(2007) from Jets to GEMSS*: Pan-Spectral Detection, Observation and Characterization of the M-Dwarf Exoplanet System Gliese 876 - and Beyond

This file is part of the following reference:

Shankland, Paul (2007) From Jets to GEMSS*: pan-spectral detection, observation and characterization of the M-Dwarf Exoplanet System Gliese 876 - and beyond. Transit photometry, radial velocity, and millimeter interferometry to constrain and characterize the nearest multiple planet system. PhD thesis, James Cook University.

Access to this file is available from:

http://eprints.jcu.edu.au/10347

152

References

Aigrain, S., & Pont, F. 2007, MNRAS, 378, 741

Basalla, G. 2006, Civilized Life in the Universe: Scientists on Intelligent Extraterrestrials (Oxford: Oxford University Press) Bastian, T. S., Dulk, G. A., & Leblanc, Y. 2000, Astrophys. J., 545, 1058

Bean, J., Benedict, G., Sneden, C., Endl, M., Johns-Krull, C., & Henry, T. 2003, BAAS, 35, 1358

Bean, J., McArthur, B., Benedict, G., & Armstrong, A. 2008, ApJ, 672, 1202

Beauge´, C., Michtchenko, T., & Ferraz-Mello, S. 2006, MNRAS, 365, 1160

Beaulieu, J.-P., Bennett, D. P., Fouqué, P., Williams, A., Dominik, M., Jørgensen, U. G., Kubas, D., Cassan, A., Coutures, C., Greenhill, J., Hill, K., Menzies, J., Sackett, P. D., Albrow, M., Brillant, S., Caldwell, J. A. R., Calitz, J. J., Cook, K. H., Corrales, E., Desort, M., Dieters, S., Dominis, D., Donatowicz, J., Hoffman, M., Kane, S., Marquette, J.-B., Martin, R., Meintjes, P., Pollard, K., Sahu, K., Vinter, C., Wambsganss, J., Woller, K., Horne, K., Steele, I., Bramich, D. M., Burgdorf, M., Snodgrass, C., Bode, M., Udalski, A., Szymański, M. K., Kubiak, M., Wiȩckowski, T., Pietrzyński, G., Soszyński, I., Szewczyk, O., Wyrzykowski, Ł., Paczyński, B., Abe, F., Bond, I. A., Britton, T. R., Gilmore, A. C., Hearnshaw, J. B., Itow, Y., Kamiya, K., Kilmartin, P. M., Korpela, A. V., Masuda, K., Matsubara, Y., Motomura, M., Muraki, Y., Nakamura, S., Okada, C., Ohnishi, K., Rattenbury, N. J., Sako, T., Sato, S., Sasaki, M., Sekiguchi, T., Sullivan, D. J., Tristram, P. J., Yock, P. C. M., Yoshioka, T. 2006, Nature, 439, 437

Beckwith, S., Sargent, A., Shini, R., & G¨usten, R. 1990, AJ, 99, 924

Benedict, G. F., McArthur, B. E., Forveille, T., Delfosse, X., Nelan, E., Butler, R. P., Spiesman, W., Marcy, G., Goldman, B., Perrier, C., Jefferys, W. H., Mayor, M. 2002. ApJ, 581, L115

Benson, James A., Hutter, Donald J., Johnston, Kenneth J., Zavala, Robert T., White, Nathaniel M., Pauls, Thomas A., Gilbreath, G. C., Armstrong, J. T., Hindsley, Robert B. 2004, Proc. SPIE, 5491, 464

Benz, W., Alibert, Y., Mordasini, C., Naef, D. Benz, W., Alibert, Y., Mordasini, C., & Naef, D. 2006, IAU Colloq. 200: Direct Imaging of Exoplanets: Science & Techniques, 1

Berry R. & Burnell, J. 2000, The Handbook of Astronomical Image Processing, (Richmond: Willmann- Bell) Berry, R. 1976, JRASC, 70, 540

Blank, D., Jayawardene, B., Shankland, P., Monard, B., White, G., Verveer, A. & Biggs, J. 2007, in Observing Planetary Systems, ESO Workshop, Santiago, Chile, March 5-8, eds. C. Dumas et al. (Santiago: European), S4-05. http://www.sc.eso.org/santiago/science/OPSWorkshop/Contributions/Posters/Blank_S4- 05_slide.pdf Blank, D.L., Jayawardene, B. Monard, B., Shankland, P. D., & White, G. L., 2008, The Search for Transiting Earth-Like Exoplanets: GEMSS Results for Proxima Centauri , MNRAS, in preparation

Bodenheimer, P., Laughlin, G., & Lin, D. N. C. 2003, ApJ, 592, 555

Bodenheimer, P., Lin, D. N. C., & Mardling, R. A. 2001, ApJ, 548, 466

Bonfils, X., Delfosse, X., Udry, S., Santos, N., Forveille, T., & Segransan, D. 2005, A&A, 442, 635 153

Bonfils, X., Forveille, T., Delfosse, X., Udry, S., Mayor, M., Perrier, C., Bouchy, F., Pepe, F., Queloz, D., Bertaux, J.-L. A&A, 443, L15

Bonfils, X., Forveille, T., Delfosse, X., Udry, S., Mayor, M., Perrier, C., Bouchy, F., Pepe, F., Queloz, D., Bertaux, J.-L. 2005, A&A, 443, L15

Borucki, W. J., Koch, D. G., Basri, G. B., Caldwell, D. A., Caldwell, J. F., Cochran, W. D., Devore, E., Dunham, E. W., Geary, J. C., Gilliland, R. L., Gould, A., Jenkins, J. M., Kondo, Y., Latham, D. W., Lissauer, J. J. 2003, in ASP Conf. Ser. 294, Scientiﬁc Frontiers in Research on Extrasolar Planets, ed. D. Deming, & S. Seager (San Francisco: ASP), 427

Boss, A. P. 2006, ApJ, 643, 501

Bossy, J. 2002, Giordano Bruno and the Embassy Affair, 2nd Ed. (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press) Bouchy, F., Udry, S., Mayor, M., Moutou, C., Pont, F., Iribarne, N., da Silva, R., Ilovaisky, S., Queloz, D., Santos, N. C., Ségransan, D., Zucker, S. 2005, A&A, 444, L15

Bouchy, F.; Pont, F.; Santos, N. C.; Melo, C.; Mayor, M.; Queloz, D.; Udry, S. 2004 A&A, 421, L13

Brown, R., Cruikshank, D., Pendleton, Y., & Veeder, G. 1997, Science, 276, 937

Brown, T., Charbonneau, D., Gilliland, R., Noyes, R., & Burrows, A. 2001, ApJ, 552, 699

Bruno, G. 1574, On the Infinite Universe and Worlds, trans. D. Singer, 1950 (New York: Schuman)

Bryan, J. 2001, Journal of the British Astron. Assn, 111, 29

Bundy, K., Marcy, G.. 2000, PASP, 112, 1421

Burke, B. & Graham-Smith, F. 2001, An Introduction To Radio Astronomy, 2nd Ed. (Cambridge : Cambridge University Press) Burrows, A., Sudarsky, D., & Hubbard, W. B. 2003, ApJ, 594, 545

Butler, R. P., Johnson, J., Marcy, G., Wright, J., Vogt, S., & Fischer, D. A. 2006, PASP, 118, 1685

Butler, R. P., Marcy, G. W., Williams, E., McCarthy, C., & Vogt, S. S. 1996, PASP, 108, 500

Butler, R. P., Tinney, C. G., Marcy, G. W., Jones, H. R. A., Penny, A., & Apps, K. 2001, ApJ, 555, 410

Butler, R. P., Wright, J. T., Marcy, G. W., Fischer, D. A., Vogt, S. S., Tinney, C. G., Jones, H. R. A., Carter, B. D., Johnson, J. A., McCarthy, C., Penny, A. J. 2006, ApJ, 646, 505

Butler, R. Paul, Marcy, Geoffrey W., Fischer, Debra A., Brown, Timothy M., Contos, Adam R., Korzennik, Sylvain G., Nisenson, Peter, Noyes, Robert W. 1999, ApJ, 526, 916

Butler, R. Paul, Vogt, Steven S., Marcy, Geoffrey W., Fischer, Debra A., Wright, Jason T., Henry, Gregory W., Laughlin, Greg, Lissauer, Jack J. 2004, ApJ, 617, 580

Campbell, B., Walker, G., & Yang, S. 1988, ApJ, 331, 902

Caporaloni, M.& Ambrosini, R. 1999, Eur. J. Phys., 20, 243 154

Carroll, B. & Ostlie, D. 1996, Modern Astrophysics (New York: Addison-Wesley)

Castellano, T. P., Laughlin, G., Terry. R. S., Kaufman, M., Hubbert, S., Schelbert, G., Bohler, D. & Rhodes, R. 2004, JAAVSO 33, 1

Catala, C., Donati, J., Shkolnik, E., Bohlender, D. & Alecian, E. 2007, MNRAS, 374, L42

Chabrier, G., Baraffe, I., Selsis, F., Barman, T., Hennebelle, P., & Alibert, Y. 2007, in Protostars and Planets V, eds. B. Reipurth, D. Jewitt, and K. Keil, (Tucson: University of Arizona Press), 623

Chambers, J. E. 2001, Icarus, 152, 205

Chapman, A. 1998, Endeavor, 22, 148

Charbonneau, D. 2004, in ASP Conf. IAU Sym 219, Stars as Suns: Activity, Evolution and Planets, ed. A. Dupree & A. Benz (San Francisco: ASP), 367

Charbonneau, D., Brown, T. M., Noyes, R. W., & Gilliland, R. L. 2002, Astrophys. J., 568, 377

Charbonneau, D., Brown, T., Burrows, A. & Laughlin, G.2007, in Protostars and Planets V, eds. B. Reipurth, D. Jewitt, and K. Keil (Tuscon: Univ. of Arizona Press), 701

Charbonneau, D., Brown, T., Latham, D., & Mayor, M. 2000, ApJ, 529, L45

Charbonneau, David, Allen, Lori E., Megeath, S. Thomas, Torres, Guillermo, Alonso, Roi, Brown, Timothy M., Gilliland, Ronald L., Latham, David W., Mandushev, Georgi, O'Donovan, Francis T., Sozzetti, Alessandro. 2005, ApJ, 626, 523

Charbonneau, David, Winn, Joshua N., Latham, David W., Bakos, Gáspár, Falco, Emilio E., Holman, Matthew J., Noyes, Robert W., Csák, Balázs, Esquerdo, Gilbert A., Everett, Mark E., O'Donovan, Francis T. 2006, ApJ, 636, 445

Chauvin, G., Lagrange, A., Dumas, C., Zuckerman, B., Mouillet, D., Song, I., Beuzit, J., & Lowrance, P. 2004, A&A, 425, L29

Christian, C. A., Adams, M., Barnes, J. V., Hayes, D. S., Siegel, M., Butcher, H., Mould, J. R. 1985, PASP 97, 363 Claret, A. 2000, A&A, 363, 1081

Clarke, B. 1980, A&A, 89, 377

Cochran, W., Hatzes, A., Endl, M., Paulson, D., Walker, G., Campbell, B., & Yang, S. 2002, BAAS, 34, 916

Colavita, M., & Shao, M. 1994,in Conference on Planetary Systems: Formation, Evolution, and Detection, JASS, 212, 385

Cook, J. 1893, Captain Cook's Journal During His First Voyage Round the World Made in H. M. Bark Endeavour, 1768-71 (London; Elliot Stock), ed. W. Wharton

Correia, A., Udry, S., Mayor, M., Laskar, J., Naef, D., Pepe, F., Queloz, D., & Santos, N. 2004, A&A, 440, 751 Crawford, D. & Craine, E., Eds. 1994, Proc. SPIE, 2198, 362 155

Dahn, C. 1994, Galactic and Solar System Optical Astrometry, 55

Delfosse, X., Forveille, T., Mayor, M., Perrier, C., Naef, D., & Queloz, D. 1998, A&A, 338, L67

Deller, A., Maddison, S. 2005, ApJ, 625, 398

Deming, D., Seager, S., Richardson, L. J., & Harrington, J. 2005, Nature, 434, 740

Dent, W., Walker, H., Holland, W., & Greaves, J. 2000, 314, 702

Desort, M. 2007, in Observing Planetary Systems, ESO Workshop, Santiago, Chile, March 5-8, eds. C. Dumas et al. (Santiago: European), S2-08. http://www.sc.eso.org/santiago/science/OPSWorkshop/Contributions/Posters/Desort_S2- 08_poster.pdf

Dick, S. 1996, The Biological Universe: The Twentieth-century Extraterrestrial Life Debate (Cambridge: Cambridge University)

Dick, S. 2003, Sky and Ocean Joined – The U.S. Naval Observatory 1830-2000 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) Dick, S. 2004, Space Sci. Rev., 64, 1993

Doyle, L., Deeg, H., Jenkins, J., Schneider, J., Ninkov, Z., Stone, R., Blue, J., Götzger, H., Friedman, B., & Doyle, M. 1998, in Brown Dwarfs and Extrasolar Planets, eds. R. Rebolo, E. L. Martin, and M.R.Z. Osorio (eds.), Vol. 134, (San Francisco: PASP), 224

Durda, D., Stern, S., Tomlinson, W., Slater, D., & Vilas, F. 2000, Proc. SPIE, 4127, 24

Dutrey, A., des Etangs, A., Augereau, J. 2004, in Space Science Ser., COMETS II, ed. R. Binzel (Tuscon: U of AZ), in astro-ph/0404191v1

Eaton, J. A., Henry, G. W., & Fekel, F. C. 2003, The Future of Small Telescopes in the New Millennium, ed. T. D. Oswalt (Dordrecht: Kluwer)

Eggenberger, A., Udry, S., Mayor, M., Chauvin, G., Markus, B., Beuzit, J.-L., Lagrange, A.-M., Mazeh, T., Zucker, S., Ségransan, D. 2008, Multiple Stars Across the H-R Diagram, 169

Epicurus, c.311 B.C.. Letter to Herodotus, from Epicurus, the Extant Remains, trans. C. Bailey, 1926 (Oxford: The Clarendon Press)

Everett, M., Howell, S., van Belle, G., & Ciardi, D. 2002, PASP, 114, 656

F erreira, J. 2007, http://www.lafterhall.com/video_comparison_001.html

Farrell, W. M., Desch, M. D., & Zarka, P. 1999, J. Geophys. Res., 104, 14025

Farrell, W. M., Desch, M. D., Lazio, T. J. W., Bastian, T., & Zarka, P. 2003, in Scientific Frontiers in Research on Extrasolar Planets, eds. D. Deming & S. Seager (ASP: San Francisco) p. 151

Farrell, W. M., Lazio, T. J. W., Desch, M. D., Bastian, T., & Zarka, P. 2004, in Bioastronomy 2002: Life Among the Stars, eds. R. Norris, C. Oliver, & F. Stootman (ASP: San Francisco)

Ferraz-Mello, S., Michtchenko, & Beaug´e, C. 2005, ApJ, 621, 473 156

Fischer, Debra A., Marcy, Geoffrey W., Butler, R. Paul, Vogt, Steven S., Laughlin, Greg, Henry, Gregory W., Abouav, David, Peek, Kathryn M. G., Wright, Jason T., Johnson, John A., McCarthy, Chris, Isaacson, H. 2008, ApJ, 675, 790

Ford, E.B., Quinn, S.N., & Veras, D. 2008, ApJ, 678, 1407

Ford, J. 1992, Phys. Reports, 213, 271

Freedman , R. & Kaufmann III, W. 2005. Universe (New York: W.H. Freeman and Company)

Fridlund, M. 2008, Space Science Reviews, 3

Gallardo, J., Minniti, D., Valls-Gabaud, D., & Rejkuba, M. 2005, A&A, 431, 707

Gaudi, B. & and Winn, J. 2007, ApJ, 655, 550

Gautier, Thomas N., III, Rieke, G. H., Stansberry, John, Bryden, Geoffrey C., Stapelfeldt, Karl R., Werner, Michael W., Beichman, Charles A., Chen, Christine, Su, Kate, Trilling, David, Patten, Brian M., Roellig, Thomas L. 2007, ApJ, 667, 527

Ge, J. 2002, ApJ, 571, L165

Ge, J., Erskine, D. & Rushford, M. 2002, PASP, 114, 1016

Ge, J., van Eyken, J., Mahadevan, S., DeWitt, C., Ramsey, L., Shaklan, S.~, & Pan, X. 2003, Proc. SPIE, 4838, 503 Gould, Andrew, Pepper, Joshua, DePoy, D. L. 2003, ApJ, 594, 533

Gozdziewski, K., Konacki, M., & Maciejewski, A.J. 2006, ApJ, 645, 688

Greaves, J. S., Holland, W. S., Moriarty-Schieven, G., Jenness, T., Dent, W. R. F., Zuckerman, B., McCarthy, C., Webb, R. A., Butner, H. M., Gear, W. K., Walker, H. J. 1998, ApJ, 506, L133

Greaves, J. S., Holland, W. S., Wyatt, M. C., Dent, W. R. F., Robson, E. I., Coulson, I. M., Jenness, T., Moriarty-Schieven, G. H., Davis, G. R., Butner, H. M., Gear, W. K., Dominik, C., Walker, H. J. 2005, ApJ, 619, L187

Greaves, J., Holland, W., Jayawardhana, R., Wyatt, M., Dent, W. 2004, MNRAS, 348, 1097

Greaves, J., Wyatt, M., Holland, W. & Dent, W. 2003, PASP, 239, 244.

