life’s inventiveness to get to a technology stage will surprise us.”

As the warmer of the two worlds, Kepler-62e would have a bit more clouds than Earth according to computer models. More distant Kepler-62f would need the greenhouse effect from plenty of carbon dioxide to warm it enough to host an ocean. Otherwise, it might become an ice-covered snowball.

“Kepler-62e probably has a very cloudy sky and is warm and humid all the way to the polar regions. Kepler-62f would be cooler, but still potentially life-friendly,” said Harvard astronomer and co-author Dimitar Sasselov. “The good news is — the two would exhibit distinctly different colors and make our search for signatures of life easier on such planets in the near future. “

The Kepler spacecraft is able to detect planets that transit or cross the face of their host star. Measuring a transit tells astronomers the size of the planet relative to its star.

“All of the other interesting planets in the habitable zone were until now discovered by what is known as the radial velocity method,” said Kaltenegger. “This method gives you a lower limit for the planet’s mass, but no information about its radius. This makes it difficult to assess whether or not a planet is rocky, like the Earth. A small radius (less than 2 Earth radii), on the other hand, is a strong indicator that a planet around is indeed rocky – unless we are talking about a planet around a very young star.”

“What makes Kepler-62e and Kepler-62f so exciting is a combination of two factors,” Kaltenegger added. “We know their radius, which indicates that these are indeed rocky planets, and they orbit their star in the habitable zone. That makes them our best candidates for habitable planets out there yet.

Kaltenegger provides more details on these exoplanets in this video:

Sources: Max Planck Institute for Astronomy, CfA

The Exoplanet Naming Debate Heats Up

An artist's impression of an extra solar planet Photo credit: David A Hardy, astroart.org Copyright: STFC.

Following last Friday’s press release from the International Astronomical Union (IAU) concerning the naming of extrasolar planets, a heated debate has arisen over two separate but related issues. One is the “official” vs. “popular” names of astronomical objects (and the IAU’s jurisdiction over them) and the other is Uwingu’s intentions in their exoplanet naming contests.

We’re going to talk about the latter first, as this seems to be where much of the contention lies.

As has been reflected in our articles, Universe Today feels that Uwingu has always been upfront that the names chosen in their exoplanet naming contests were never meant to be “officially” recognized by the IAU, but instead are a way to engage the public and to create non-governmental funding for space research. As we said in our article on Nov. 7, 2012 about the first contest that creates a “baby book” of exoplanet names:

The names won’t be officially approved by the International Astronomical Union, but (Alan) Stern said they will be are similar to the names given to features on Mars by the mission science teams (such as the “Jake Matijevic” rock recently analyzed by the Curiosity rover) that everyone ends up using. This also solves the problem of how to come up with names, a task that the IAU has yet to discuss.

Please read these articles on Time and New Scientist which explicitly quote Uwingu CEO Alan Stern as saying the names generated by Uwingu’s contest will not be officially recognized by the IAU, but are a way to get the public involved and excited about exoplanets.

Anyone who implies that Uwingu is like the ‘name a star’ scams, or that they are out to make money to line their own pockets is completely misreading Uwingu’s website and completely missing the point. The profits go towards science research and education. So far Uwingu has given approximately $5,500 to several projects: Astronomers Without Borders, the Galileo Teacher Training Program, the Purdue Multiethnic Training Program, and the Allen Telescope Array for SETI.

Additionally, as the Uwingu Twitter feed confirmed, “No one at Uwingu has ever been paid, we have all worked for free from the start.”

The IAU’s statement on Friday infers that Uwingu is trying to sell “the rights to name exoplanets” and today Uwingu issued a statement that says the IAU’s press release “significantly mischaracterized Uwingu’s People’s Choice contest and Uwingu itself.”

As astronomer Carolyn Collins Petersen wrote on her Spacewriter’s Ramblings blog, nowhere on Uwingu’s website does it say that you’re buying the right to name a planet, as seems to be suggested by the IAU press release.

“If you donate a few dollars, you get to suggest a name,” she wrote. “You donate a few cents and you can vote for the coolest names. The coolest names win prizes. The money goes to research and education.”

And Stern has said the time has come where exoplanets should be named: “The IAU has had ten years to do something about this and they haven’t done anything,” he told Universe Today previously. “What we’re doing might be controversial, but that’s OK. It’s time to step up to the plate and do something.”

And many agree with his point that since the public is obviuosly intrigued and interested in exoplanets, they should be involved in the naming process, if only to suggest names. And as we’ve said before, since the IAU has said it will be difficult to come up with names since there are now hundreds of known explanets, Uwingu’s projects fits the bill of what is needed.

Also from Uwingu’s statement today:

Uwingu affirms the IAU’s right to create naming systems for astronomers. But we know that the IAU has no purview — informal or official — to control popular naming of bodies in the sky or features on them, just as geographers have no purview to control people’s naming of features along hiking trails. People clearly enjoy connecting to the sky and having an input to common-use naming. We will continue to stand up for the public’s rights in this regard, and look forward to raising more grant funds for space researchers and educators this way.

Over the weekend, the debate raged on the various social media outlets, and astronomer Jason Wright wrote a blog post that called out the IAU’s statement, saying it couldn’t be the official IAU policy, because “IAU policy is determined by democratic vote of its commissions and General Assembly. Neither has endorsed any nomenclature for planets, much less the assertions of the press release.”

Wright added that he contacted a member of Commission 53 (the IAU committee that will discuss the future of exoplanet naming) “and learned that they were not consulted for or even informed of this press release before it went out, and that the commission has not established a naming process since it met in Beijing in 2012.”

As far as the difference between “official” and “common” names, the IAU said in their press release that a “clear and systematic system for naming these objects is vital. Any naming system is a scientific issue that must also work across different languages and cultures in order to support collaborative worldwide research and avoid confusion.”

However, many people have pointed out that other sciences — like biology – have scientific names and common names that are both used and there doesn’t appear to be rampant confusion over this.

But stars can have several names as well, as astronomer Stuart Lowe wrote in his Astroblog, “Currently stars can have one proper name but also be in many different catalogues with different IDs.”

Uwingu pointed out in their statement that the star Polaris (its well-known common name!) is also known as the North Star, Alpha Ursae Minoris, HD 8890, HIP 11767, SAO 308, ADS 1477, FK5 907, and over a dozen more designations.

Uwingu also noted how non-scientific, informal names are prevalent in astronomy. Our own Milky Way galaxy is a great example, and “there are many instances where astronomers name things without going through the IAU’s internal process. There are many of features on Mars, ranging from mountains to individual rocks, with names applied by Mars-mission scientists and never adopted by, or even considered by, the IAU. And Apollo astronauts did not seek IAU permission before naming features at their landing sites or from orbit.”

Also, recent press releases reflect where astronomical objects were given names by astronomers without any IAU process such as Supernova Wilson, Galaxy cluster “El Gordo,” and the “Black Eye Galaxy.” “None drew attention from the IAU,” Uwingu said.

Planetary scientist and educator David Grinspoon (who is on Uwingu’s board of advisors) probably summed it up best in a comment he posted on Universe Today: “IAU maintains names for astronomers and that’s fine, but they do not own the sky. Planets are PLACES not just astronomical research objects, and if informal names for these places proliferate, outside of some self-appointed professional “authority”, and the public at large is more engaged in the exoplanet revolution, that is a very good thing indeed.”

IAU Issues Response To Uwingu’s Exoplanet Naming Campaign

An exoplanet seen from its moon (artist's impression). Via the IAU.
An exoplanet seen from its moon (artist's impression). Via the IAU.

Given the popularity of the recent contest by Uwingu to suggest names for the closest known exoplanet to Earth (officially named Alpha Centauri Bb or ACBb for short), the International Astronomical Union has issued a statement about their stance on the “official” naming process. The IAU says that while they welcome the public’s interest in being involved in recent discoveries, as far as they are concerned, the IAU has the last word.