Greisen, E., Bridle, Alan, Wells, D., Junior, W., Langston, G., Cox, A., Sjouwerman, L., Cotton, W., Taylor, G., & van Morsel, G., . 2006, AIPS Cookbook, http://www.aips.nrao.edu/cook.html

Griemeier, J.-M., Motschmann, U., Mann, G., & Rucker, H. O. 2005, A&A, 437, 717

Guillot, T., & Showman, A. P. 2002, A&A, 385, 156

Hajian, Arsen R., Behr, Bradford B., Cenko, Andrew T., Olling, Robert P., Mozurkewich, David, Armstrong, J. Thomas, Pohl, Brian, Petrossian, Sevan, Knuth, Kevin H., Hindsley, Robert B., Murison, Marc, Efroimsky, Michael, Dantowitz, Ronald, Kozubal, Marek, Currie, Douglas G., Nordgren, Tyler E., Tycner, Christopher, McMillan, Robert S. 2007, ApJ, 661, 616

157

Halbwachs, J.-L., Arenou, F., Mayor, M., Udry, S., Queloz, D. 2000, A&A, 355, 581

Hatzes, A., Cochran, W., Endl, M., McArthur, B., Paulson, D., Walker, G., Campbell, B., & Yang, S. 2003, ApJ, 599, 1383

Hawarden, T., Sandell, G., Matthews, H., Friberg, P., Watt, G., Smith, P. 1993, MNRAS 260, 844

Henry, G. W. 1999, PASP, 111, 845

Henry, G., Marcy, G., Butler, R., & Vogt, S. 1999, IAUC, 7301, 1

Henry, G., Marcy, G., Butler, R., & Vogt, S. 2000, ApJ, 529, L41

Henry, G.. 2000, ApJ, 529, L41

Hogbom, J. 1974, A&A Suppl., 15, 417

Holman, M. & Murray, N. 2005, Science, 307, 1288

Honeycutt, R. 1992, PASP 104, 435

Hoskin, M. 1989, in Proc. of the American Philosophical Soc., Vol. 133, No. 3 (Philadelphia: Diane Publishing), 427 Howell, S. B. 1989, PASP, 101, 616

Howell, Steve B., Everett, Mark E., Tonry, John L., Pickles, Andrew, Dain, Courtney. 2003, PASP, 115, 1340 Howell, Steve B., Koehn, Bruce, Bowell, Edward, Hoffman, Mark. 1996, AJ, 112, 1302

Hughes, T. 1977, in Technology at the Turning Point, ed. W. Pickett (San Francisco: San Francisco Press), 5 Jaenisch, H., Collins, W., Handley, J., Case, C., & Songy, C. 2002, SPIE 4796A, Session.2, [online] : http://www.spie.org/Conferences/Programs/02/am/confs/4796A.html

Janson, M., Brandner, W., Henning, T., Zinnecker, H. 2005, A&A, 453, 609

Jenkins, J. & Doyle, L. 2003, ApJ, 595, 429

Jewitt, D., Luu, J., & Chen, J. 1996, AJ, 112, 1225

Johnson, John Asher, Butler, R. Paul, Marcy, Geoffrey W., Fischer, Debra A., Vogt, Steven S., Wright, Jason T., Peek, Kathryn M. G. 2007, ApJ, 670, 833

Johnston, K. J., Dorland, B., Gaume, R., Hennessy, G., Olling, R., Zacharias, N., Behr, B., Efroimsky, M., Hajian, A., Harris, H., Hilton, J., Kaplan, G., Monet, D., Munn, J., Pier, J., Vrba, F., Seidelmann, K., Seager, S., Pravdo, S., Coste, K., Danner, R., Grillmair, C., Stauffer, J., Boss, A., Currie, D., Danchi, W., Gould, A., Kopeikin, S., Majewski, S., Makarov, V., McMillan, R., Peterson, D. M., Shaya, E., Unwin, S. 2006, PASP, 118, 1428

Johnston, K., Shankland, P, Gaume, R. 2007, in white Paper submitted to US National Science Foundation Exoplanet Task Force, 2 April 2007

158

Joshi, M., Haberle, R., Reynolds, R. 1997, Icarus, 129, 450

Kalas, P., Liu, M., & Matthews, B. 2004, Science, 303, 1990

Kane, S. 2007, MNRAS, 380, 1488

Kasting, J. 1993, Science, 259, 920

Kasting, J. 1998, BAAS, 30, 1328

Kazarovets, E., Samus, N. 1997, I Inf. Bull. Variable Stars, 4471

Kiss, L. L., & Bedding, T. R. 2005, MNRAS, 358, 883

Kjeldsen, H., & Frandsen, S., 1992, PASP, 104, 413

Kley, J., Peitz, J., & Bryden, G. 2004, A&A, 414, 735

Kley, W. 2003, Celest. Mech. Dyn. Astron., 87, 85

Konacki, M., Sasselov, D. D., Torres, G., Jha, S., Kulkarni, S. R. 2003, JAAS, 203, 130.04

Kraus, J. 1986, Radio Astronomy, 2nd Ed.. (Durham, New Hampshire, US: Cygnus-Quasar Books)

Ksanfomality, L. V. 2004, Solar System Research, 38, 372

Kürster, Martin, Endl, Michael, Rouesnel, Frederic, Els, Sebastian, Kaufer, Andreas, Brillant, Stephane, Hatzes, Artie P., Saar, Steven H., Cochran, William D. 2003, in Proc. Conf .on Towards Other Earths: DARWIN/TPF and the Search for Extrasolar Terrestrial Planets, 539, Eds. M. Fridlund, & T. Henning (Noorrdwiik, Netherlands: ESA Publications Div), 485

Laughlin, G. & Adams, F., 1999, ApJ, 526, 881

Laughlin, G., & Adams, F. 1997, ApJ, 491, L51

Laughlin, G., & Chambers, J. E. 2001, ApJ, 551, L109

Laughlin, G., Bodenheimer, P., & Adams F. C. 2004, ApJ, 612, L73

Laughlin, G., Butler, R. P., Fischer, D. A., Marcy, G. W., Vogt, S. S., & Wolf, A. S. 2005, ApJ, 622, 1182

Lazio, T. J. W., & Farrell, W. M. 2007, Astrophys. J., in press

Lazio, T. J. W., Farrell, W. M., Dietrick, J., Greenlees, E., Hogan, E., Jones, C., & Hennig, L. A. 2004, ApJ, 612, 511 Lee, M. H., & Peale, S. J. 2002, ApJ, 567, 596

Lee, M. H., Butler, P., Fischer, D., Marcy, G, & Vogt, S. 2006, ApJ, 641, 1178 159

Lestrade, J. , Wyatt, M., Bertoldi, F. , Dent, W. & Menten, K. 2006, A&A, 460, L733

Linceus, Galileus G. 1610, Sidereus Nuncius (Venice: Apud Thomam Baglionum)

Linceus, Galileus G. 1661, The Systeme Of The World: In Four Dialogues. Wherein The Two Grand Systemes Of Ptolomy And Copernicus Are Largely Discoursed Of: And The Reasons, Both Phylosophical And Physical, As Well On The One Side As The Other, Impartially And Indefinitely Propounded, trans.T. Salusbury, 2003 (Florence: University of Pisa)

Lovis, Christophe, Mayor, Michel, Pepe, Francesco, Alibert, Yann, Benz, Willy, Bouchy, François, Correia, Alexandre C. M., Laskar, Jacques, Mordasini, Christoph, Queloz, Didier, Santos, Nuno C., Udry, Stéphane, Bertaux, Jean-Loup, Sivan, Jean-Pierre. 2006, Nature, 441, 305

Luu, J., & Jewitt, D. 1996, AJ, 111, 499

Mandel, K. & Agol, E., 2002, ApJ, 580, L171

Marcy, G. W., & Butler, R. P. 1998, ARA&A, 36, 57

Marcy, G. W., Butler, P., Fischer, D., Vogt, S., Lissauer, J. J., & Rivera, E. J. 2001, ApJ, 556, 296

Marcy, G. W., Cochran, W. D., & Mayor, M. 2000, in Protostars and Planets IV, ed. V. Mannings, A. P. Boss, & S. S. Russell (Tucson: Univ. Arizona Press) Marcy, G., Butler, R. 2000, PASP, 112, 137

Marcy, G., Butler, R., Vogt, S., Fischer, D., & Lissauer, J. 1998, ApJ, 505, L147

Marcy, G., Butler. P., Fischer, D., Vogt, S., Wright, J. T., Tinney, C. G., & Jones, H. R. A. 2005, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl., 158, 24 Martini, P., & Osmer, P. 1998, AJ, 116, 2513

Mayor, M., & Queloz, D. 2003, in A Century of Nature: Twenty-One Discoveries that Changed Science and the World, eds. L. Garwin & T. Lincoln (Chicago: University of Chicago Press), 322

Mayor, M., Queloz, D., Marcy, G., Butler, P., Noyes, R., Korzennik, S., Krockenberger, M., Nisenson, P., Brown, T., Kennelly, T., Rowland, C., Horner, S., Burki, G., Burnet, M., Kunzli, M. 1995, IAUC, 6251, 1

Mayor, M., Udry, S., Naef, D., Pepe, F., Queloz, D., Santos, N., & Burnet, M. 2004, A&A, 415, 391

Mazeh, Tsevi, Naef, Dominique, Torres, Guillermo, Latham, David W., Mayor, Michel, Beuzit, Jean- Luc, Brown, Timothy M., Buchhave, Lars, Burnet, Michel, Carney, Bruce W., Charbonneau, David, Drukier, Gordon A., Laird, John B., Pepe, Francesco, Perrier, Christian, Queloz, Didier, Santos, Nuno C., Sivan, Jean-Pierre, Udry, Stéphane, Zucker, Shay. 2000, ApJ, 532, L55

McCarthy, C., Fischer, D., & Marcy, G. 2007, BAAS, 209, 253.01

McLaughlin, D. B. 1924, ApJ, 60, 22

McLaughlin, D. 1924, ApJ, 60, 22

Miralda-Escude´, J. 2002, ApJ, 564, 1019 160

Mirzoyan, L., 1995, in Proc. of IAU Colloq. 151, eds. J. Greiner, H. Duerbeck, & R. Gershberg (Berlin: Springer-Verlag), 454, 55

Mohanty, S., Jayawardhana, R., Huelamo, N., & Mamajek, E. 2007, ApJ, 657, 1064

Moro-Martin, A., Wyatt, M. Malhotra, R., & Trilling, D. 2007, (arXiv:astro-ph/0703383)

Murray, C. D., & Dermott, S. F. 1999, Solar System Dynamics (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press)

Murray, N., Hansen, B., Holman, M., & Tremaine, S. 1998, Science, 279, 69

Naef, D., Latham, D. W., Mayor, M., Mazeh, T., Beuzit, J. L., Drukier, G. A., Perrier-Bellet, C., Queloz, D., Sivan, J. P., Torres, G., Udry, S., Zucker, S. 2001, A&A, 375, L27

Nauenberg, M. 2002, AJ, 124, 2332

Neuhauser, R., Guenther, E., Wuchterl, G., Mugrauer, M., Bedalov, A., Hauschildt, P. 2005, A&A, 435, L13 Newberry, M. 1991, PASP, 163, 122

Nutzman, P., & Charbonneau, D. 2007, submitted to PASP (Astro-ph/0709.2879)

Ohta, Y., Taruya, A., & Suto, Y. 2005, ApJ, 622, 1118

Onaka, Peter, Tonry, John, Luppino, Gerard, Lockhart, Charles, Lee, Aaron, Ching, Gregory, Isani, Sidik, Uyeshiro, Robin. 2004, Proc. SPIE, 5499, 499

O'Toole, S., Tinney, C., & Jones, H.2008, IAU Symposium, 249, 111

Pagano, S. Documenti del Processo di Galileo Galilei, a cura di, (21), trans. G. Luciani, 1984, (Rome: The Vatican [Secret Archives]) XXVIII, 280, tav. 6

Papaloizou, J. C. B. 2003, Cel. Mech. & Dynam. Astr., 87, 53

Pepe, F., Mayor, M., Galland, F., Naef, D., Queloz, D., Santos, N. C., Udry, S., & Burnet, M. 2002, A&A, 388, 632 Pepin, J. R., & Shankland, P. D. 2006, BAAS, 207, 212.08

Perryman, M. 2000, Rep. Prog. Phys, 63, 1209 [Updated Online (2007): http://www.rssd.esa.int/SA- general/Projects/Staff/perryman/planet-figure.pdf

Perryman, M., et al. 1997, A&A, 323, L49

Persha, G. 1999, http://www.optecinc.com/filter_monograph.pdf

Petters, A., Harold Levine, H., & Wambsganss, J. 2001, Singularity Theory and Gravitational Lensing, (Boston: Birkhäuser)

Pojmanski, G. 2002, Acta Astron., 52, 397

Pont, F., Aigrain, S., Bakos, G., Brown, T., Collier Cameron, A., Deeg, H., Erikson, A., Guillot, T., Horne, K., Lecavalier, A., Moutou, C., Rauer, H., Queloz, D., Seager, S. 2007, Transiting Extrasolar Planets Workshop, 366, 3 161

Pont, F., Zucker, S., & Queloz, D. 2006, MNRAS, 373, 231

Pope, Stephen. 2007, The Future of Head-Up Display Technology, in Aviation International News, (Midland Park, NJ: Convention News Company), 12 February

Press, W. H., Teukolsky, S. A., Vetterling, W. T., & Flannery, B. P. 1992, Numerical Recipes in Fortran: The Art of Scientiﬁc Computing (2nd ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press)

Queloz, D., Eggenberger, A., Mayor, M., Perrier, C., Beuzit, J. L., Naef, D., Sivan, J. P., & Udry, S. 2000, A&A, 359, L13

Quillen, A. & Thorndike, S.\2002, ApJ, 578, L149

Quillen, P. C. & Thorndike, S. 2002, ApJ 578, L149

Quirrenbach, A. 2006, in Extrasolar Planets, 31, eds D. Queloz, S. Udry, M. Mayor and W. Benz (Berlin: Springer), 1 Rivera, E. J., & Lissauer, J. J. 2001, ApJ, 558, 392

Rivera, Eugenio J., Lissauer, Jack J., Butler, R. Paul, Marcy, Geoffrey W., Vogt, Steven S., Fischer, Debra A., Brown, Timothy M., Laughlin, Gregory, Henry, Gregory W. 2005, ApJ, 634, 625

Robinson, S. E., Strader, J., Ammons, S. M., Laughlin, G., & Fischer, D. 2006, ApJ, 637, 1102

Roccatagliata, V., Henning, Th., Wolf, S., Carpenter, J. M., & Rodmann, J. 2007, in IAU Symp. 243, Star-disk Interaction in Young Stars (Grenoble: IAU), 21-25 May, http://www.iaus243.org/ IMG/pdf/Roccatagliata.pdf Rossiter, R. 1924, ApJ, 60, 15

Roy, A. 2005, Orbital Motion, 4th Ed. (London, Institute of Physics)

Saffe, C., Gomez, M., & Chavero, C. 2005, A&A, 443, 609

Sagan, C. & Druyan, A. 1996, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark (New York: Random House) Sándor, Z. 2006, in Periodic, Quasi-Periodic and Chaotic Motions in Celestial Mechanics: Theory and Applications, CELMEC IV, CM&DA 95 (Netherlands: Springer), 273

Sault, R. & Killeen, N. 1993, MIRIAD Cookbook, http://www.atnf.csiro.au/ computing/software/miriad/ Schmid, H. M., Beuzit, J.-L., Feldt, M., Gisler, D., Gratton, R., Henning, Th., Joos, F., Kasper, M., Lenzen, R., Mouillet, D., Moutou, C., Quirrenbach, A., Stam, D. M., Thalmann, C., Tinbergen, J., Verinaud, C., Waters, R., Wolstencroft, R. 2006 in Direct Imaging of Exoplanets: Science & Techniques. Proc. of the IAU Colloq., 200, 165

Schneider, G., et al. 2004, BAAS, 36, 1354

Schneider, J. 2007, “Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia,” http://exoplanet.eu/ 162

Schneider, P., Ehlers, J., & Falco, E. 1992,Astronomy and Astrophysics Library: Gravitational Lenses, New Ed., (Berlin: Springer-Verlag GmbH)

Schwartz, 1978, A&A, 65, 345

Seager, S., & Mallen-Ornelas, G. 2003, ApJ, 585, 1038

Seagroves, S., Harker, J., Laughlin, G., Lacy, J., & Castellano, T. 2003, PASP, 115, 1355

Segura, A., Kasting, J., Meadows, V., Cohen, M., Scalo, J., Crisp, D., Butler, R., & Tinetti, G. 2005, Astrobiology, 5, 706 Sellwood, J., & Goodman, J. 1999, Astrophysical Discs: An EC Summer School, Vol 160, (San Francisco: PASP) Shankland, P. D.; Blank, D.; Laughlin, G.; Price, A.; Gary, B.; Bissinger, R.; Ringwald, F.; White, G.; Ashbey, M.; Greenhill, J.; McGee, P.; Sinclair, S.; Carter, B.; Lee, S.; Biggs, J.; Tabur, V.; Roy, A.; Santallo, R.; Kilmartin, P.; Higgins, D.; Nelson, P.; Richards, T.; Heathcote, B.; Stockdale, C.; Kereszty, Z.; Laurent, J. L.; de Ponthiere, P.; Johnston, K. J.; Lazio, J.; Knapp, C.; Dvorak, S.; Fleenor, M.; Case, J.; Koppelman, M.; Wells, D.; Dillon, W.; Koff, R.; James, R.; Holtzman, J.; Huziak, R.. 2005, BAAS, 37, 442

Shankland, P., Blank, D., Laughlin, G. , Price, A. , Gary, R., Bissinger, R., Ringwald, F., White, G., Henry, G., McGee, P., Wolf, A.S., Carter, B., Lee, S., Biggs, J., Castellano, T., & Monard, B. 2005, BAAS, 206, 9.08

Shankland, P., & Laughlin, G. 2006, Astrobiology, 6, 205

Shankland, P., Blank, D., Boboltz, D., Lazio, T., & White, G. 2008, AJ, 135, 2194

Shankland, P., Shankland, P. D.; Rivera, E. J.; Laughlin, G.; Blank, D. L.; Price, A.; Gary, B.; Bissinger, R.; Ringwald, F.; White, G.; Henry, G. W.; McGee, P.; Wolf, A. S.; Carter, B.; Lee, S.; Biggs, J.; Monard, B.; Ashley, M. C. B.. 2006, ApJ, 653, 700

Shao, M. 2006, Proc. SPIE, 6268,

Shkolnik, E., Walker, G. A. H., Bohlender, D. A., Gu, P.-G., & Kuerster, M. 2005, ApJ, 622, 1075 Stevens, I. R. 2005, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 356, 1053

Sivaramakrishnan, A, Oppenheimer, B. R., Perrin, D., Roberts Jr., L. C., Makidon, R. B., Soummer, R., Digby, A. P., Bradford, L. W., Skinner, M. A.,Turner, N. H., & ten Brummelaar T. A. 2005, in Proc. of the IAU, ed. I. Corbett (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 613

Slater, D. C., Stern, S. A., Colwell, W. B., Durda, D. D., Mahoney, D. E., Parker, J. Wm., Tamblyn, P. M., Tomlinson, W. M., Genau, V., A'Hearn, M., Paxton, L. J., Weissman, P. R., Vilas, F., Robinson, S. K., Hawley, S. A. 1999, AAS/DPS Abs, 31, #08.05

Snell, C. & Heiser, A.1968, PASP, 80,336

Sony Corporation. 2004, ExView HAD CCD Image Sensors, in CX News, Vol 25, (San Jose, CA, USA: Sony Electronics), http://www.sony.net/Products/SC-HP/cx_news/vol25/pdf/icx278.pdf

Sony Corporation. 2005, Sony ICX285AL CCD Sensor Technical Reference, Document E00Y42A27 (San Jose, CA, USA: Sony Electronics), http://products.sel.sony.com/semi/PDF/ICX285AL.pdf

Soter, S. 2007, Sci. American, 296, 34 163

Struve, O. 1952, The Observatory, 72, 199

Tarter, J. 2001, ARA&A, 39, 511

Teets, D. 2003, Mathematics Mag., 76, 335

Thebault, J., Augereau, J., Beust, H. 2003, AA, 408, 775

Tingley, B. 2003, A&A, 403, 329

Tinney, C. G., et al. 2006, ApJ, 647, 594

Tonry, J., & Pan-STARRS Team. 2005, BAAS, 37, 1363

Trilling, D., Brown, R., & Rivkin, A. 2000, ApJ, 529, 499

Trimble, V. 2004, in the Astrophysics Conf., AIP Conf. Proc.: The Search for Other Worlds, 713, eds. S. Holt & D. Deming (New York: American Institute of Physics), 3

Udalski, A., Pont, F., Naef, D., Melo, C., Bouchy, F., Santos, N. C., Moutou, C., Díaz, R. F., Gieren, W., Gillon, M., Hoyer, S., Mayor, M., Mazeh, T., Minniti, D., Pietrzynski, G., Queloz, D., Ramirez, S., Ruiz, M. T., Shporer, A., Tamuz, O., Udry, S., Zoccali, M., Kubiak, M., Szymanski, M. K., Soszynski, I., Szewczyk, O., Ulaczyk, K., Wyrzykowski, Ł. 200, A&A, 482, 299

Udry, S., Bonfils, X., Delfosse, X., Forveille, T., Mayor, M., Perrier, C., Bouchy, F., Lovis, C., Pepe, F., Queloz, D., Bertaux, J.-L. 2007, A&A, 469, L43 van de Kamp, P. 1969, AJ, 74, 757 van de Kamp. P. 1982, Vistas in Astron., 26, 141

Vogt, S. S., Allen, S. L., Bigelow, B. C., Bresee, L., Brown, B., Cantrall, T., Conrad, A., Couture, M., Delaney, C., Epps, H. W., Hilyard, D., Hilyard, D. F., Horn, E., Jern, N., Kanto, D., Keane, M. J., Kibrick, R. I., Lewis, J. W., Osborne, J., Pardeilhan, G. H., Pfister, T., Ricketts, T., Robinson, L. B., Stover, R. J., Tucker, D., Ward, J., Wei, M. Z. 1994, Proc. SPIE, 2198, 362

Vogt, S. S., Butler, R. P., Marcy, G. W., Fischer, D. A., Henry, G. W., Laughlin, G., Wright, J. T., & Johnson, J. A. 2005, ApJ, 632, 638

Vogt, S. S., Butler, R. P., Marcy, G. W., Fischer, D. A., Pourbaix, D. Apps, K., & Laughlin, G. 2002, ApJ, 568, 352 Walker, G. 1993, AAVSO, 22, 12

Weis, E. 1994, AJ, 107, 1135

Wetherill, G. W. 1996, Icarus, 119, 219

Wilner, D., Bourke, T., Wright, C., Jorgensen, J., van Dishoeck, E. & Wong, T. 2003, ApJ, 596, 597

Wilner, D., Ho, P., Kastner, J. & Rodriguez, L. 2000, ApJ, 534, L101

Winn, J., & Holman, M. J. 2005, ApJ, 628, L159 164

Winn, Joshua N., Noyes, Robert W., Holman, Matthew J., Charbonneau, David, Ohta, Yasuhiro, Taruya, Atsushi, Suto, Yasushi, Narita, Norio, Turner, Edwin L., Johnson, John A., Marcy, Geoffrey W., Butler, R. Paul, Vogt, Steven S. 2005, ApJ, 631, 1215

Wittenmyer, Robert A., Welsh, William F., Orosz, Jerome A., Schultz, A. B., Kinzel, W., Kochte, M., Bruhweiler, F., Bennum, D., Henry, Gregory W., Marcy, G. W., Fischer, D. A., Butler, R. P., Vogt, S. S. 2005, ApJ, 632, 1157

Wolf, A., Laughlin, G., Henry, G., Fischer, D., Marcy, G., Butler, P., & Vogt, S. 2007, ApJ, 667, 549

Wolszczan, A., & Frail, D. 1992, Nature 355, 145

Wyatt, M. C., Dermott, S. F., Telesco, C. M., Fisher, R. S., Grogan, K., Holmes, E. K., Piña, R. K. 1999, ApJ, 527, 918

Wyatt, M., Holland, W., Greaves, J., & Dent, W. 2003, Earth Moon and Planets, 92, 423

Zacharias, N. 1992, A&A, 264, 296

Zacharias, N. 2003, The Future of Small Telescopes In The New Millennium. Volume II -The Telescopes We Use, 67 Zacharias, N. 2004,Astronomische Nachrichten, 325, 631

Zacharias, N., & Dorland, B. 2006, PASP, 118, 1419

Zarka, P. 2006, in Planetary Radio Emission VI, eds. H. O. Rucker et al. (Austrian Acad.: Vienna)

Zarka, P. 2007, Planet. Space Sci., in press

Zarka, P., Queinnec, J., Ryabov, B. P., et al. 1997, in Planetary Radio Emission VI, eds. H. Rucker et al. (Vienna: Austrian Acad) , 101 Zarka, P., Treumann, R. A., Ryabov, B. P., & Ryabov, V. B. 2001, Astrophys. & Space Sci., 277, 293

Zuckerman, B. 2001, in Ann. Rev.of Astron. & Astrophys., Vol. 39, Pages 549 165

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Understood Characteristics of Parent Star Gliese 876

Appendix B: Understood Characteristics of the Planets about Gl 876

Appendix C: Methodology for Deriving Transit and Inclination from Radial Velocity Datasets

Appendix D : Physical constants, Identities, and Values Used

Appendix E: Reported Characteristics -- Gliese 876

Appendix F: Initial TIP-TOPhAT Planning Guidance

Appendix G: GEMSS Planning Target Candidate List Phase I & II

Appendix H: GEMSS Phase I Results

Appendix I: Optical Photometry – Practical Lessons Developed

Appendix J: Background Textbooks, References & Further Reading

Appendix K: Two Future, Spaceborne Missions – the J-MAPS and OBSS Satellites

Appendix L: Pending Analyses of HD 80606 Radio Observations with the VLA alongside Spitzer Space Telescope – the Proposals

Appendix M: Biography of Author

166

Appendix A: Understood Characteristics of Parent Star Gliese 876

167

Location of Gl 876 on the H-R Diagram

Comparison to select known stars also on main sequence. M dwarf temperature range 2500 – 3900K. Gl 876 jitter is (which is average for MS, low for M stars) at 3.9 m s-1 from Wright (2005). Artwork courtesy Adam Jensen (Uni.Colo online, 2006)

Location of Gl 876 (IL Aqr) in Aqr on the Sky 168

Appendix B: Understood Characteristics of the Gl 876 Planets

Current (2007) Parametrics known for the 3-Planet system (planets “b” and “c” in a 2:1 mean motion resonance.

169

Evolution of Understanding of Orbital Parameters 136

Gl 876 in 1998

Name: Gliese 876b

Mass: 2.1 MJ Semi-Major Axis: 0.21 AU Orbital Period: 61 Days Eccentricity: 0.27

Gl 876 in 2001

Name: Gliese 876c Gliese 876b

Mass: 0.56 MJ 1.89 MJ Semi-Major Axis: 0.13 0.21 Orbital Period: 30.1 Days 61.0 Days Eccentricity: 0.28 0.10

Gl 876 2005 to present

Name: Gliese 876d Gliese 876c Gliese 876b

Mass: 0.023 MJ 0.619 MJ 1.935 MJ Semi-Major Axis: 0.0208067 0.1303 0.20783 Orbital Period: 1.94 Days 30.34 Days 60.94 Days Eccentricity: 0 0.2243 0.0249

Comparison of Gl 876’s Planets, to Other M Dwarfs found with Systems

Planet M star M sin(i) date K #obs sig µ Gl 876 b 0.32 615 1998 210 13 6.0 247 Gl 876 c 0.32 178 2001 90 50 5.0 127 Gl 436 b 0.44 22.6 2004 18.1 42 4.5 26 Gl 581 b 0.31 15.7 2005 13.2 20 2.5 23 Gl 876 d 0.32 5.7 2005 6.5 155 4.0 20 Gl 674 b 0.35 11.8 2007 8.7 32 0.82 60 Gl 581 d 0.31 7.5 2007 2.7 50 1.23 16 Gl 581 c 0.31 5.0 2007 2.4 50 1.23 14

136 The latest information on the Gl 876 system can be found at http://exoplanet.eu/star.php?st=Gliese+876&showPubli=yes 170

Appendix C: Methodology for Deriving Transit and Inclination from Radial Velocity Datasets

The Basics of RV Reduction Observer LOS

This Appendix provides some supporting background for the RV methods discussed in Chapter 6, and extrapolates on a rewarding collaboration with the Laughlin- Rivera team at Lick Observatory (Shankland et. al, 2006). The methods described here elaborate on that paper (Chapter 6), which helped to establish Gl 876’s inclination i. Generally, the RV FOV relationships. Drawing courtesy S. Udry, 2007: http://obswww.unige.ch/~udry/planet/method.html method can be used to not only understand the periodicity an M (sin i) mass of the planet, it can be used when planets mutually perturb one another to assess the inclination, therefore the potential for a transit. To do this, the radial velocity must be reduced. Using a modified Doppler formula will allow us to approximate mass (sin i) such that

, where is the mass of the star, P is Period and K is the semi-amplitude of the Doppler shift. To do so first calculate K with Vfffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff+ V K = To Away 2 . From Kepler then, the semi-major axis is vwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww u u u Mkg + mkg t3 2 fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffC P seconds G bc bcPlanet 4 π 2 -1 a = `a (in km s ). Having determined a, the planet’s radial velocity (RV) is determined by

or reduced to Mffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffsin i V = 30 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwPlanet PL q a PlanetM C where VPL is that RV. One can then derive the planet’s mass from VPL such that

171

where Vstar is the RV of the star. An extensive RV reduction treatise is beyond the scope of this thesis; however for the interested reader, see Butler et al. (1996). As well Appendix D provides some reference material for this topic – and if not identified in this herein, any term presented without description in this appendix takes the definition in Appendix D.

Fitting Parameter Schemes using RV Curves

Obtaining more complicated orbital elements (particularly when the system includes elliptical orbits, multiple planets, resonances, etc.) becomes quite non-trivial, and generally requires numerical solutions. As is well known, the n-body problem becomes to complicated for other than numerical means, to solve. In the case of Gl 876, the mutual perturbations of the two Jovian planets are substantial. As a number of the elements in Keplerian ellipses are fixed (along with the star’s mass) they can rigorously define the positions and velocities of planets at any time in a coplanar case. However in the case of Gl 876 the interactions are not small and the orbital elements alter incessantly. In such a case initial epochs must be noted, as each epoch means a ‘new system’. In the case of Gl 876’s resonance, they appear to be in a sinusoidal 2:1 libration, which can be shown (in anti-phase) by:

and

where RV amplitude 1 and initial phase angle res are included as part of a numerical model,

in addition to the mean semi-major axis a2 of planet “b”.

Such analytic models are then used to generate synthetic stellar RVs, which are then compared with observation. This is done using a randomized parameters-set sample; sets showing promise are then focused upon to reach a better constraint on the system dynamics, with cross-breeding to improve the dynamic fit. The Levenberg-Marquardt 172 method is the reduction algorithm of choice when mutual interactions such as shown in Gl 876 come into play. For the research herein dynamical fits were first taken from the Keck radial velocity data given in Rivera et al. (2005) to generate a series of potential predicted transits by companions “b” and “c” of GJ 876 – and then can predict transits and generate model light curves, taking into account the strong interactions between the outer two planets of this system. In this analysis, we examined the Lick and Keck radial velocity data and various photometry data sets to see if any such observations were done during the potential (predicted) transit.

Next one selects osculating inclinations for (in the case of Gl 876, see the table at right for the three-body model used to initiate this extrapolation) planet “c” to match the first RV’s epoch, and the nodal longitudes’ differences at the same epoch. With this as the anchor, fitting is done for 10 + 1 orbital parameters (the planetary masses, orbital elements, the planetary masses (m), arguments of periastron ( ), the semi-major axes (a), eccentricities (e), the mean anomalies (M), plus the radial velocity offset, as arbitrary RV reference null). One starts with a two-planet fit to the observed RVs (converted to Jacobi coordinates required for a reference useable in numerical computing). Using a Monte Carlo scheme, two-planet (3-body) fits are next made to each of a large statistical sample (~1000) of RVs that are done with the elements discovered in the first round of estimates. Ranges for each element precipitate, with the expected statistical deviations (revealed by bootstrapping, itself doable because the model and real velocities “commute” in their distributions).

In Chapter 6, the system was indeed assumed to contain three planets, and that these orbited the star in the same plane. We then varied the inclination of the orbital plane to the plane of the sky from i = 90o to i = 89.0o in decrements of 0.1o, and fitted for each of the 13+1 remaining parameters; the same techniques used to generate the bottom curve of Figure 3 of Rivera et al. (2005) were used here. The reductions were run on computers by E. Rivera at UC Santa Cruz as the interface for this portion of Shankland et al. (2006); from there we analyzed the results. Using the fitted parameters from each fit, we performed N-body simulations to examine the motion of the (outer two) planets relative to the star. In this way, we predicted when transits (by the outer two planets) should occur – under the assumption that all three planets were coplanar and that 89.0o < i < 90.0o. As a function of time, the uncertainty in the central transit times varied from ~ 1 hr to a few hours for both planets (see the figure below). In following the planets as 173 they passed in front of the star, we also generated model light curves with a stellar limb darkening coefficient of 0.724 (Claret 2000, see Chapters 3 and 6 for elaboration upon the limb darkening effect) to compare with the photometry.

Uncertainty in the central transit time for planets “c” (top) and “b” (bottom) versus time. The vertical solid lines delineate the time span of the

Keck radial velocity observations used to generate the fits used in this work (note that the uncertainties are smallest over this time span). The vertical dashed line indicates the epoch for the fits (JD 2452490.0).

Varying the Fits to find the Optimal Inclination RV and Photometry

Next two comparisons were made to determine if the observations were or were not consistent with transits by the outer two planets, one using radial velocities and one using photometry. As a planet transits in front of its star, an asymmetry in the star’s spectral lines is produced since parts of the star that are moving toward and away from the LOS are occulted during the transit (Ohta, Taruya, & Suto 2005). This results in an apparent shift in the centers of the spectral lines; this in turn results in small radial velocity deviations of the star during a transit. Prior to further analysis, all the Lick and Keck radial velocity observations were scanned to see if any such event occurred during a predicted transit, assuming i = 90o. Four observations were found, three taken during a predicted transit by planet “c”, and one taken during a predicted transit by planet “b”. The next figure (below) zooms in on the relevant parts of the radial velocity model (both with and without the Rossiter-McLaughlin effect, see Chapter 6 and Appendix D), with the observations over-plotted. For the transit epoch in the case of planet “c” (left panel), the data is clearly consistent with no transit identified. In the right panel, the situation is not so clear, since the uncertainty of the single observation spans both models. Note that the models in both panels were generated by simply adding template 174 curves based on the results given in Ohta, Taruya & Suto (2005) to the self- consistent, three-planet model.

Left – Three-planet radial velocity model (red curve) with a superimposed model Rossiter curve (black curve) during a predicted transit by planet “c” near epoch JD 2453301.79. The observed

Keck radial velocity data is shown as the black filled-in circles with error bars. Right – the same, but for planet “b” near epoch JD 2452446.14. Again, the observed Keck radial velocity data is shown as the black filled-in circle with error bars.

Next a Lomb periodogram is done. Periodograms are essentially a power transform of the signal, and can reflect different (new) ways to look at the data contained in the signal (such as the slope of the Rossiter McLaughlin effect). In the Gl 876 case the periodogram residuals showed very strong power peak at a 1.9 day period – basis for the detection of the third planet “d”. But rather than stop here, more data can be obtained if one varies the inclination i. When this is done by varying i from 90 to10 (or some other inclusive nominal range; combining knowledge of the dynamical predictions with photometry allowed the area of interest to be narrowed), while looking for phased residuals to a best coplanar fit. The goal is to locate any power spike of greatest magnitude based on a preponderance of the periodogram residuals in the fits about some recurrent inclination (such behavior is identified by folding the fits).

In the case of Gl 876 the periodicity folds with that large power spike most optimally about an inclination of ~50o. Such results require statistical soundness, accorded with a large sample (again ~1000). In this case the power at 1.94 days continues to rise with n samples, and as well folds best when the two-planet residuals are overlaid at i = 50o. Prior to the research herein, Rivera et al. performed a comprehensive analysis of previously obtained Keck and Lick RVs on Gl 876, and these all showed a double-Keplerian fit unilaterally at tallest residual power spikes of1.94 days (Rivera et al, 2005).

To make the fit more rigorous, the orbital elements require the addition of the mass, semi-major axis, and mean anomaly of the third planet to the 10 + 1 parameters in the previous analyses, to 175 give a 13 + 1 constraint. Again with this new fit scheme should eliminate the 1.94 residual spike in further periodograms. Accordingly, varying the inclination in the system can reveal not an wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww qχ 2 optimization of the residual spike (it should be eliminated), but instead should allow the RV fit for the three-planet fits versus the inclination. As discussed in Chapter 6, i = 50○ produces the wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww qχ 2 global minimum in RV -- coincidentally (and strong evidence of confirming) the residual spike found in the two-planet fits at 1.94 days. Just as the folded intensity of the residual spike wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww q 2 ○ ○ χ lessens when proceeding away from i = 50 toward 90 , RV also moves away from its global minimum away from i = 50○. While the residual spike is interesting around the non-orthogonal wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww qχ 2 inclination, the low global RV fit makes this result a strong indicator that no transit occurs, and that, per the Rossiter-McLaughlin effect, no line broadening or occulting of the RV slope occurs to infer a transit in the present dynamical configuration.

Specifically, using the bootstrap method 100 synthetic RV data sets were generated and then used to do 71 fits (i = 90○, 89○, ...20○) to each set i for 100 curves. For the key inclinations, wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww q 2 χ samples are shown at the end of this appendix, below. A remarkable 98 curves showed a RV wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww q 2 ○ ○ ○ ○ χ minimum around i = 45 - 58 , while at i = 48 -52 , fully 79 showed RV minimum. wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww qχ 2 Statistically, this gives a mean and standard deviation of the RV minimum for all curves to be i = 50○ ± 3○, with a median at 50°. The mean and standard deviation degrades toward 90○ as discussed in Rivera et al (2005) and Shankland et al. (2006; Chapter 6). The figures at the end also show how the fits of the model RVs occur when generated from the i = 50○ three-planet fit to the actual data, along with the actual observed velocities; Also, the periodogram of the residuals for this fit show no clearly significant peaks. Adding more planets (running 20 + 1 fits, for example) did not change or move the minimum about an inclination of 50○. Notably, this constraint on inclination does not preclude the precession of the line of nodes in and out of transit seasons (possible owing to the non-Keplerian departures due to the mean motion resonance in the outer two interactions), but it certainly constrains the existence of a transit during the epoch of the data.