“In the light of recent events, where the possibility of buying the rights to name exoplanets has been advertised, the International Astronomical Union (IAU) wishes to inform the public that such schemes have no bearing on the official naming process. The IAU… would like to strongly stress the importance of having a unified naming procedure,” said the statement issued by the IAU.

Scientist Alan Stern, principal investigator of the New Horizons mission to Pluto and CEO Uwingu told Universe Today that he thinks the IAU should side with democracy instead of elitism.

“I think it is diminishing that the IAU is holding onto their claim that they own the Universe,” he said via phone after reviewing the IAU’s statement. “This is like some 15th century European academic club claiming that since Columbus discovered America, they own all the naming rights. That’s BS.”

While the IAU provides official names for stars and planetary bodies in our Solar System, the IAU’s official stance on naming exoplanets has been that since there is seemingly going to be so many of them, (over 800 have been discovered so far) that it will be difficult to name them all. They’ve said the consensus among IAU scientists was that they had no interest in naming exoplanets.

However, they recently added a few sentences on their website that “the IAU greatly appreciates and wishes to acknowledge the increasing interest from the general public in being more closely involved in the discovery and understanding of our Universe. As a result in 2013 the IAU Commission 53 Extrasolar Planets and other IAU members will be consulted on the topic of having popular names for exoplanets, and the results will be made public on the IAU website.”

Stern thinks the IAU’s current stance on naming exoplanets is tactical mistake. “The taxpaying public pays for all the exploration that the IAU members are doing, but the IAU is making an attempt to limit the public’s involvement in something that the public clearly likes to do,” he said. “As an astronomer, that’s my view.”

Uwingu, a startup company that is using out-of-the-box ideas to raise funds for space exploration and science, started an exoplanet naming contest last fall, and the contest to provide a better, “snappier” name for ACBb was started in March, 2013.

Stern knew going into this that the names wouldn’t officially be approved by the International Astronomical Union, but said they will be similar to the names given to features on Mars by the mission science teams (such as Mt. Sharp on Mars –the IAU-approved name is Aeolis Mons) or even like Pike’s Peak, a mountain in Colorado which was named by the public, in a way, as early settlers started calling it that, and it soon became the only name people recognized.

“This should be the wave of the future for planets and there’s no reason for the public not to get involved,” Stern said.

In today’s statement, the IAU said the “certificates” people receive after suggesting a name in Uwingu’s contest are “misleading, as these campaigns have no bearing on the official naming process — they will not lead to an officially-recognized exoplanet name, despite the price paid or the number of votes accrued.”

The IAU conceded that while exoplanet names such as 16 Cygni Bb or HD 41004 Ab may seem boring compared to the names of planets in our own Solar System, “the vast number of objects in our Universe — galaxies, stars, and planets to name just a few — means that a clear and systematic system for naming these objects is vital. Any naming system is a scientific issue that must also work across different languages and cultures in order to support collaborative worldwide research and avoid confusion.”

And to make that possible, the IAU should act as a single arbiter of the naming process, they said.

“As an international scientific organization, [the IAU] dissociates itself entirely from the commercial practice of selling names of planets, stars or or even “real estate” on other planets or moons. These practices will not be recognized by the IAU and their alternative naming schemes cannot be adopted.”

Information about Alpha Centauri Bb. Information about Alpha Centauri Bb. Credit: Planetary Habitability Laboratory/University of Puerto Rico/Arecibo
Information about Alpha Centauri Bb. Information about Alpha Centauri Bb. Credit: Planetary Habitability Laboratory/University of Puerto Rico/Arecibo

However, several astronomers, including Xavier Dumusque, the lead author of the paper that announced the discovery of ACBb has said they like the idea of having the public involved in naming the exoplanets.