Optimizing the assessment (seeking Rossiter McLaughlin and best-fit minima indicators of inclination) required that several photometric datasets taken since 1989 be reviewed, to model light curves based on self-consistent three-planet fits. Interpretation of these curves can be approached in a number of ways, as discussed in Tingley (2003); the methods used here are based in particular on transit algorithms as derived in Laughlin & Chambers (2001), using Press et al. 1992). The oldest data set evaluated was obtained 176 using the Hipparcos satellite. The collection also included ASAS (the All Sky Automated Survey) photometry and centrally, a large-scale TransitSearch/AAVSO campaign, and Fairborn Observatory data (per Chapter 6).

The generation of model light curves (to produce a reduction of orbital elements complimentary to the RV results) produced interesting results. If transits were indeed occurring, this process showed that it is possible to determine many if not all of the parameters of (at least) the outer two planets. In particular, all of the parameters determined from the radial velocity could also be determined from photometric observation. Just as with non-synthetic transits, these curves would result in a relatively quick determination of the orbital periods, inclinations and radii of the planets; continued observations would then indicate that the periods were not constant. This would of course indicate that the planets were significantly perturbing each other. Subsequent close inspection of the light curves would reveal asymmetries, particularly for “c”, which are related to the orbital eccentricities. Furthermore, the duration and depth of a transit would change over time, and this – coupled with the realization that the periods are not constant – would indicate that over time, transits take place when the planets are at different points along their orbits. In particular, the longest, shallowest transits would occur when the planets were near apastron, and the shortest, deepest transits would occur when the planets were near periastron. This would be particularly true for “c”. In fact, for certain inclinations, “c” would transit the star when it was near periastron, but it would not when it was near apastron. Accordingly, the longitudes of periastron and the related, attendant variations can be reduced. Eventually and with

Left: Transit duration as a function of time for “c” (top panel) and “b” (bottom panel)

177

sufficient photometric data, even the masses could be determined by dynamically modeling just the photometry alone. In this research, the initial assessment of the RV characteristics for transits uncovered this realization, and allowed a synergy between Doppler data and transit data not usually seen. These aspects can be realized from

further review of these figures.

Below: Upper Left – Model light curves during a predicted transit by planet “b” when it is near periastron. The different curves are for different assumed inclinations (i = 90o, 89.9o, 89.8o, .., 89.5o). The deepest transits occur for i = 90o, and shallowest occur for i = 89.5o. note that due to the relative sizes of the star and planet, the light curve does not become flat at the center of the transit. Additionally, the extreme depth of the transit for i = 90o is due to limb darkening. Upper Right – Model light curves during a predicted transit by planet “b” when it is near apastron. Again, the different curves are for different assumed inclinations between i = 90o and 89.5o. For i<90o, the transits are not as deep when “b” is near apastron as when it is near periastron.

Cont’d. The difference in distance between the star and planet when the planet is at the extreme

in its elliptical orbit results in a difference in the projected separation (on the sky) between the

two bodies (for i<90o). This geometrical effect in combination with limb darkening produces the

differences in transit depths seen for transits near periastron and apastron. Lower Left – model

light curves during a predicted transit now by planet “c”, when near periastron. As above, the

different curves are for different assumed inclinations (i = 90o though 89.0o). Note that the

asymmetry in the light curve during transit is easier to note because of the larger eccentricity of

c. Lower right panel – model light curves during a predicted transit by planet “c” when it is near

apastron. As before, different curves are for different assumed inclinations (i = 90o - 89.4o).

Since “c” is on a significantly more eccentric orbit than “b”, the difference in transit depth when

“c” is near periastron and apastron is more extreme than for “b”. Because of the eccentricity of

“c”, it is also easier to note that transits near apastron (when orbital velocity of “c” is near a

minimum) last significantly longer than transits near periastron.

178

Above: Left pane – Full dynamical model light curve for GJ 876 due to planet “b” for varying inclinations (i = 90.0o, 89.9o, 89.8o, 89.7o, 89.6o, and 89.5o) from 1989 August to 2005 December. This shows the effect that varying the inclination of the system and the precession of the lines of apsides has on the light curve. Right pane– similarly, full dynamical model light curve for GJ 876 due to planet “c” for varying inclinations (i = 90.0o through 89.5o) from 1989 August to 2005 December. This shows the extreme effect (due to the eccentricity of “c”) that varying the system inclination and precession of the lines of apsides has on the light curve. Comparison of the photometric data with the model light curves was next done. The next figure, below, (upper Left) shows the model light curve (for i = 90o) for Gl 876 due to planet “b” and all of the Hipparcos photometry. The upper right panel shows the Hipparcos photometry and the light curve due to planet “c” (for i = 90o); no notable flux above the noise floor was found here.

Below: Upper Left pane – Dynamical model light curve for GJ 876 due to planet “b” for i = 90o (solid line) and Hipparcos photometry (filled-in circles with error bars). Upper Right pane – Similarly, the dynamical model light curve for GJ 876 due to planet “c” for i = 90o (solid line) and Hipparcos photometry (filled-in circles with error bars). Lower Left Pane – Dynamical model light curve for GJ 876 due to planet “b” for i = 89.5o (solid line) and relative photometry obtained at Fairborn Observatory (filled-in circles with error bars). Lower Right pane – Similarly, the dynamical model light curve for GJ 876 due to planet “c” for i = 89.3o (solid line) and relative photometry obtained at Fairborn Observatory (filled-in circles with error bars).

179

For both planets, none of the Hipparcos data was obtained near or during a predicted transit, and the same was largely true for our selection of archival ASAS data, although some photometric data fell within transit prediction widows as discussed shortly. Conversely, the Transitsearch/AAVSO campaigns were targeted to be coincident with our prediction windows, and the data reflects this. In a separate but related collection, the lower left panel of the figures above also show the relative photometry obtained by one the TransitSearch team that was analyzed, and the corresponding model light curve for “b”. The lower right panel in the Figure above shows the light curves for “c” and the same photometric data for the Fairborn data. Transitsearch/AAVSO and ASAS data were similarly assessed, then compiled. In each case, some observations were taken near or during a predicted transit by “c” only.

Figures below (Fairborn, then AAVSO/TransitSearch data) show the sets of model light curves for various values of i for predicted transits by planet “c”, during which Gl 876

was observed. Based on the constraints developed by RV and transit modeling, the

Above: Left – Dynamical model light curves for GJ 876 due to planet “c” for i = 89.3o, i = 89.2o, i = 89.1o, and i = 89.0o (solid lines) and relative photometry obtained at Fairborn Observatory (filled-in circle with error bars) near a predicted transit centered at JD 2452970.65. Center – Dynamical model light curves for same i, and relative photometry during and after a predicted transit centered at JD 2453271.66. Right – Dynamical model light curves for same i, and relative photometry before and during a predicted transit centered at JD 2453301.78.

results now clearly indicate that all the photometric data sets are consistent, with no transits occurring. That is, with the curious exception notable in the bottom right panel, where the initial TIP-TOPhAT data were assessed – and as noted, would, if not a false positive, be a result of a precession of the line of nodes in a seasonal resonance.

180

Above: Left – Dynamical model light curves for GJ 876 due to planet “c” for i = 90.0o through 89.0o in 0.1o decrements, taken near JD 2453301.7879. The data were compiled, base-lined and shifted to employ a mean magnitude of V = 10.19, based on relative photometry obtained by AAVSO and TransitSearch (filled-in circle with error bars) near a predicted transit centered at JD 2452970.65. Center – Similarly for “b”, this plate shows dynamical model light curves for same the same decrements of i, taken near JD 2453300.3806, also compiled and base-lined to V = 10.19; this is also AAVSO and TransitSearch relative photometry (filled-in circle with error bars). Right – Shankland 2003 data for “c”, this plate shows dynamical model light curves again for same the same decrements of i, taken near JD 2452976.5472; relative photometry, but under suboptimal conditions (filled-in circle with error bars). 181

Appendix D : Relevant Physical Constants, Identities, Relationships

Speed of light c = 2.9979 x 108 ms-1 Gravitational constant G = 6.6726 x 10-11 N m2/kg2 Planck’s constant h = 6.6261 x 10-34 J s Boltzmann constant k = 1.3807 x 10-23 J/K = 8.6174 x 10-5 eV/K Stefan-Bolzmann constant  = 5.6705 x 10-8 W m-2 K-4 30 Solar Mass 1 M = 1.989 x 10 kg 8 Solar Radius 1 R = 6.9599 x 10 m 26 Solar luminosity 1 L = 3.90 x 10 W Statistical 1-σ 68% probability Statistical 3-σ 99.75% probability

Kepler’s First Law - A planet orbits the Sun in an ellipse, with the Sun at one focus of the ellipse. The principle focus is not occupied.

Kepler’s Second Law - The time rate of change of the area swept out by a line connecting a planet to the focus of an ellipse is a constant, one-half of the orbital angular momentum per unit mass. The orbital speed of a planet depends on its location in that orbit

dA1 L 2 GM1 e  vp   dt 2  ae1 Perihelion Velocity Aphelion Velocity

2 GM1 e va   ae1

Kepler’s Third Law - P2 = a3 P is orbital period (Yr) a is average distance of the planet (AU) e below, is eccentricity, θ is the orbital angle or Argument of Peri(astron) ae1 2 r  01e  ae1 Orbit 1cos e   Perihelion   2 p  ae1 r  Aphelion   parabola 1cos  . (e = 1)

Newton’s First Law The Law of Inertia. p = mv where

p - the momentum m - mass v – velocity 182

momentum remains constant unless experiences an unbalanced force.

Newton’s Second Law Net force (sum) proportional to object’s mass & resultant acceleration. n ddmdvvp() FFma net i Fmnet   i1 dt dt dt  4 2  P 2  a3   mmG  Newton’s Form of Kepler’s Third Law  21  OR 4 a32 mm 21  2 GP P = Planet’s sidereal period in years a = planet’s semi-major axis in AU G = Gravitational constant (6.67 x 10-11 newton m2/kg2) m1+m2 = mass of the two bodies

 mm 21   GF  2  Newton’s Universal Law of Gravitation  r  F = gravitational force between two objects

m1 = mass of first object

m2 = mass of second object r = distance between objects G = Gravitational constant (6.67 x 10-11 newton m2 / kg2) M  mm EG  G12

Total Orbital Energy 22aa

4 Luminosity L  AT L is the luminosity A is the area of the blackbody T is temperature (K)

42 Stefan-Boltzmann equation for a spherical star  4  TRL L = star’s luminosity (watts) R = star’s radius (m) σ = Stefan-Boltzmann constant (5.67 x 10-8 Wm-2 K-4)

T = star’s surface temperature (K)

183

Radius of a Star Related to its Luminosity and Surface Temperature

2 4 2 L  R   T  R T  L          L  R   T  R T L           

L/L = ratio of the star’s luminosity to the Sun’s luminosity

R/R = ratio of the star’s radius to the Sun’s radius

T/T = ratio of Sun’s surface temperature to star’s surface temperature

FT  4 Surface Flux surf e 2hc25 2hv32 c BT () hc kT BTv () hv kT Planck e 1 or e 1 0029.0 max  Wien’s Law for Blackbodies T max = wavelength of maximum emission (m) T = temperature (K)

4 Stefan-Boltzmann Law for a Blackbody  TF F = energy flux in joules per square meter per second (jm-2s-1)  = Stefan-Boltzmann constant (5.67 x 10-8 Wm-2 K-4) T = temperature in Kelvins L F    4R 2 Solar Energy Flux  F = solar flux L = solar luminosity R = solar radius F T    F T Comparision by Stefan-Boltzmann Law   F⊙ = solar flux F* = flux of a star

T⊙ = solar temperature

T* = temperature of a star

Tangential Velocity  74.4  dv v = velocity μ = proper motion in arcsec

d = distance in parsecs 184

Inverse Square Law Relating Apparent Brightness and Luminosity L b  2 2 4 d and  4 bdL b = apparent brightness of a star’s light in W m-2 L = star’s luminosity (Watts) d = distance to the star (m)

Difference Related to Brightness Ratio  b  b mm  log5.2  1  1  512.2 mm 12 )( 12  b  b  2  2

m1, m2 = apparent magnitudes, stars 1, 2

b1, b2 = apparent brightnesses, stars 1, 2

Distance modulus  dMm  5log5 m = star’s apparent magnitude M = star’s absolute magnitude d = distance from the Earth to star (pc) 1 M t  t  2 Main-Sequence Lifetime L L  M 5.3 MM t = star’s main-sequence lifetime M = mass of the star L = star’s luminosity D 2 A  Light Gathering Power 4 A = area D = diameter of lens or mirror

     105.2 5   Angular Resolution  D  θ = diffraction-limited angulare resolution of a telescope in arcsecs λ = wavelength of light D = diameter of telescope objective (λ and D must be in the same unit)

185

2GM vescape  Escape Velocity R v = velocity G = universal constant of gravitation (6.67 x 10-11 N m2/kg2) m = mass of the planet R = radius of the planet

 sin  m Destructive Interference D (Airy disk caused by destructive interference through a circular aperture)   min 1.22 Rayleigh Criterion D P  Sv() fdvdA Energy Detection (Radio Astronomy) Av v

Additional Definitions – Brief Background to Chapter 6 and Appendix C

Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm (or LMA) - a numerical solution to the problem of minimizing a function, generally nonlinear, over a space of parameters of the function. These minimization problems arise especially in least squares curve fitting and nonlinear programming. The LMA interpolates between the Gauss-Newton algorithm (GNA) and the method of gradient descent. The LMA is more robust than the GNA, which means that in many cases it finds a solution even if it starts very far off the final minimum. Conversely, for well- behaved functions and good starting parameters, the LMA can be slower than GNA.

Jacobi field, Coordinates - in Riemannian geometry, a Jacobi field is a certain type of vector field along a geodesic γ in a Riemannian manifold, which can be obtained on the following way:

Take a smooth single-parameter family of geodesics γτ with γ0 = γ, then the Jacobi field is described by

Osculating orbit - the gravitational Keplerian orbit about a central body it would have if it had no other perturbations. bootstrapping is a modern, computer-intensive, general purpose approach to statistical inference, falling within a broader class of resampling methods. 186 chi-squared or χ2 distribution - widely used theoretical probability distributions in inferential statistics, ( in statistical significance tests). Is useful because, under reasonable assumptions, easily calculated quantities can be proven to have distributions that approximate to the χ2 distribution if the null hypothesis is true. The χ2 distribution has one parameter: k - a positive 2 integer that specifies the number of degrees of freedom (i.e. the number of Xi). The χ distribution is a special case of the γ distribution. The χ2 statistic is a sum of differences between observed and expected outcome frequencies, each squared and divided by the expectation:

where: O = an observed frequency E = an expected (theoretical) frequency, asserted by the null hypothesis

The resulting value can be compared to the chi-square distribution to determine the goodness of fit. There is also a reduced chi-squared statistic, which is weighted based on measurement error.

where σ2 is the variance of the observation. periodogram - an estimate of the true spectral density of a signal. Let

where T may be chosen to be equal to some integer multiple of , and plot a curve with 2π / k as abscissæ and as ordinates; this curve represents the periodogram of the function. Often computed from a finite-length digital sequence using the fast Fourier transform (FFT). The Lomb Periodogram method is used for unevenly sampled series.

Nyquist frequency - half the sampling frequency of a discrete signal processing system. It is sometimes called the folding frequency, or the cut-off frequency of a sampling system.

Orbital resonance - when two orbiting bodies exert a regular, periodic gravitational influence on each other, usually due to their orbital periods being related by a ratio of two small integers. Orbital resonances greatly enhance the mutual gravitational influence of the bodies. 187

Mean motion orbital resonance – two bodies have periods of revolution that are a simple integer ratio of each other. Depending on the details, this can either stabilize or destabilize the orbit. Stabilization occurs when the two bodies move in such a synchronized fashion that they never closely approach.

Secular resonance - when the precession of two orbits is synchronized (usually a precession of the perihelion or ascending node). A small body in secular resonance with a much larger one (e.g. a planet) will precess at the same rate as the large body. Over long times (~106 years) a secular resonance will change the eccentricity and inclination of the small body.

Kozai resonance - when the inclination and eccentricity of a perturbed orbit oscillate synchronously (increasing eccentricity while decreasing inclination, and vice versa). Applies only to highly inclined orbits. One of the consequences is the lack of bodies on highly inclined orbits, as the growing eccentricity would result in small pericenters, usually leading to a collision or destruction by tidal forces for large bodies.

Riemannian geometry - (sometimes called Elliptic geometry) the study of smooth manifolds in differential geometry, with Riemannian metrics, i.e. a choice of positive-definite quadratic form on a manifold's tangent spaces, which varies smoothly from point to point. This gives in particular local ideas of angle, length of curves, and volume. From those some other global quantities can be derived by integrating local contributions.

Roche limit - distance within which a celestial body, held together only by its own gravity, will disintegrate due to a second celestial body's tidal forces exceeding the first body's gravitational self-attraction.

The N-Body Problem - the problem of finding, given the initial positions, masses, and velocities of n bodies, their subsequent motions as determined by classical mechanics, i.e., Newton's laws of motion and Newton's law of gravity. >2 Bodies requires numerical methods for approximation

Lagrange point - (libration point) the five positions (L1 through L5) in an orbit where a small body affected only by gravity stays stationary with respect to two larger bodies. At each point the pull of gravity of the three bodes are in precise balance so that the small body is not pulled from that point, and the small body rotates with the larger ones. This is a special case of the 3- body problem.

188

Rossiter-McLaughlin effect – the ideal bell-shaped curve of an RV curve is skewed when a planet transits the face of its parent star. As the parent star itself rotates, one quadrant of the photosphere approaches the observer while the other the other recedes – causing red/blueshifts (noted primarily as line broadening). During a transit, that portion is blocked off, skewing the results with the absence of shifted light during that quadrant’s occultation. Upon moving to the other quadrant, the values are reversed. This shows as a slight skewing of the RV line slopes and indicates a likely transit.

Jitter - an unwanted variation of one or more signal characteristics in oscillatory physics

Epoch - a moment in time for which the position or orbital elements of a body are specified.