“I would definitively endorse the name for public outreach and lectures,” Dumusque told Alan Boyle of NBC’s Cosmic Log. “In astronomy, we have some chance to be able to make people dream, by showing a wonderful picture, by discovering new worlds. If someone is interested in astronomy, he should not face troubles to understand all the nomenclature. Therefore, giving memorable names for planets is one way to get more people interested in our wonderful research.”

Moonwalker Buzz Aldrin also has been actively participating in the contest and suggested “Tiber” as the name for ACBb. Aldrin is the co-author of a 1977 sci-fi novel titled “Encounter With Tiber.”

IAU’s reticence in naming exoplanets seems to come from the huge bulk of names that will be required. But that’s where Uwingu’s crowd sourcing idea seems to fit the need, and a sort of compromise would be that the public could come up with the names as suggestions in Uwingu’s “baby book” of names, and the IAU would assign the “official” names from the list provided by the public.

If nothing else, Uwingu’s concept has shown how interested the public is in exoplanets and hopefully has given the IAU the kick in the pants needed to possibly consider naming them.

If you’re interested in suggesting names for ACBb, be quick, as the Uwingu contest ends on April 15.

Closest Exoplanet Deserves a ‘Real’ Name, Says Uwingu

Information about Alpha Centauri Bb. Information about Alpha Centauri Bb. Credit: Planetary Habitability Laboratory/University of Puerto Rico/Arecibo

It’s time to “get real” about naming exoplanets, says Uwingu CEO and scientist Dr. Alan Stern. And so the latest project from the space funding startup company is a contest to name the nearest exoplanet, currently known as Alpha Centauri Bb.

“Let’s face it,” Stern told Universe Today, “the current names astronomers use for exoplanets are boring. The public is really excited about all the planets that are being found around other stars, but the names do nothing to help fuel that excitement. We’re giving the public the chance to name the closest exoplanet.”

Nominations for new names for Alpha Centauri Bb cost $4.99; votes for nominated names are $0.99. Proceeds from naming and voting will help fuel new Uwingu grants to fund space exploration, research, and education.

The names won’t be officially approved by the International Astronomical Union, but Stern said they will be similar to the names given to features on Mars by the mission science teams (such as Mt. Sharp on Mars –the IAU approved name is Aeolis Mons) that everyone ends up using.

“Or it’s like Pike’s Peak,” said Stern of the mountain in the Rocky Mountains in Colorado. “People started calling it that long ago and over time, it became the only name people recognized. This should be the wave of the future for planets and there’s no reason for the public not to get involved.”

So far, the IAU’s stance on naming exoplanets is that there is seemingly going to be so many of them, (we’re nearing the 1,000 mark) that it will be difficult to name them all.

In fact here is their official statement on their website:

In response to frequent questions about plans to assign actual names to extra-solar planets, the IAU sees no need and has no plan to assign names to these objects at the present stage of our knowledge. Indeed, if planets are found to occur very frequently in the Universe, a system of individual names for planets might well rapidly be found equally impracticable as it is for stars, as planet discoveries progress.

“The IAU has had ten years to do something about this and they haven’t done anything,” said Stern. “What we’re doing might be controversial, but that’s OK. It’s time to step up to the plate and do something.”

Previously Uwingu has offered the chance to create a “baby book” of names that can be used for exoplanets. For this contest, they are naming a specific planet, and the name getting the highest number of votes will be declared the public’s name for this mysterious new world. “Never before has the public been asked to choose its favorite name for a planet,” says Uwingu.

Anyone can nominate one or more names; anyone can vote. The namer of the most popular new name for alpha Cen Bb will receive prizes from Uwingu; there will also be prizes for runner-ups, and for all names that reach thresholds of 100, 1,000, and 10,000 votes.
uwingu

There are those who have been critical of Uwingu, but our stance is that Uwingu is so far the only group or organization to step forward with innovative, out-of-the-box ways to try and solve what seems to be a continuous, perennial problem: how to fund creative space and astronomy projects and move beyond the old tried and not always true methods of relying on government grants and subsidies or angel donors.