Additional Definitions - Parameters Describing Elliptical Orbits

Further background for Chapter 6 and Appendix C

Keplerian elements - set of six orbital elements: Inclination ( ), Longitude of the ascending node ( ), Argument of periapsis ( ), Eccentricity ( ), Semi-major axis ( ), and Mean anomaly at epoch ( ) (sometimes True Anomaly is instead required)

Par- Name Definition, Formulae, Notes Symbol ameter 1 Apocenter The location of the greatest distance between the orbiting body rap or apapsis and the central body when the orbit is an ellipse. The apocenter is diametrically opposite the pericenter on the major axis of the orbit. Given by: where a is semi-major axis and e is eccentricity 2 Argument The angle from the ascending node to the pericenter, measured ω 189

of in the plane of the orbit. “Argument” means Angle. sometim Pericenter es "w" or or θ Periapsis 3 Ascending The point in its orbit where the orbiting body crosses the ζ Node reference plane going "upward" or "northward". The time of this crossing is often used as the "elements' epoch." 4 Eccentricity ( ) is strictly defined for circular orbits: , for elliptic E orbits: , for parabolic trajectories: , for hyperbolic trajectories: wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww. r 2 * b a 2 It can be calculated with 1 @ where a is the semi- major axis and b is the semi-minor axis, or by: • (apocenter - pericenter) / (apocenter + pericenter) , or by: • (pericenter / semi-major axis) 5 Epoch A significant time, often the time at which the orbital elements n/a for an object are valid. An epoch is usually specified as a Julian date. 6 Inclination The angle between this orbital plane and a reference plane. I 7 Line of The line between the pericenter and the apocenter. n/a Apsides 8 Line of The line between the ascending node and the descending node U Nodes 9 Longitude Angle from the origin of longitude of the reference plane to the Ω of the orbit's ascending node sometim Ascending es "W" Node 10 Longitude Longitude of Ascending Node + Argument of Pericenter ϖ of This sometimes is called a "broken angle" since it includes Pericenter angular measurements in two different planes. or Periapsis 11 Mean The location of the body in the orbit. The product of mean M Anomaly motion and time since pericenter IE, the mean anomaly is Zero when the orbiting body is at pericenter. Defining the orbital elements at the epoch Tp reduces the number of values to be calculated. At time t, given by:

a, and hence n, is an analytic function of time. 12 Mean where: is orbit's Longitude mean anomaly, is longitude of the orbit's periapsis, is the longitude of ascending node and is the argument of periapsis. 13 Mean Closed orbit: e < 1 Motion Averagewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww angular velocity needed to complete one orbit or Mfffffffffffffffffffff+ m m n = sG = elliptical mean motion, or n = 1/P such a3 that wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwa = q/(1-e) Mfffffffffffffffffffff+ m n = sG = hyperbolic mean motion. @ a3 (negative for hyperbolic orbits; hence minus sign to make the value positive.) Note: n is in Radians vice degrees. Pericenter The location of the shortest distance between the orbiting body q and the central body. Given by: q = a * (1 - e) , where q is the pericenter distance, a is the length of the semi-major axis, and e 190

is the eccentricity. Period The time to complete one orbit When without further P qualification refers to the sidereal period of an astronomical object, with respect to the stars. sidereal period is the time that it takes the object to make one full orbitvw wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwrelative to the stars u u fffffffffffffffq 3 • For a closed, elliptical orbit, P = t or = a3/2, de1 @ e P = 1/n vwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww u u 3 • For an open, hyperbolic orbit, P = t ffffffffffffffffq where P is dee @ 1 period in yr, q is the pericenter in AU, e is eccentricity and a is semi-major axis in AU (a negative for hyperbolic orbits). wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww q • More generally, P = Ka3 where a is semi-major axis, K is inversely proportional to sum of masses of the central body and orbiting body.

When the mass of an orbiting body is small enough to ignore, K can be same for all small objects orbiting around the same central body, i.e., Kepler's Third Law 14 Semi-major 1/2 of the length of the orbit's major axis; half of (the pericenter a Axis distance plus the apocenter distance). Semi-major axes a given by

where amplitude 1 and

initial phase res are treated as model parameters in addition to

mean semi-major axis 2 outer body. 15 Time of A time at which the orbiting body passes through the Tp Pericenter pericenter, closest to the central body. Passage 16 true the longitude at which an orbiting body could actually be found l longitude if its inclination were zero. Given by where is longitude of orbit's periapsis, is orbit's true anomaly 17 Mean Angle the body would have traveled about the center of the

anomaly at orbit's auxiliary circle. Unlike other measures of anomaly, the epoch mean anomaly grows linearly with time. Can be calculated using: , where is the mean anomaly at , is the start time, is the time of interest, is the mean motion. Or use: , where is eccentricity and is eccentric anomaly (the angle between direction of periapsis and current position of an object on its orbit, projected onto the ellipse's circumscribing circle perpendicularly to the major axis). M increases linearly (uniformly) with time. 18 True location of object from distance closest to star. Derived from φ Anomaly at Mean anomaly by solving from sometim epoch Kepler's second law, for E, eccentric anomaly. Solving for ν es ν (or f) in: gives True anomaly φ (or here, ν

). The difference between the true anomaly and the mean anomaly is called the Equation of Center C: φ = M + C

191

Appendix E: Reported Characteristics -- Gliese 876

Original reporting of possible transit egress matching within 1σ of Laughlin prediction window for planet “c”. The first two intercomparison stars were designated as “c” and “k” check stars.

192

Tabular data of Target Star Gl 876

0.45833 0.46319 0.46806 0.47293 0.47782 0.48272 0.48754 0.49249 0.49511 10.33 10.32 10.28 10.26 10.24 10.23 10.2 10.21 10.19

0.49748 0.50236 0.50716 51204 0.51704 0.5219 0.52685 .53172 .53661 10.15 10.18 10.18 10.17 10.15 10.18 10.17 10.16 10.16

Original Announcement of Flux Detection in 2003

Data Reviewed for potential Archival transits in Chapter 6

193

Appendix F: Initial Optical Planning Reference Data for Gl 876 / IL Aqr

Optimization for single-site observations of the 2003 study, Meridian MS using TIP-TOPhAT. Upper table is to observe known transits of HD 209458, to assesses technique and TOPhAT performance (with short periodicity and known transiting planet). The lower table is to observe Gl 876 / IL Aqr’s planet “c” in this intial series. The transit windows are based on a Monte- Carlo-derived, 3σ prediction based on geometry probabilities, from Laughlin et al (2001). Basis

for the prediciction is discussed in Chapters 2, 3 and 6, and reviewed in Appendixes and D.

Qual JD Center Alti @ Xsit(o) Sun @ ctr Moon @ ctr Window HD209458 0-5 2452- Date’03 UT LCL In Ctr Out Atlio Ri/Set %ill Altio In out 0 865.4014 08/13 21: 16:38 Daytime 3 868.9262 08/17 10: 05:13 61 23 -02 r05:22 74 65 03:13 07:13 X 0 872.4509 08/20 22: 17:49 -4 +21 21 s19:38 41 -30 15:49 17:49 X 3 875.9757 08/24 11: 06:25 40 14 -0.1 r06:27 12 38 04:25 08:25 X 2 879.5005 08/27 00: 19:00 15 40 05 s19:30 00 10 17:00 21:00 X 0 883.0252 08/31 12: 07:13 24 00 08 r06:31 18 -41 05:13 09:13 X 4 886.5500 09/03 01: 20:11 36 61 -12 s19:20 57 30` 18:11 22:11 X 0 890.0747 09/07 13: 08:47 Daytime 5 893.5995 09/10 02: 21:23 31 57 76 -27 s19:16 100 21 19:23 23:23 0 897.1242 09/14 14: 09:58 Daytime 5 900.6490 09/17 03: 22:34 52 74 67 -42 s19:03 56 -06 20:34 00:34 0 904.1737 09/21 16: 11:10 Daytime 5 607.6985 09/24 04: 23:45 71 71 47 -55 s18:54 01 -49 21:45 01:45 0 911.2232 09/28 17: 12:21 Daytime 5 914.7480 10/02 05: 00:57 74 52 26 -60 s18:41 45 -21 22:57 02:57 0 918.2727 10/05 18: 13:32 Daytime 4 921.7975 10/09 07: 02:08 56 31 06 -56 r06:55 99 45 00:08 04:08 0 925.3223 10/12 19: 14:44 Daytime 3 928.8470 10/16 08: 02:19 35 10 -12 -46 r06:00 71 65 00:19 04:19 0 932.3718 10/19 20: 14:55 Daytime 1 935.8965 10/23 09: 03:30 15 -08 -27 -33 r06:06 07 -04 01:30 05:30 0 939.4213 10/26 22: 16:06 Daytime 0 942.9460 10/30 10: 04:42 -4 -25 -19 r06:12 31 -83 02:42 06:42 X 3 946.4708 11/02 23: 17:17 61 76 -03 s17:08 69 31 15:17 19:17 X 0 949.9955 11/06 11: 05:53 - -36 -05 r06:18 94 -23 03:53 07:53 22 X 3 953.5203 11/09 00: 18:29 76 63 -19 s17:03 99 11 16:29 20:29 X 0 957.0450 11/13 13: 07:04 - -37 X +07 r06:24 83 38 05:04 09:04 34 5 960.5698 11/16 01: 19:40 74 66 42 -34 s16:58 51 -34 17:40 21:40 0 964.0946 11/20 14: 08:16 Daytime 5 967.6193 11/23 02: 20:51 71 47 22 -50 s16:56 00 -49 18:51 22:51 194

0 971.1441 11/27 15: 09:27 Daytime 4 974.6688 11/30 04: 22:03 51 25 02 -65 s16:53 55 21 20:03 00:03 0 978.1936 12/04 16: 10:38 Daytime

Primary Planning for Gl 876

Qual JD - in Alti @ Xsit(o) Sun @ ctr Moon @ ctr Ctr Window GJ 876c Window-Lcl 0-5 245- In- Out In Ctr Out Atlio Ri/Set %ill Altio UT(h) Lcl 07/27 Lcl 2 2879.96 08/28 05:06 08:18 08 -11 15 r06:29 01 04 11/14 06:42 X 0 2910.11 09/27 09:38 14:44 Daytime 14/17 12:11 2 2940.34 10/27 14:09 17:15 X X -01 s17:15 09 16 20/23 15:43 25 5 2970.44 11/26 16:40 19:46 40 40 -05 s16:54 13 21 22/01 17:13 37 1 3000.63 12/27 21:05 00:05 -09 -28 -69 s17:02 28 -09 03/06 22:35 08

2004 Monte Carlo Geometric Predictions on which 2004 Distributed Campaign were Based

195

Transit Times for GJ 876b

Ingress (JD) Egress (JD) M D Y time (UT) ingress 2453178.482 2453178.652 June 21 2004 23:33 2453239.490 2453239.660 Aug 21 2004 23:46 2453300.474 2453300.644 Oct 21 2004 23:22 2453361.433 2453361.603 Dec 21 2004 22:23

Observing guidance for the distributed Network

(Below: top, finder chart used by distributed observers during initial TransitSearch campaign. Credit: Aaron Price, AAVSO).

196

Below: while modern telescopes of even modest aperture often have automated pointing capabilities, distributed networks nonetheless require a common-denominator in terms of matchable FOV’s, filtering, orientation, and check stars (the latter as per illustration, which shows the primary check stars used with TOPhAT)

Below: Left and Right. In post-analysis of the light curves, the following check stars were used as “anchors” in the post-TOPhAT, globally distributed network’s various FOV’s. Note that both R and V filters are shown (M dwarfs favor the R Band per their black body radiation peak. These designations as recommended by AAVSO. Image credit: B. Gary)

197

Appendix G: GEMSS Planning Target Candidate List Phase I & II

GEMSS Pre Phase-One Planning Baseline (P3B)

Based on the analysis to optimize synergized detections from a disparate collection of global equipment; i.e., how best to pick targets useful to all instruments – the process is called GETSUM – GEMSS Erudition To Synergize Unsimilar Metadata

Star R.A. Dec V Magnitude V891 Tau 4 15 25.8 6 11 59 7 Gl 205* 5 31 27.4 -3 40 38 8 Gl 775 20 2 47 3 19 34 8.6 Gl 157A 3 57 28 -1 9 34 9.1 Gl 148* 3 41 10.5 3 36 41 10 BY Cet 2 47 27 -0 12 22 10.1 Gl 880* 22 56 34 16 33 12.3 8.7 Barnard’s Star 17 57 48 04 41 36 10.25 Gl 849* 22 9 40.3 -4 38 26 10.4 Gl 908 23 49 13 2 24 6 10.4 BD-00 431 2 47 27 -0 12 22 10.4 Gl 908 23 49 13 2 24 06 10.4 LP 585-49 0 34 06 -1 16 45 10.5 PZ Mon 6 48 21 1 13 9 10.6 BD-1 167B 1 18 40 0 52 27 10.7 LP 585-58 0 36 30 -0 54 40 10.9 LP 585-20 0 24 53 -1 47 9 10.9 V371 Ori 5 33 45 1 56 48 11 LP 585-28 0 27 10 -1 13 28 11.2 LP 585-48 0 34 04 -1 19 58 11.3 CNS3 803 4 37 37 -2 29 29 11.3 V1005 Ori 4 59 5 1 47 1 11.5 ROSS 614 6 29 21.5 -2 48 15 12 Proxima Cen 14 29 43 -62 40 46 12 ROSS 128 11 47 44 0 48 16 12 GJ 54.1 1 12 30 -16 59 56 12.2 Gl 899 23 34 3 0 10 46 12.6 Gl 157B 3 57 29 -1 9 25 13 ROSS 248 23 41 55 44 10 39 13 GJ 83.1 2 0 13 13 03 7 13 LP 645-48 0 34 38 -2 25 0 13.6 LP 642-48 23 20 58 -1 47 37 13.93 Wolf 359 10 56 29 7 0 52 14 GJ 1061 3 35 59 -44 30 46 14 BOND 23 31 43 -2 45 8 14.2 LP 644-39 0 6 13 -2 32 10 14.6 LP 586-43 1 1 24.6 -1 5 58 14.8 ROSS 154 18 49 49 -23 50 10.4 11.75 LP 595-21 4 32 55 0 6 34 14.8 LP 584-94 0 17 40 -1 22 40 15 DX Cancri 08 29 49 26 46 33 15.9 1 1522 6 48 20 1 13 24

198

GEMSS High Interest Targets Baseline (HIT-B)

The stars listed here are noted as interesting, and other practical observational requirements being met, would be of higher consideration for targeting. Considered the “Reserved List”.

Proxima Cen Wolf 359 Ross 154, 248, 128, 614 DX Cancri GJ 1061, 54.1, 83.1 Bernard’s Star (however a flare star) V371 OR 1 1522 BD-167B LP 585-20, -28, -49, -48, -58 Gl 157A, 908, 775, 157B, 899 Bd-00 431 PZ Mon V1 005 Ori LP 644-39, 584-94, 643-48, 586-43, 642-48, 595-21 BOND V891 Tau BY Cet CNS 3803, S+KM 1-497 199

Appendix H: GEMSS Phase One Results

The initial complement of Targets was distilled from Appendix G to produce the targets below. Key project assistance was provided by undergraduate intern (mentored by the author), Z. Dugan (Yale University). Targets were chosen as highest probability targets for the Phase One season (see Chapters 2, 4 and 7 for details on the distillation process). Some new targets with improved utility were added to the P3B, and some of the P3B candidates were removed; the list was reduced to 12 for the time allowed (June-October 2006); from these two to three (weather dependent) were expected to be observed with sufficiency to complete a Viability-Effectiveness GEMSS Analysis (VEGA). Note the first two targets to test the concept of operations are identified in green in the following two lists. Their light curves follow thereafter. No flux variation was observed (not surprising based on ~1% probabilities as discussed in Chapter 2); however the primary intent of the VEGA was to assess the ability to produce good 3σ data. This was successful from the US side (particularly with covering >1 target at one site). Separately informal data was taken via the Perth Observatory collaboration, however was not (yet) ‘mergable’. Phase 2 will address this factor as successfully achieved in the Gl 876 Global Campaigns in 2004. Targets in green were the ones actually observed in Phase One.

Phase-One Evolved Target List (PET-L)

Name R.A. Dec V-mag R-mag Gl 205* 5 31 27.4 -3 40 38 8 6.9 Gl 880* 22 56 34 16 33 12.3 8.7 7.6 Gl 212* 5 41 31 53 29 23.3 9.8 8.7 Gl 775 20 2 47 3 19 34 8.6 7.5 Gl 157A 3 57 28 -1 9 34 9.1 8.0 Gl 148* 3 41 10.5 3 36 41 10 8.9 BY Cet 2 47 27 -0 12 22 10.1 9.0 Barnard’s Star 17 57 48 04 41 36 10.25 8.0 Gl 849* 2 9 40.3 -4 38 26 10.4 9.3 Ross 248 23 41 55 44 10 39 12.2 11.1 Gl 908 23 49 13 2 24 4.4 10.4 9.3 Gl768.1B* 19 51 01 10 24 43 13 11.0

200

PET-L Comparison and Check Stars (P-CACs)

In preparation for short-notice assignments, the following Check-star list was devised and ready.