Former president of the IAU Planetary Systems Science body, Karen Meech told Universe Today last year that since the IAU is the only scientifically recognized arbiter of astronomical names, any contests for names from the public will not be officially recognized by the scientific community.

But, it’s obvious people love to name things and people are eventually going to start referring to endearing exoplanets with “real” names instead of the license-plate like names currently used.

“Who knows,” said Stern. “There could be a real Pandora or Tatooine out there.”

Check out the contest at Uwingu

Could There be 100 Billion Potentially Habitable Planets in the Galaxy?

A visualization of the “unseen” red dwarfs in the night sky. Credit: D. Aguilar & C. Pulliam (CfA)

As we’ve reported recently, the likelihood of findings habitable Earth-sized worlds just seems to keep getting better and better. But now the latest calculations from a new paper out this week are almost mind-bending. Using what the authors call a “very careful extrapolation” of the rate of small planets observed around M dwarf stars by the Kepler spacecraft, they estimate there could be upwards of 100 billion Earth-sized worlds in the habitable zones of M dwarf or red dwarf stars in our galaxy. And since the population of these stars themselves are estimated to be around 100 billion in the Milky Way, that’s – on average – an Earth-sized world for every red dwarf star in our galaxy.

Whoa.

And since our solar system is surrounded by red dwarfs – very cool, very dim stars not visible to the naked eye (less than a thousandth the brightness of the Sun) — these worlds could be close by, perhaps as close as 7 light-years away.

With the help of astronomer Darin Ragozzine, a postdoctoral associate at the University of Florida who works with the Kepler mission (see our Hangout interview with him last year), let’s take a look back at the recent findings that brought about this latest stunning projection.

Back in February, we reported on the findings from Courtney Dressing and Dave Charbonneau from the Center for Astrophysics that said about 6% of red dwarf stars could host Earth-size habitable planets. But since then, Dressing and Charbonneau realized they had a bug in their code and they have revised the frequency to 15%, not 6%. That more than doubles the estimates.

Then, just this week we reported how Ravi Kopparapu from at Penn State University and the Virtual Planetary Lab at University of Washington suggested that the habitable zone around planets should be redefined, based on new, more precise data that puts the habitable zones farther away from the stars than previously thought. Applying the new habitable zone to red dwarfs pushes the fraction of red dwarfs having habitable planets closer to 50%.

The graphic shows optimistic and conservative habitable zone boundaries around cool, low mass stars. The numbers indicate the names of known Kepler planet candidates. Yellow color represents candidates with less than 1.4 times Earth-radius. Green color represents planet candidates  between 1.4  and 2 Earth radius. Credit: Penn State.
The graphic shows optimistic and conservative habitable zone boundaries around cool, low mass stars. The numbers indicate the names of known Kepler planet candidates. Yellow color represents candidates with less than 1.4 times Earth-radius. Green color represents planet candidates between 1.4 and 2 Earth radius. Credit: Penn State.

But now, the new paper submitted to arXiv this week, “The Radius Distribution of Small Planets Around Cool Stars” by Tim Morton and Jonathan Swift (a grad student and postdoc from Caltech’s ExoLab) finds there is an additional correction to the numbers by Dressing and Charbonneau numbers.

“This is basically due to the fact that there are more small planets than we thought because Kepler isn’t yet sensitive to a large number that take longer to orbit,” Ragozzine told Universe Today. “Accounting for this effect and enhancing the calculation using some nice new statistical techniques, they estimate that the Dressing and Charbonneau numbers are actually too small by a factor of 2. This puts the number at 30% in the old habitable zone, and now up to about 100% in the new habitable zone.”

Now, it is important to point out a few things about this.

As Morton noted in an email to Universe Today, it’s important to realize that this is not yet a direct measurement of the habitable zone rate, “but it is what I would classify as a very careful extrapolation of the rate of small planets we have observed at shorter periods around M dwarfs.”

And as Ragozzine and Morton confirmed for us, all of these numbers are based on Kepler results only, and so far, while there confirmed planets around M dwarfs, there are none confirmed so far in the habitable zone.

“They do not use any results from Radial Velocity (HARPS, etc.),” Ragozzine said. “As such, these are all candidates and not planets. That is, the numbers are based on an assumption that most/all of the Kepler candidates are true planets. There are varying opinions about what the false positive rate would be, especially for this particular subset of stars, but there’s no question that the numbers may go down because some of these candidates turn out to be something else other than HZ Earth-size planets.”

Other caveats need to be considered, as well.

“Everyone needs to be careful about what “100%” means,” Ragozzine said. “It does not mean that every M dwarf has a HZ Earth-size planet. It means that, on average, there is 1 HZ-Earth size planet for every M dwarf. The difference comes from the fact that these small stars tend to have planets that come in packs of 3-5. If, on average, the number of planets per star is one, and the typical M star has 5 planets, then only 20% of M stars have planetary systems.”

The point is subtle but important. For example, if you want to plan new telescope missions to observe these planets, understanding their distribution is critical, Ragozzine said.

“I’m very interested in understanding what kinds of planetary systems host these planets as this opens a number of interesting scientific questions. Discerning their frequency and distribution are both valuable.”

Additionally, the new definition of the habitable zone from Kopparapu et al. makes a big difference.

As Ragozzine points out:

“This is really starting to point out that the definition of the HZ is based on mostly theoretical arguments that are hard to rigorously justify,” Ragozzine said. “For example, a recent paper came out showing that atmospheric pressure makes a big difference but there’s no way to estimate what the pressure will be on a distant world. (Even in the best cases, we can barely tell that the whole planet isn’t one giant puffy atmosphere.) Work by Kopparapu and others is clearly necessary and, from an astrobiological point of view, we have no choice but to use the best theory and assumptions available. Still, some of us in the field are starting to become really wary of the “H-word” (as Mike Brown calls it), wondering if it is just too speculative. Incidentally, I much, much prefer that these worlds be referred to as potentially habitable, since that’s really what we’re trying to say.”

However, Morten told Universe Today that he feels the biggest difference in their work was the careful extrapolation from short period planets to longer periods. “This is why we get occurrence rates for the smaller planets that are twice as large as Dressing or Kopparapu,” he said via email.

He also thinks the most interesting thing in their paper is not just the overall occurrence rate or the HZ occurrence rate even, but the fact that, for the first time, they’ve identified some interesting structure in the distribution of exoplanet radii.

“For example, we show that it appears that planets of roughly 1 Earth radius are actually the most common size of planet around these cool stars,” Morton said. “This makes some intuitive sense given the rocky bodies in our Solar System—there are two planets about the size of Earth, making it the most common size of small planet in our system too! Also, we find that there are lots and lots of planets around M dwarfs that are just beyond the detection threshold of current ground-based transiting surveys—this means that as more sensitive instruments and surveys are designed, we will just keep finding more and more of these exciting planets!”

But Ragozzine told us that even with all aforementioned caveats, the exciting thing is that the main gist of these new numbers probably won’t change much.

“No one is expecting that the answer will be different by more than a factor of a few – i.e., the true range is almost certainly between 30-300% and very likely between 70-130%,” Ragozzine said. “As the Kepler candidate list improves in quantity (due to new data), purity, and uniformity, the main goal will be to justify these statements and to significantly reduce that range.”

Another fun aspect is that this new work is being done by the young generation of astronomers, grad students and postdocs.

“I’m sure this group and others will continue producing great things… the exciting scientific results are just beginning!” Ragozzine said.

Exoplanet Atmospheres Provide Clues to Solar System Formation

One of the discovery images of the system obtained at the Keck II telescope using the adaptive optics system and NIRC2 Near-Infrared Imager. The rectangle indicates the field-of-view of the OSIRIS instrument for planet C. Credit: Image courtesy of NRC-HIA, C. Marois and Keck Observatory.