Comparison/ Target Star Check Star RA Dec R- Mag Gl 205* HD 294165 05 31 14.97 -03 37 32.2 9.37 HD 294210 05 31 52.73 -03 37 08.6 8.9 Gl 880* LHS 533 22 56 34.81 +16 33 12.4 7.56 GSC 01711-02413 22 56 26.94 +16 45 22.0 9.13 Gl 212* BD+53 935B 05 41 31.7 +53 29 19 11.7 HD 37535 05 42 19.35 +53 30 55.8 7.93 Gl 775 HD 357695 20 02 23.08 +03 21 54.1 9.7 HD 357682 20 03 18.99 +03 31 44.9 8.52 Gl 157A IRAS 03549-0118 03 57 26.7 -01 09 35 9.1 GJ 157 C 03 57.5 -01 09 00 10.9 GJ 157 B IRAS 03549-0118 03 57 26.7 -01 09 35 11.1 GJ 157 C 03 57.5 -01 09 00 10.9 Gl 148* HD 22917 03 41 00.05 +03 34 42.8 7.97 BPS CS 31087-0042 03 40 59.1 +03 39 40 12.0 BY Cet SDSS J024756.34-001951.4 02 47 56.35 -00 19 51.4 unk SDSS J024815.45-001701.7 02 48 15.45 -00 17 01.7 unk Barnard’s Star GAT 13 17 57 51.89 +04 42 20.5 10.2 GAT 16 17 58 21.6 +04 36 09 9.7 Gl 849* BD-05 5718 22 10 01.66 -04 27 26.4 8.51 StKM 1-1978 22 10 13.7 -04 36 03 10.3 Ross 248 CSI+43-23394 2 23 41.9 +44 14 11.5 GAT 1211 23 41 49.6 +44 06 33 9.6 Gl 908 HD 223346 23 48 49.37 +02 12 51.9 5.36 GSC 00589-00178 23 49 47.16 +02 34 34.8 9.5 Gl 768.1B GJ 9671 A 19 51 01 +10 24.9 10.5 GJ 9671 C 19 51 01 +10 24.9 M4 10.8 201

Light Curves – GEMSS Phase One Procedural Results

Gl 880

Gl 880 Aug 4

0.2 0 2453952.79-0.2 2453952.8 2453952.81 2453952.82 2453952.83 2453952.84 2453952.85

-0.4 V-C -0.6 C2-C1 -0.8 Delta Magnitude -1 -1.2 Julian Date

202

203

Gl 768.1B

Gl 768.1B Aug 5 Starting at 1223

1.4 1.2 1 0.8 (C2-C1) 0.6 (V-C1) 0.4 Delta Magnitude Delta 0.2 0 2453954 2453954 2453954 2453954 2453954 2453954 2453954 2453954 2453954 Julian Date

Gl 768.1B Aug 5 at 2:28

0 2453953.765-0.2 2453953.77 2453953.775 2453953.78 2453953.785 2453953.79 2453953.795 2453953.8 -0.4

-0.6 V-C -0.8 C2-C1 -1 D elta M agnitude -1.2 -1.4 Julian Date

204

Table of Data- GEMSS Initial Study

JD 2453 953 (V-C1) σSigma (C2-C1) σ (Sigma) (V-Ens) σSigma Vsky ADU Order 1 0.081 0.035 -0.967 0.027 1.908 0.027 1439.865 2 0.073 0.021 -0.971 0.016 1.917 0.016 443.75 3 0.051 0.02 -0.977 0.016 1.906 0.016 456.167 4 0.038 0.02 -0.973 0.016 1.89 0.015 452.361 5 0.069 0.02 -0.969 0.015 1.905 0.016 458.083 6 0.046 0.02 -0.951 0.016 1.884 0.015 451.973 7 0.081 0.02 -0.925 0.015 1.902 0.016 460.917 8 0.069 0.02 -0.95 0.015 1.904 0.016 456.139 9 0.062 0.02 -0.924 0.015 1.88 0.015 452.583 10 0.054 0.02 -0.948 0.016 1.89 0.016 454.361 11 0.074 0.02 -0.906 0.015 1.878 0.016 451.486 12 0.08 0.021 -0.951 0.015 1.912 0.016 465.472 13 0.039 0.02 -0.947 0.016 1.879 0.015 450.889 14 0.062 0.02 -0.942 0.015 1.892 0.015 448.889 15 0.068 0.021 -0.958 0.016 1.925 0.016 458 16 0.058 0.021 -0.966 0.016 1.913 0.016 452.445 17 0.076 0.02 -0.951 0.016 1.91 0.016 456.378 18 0.076 0.021 -0.929 0.016 1.901 0.016 457.919 19 0.08 0.02 -0.93 0.015 1.902 0.016 453.695 20 0.063 0.021 -0.953 0.016 1.906 0.016 454.25 21 0.055 0.021 -0.964 0.016 1.909 0.016 455.6 22 0.097 0.021 -0.946 0.015 1.918 0.016 459.278 23 0.088 0.021 -0.94 0.016 1.912 0.016 464.171 24 0.055 0.021 -0.959 0.016 1.902 0.016 455.667 25 0.06 0.02 -0.935 0.016 1.889 0.015 448.432 26 0.071 0.021 -0.957 0.016 1.91 0.016 454.5 27 0.071 0.021 -0.959 0.016 1.918 0.016 458.222 28 0.091 0.02 -0.932 0.015 1.915 0.016 456.222 29 0.072 0.02 -0.94 0.015 1.897 0.016 453.722 30 0.066 0.02 -0.935 0.015 1.897 0.015 444.722 31 0.06 0.021 -0.993 0.016 1.923 0.016 458.73 32 0.065 0.021 -0.955 0.016 1.907 0.016 457.297 33 0.066 0.021 -0.954 0.016 1.905 0.016 453.695 34 0.045 0.02 -0.955 0.016 1.886 0.016 457.195 35 0.04 0.02 -0.946 0.016 1.88 0.016 447.486 36 0.055 0.021 -0.98 0.016 1.908 0.016 448.222 37 0.076 0.021 -0.987 0.016 1.928 0.016 458.543 38 0.029 0.021 -0.993 0.016 1.898 0.016 448 39 0.049 0.021 -0.975 0.016 1.913 0.016 450.324 40 0.083 0.021 -0.975 0.016 1.926 0.016 451.778 41 0.061 0.02 -0.944 0.015 1.89 0.016 446.945 42 0.07 0.021 -0.963 0.016 1.913 0.016 452.838 43 0.047 0.021 -0.989 0.016 1.915 0.016 453.028 44 0.052 0.021 -0.945 0.016 1.893 0.016 447.528 45 0.057 0.021 -0.946 0.016 1.897 0.016 459.889 46 0.08 0.021 -0.953 0.016 1.923 0.016 453.972 47 0.052 0.021 -0.961 0.016 1.896 0.016 448.083 48 0.077 0.021 -0.958 0.016 1.926 0.016 454 205

49 0.067 0.021 -0.957 0.016 1.901 0.016 452.265 50 0.076 0.021 -0.945 0.016 1.921 0.016 448.27 51 0.079 0.021 -0.949 0.016 1.916 0.016 453.833 52 0.096 0.021 -0.951 0.016 1.93 0.016 452.222 53 0.094 0.021 -0.949 0.016 1.929 0.016 451.695 54 0.071 0.021 -0.963 0.016 1.915 0.016 449.972 55 0.048 0.021 -0.961 0.016 1.894 0.016 447.222 56 0.027 0.021 -0.964 0.016 1.878 0.015 457.722 57 0.058 0.021 -0.967 0.016 1.902 0.016 452.556 58 0.044 0.021 -0.965 0.016 1.886 0.016 442.853 59 0.018 0.021 -0.984 0.016 1.883 0.015 443.189 60 0.108 0.021 -0.949 0.016 1.936 0.016 453.306 61 0.041 0.021 -0.985 0.016 1.904 0.016 449.622 62 0.061 0.021 -0.971 0.016 1.907 0.016 448.973 63 0.087 0.021 -0.963 0.016 1.926 0.016 451.472 64 0.067 0.021 -0.949 0.016 1.898 0.016 445.371 65 0.048 0.021 -0.97 0.016 1.9 0.016 448.973 66 0.071 0.021 -0.962 0.016 1.908 0.016 453.361 67 0.059 0.021 -0.965 0.016 1.911 0.016 461.946 68 0.051 0.021 -0.993 0.016 1.924 0.016 446.229 69 0.076 0.021 -0.966 0.016 1.925 0.016 449.216 70 0.036 0.021 -0.999 0.016 1.898 0.015 438.778 71 0.076 0.021 -0.988 0.016 1.938 0.016 445.528 72 0.036 0.021 -0.981 0.016 1.895 0.016 444.667 73 0.081 0.021 -0.978 0.016 1.937 0.016 443.794 74 0.071 0.021 -0.976 0.016 1.937 0.017 449.588 75 0.075 0.021 -0.96 0.016 1.912 0.016 452.171 76 0.077 0.021 -0.99 0.016 1.944 0.016 454.056 77 0.079 0.021 -0.982 0.016 1.933 0.016 453.056 78 0.076 0.021 -0.953 0.016 1.908 0.016 464.639 79 0.049 0.021 -0.968 0.016 1.902 0.016 441.486 80 0.09 0.021 -0.97 0.016 1.939 0.016 454.445 81 0.082 0.021 -0.979 0.016 1.94 0.016 453.778 82 0.072 0.021 -0.977 0.016 1.93 0.016 453.139 83 0.074 0.021 -0.963 0.016 1.921 0.016 446.324 84 0.091 0.021 -0.951 0.016 1.927 0.016 452.778 85 0.059 0.021 -0.988 0.016 1.923 0.016 446.056 86 0.053 0.021 -0.982 0.016 1.913 0.016 450.108 87 0.055 0.021 -0.961 0.016 1.906 0.016 443.676 88 0.054 0.021 -0.979 0.016 1.919 0.016 449.889 89 0.054 0.021 -0.946 0.016 1.89 0.016 460.139 90 0.054 0.021 -0.957 0.016 1.906 0.016 442.889 91 0.06 0.021 -0.981 0.016 1.922 0.016 448.945 92 0.042 0.021 -0.973 0.016 1.896 0.016 442.027 93 0.089 0.021 -0.97 0.016 1.937 0.016 448.722 94 0.061 0.022 -1.005 0.016 1.938 0.016 449.139 95 0.055 0.021 -0.974 0.016 1.92 0.016 448.139 96 0.074 0.021 -0.962 0.016 1.922 0.016 446.389 97 0.125 0.022 -0.949 0.016 1.951 0.017 454.486 98 0.055 0.021 -1.005 0.016 1.932 0.016 450.583 99 0.047 0.021 -0.988 0.016 1.905 0.016 442.333

206

Appendix I: Optical Photometry – Practical Lessons Developed

From the broad range of uses of transit photometry experienced – from video, airborne, terrestrial, various focal plane arrays, distributed networks of instruments, to varied band passes – these practical observational experiences gives cause to collect a notional “lessons learned” as guiding principles for conducting transit photometry. The list is not all-inclusive but covers principle practical aspects that had to be addressed during the optical research conducted herein. Basic understanding of these issues will allow the noise floor of any transit work to be pushed down enough to garner enough signal to allow detections with modest equipment. However these basics apply to all apertures and capabilities and should supplement any primer on precision photometry.

- While virtually an infinite number of apertures can be used with a given collector, apertures at ~5x the typical Full Width Half Maximum (FWHM) seeing profile are best. Smaller apertures tend to perform well in sub-optimal seeing, while larger apertures may work for short- exposed bright objects or un-crowded fields. Smaller aperture is ironically an advantage with faint objects, or for crowded fields. Smaller apertures do waste a greater percentage of light in a light curve, but also include a smaller amount of sky for higher contrast. In all cases one must use the same aperture for all objects in a single target FOV. Options to reduce effective aperture include neutral density filters, aperture masks, using blue filters to hit the poorer part of the CCD sensitivity curve, or implementing very narrow-band filters like H-alpha.

- Centering becomes important, as any error gets magnified using smaller apertures. Faint check stars to a target star may be used in larger apertures but unavailable for use in smaller ones, so changing apertures for subsequent runs complicates photometry.

- Picking good check (comparison stars involves so many variables and limitations that it can be statistically categorized as an art. Often the Instrument and FPA FOV limitations make selection difficult (or even require ensemble photometry) to get any, let alone good, check stars. Generally, they should be close in color (all effort to avoid more than one spectral class removed from the target star), close in magnitude (only rarely selecting check stars > 1.4 Δ mag in brightness from the primary), and not be variables (especially CVs or flare stars). Unless chasing red stars (i.e., herein), avoid red stars owing to their dimness and variability (R filters can help). Many of these rules cannot be employed if the target is in a sparse FOV.

- Minimize systematic effects produced by poor tracking, focus changes or telescope light throughput changes. If using defocusing techniques (per below), keep the procedure – and the 207 annuli – constant. Make the focusing repeatable. It is easiest to do this by repeating with good focus (e.g., with masks or other interfering / diffraction devices or narrowing the ccd PSF). Defocus to optimize under-sampling will work – if the focusing can be made repeatable. Find an empirical relationship and mechanically apply it.

- For bright target stars, defocusing images to distribute the significant light peak over several pixels reduces the potential for non-linearity, bleed-over and/or reduction of potential under-sampling. Defocusing a refractor optical train is most effective (2x FWHM, or full-width- half maximum) yet with reflector optics the central obstruction may appear in defocused images, and become non-Gaussian. Remember that defocusing changes the flat-fields and that must be a consideration; accordingly, defocus minimally. In general very sharply focused stars actually increase more of the Airy disk on the gate structure; doubling the Airy spot halves the error.

- When reducing imagery using the ‘aperture (annulus) technique’ of differential photometry, use as small-as-reasonable star apertures to help improve S/N ratio (providing that tracking and image quality had varied little in the run). Use attentive care in this procedure.

- Use of filtering in photometry greatly increases fidelity the narrower the bandpass is – but may push the collection capability beyond the noise floor of the collector. Most traditional is the V filter of the Johnson-Cousins BVRI system, but any tight bandpass will improve S/N ratios. Filters standardize results in distributed collections, increase contract and improve seeing; their reduction of the overall signal can be minimized if the filter is matched to the Wein black body peak of the target. Color information can be obtained as well. Two-color filter photometry in fact can be used to characterize transits with respect to amplitudes, limb darkening, and eliminating false positives that might exist in just one bandpass.

- The non-linearity of the ccd in use must be known, and a linear region used; fortunately, ccds are very linear detectors (see example from the KAF-1602E). The ccd or the ADC (analog to digital converter) can saturate; watching the photon count ADU’s presented in the imagery software 208 can give an indication of the ADC ‘workload’, and a safe zone to avoid non-linearity above about half-well capacity should be observed in terms of ADUs per pixel.

- Guide or auto-guide carefully to keep the stars still on the CCD chip. This appears less of a per-pixel factor in videography as first studied in TOPhAT, but keeping all check stars in the FOV is of course paramount. Stick to a methodology – if defocusing is used to optimized sampling per pixel, the defocus must be uniform so as to capture a rigorous PSF (point spread function) when using the annuli to capture the flux in aperture photometry. Some reports infer guiding is critical. Guiding is not critical per se, but knowing the source of errors is (to extract them as artifacts). Guiding may reduce unknowns in modest systems; short exposures can significantly reduce guiding aberrations.

- CCD low noise with an eye for uniform pixel depth and hot-pixel stability are important – cooling by thermoelectric, air and/or liquid means is a key to a stable CCD when working at the milli-magnitude detection level. Carefully account for and minimize electronic warm-noise sources. Keep the photon count as high as possible on the linear response portion of the CCD to maintain good SNR, while keeping all check stars within good S/N vs. saturation/linearity levels.

- The last exposure in the run should be taken so that the brightest check or target star remains below saturation, but the faintest one still has sufficient SNR – usually meaning a dynamic range of V = 4 to 5. If the FOV requires greater dynamic range than this, >2 frames with differing exposure times (with least a magnitude overlap) may work if all else fails (but differing exposure times greatly complicates reduction.

- Low scintillation nights are obviously the best nights, so try to take advantage of periods of excellent seeing, and as well, reduce air mass effects by tracking below 2 air masses (i.e., elevate). Further note that scintillation effects can be reduced below V >.02 if the length of the exposure is increased (not possible in my videography) or stacked (the key to videography). Increasing exposure length by an order of magnitude increased the precision the same.

- As regards to image stacking, fewer higher precision measurements are better than more lower precision stacked frames averaged, which puts 209 videography at a practical disadvantage – with longer images, the shutter-open-to-imaging time ratio is improved with fewer images to download, then reduce. In videography the image volume is immense and the work can be intensive. Conversely, longer images threaten linearity and saturation limits (per above), and if the mount/platform and/or tracking is not exceedingly stable, smear may threaten precision (but not eliminate it if aperture photometry is performed carefully.

- Flat-fielding requires art-like practice for a given system. A dome or light box can be used (example at right). The sunrise / sunset 10 to 20-minute astronomical twilight window is the right brightness for sky flat-fields. Simply, with the instrument well focused, a non-tracking zenith exposure to half full-well (or half the ADC software range). Any star will trail, which is averaged out in the median or averaged final flat. A blank region is best, but the best technique is to take several flats and either use the one with fewest star trails or take the median/average. Flats are critical to do correctly. Goal is very high S/N – approaching 10 Ke- for detecting 0.01 mag fluxes, and 1 Me- for 0.001 mag detections. Below is an example of a subtraction (left) from the noisy image, right.

- Darks can be eliminated when using cryogenic cooling (low electron noise), but should be considered, especially if low-temperature regulation is an issue. Use bias and dark subtraction if in doubt; if using medians, combine >15 frames; if able, over-scan. Note that bias is non-physical (read artifacts), and while is a noise source, is not Poisson noise.

- Stable cooling is optimal, and low temperatures are very important to reduce the dark noise floor. Note this graph as an indicator. Dark current (a true noise source) can be largely controlled if understood and/or reduced: 210

- To produce a rapid sequence during shorter time/access windows (such as weather breaks or tactical flight station times) image the target FOV, then flank it on both sides by calibration frames, spatially or temporally – which gives acceptable results for <1-hour window. Even use of nearby sequences could be used for reduction, or overlapping fields from a known reduction sequence nearby can be used, taking frames until reaching the field in question.

- In general, bin to make “super-pixels” of 2x2, 3x3 or 4x4 size if greatly oversampled; note that while such binning decreases the read noise, it makes it much more difficult to center photometric aperture and actually decreases dynamic range – and the noise floor elevates. Using front-illuminated CCDs, seeing should allow 3 pixels/FWHM target size. Such oversampling ameliorates sub-pixel variations owed to the mechanical gate structure of the CCD’s design. Of course, using more pixels to sample the image means the FOV is reduced. For a back- illuminated CCD (not as common an array type for users of modest equipment), 2 pixels/FWHM would be sufficient.

- Advanced techniques to avoid under-sampling would be to only observe in the red (CCD gates become transparent there), or to make multiple images and dither between them so the target(s) get displaced to various pixels.

- Focal reducers are popular in long-focal-length imaging, but should be avoided here unless sampling is far from Nyquist, or the FOV is too narrow to select good check stars (then a fidelity limit becomes imposed). Note that stars often distort at the FOV’s periphery, and reduce image scale (introducing undesirable under-sampling). Finally, NIR color-correction is suspect in most visual reducers.

- Avoid antiblooming (AB) CCDs because they decrease the effective size (available photon well) of the pixel and so reduce chip sensitivity. Most injurious for photometry, the chip becomes non-linear earlier as its photon well is filled and excess collection is bled off. Use of 211 non-antiblooming (NAB) or selectable cameras, or keeping the signal level below half pixel saturation in AB mode, is paramount.

- Mechanical shutters on still cameras require that exposures should be at > 3 s, or vignetting will likely occur, affecting linearity (CPU speed may also affect this). Shorter exposures require a correction table. Differential photometry itself is less affected by shutter issues but should be considered if possible.

- Atmospheric differential refraction plays a factor, as the light distribution for horizon star images differ significantly from zenithal targets; differential CCD field minimizes the effect, amount of refraction is different at the top of the frame than it is at the bottom to even a small degree, the solution is to avoid higher airmass collections. 212

Appendix J: Background Textbooks, References & Further Reading

The texts below have been part of a foundation on which to base this thesis, yet may not have a specific reference in the text herein. These may also provide a source for reference to further reading, for the interested reader.

Aarseth, S., 2003. Gravitational N-Body Simulations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Adelmann, S., Dukes, R., Jr., & Adelman, C., eds., 1992. Automated Telescopes for Photometry and Imaging (Vol 28). San Francisco: Astronoomical Society of the Pacific.