The most detailed look yet at the atmosphere of a distant exoplanet has revealed a mixture of water vapor and carbon monoxide blanketing a world ten times the size of Jupiter about 130 light years away from Earth. But even with water present on this world, it is incredibly hostile to life. Like Jupiter, it has no solid surface, and it has a temperature of more than a thousand degree. Additionally, no tell-tale methane signals were detected in the atmosphere. But this solar system is still of great interest, as three other giant worlds orbit the same star and scientists said studying this system will not only help solve mysteries of how it was formed, but also how our own solar system formed as well.

The observations were made at the Keck II telescope in Hawaii, using an infrared imaging spectrograph called OSIRIS, which was able to uncover the chemical fingerprints of specific molecules.

“This is the sharpest spectrum ever obtained of an extrasolar planet,” said Dr. Bruce Macintosh, from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. “This shows the power of directly imaging a planetary system. It is the exquisite resolution afforded by these new observations that has allowed us to really begin to probe planet formation.”

“With this level of detail,” said co-author Travis Barman from the Lowell Observatory, “we can compare the amount of carbon to the amount of oxygen present in the atmosphere, and this chemical mix provides clues as to how the planetary system formed.”

Artist’s rendering of HR 8799c at an early stage in the evolution of the planetary system, showing the planet, a disk of gas and dust, rocky inner planets, and HR 8799. Credit: Dunlap Institute for Astronomy & Astrophysics
Artist’s rendering of HR 8799c at an early stage in the evolution of the planetary system, showing the planet, a disk of gas and dust, rocky inner planets, and HR 8799.
Credit: Dunlap Institute for Astronomy & Astrophysics

The planets around the star, known as HR 8799, weigh in between five to 10 times the mass of Jupiter and are still glowing in infrared with the heat of their formation. The research team says their observations suggest the solar system was created in a similar way to our own, with gas giants forming far away from their parent star and smaller, rocky planets closer in. However, no Earth-like rocky planets have yet been detected in this system.

“The results suggest the HR 8799 system is like a scaled-up Solar System,” said Quinn Kanopacky, an astronomer from the University of Toronto in Canada. “Once the solid cores grew large enough, their gravity quickly attracted surrounding gas to become the massive planets we see today. Since that gas had lost some of its oxygen, the planet ends up with less oxygen and less water than if it had formed through a gravitational instability.”

There are two leading models of planetary formation: core accretion and gravitational instability. When stars form, a planet-forming disk surrounds them. With core accretion, planets form gradually as solid cores slowly grow big enough to start acquiring gas from the disk, while in the gravitational instability model, planets form almost instantly as the disk collapses on itself.

Properties such as the composition of a planet’s atmosphere are clues to how the planet formed, and in this case core accretion seems to win out. Although there was evidence of water vapor, that signature is weaker than would be expected if the planet shared the composition of its parent star. Instead, the planet has a high ratio of carbon to oxygen – a fingerprint of its formation in the gaseous disk tens of millions of years ago. As the gas cooled with time, grains of water ice formed, depleting the remaining gas of oxygen. Planetary formation then began when ice and solids collected into planetary cores.

“Once the solid cores grew large enough, their gravity quickly attracted surrounding gas to become the massive planets we see today,” said Konopacky. “Since that gas had lost some of its oxygen, the planet ends up with less oxygen and less water than if it had formed through a gravitational instability.”

“Spectral information of this quality not only provides clues about the formation of the HR8799 planets but also provides the guidance we need to improve our theoretical understanding of exoplanet atmospheres and their early evolution,” said Barman. “The timing of this work could not be better as it comes on the heels of new instruments that will image dozens more exoplanets, orbiting other stars, that we can study in similar detail.”

This system was also the study as part of remote reconnaissance imaging with Project 1640. The video below explains more:

Source: Keck Observatory