Aime, C., & Vakili, F., eds., 2006. Direct Imaging of Exoplanets: Science & Techniques: Proceedings of the 200th Colloquium of the International Astronomical Union Held in Villefranch Sur Mer, France October 3-7, 2005. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Berry, R., & Burnell, J., 2002. The Handbook of Astronomical Image Processing. Richmond: Willmann-Bell.

Bolstad, W., 1988. Introduction to Bayesian Statistics. Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons.

Budding, E., & Richard, J., 1989. Third New Zealand Conference on Photoelectric Photometry, Held at Blenheim, New Zealand, 9-12 March, 1989. Bleinheim: Fairborn Publications.

Burke, B., 2002. An Introduction To Radio Astronomy ( 2nd ed.), Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.

Chandrasekhar, S. 1943. Principles of Stellar Dynamics. New York: Dover Publications.

Conway, A., Gilmour, I., Jones, B., Rothery, D., Sephton, M., & Zarnecki, J., 2004. An Inroduction to Astrobiology, Glasgow: Open Press.

Coulter, D., Ed., 2003. Proceedings of SPIE: Techniques and Instrumentation for Detection of Exoplanets, San Diego, California, 5-7 August 2003 (Vol 5170). Bellingham, WA: The Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers.

Craine, E., Tucker, R., & Barnes, J., 1992. CCD Precision Photometry Workshop (Vol 189). . San Francisco: Astronoomical Society of the Pacific.

Deming, D., & Seager, S., eds., 2003. Scientific Frontiers in Research of Extrasolar Planets (Vol 294). San Francisco: Astronoomical Society of the Pacific.

Denholm, C., & Evans, T., 2006. Doctorates Down Under: Keys to Successful Doctoral Study in Australia and New Zealand. Camberwell, Victoria: Acer. 213

Dermott, S., Hunter, J., Jr., & Wilson, eds., 1992. Astrophysical Disks (Vol 675). New York: New York Academy of Sciences.

Dvorak, R, ed., 2007. Extrasolar Planets: Formation, Detection and Dynamics, Weinheim, Germany: Wiley-VCH Verlag:.

Ghedini, S., 1982. Software for Photometric Astronomy. Richmond: Willmann-Bell.

Golay, M., 1974. Introduction to Astronomical Photometry. Dordrecht: Reidel.

Goldsmith, P., Ed., 1988. Instrumentation and Techniques for Radio Astronomy. New York: IEEE Press.

Hall, D., & Genet, R., 1990. Photoelectric Photometry of Variable Stars, 2nd Ed.Richmond: Willmann-Bell.

Henry, G., & Eaton, J., eds., 1994. Robotic Telescopes: Current Capabilities, Present Developments, and Future Prospects for Automated Astronomy: Proceedings of a Symposium held as Part of the 106th Annual Meeting of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, Flagstaff, Arizona, 28-30 June 1994 (Vol 79). San Francisco: Astronoomical Society of the Pacific.

Howell, S., 1992. Astronomical CCD Observing and Reduction Techniques (Vol 23). San Francisco: Astronoomical Society of the Pacific.

Ishiguro, M., & Welch, W., eds., 1993. Astronomy with Millimeter and Submillimeter Wave Interferometry: IAU Colloquium 140, Meeting Held 5-9 October 1992, Hakone, Japan. (Vol 59). San Francisco: Astronoomical Society of the Pacific.

Kilkenny, D., Lastovica, E., & Menzies, J., 1993. Precision Photometry: Proceedings of a Conference Held to Honour A W J Cousins In his 90th Year. Cape Town: South African Astronomical Observatory.

Kraus, J., 1986. Radio astronomy (2nd. Ed.), 1986, Durham: Cygnus-Quasar Books.

Kuiper, G., & Middlehurst, B., 1960. Stars and Stellar Systems, Compendium of Astronomy and Astrophysics: Telescopes (Vol I). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lang, K., 1999. Astrophysical Formulae, 3rd Ed.Berlin: Springer-Verlag (Vols I & II)

Lawson, P., Ed., 1999. Principles of Long Baseline Stellar Interferometry: Course Notes from the 1999 Michelson Summer School. Pasadena: NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

Mayor, M., & Frei, P-Y., 2003. New Worlds in the Cosmos: The Discovery of Exoplanets. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Murray, C., & Dermott, S., 1999. Solar System Dynamics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 214

Perley, R., Schwab, F., & Bridle, A., 1989. Synthesis Imaging in Radio Astronomy (Vol 6). San Francisco: Astronomical Society of the Pacific.

Pratt, W., 1978. Digital Image Processing. New Yourk: John-Wiley & Sons. Roy, A., 2005, Orbital Motion (4th ed). London: Institute of Physics Publishing.

Press, W., Teukolsky, S., Vetterling, W., & Flannery, B., 1996. Numerical Recipes in Fortran 90: The Art of Parallel Scientific Computing, (Vol 2 of Fortran Numerical Recipes)2nd Ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

______., 1992. Numerical Recipes in Fortran: The Art of Scientific Computing, 2nd Ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

______., 1992. Numerical Recipes in C: The Art of Scientific Computing, 2nd Ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sapienza, A., 2004. Managing Scientists: Leadership Strategies in Scientific Research, 2nd Ed. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley-Less.

Seidelmann, K., ed., 1992. Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical Almanac. Mill Valley, CA: University Science Books.

Sellwood, J., ed., 1989. Dynamics of Astrophysical Discs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sellwood, J. & Goodman, J., eds., 1999. Astrophysical Discs: An EC Summer School (Vol 160). San Francisco: Astronoomical Society of the Pacific.

Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation, 2004, National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.

Smith, A., & Carr, T., 1964. Radio Exploration of the Planetary System. Princeton: D. Van Nostrand.

Sterken, H., & Manfroid, J., 1992. Astronomical Photometry: A Guide. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Taylor, G., Carilli, C., & Perley, R., 1999. Synthesis Imaging in Radio Astronomy II (Vol 180). San Francisco: Astronomical Society of the Pacific.

Thomson, W., 1986. Introduction to Space Dynamics. New York: Dover Publications . Trueblood, M., & Genet, R., 2003. Telescope Control. Richmond: Willmann-Bell.

Trumpler, R., & Weaver, H., 1953. Statistical Astronomy. New York: Dover Publications.

Wall, J., & Jenkins, C., 1982. Practical Statistics for Astronomers., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 215

Zheleznyakov, V., 1970. Radio Emission of the Sun and Planets. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

216

Appendix K: Two Future, Spaceborne Missions – the J-MAPS ([Joint] Milliarcsecond Astrometric Pathfinder Survey) and OBSS (Origins Billion Star Survey) Satellites

As director of the USNO’s Space Acquisitions, Plans, Programs and Requirements137, the author is one of three principal managers of the [Joint] Milliarcsecond Astrometric Pathfinder Survey (J-MAPS) satellite, and was responsible for demonstrating requirements and acquiring U.S. Department of Defense funds for its design, acquisition, construction, launch, operation, data collection, and science return. He coordinates these efforts with the two remaining principles, K. Johnston (the USNO Scientific Director), and R. Gaume (the USNO Astrometric Department Head). Detailed interface is also provided through liaison with the J-MAPS Principle Investigator, B. Dorland (USNO), who reports to the Astrometric Department Head. Current levels of funding include $3.8M USD in expenditures to date for risk reduction activities, a pre-Phase A concept study, focal plane array, bus, navigation, and data reduction studies. In 2007 $4.1M was designated from the U.S. Congress as J-MAPS support for FY08 in concert with industry partners at the USNO. Funding programming for FY10 – FY13 was then coordinated in U.S. Presidential Decision Memorandum-II at $75 M USD, however, implementation has been delayed until other classified programs suffering short-fused delays

137 And recently, Director of the U.S. Naval Observatory, Flagstaff Station (NOFS), see: http://www.nofs.navy.mil 217 are put back on track.138 Recognizing the urgency to fly an astrometric satellite to reduce navigation errors, coordination was done to acquire 19.1M USD for J-MAPS via the U.S. Secretary of Defense. This funding will be implemented in FY09, and the additional $75 M USD will be activated shortly thereafter in order to complete the satellite, fly the mission and reduce the data.

The primary mission supports one of three base-line missions of the USNO, which is to produce precision astrometric catalogs upon which innumerable systems rely for navigation and orientation. Previous astrometric data at the milliarc-second (MAS) level was garnered from the Hipparcos epoch of 1991.25 as a single point of departure. However, precession, nutation and other noise causes the error ellipses of stellar point spread functions (PSFs) to degrade by ~1 MAS yr-1. As the second decade of this millennium begins, a number of precision navigational systems will begin to fall short of their own requirements as a result of this error passing a mean 20 MAS.

In addition to this requirement to support navigation, the astrometric data will pay large dividends in terms of science, and in particular in the detection and characterization of exoplanets. Chapter 2 herein noted that the astrometric method for detecting planets was the first used, and unfortunately has been less productive until now because the requisite MAS-level and better astrometry suffers when it is collected from beneath the atmosphere. Of course this limitation is the very reason J-MAPS was devised to fly in space in order to meet navigational urgencies. It turns out to be instrumental to detecting astrometric signals of exoplanets as well.

For exoplanet work, J-MAPS (or simply MAPS) more accurately represents a major stepping stone to micro-arcsecond (µAS) level astrometry that Earth-massed planets will require. The USNO and the author are also involved in such larger-scale efforts as well139. While under the NASA Origins program, the USNO developed the OBSS (Origins Billion Star Survey), which would be the follow-on satellite to MAPS. In the current fiscal climate, MAPS becomes a viable means to develop and demonstrate cutting-edge technologies, garner observations, and lay the foundations for larger

138 Securing funds during record shortfalls in the US DoD and NASA has required enormous USNO interfacing and effort over 3.5 years. Fortunately funds are on track. Details are both classified and beyond the scope of this thesis. 139 These include missions such as SIM-Planetquest, see http://planetquest.jpl.nasa.gov/SIM/sim_index.cfm. 218 programs like OBSS. MAPS will enhance the functionality of such space-borne missions by allowing the teams of larger spacecraft to select the most promising targets in the MAPS all-sky, global astrometric and photometric survey. Best of all, MAPS is now funded.

In 2007, the ExoPlanet Task Force (ExoPTF), an Astronomy and Astrophysics Advisory Committee (AAAC) subcommittee formed at the request of the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) and NASA, announced a call for white papers in order to accurately inform their world-wide assessment of techniques and approaches for extra-solar planet detection and characterization, using both space- and ground-based facilities. From this the ExoPTF was asked to develop a 15-year strategy to detect and characterize exoplanets and planetary systems, and their formation and evolution. Specific areas to be covered included the identification of nearby candidate Earth-like planets and study of their habitability. The ExoPTF charter and documentation can be found at the NSF web pages.140 The USNO submitted the white paper below, which emphasizes MAPS’ and OBSS’ contributions to the ExoPTF charter. In addition to program management of J-MAPS, the role the author (of this thesis) in the scientific portion of the mission was to investigate the possible role that J-MAPS could have in exoplanet science and coordinate and write much of the white paper submitted to the ExoPTF for this particular mission.

The specific returns for science are enumerated primarily in that white paper, below. At the end of this section a shorter white paper is found which emphasizes the (overlapping) navigational and operational aspects of the mission. That paper was the primary briefing tool delivered to the U.S. Chief of Naval Operations (CNO), Commander Strategic Command (STRATCOM, formerly NORAD), the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS), the Commander, National Security Space Office (NSSO), the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), and the Secretary of Defense (SECDEF), in order to secure funding. Importantly, while performing navigational and astrometric catalog operations, J-MAPS can serve the scientific community with a host of research deliverables.

It should specifically be noted that MAPS can contribute not just to the science of exoplanets, but can develop improved understanding of many of the nearby host stars,

140See http://www.nsf.gov/mps/ast/exoptf.jsp. 219 which as discussed in the thesis, turn out to be most likely M dwarfs. Volume-limited samples of nearby stars are the chief arenas for HZ exoplanet searches, but the study of nearby M dwarfs quite incomplete. At the same time, M dwarfs draw increasing interest, owing to the sub-Neptune-mass planets which can be found around them by precision spectroscopy (Butler et al. 2004). Moreover, they lend themselves to accurate transit and astrometric determinations of planetary mass (Benedict et al. 2002). As this thesis explores, photometric transit searches for planets in habitable zones are particularly sensitive to M dwarfs (Gould et al. 2003). Nearby field stars are also important test objects for basic theories and models of modern astrophysics, such as Galaxy star formation history, the initial mass function of field stars, and the final stage of stellar evolution. MAPS can contribute to understanding in all these areas with MAS- level astrometry.

The efficiency of other programs, such as at the USNO-supported141 Allen Telescope Array, is enhanced with MAPS’ survey of at least 1.5 x 106 stars within 200 pc. Here, MAPS-based trigonometric parallaxes to better than 20% make it possible to separate dwarfs and giants. Tangential components of space velocity will be derived for all such stars from MAPS proper motions and parallaxes. For the nearest stars, MAPS will be capable of detecting long-period giant planets and brown dwarf companions on eccentric orbits, which will also help to preclude and constrain habitable zones. Up to 106 good candidates for nearby HZ studies is expected.

MAPS astrometry will be sensitive to the presence of long-period orbiting companions. For astrometric binaries with orbital periods longer than the mission life time (2 to 3 years), orbital acceleration can be measured directly. MAPS may also reveal large departures from observed proper motions and short-term proper motions taken at a different epoch, or from long-term proper motions which are based on century-long data-sets (Tycho-2). For fainter M dwarfs, such as Proxima Centauri and Barnard's star, Hipparcos typically achieves 15 to 20 mas in single measurement precision of 1-D observations. This is insufficient to achieve >3σ confidence in a detection, based on just ~40 independent data points, even for the closest systems. The classic optical variability of M dwarfs as flare stars (along with the brightness of nearby optical companions)

141 See http://www.seti.org/ata/dishmap.php. ATA is capable of synthesizing up to 16 independent dual-polarization beams at up to four different frequencies 220 made them a problem for Hipparcos. MAPS will surpass such barriers both in number and accuracy of astrometric measurement. At magnitudes down to V = 12, MAPS is expected to gather 40 2D measurements to 2.5 mas per coordinate in the differential (narrow angle) regime in a 2-year mission.

MAPS is currently scheduled for launch in the 1st quarter of FY13. In addition to its MAS-level navigational mission, this satellite and its follow-on siblings will certainly develop critical astrometric data useful to exoplanet and HZ detection and study. Further perspective on this science return is explored in the white paper which follows. Below the paper, addition system information can be found.

221

222

223

224

225

226

227

228

229

Pre-Phase A Development, Fabrication and Operations Timeline

230

Step-Stare Observation Methodology for J-MAPS

231

Analaysis of Alternatives (AOA) Study Summary

232 233

Appendix L: Pending Analyses of HD 80606 Radio Observations with the VLA (the Very Large Array) alongside Spitzer Space Telescope – the Proposal

The accepted 2007 proposal is shown below, in which the Very Large Array was used in November 2007 to observe periastron passage of HD80606b. The unusual 112-day orbit of the planet is highly eccentric about its G5 parent at e = 0.935. Its approach to the parent presents a unique opportunity to seek transit and grazing effects as the planet nears the star. Periastron was estimated to be at a mere 0.03-AU from the star. Also, HD 80606 is part of a visual binary with 1000 AU separation from HD 80607.

As a result of the accepted proposal, successful VLA observations took place from the 23 to 25th in 2007 November, using the 74-, 330- and 1400- MHz bands of the VLA. The VLA team included the author, D. Blank (JCU), J. Lazio (NRL), and D. Boboltz (USNO).

Coincident with the radio observations, IR observations were taken with the Spitzer Space Telescope IRAC instrument at 4.5-µm and 8-µm by a collaborating team, G. Laughlin (UCO/Lick) and D. Deming (NASA GSFC). Their aim was to ascertain the radiative time constant of the atmosphere, understand the 2-D hydrodynamics, and seek primary and secondary transits.142

The science expected from these correlated IR and radio observations will have an additional, synergistic result. Time correlations of events between the two telescopes in two bands will allow the teams to more completely understand the effects of the periastron passage, magnetic and non-thermal effects, atmospherics, and transit observations. Both teams had good November runs, and are currently receiving collected observational data and beginning reductions. Science results are expected in 2008, and will be submitted for appropriate publication.

The VLA team’s proposal for the radio portion of this collaboration follows.

142 The Spitzer team’s Cycle 4 proposal, upon which their own observations were based, can be found here: http://www.oklo.org/cycle4.pdf 234

235

236

237

Appendix M: Biography of Author Candidature Report Form

Full name: Paul David Shankland Advisors: Dr Graeme White

Dr. Andrew Walsh JCU Student ID: 0417026697 Dr. David Blank

Degree: Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) School: Centre for Astronomy, (59502) Astronomy (7B) School of Mathematics & Physical Sciences

U.S. address:

Director, NOFS U.S. Tel: 336-508-6317 (C) 10391 W. Naval Observatory Rd 928-779-5132 (W)

Flagstaff, AZ 86001-8521 USA

A native of Jamestown and Greensboro, North Carolina, Paul David Shankland graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1983 with a Bachelor of Science degree in pure mathematics (with physics concentration), that culminated in a senior research project assessing k-corrections for high-redshift galaxies (he also interned at the Naval Observatory as a rising senior in 1982; to which he eventually returned). Shortly after he was commissioned as a Navy ensign, Shankland completed Surface Warfare Officer School, and then served as First Lieutenant, Gunnery Liaison Officer, Self Defense Force Officer, Nuclear Weapons Security Officer, and the CIC Officer aboard the guided missile destroyer USS Sellers. There Shankland earned a Surface Warfare Officer designation during his first eight-month Indian Ocean/Arabian Gulf deployment, - eventually serving 21 of 24 months underway that tour.

In 1986, Shankland laterally transferred to the aviation community and began flight training. He earned his Naval Aviator wings in 1987 with his first carrier landings aboard the carrier, USS Eisenhower, and received orders as a Hawkeye Pilot. Upon completion of fleet carrier flight training in 1988, Shankland joined his first squadron, the Steeljaws, aboard carrier USS Forrestal, completing two Mediterranean, Indian Ocean, Persian Gulf deployments including Forrestal’s final operational cruise and served in combat over Iraq in the first Gulf War. In the 238

Steeljaws, Shankland led various divisions: Aircraft Maintenance, Administration, and Operations. In 1991 he was nominated “Hawkeye of the Year”, and was carrier landing ‘Top Hook’ twice overseas, flying Hawkeyes (and occasionally AWACS aircraft).

In 1991, Shankland was assigned to the Greyhawks Squadron as a Carrier Instructor Pilot, and was collaterally assigned as Administrative Department Head. In 1992 he elevated to Carrier Airborne Early Warning Wing Atlantic, serving as Administrative Officer, Manpower Director (earning that sub-specialty), and Wing Security/Top Secret Control Manager -- while remaining a full time carrier plane commander and Instructor Pilot. In 1994, Shankland joined the Bluetails, aboard the carrier USS George Washington, where he served as Aerospace Safety Department Head after a short stint at Naval Postgraduate School, and then elevated to Squadron Aircraft Maintenance Officer. While in the Bluetails, Shankland completed deployments to the Mediterranean, Red and Adriatic Seas, Bosnia, the Arabian Gulf, and Iraq. As well he gained a command, control, communications, computers, intelligence (C4I) sub- specialty.

In 1996, Shankland transferred to Joint Interagency Task Force East (JIATF-East), at Naval Air Station Key West, where he served the Coast Guard admiral as his Naval Liaison Officer for counter-drug/counter-narcotics interdiction in South and Central America, the Caribbean and the Eastern Pacific. There he coordinated Naval forces for large-scale (multi-ton) intelligence, detection, tracking, interdicting, and law enforcement agency handoff of surface, subsurface and airborne smugglers – from in-country, and from the Western Hemisphere Joint Operations Center. Shankland was part of the team that interdicted 550 Metric Tons during his tour. While there he was promoted to his current rank as a Navy commander. He also flew Navy Orion and British Nimrod aircraft as well as performed ground operations. Shankland returned to sea in 1999, as the Strike Operations Officer aboard the carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt for her Battle group, and took TR through a year of deployment at-sea preparations and training, leading a complete joint forces air command and control center reorganization. This concluded with the commencement of TR’s defense-response deployment to the Indian Ocean, just subsequent to “9/11”. While aboard TR, Shankland flew Tomcat aircraft and SeaHawk helicopters with the attached air wing.

Thereafter Commander Shankland was selected to become the Executive Officer of Strike Training Squadron Nine (the Tigers) in the role of the second senior-most executive (as a civilian-COO equivalent). In 2003, he elevated to take Command of the Tigers, as ‘skipper’ of the U.S. Navy’s largest aviation squadron. As the Tigers’ 40th Commanding Officer (a civilian- CEO-equivalent position) , Shankland was leader, senior pilot and senior educator to 550 239 personnel: 191 post-college, advanced and top-selected student pilots, 92 top-selected fleet instructor jet pilots, and 267 civilian executive assistants, administrators, simulator and ground school instructors, and maintenance specialists. His specific annual operating budget averaged 45M USD, and he was responsible for training throughput of 175- U.S. and International strike carrier pilots per year, representing 507M USD in training costs annually. Shankland also oversaw and taught all phases of flight through student graduation: formation and tactical maneuvering, all-weather navigation, aerobatics, out-of-control flight, weapons delivery procedures, night formation, low-level ingress navigation, air gunnery, air combat maneuvering (ACM, or dog-fighting), and carrier landing training. While there, his Tigers earned the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) “S” during a15-month transition from the aging Buckeye (retiring 87 jets net valued $217 million), to the Super-Goshawk (inducting 89 digital delta-jets, representing $2.19 billion in assets). This required complete airframe, syllabus, logistics and support reconfiguration and implementation, for which his Squadron was awarded the Meritorious Unit Commendation.

While commanding, Shankland earned a Masters of Astronomy (with Distinction), through distance study at the University of Western Sydney, which he had begun while Roosevelt’s Strike Operations Officer. Upon graduation Shankland undertook doctoral studies in astronomy through James Cook University, where the emphasis has been exoplanet detection and analysis, orbital dynamics and photometric/radiometric techniques; the result is the PhD thesis presented herein.

In 2004 Shankland requested assignment to the staff at the U.S. Naval Observatory (USNO), in Washington, D.C., where he is currently Director of Plans, Programs and Requirements. As such, he performs several functions. Shankland interfaces with scientific and engineering communities both inside and outside DoD: with National level Position-Navigation-Time (PNT), GPS, astrometric and space committees (such as the DoD Space Experiments Review Board, or SERB); often with the Pentagon, here, to defend (successfully) the USNO budget in the Congressional Budget Program (17.3M USD in 2005, 16.1M USD in 2006, 16.9M USD in 2007, 20.9M USD in 2008 and annually thereafter); and with numerous senior admiral and general staffs on operational and research program planning. Shankland is lead officer in the development and oversight of planning and requirements as dictated by the USNO mission, from scientifically specific, to the strategic. He leads analysis, coordination, validation, programmatics, agreements and execution of high-profile scientific programs, which include the Joint Milliarcsecond Astrometric Pathfinder Satellite (J-MAPS, at 120M USD, where he is the key program manager responsible for its acquisition and funding), the USNO Robotic Astrometric Telescope (URAT, at 8M USD), six first-operational atomic Rubidium Fountain 240

Clocks (for 0.10 nanosecond time, at 5.1M USD; designed and fabricated on site), precision clock vault facilities at 11.8M USD on site, large-étendue astrometric survey programs at 4M USD (supporting the world’s developing >8-meter Survey Telescopes), extended Very Long Baseline Baseline (eVLBI) wide-bandwidth-correlator refits (at 8M USD) for the Radio/Quasar reference frame, the transfer of the four Keck / NASA Optical Interferometer 1.8-meter Outriggers to the USNO Naval Prototype Optical Interferometer (NPOI) site (installation at 8M USD), and development of the next-generation state-of-the-art, comprehensive catalog DUSC (or Dynamic USNO Star Catalog, at 1M USD).

Shankland also has planning and requirements oversight for such operations as at: the 26” Great Refractor (primarily double star speckle interferometry), the .6-meter Cassegrain (as a test-bed and for exoplanet photometry research and academic mentorship), the 12” Clark refractor (used for Public/VIP education and tours), and the dispersed Fourier Transform Spectrometer (dFTS, for development for exoplanet and binary star radial velocity analyses) Oversight of the Naval Observatory Flagstaff (NOFS) Plans/Programs/Requirements (PPR) includes operations of: the 1.55-meter long focal-length Astrometric Cassegrain, the 1.3-meter, 3-degree/dynamic-field Cassegrain, the 1-meter Ritchey-Cretien test-bed, the 437-meter-baseline NPOI interferometer, and the 8-inch “FASTT” transit circle (providing deep-space navigation to NASA JPL for all Mars, Jupiter and Saturn missions). USNO instruments produce 29 astronomical catalogs (again requiring PPR oversight), which include: NOMAD, UCAC,USNO-B, Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS), Tycho, and the Washington Double-Star (WDS) catalogs. His PPR oversight also includes USNO participation in development of future Observatory-class/space-borne programs such as the USNO OBSS (Origins Billion Star Survey) concept study, SIM-Planetquest reference tie-frame studies for the Space Interferometry Mission (SIM), and Terrestrial Planet Finder-Interferometer (TPF-I) spectrometer design. Through all these, Shankland coordinates with veteran senior astronomers and senior government worldwide.

As well, Shankland provides PPR oversight to Precise Time/Time Interval (PTTI) programs, the atomic Master Clock (and Colorado Alternate Master Clock, or AMC) operations, current Atomic Cesium and Hydrogen Maser clock suite implementation (totaling 68 nanosecond clocks, which provide the bulk of world UTC time, at 42%), Global Positioning System (GPS) oversight -- as relates to Earth Orientation and Precise Time; and Earth Orientation, ¬notably VLBI, VLA, ICRS and IERS (International Celestial and Earth Reference Systems) -- the Radio Optical Reference Frame (RORF), NEOS (with NASA and NOAA), and Washington Correlator (WACO) operations; and Astronomical Applications (such as ephemeredes, orbital dynamics, web and software implementation), and the Nautical Almanac Office (producing electronic, web and paper Astronomical, Nautical, and Air Almanacs). 241

Shankland was chair/facilitator of the classified 2006 U.S. Astrometry Forum (558 invited scientists, 33 theses, 1 VIP Keynote), and supervised classified requirements for programs involving space-borne Intelligence-Surveillance-Reconnaissance (ISR), space situational awareness (SSA), space object identification (SOI), Advanced Capabilities Technology Development (ACTD), and sub-nanosecond, two-way satellite time transfer (TWSTT).He is a member and lead coordinator of the dFTS Review Board, and is a SIM Science Team liaison for USNO. Finally, Shankland provides advisory support to the Chief of Naval Operation’s Navigator of the Navy (NoN), as his Deputy Navigator for Naval Aerospace Policy.

Shankland’s graduate studies were performed with non-fiscal support, but separate from, USNO. He performed collaborations with UC Santa Cruz and Lick Observatory, AAVSO, Yale University, Perth Observatory, and the U.S. Naval Academy (USNA), in the photometry as well as radial velocity characterizations (such as the Java-based Systemic) and transit detections of exoplanets (through the global TransitSearch collaboration); he was published in the Astrophysical Journal (ApJ), The Journal for Astronomical History and Heritage (JAHH) and has submissions to the Astronomical Journal (AJ); global aspects of the project have been identified in two Bulletins of the American Astronomical Society (BAAS; with presentations). He was principle investigator for a Very Large Array (VLA) and Australia Telescope Compact Array (ATCA) exoplanet/dust millimeter radio study, and was presented in Astrobiology Journal (AbJ, with presentation). He collaborated in TPF-I design proposals, and has presented lectures on technical aspects of exoplanet photometry. He was a mentor and academic advisor to a Naval Academy Bowman scholar for 2005-2006,a Yale astrophysics intern 2005-2008, and two Naval Academy Physics majors performing astrophysics research. Details of these studies are presented in this dissertation.

In 2005 Shankland was awarded the Department of Defense Military Outstanding Volunteer Service Medal for educational Public Outreach (EPO) astronomy endeavors during his 28-year Navy career. Other military decorations Shankland has earned include: 3 Meritorious Service Medals, 3 Navy/Marine Commendation Medals, 3 Navy/Marine Corps Achievement Medals; 4 Joint Meritorious Unit Awards, 3 Meritorious Unit Commendations, a Navy Unit Commendation, a Command Battle “E” and various other campaign and unit medals. Shankland wears Naval Aviator wings, the Surface Warfare badge, and the Naval command insignia. As a career naval aviator, Shankland accumulated 4000 flight hours and 374 arrested carrier landings. He possessed a continuous Top Secret clearance since 1987, and a continuous Secret clearance since 1979.

242

Shankland is a full and participating member of the American Astronomical Society (AAS) and three of its divisions – the Division of Dynamical Astronomy (DDA), the Division of Planetary Science (DPS), and the Historical Astronomy Division (HAD); of the American Institute of Physics, the Astronomical League, and of the International Dark-Sky Association (IDA). He is a consulting member of the International Astronomical Union Commission 41 (History of Astronomy), and is a foundational member of the International Commission for History of Astronomy. In 2008 he was elected to the national Division Committee of the DDA, and was then selected to become the Director of the U.S. Naval Observatory Flagstaff Station (NOFS), in Flagstaff, Arizona, USA.

Shankland further enjoys electric engineering/electromagnetic propagation and circuit fabrication (holds an Extra Class amateur radio service license), is advanced SCUBA certified, enjoys mountain hiking, biking, raced automotive Solo-I, and is currently a participating member of the International Dog-Sledding Racing Association (ISDRA). Shankland has also participated in advanced telescope-making, design and robotic control (to include primary optics, lasers, drives, interfaces, and robotic/IT/control, CCDs/focal plane arrays and cooling/pettier/cryogenic hardware), since his interest in astronomy began in 1973.

Professional Publications And Papers – Lead Author

Shankland, P. 2008, Optimization of Naval Observatory Flagstaff: Mission Triad for Success (submitted White Paper, Department of Defense, USNO).

Shankland, P., & Johnston, K., 2008, Implementing the 1.8m Keck Outrigger Telescopes at USNO’s Navy Prototype Optical Interferometer: NPOI/OT for Improved Optical-Infrared Astrometry (White Paper, Department of Defense, Pentagon).

Shankland, P., Blank, D., Boboltz, D., Lazio, T., & White, G. 2008, Further Constraints on the Presence of a Debris Disk in the Multiplanet System Gliese 876, Astronomical Journal, 135, 2194.

Shankland, P. 2008, DoD-Directed UTC Time Produced by USNO and the Effect of Competing Time Standards (White Paper, Department of Defense, Pentagon).

Shankland, P., Blank, D., Boboltz, D., Lazio, J., White, G. 2007, Search for a Debris Disk Around GJ 876, in the 2007 NANTEN2 Millimetre Wave Astronomy Workshop.

Shankland, P., & Gaume, R. 2007, Astromentric Impact of the Joint Milliarcsecond Astrometric Pathfinder Satellite (White Paper, Department of Defense, Pentagon).

Shankland, P., et.al. 2006, On the Search For Transits of the Planets Orbiting GL 876, Astrophysical Journal, 653, 700. http://schwab.tsuniv.edu/papers/apj/gj876_2/reprint.pdf

Shankland, P., Blank, D., Boboltz, D., & Lazio, J. 2006, in Astrobiology Journal, VLA and ATCA Millimeter Search for Debris Rings about Multiplanet System GL 876, eds. J. Minafra & T. Okimura, 358. 243

Shankland, P. D., et.al. 2005, A Photometric Monitoring Campaign to Check for Planetary Transits of GL 876, Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, 206, 9.08.

Shankland, P., & Orchiston, W. 2004, Lost & Found: Saga of Historic Clark Refractor at USNA, Journal of the Antique Telescope Society, 26, 17.

Shankland, P.., & Orchiston, W. 2003, in Proceedings of the 25th International Astronomical Union General Assembly, Commission 41 Working Group 3 Session 2: History of Astro: Historical Instruments, Historic Clark Refractor at the USNA, ed, O. Engvold.

Shankland, P., & Orchiston, W. 2002, Nineteenth Century Astronomy at USNA, 2002. Journal of Astronomical History and Heritage, 5,165.

Shankland, P. 2002, The Quasar Spectral Line Shift Effect on the Fine Structure Constant: Implications for the Speed of Light. University of Western Sydney AWP.

Professional Publications And Papers – Significant Contribution

Gaume, R., Shankland, P., Dorland, B., & Johnston, K. 2008, J-MAPS: ISR For the Warfighter and the High Altitude Orientation Gap (U) (White Paper [Top Secret Content], Department of Defense, Pentagon).

Johnston, K., Gaume, R., & Shankland, P., 2008, The Joint Milli-Arcsecond Pathfinder Survey (J-MAPS) Mission: Technical Overview (Techinical White Paper, Secretary of Defense, Pentagon).

D.L. Blank, D., Jayawardene, B., Monard, B., Shankland, P., White, G. Verveer, A.,Biggs, J., Pennypacker, C. 2008, The Search for Transiting Earth-Like Exoplanets: GEMSS Results for Proxima Centauri, to be Submitted to Monthly Notices to the Royal Astronomical Society, London.

Blank, D., Jayawardene, B., Shankland, P., Monard, B., White, G., Verveer, A. & Biggs, J. 2007, GEMSS Search for Transiting Exoplanets Around Proxima Centauri, in Observational Planetary Systems, European Southern Observatory Workshop, Santiago, Chile.

Johnston, K., Shankland, P, Gaume, R. 2007, The Impact of High-Accuracy Space-Based Astrometric Survey Missions on Exoplanet Detection: J-MAPS and OBSS. Submitted to the National Science Foundation Exoplanet Task Force.

Pepin, J. & Shankland, P. 2006, The Continuing Search for Exoplanet Transits in GL 876, Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, 207, 212.08.

Shankland, P., & Orchiston, W., 2004. Lost and Found: Saga of the Historic Clark Refractor at the U.S. Naval Academy, Journal of the Antique Telescope Society, 26, 17

Shankland, P., & Orchiston, W., 2002. Nineteenth Century Astronomy at the U.S. Naval Academy, 2002. Journal of Astronomical History & Heritage, 5,165.

Other Non-Refereed Papers Shankland, P., 2004. Pan-Spectral Imaging and Analysis of M31, Amateur Astronomy, Issue 44.

244

Shankland, P., 2002. Tidewater Observatory, Amateur Astronomy, Issue 35.

Shankland, P., 2002. Visit Amateur Astronomy, Amateur Astronomy, Issue 36.

Shankland, P., 1998. ATM List Help On The Internet, Amateur Astronomy, Issue 18

Published Abstracts, Conference Presentations and Proceedings Blank, D., Jayawardene, B., Shankland, P., Monard, B., White, G., Verveer, A. & Biggs, J. 2007, GEMSS Search for Transiting Exoplanets Around Proxima Centauri, in Observing Planetary Systems, ESO Workshop, Santiago, Chile, March 5-8, eds. C. Dumas et al. (Santiago: European Southern Observatory), S4-05. http://www.sc.eso.org/santiago/science/OPSWorkshop/Contributions/Posters/Blank_S4- 05_slide.pdf

Shankland, P., Blank, D., Boboltz, D., Lazio, J., White, G. 2007, Search for a Debris Disk Around GJ 876, in the 2007 NANTEN2 Millimetre Wave Astronomy Workshop (Sydney, University of New South Wales), http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/~mgb/Meetings/mm_blank.ppt

Pepin, J. and Shankland, P., 2006. The Continuing Search for Exoplanet Transits in GL 876, BAAS, 207, 212.08

Shankland, P., Blank, D., Boboltz, D., & Lazio, J. 2006, in Astrobiology, VLA and ATCA Millimeter Search for Debris Rings about Multiplanet System GL 876, eds. J. Minafra & T. Okimura, (Moffett Field, CA: NASA Ames), 358

Shankland, P. D.,et al., 2005. A Photometric Monitoring Campaign to Check for Planetary Transits of GL 876, BAAS, 206, 9.08

Shankland, P.., & Orchiston, W., 2003. in Proceedings of the 25th IAU General Assembly, in Commission 41 Working Group 3 Session 2: History of Astronomy: Historical Instruments, The Historic Clark Refractor at the US Naval Academy, ed, O. Engvold, (Provo: ASP)

Projects, written proposals: completed, pending publication, or in work Co-I, J-MAPS, Science NASA Small Explorer (SMEX Mission MOO), in Gaume, R. Shankland, P., Johnston, K., and Dorland, B. 2008, The Joint Milli-Arcsecond Pathfinder Survey (J-MAPS) Mission: Bright Star Space Astrometry for a New Generation. (SMEX 07), http://sunland.gsfc.nasa.gov/smex/ and https://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/member/proposals/proposalView.do?method=init

Acquired US federal funding for $120 Million (USD) Joint Milliarcsecond Astrometric Pathfinder Satellite (J-MAPS) funding in support of 1-miliarcsecond Science & Technology development, to 1 Milliarcsecond – 2007; Satellite Launch scheduled for 2012.

Acquired US federal funding for $422 K (USD) for US DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) and MIT-Lincoln Laboratory to use self, Director Flagstaff Station, Director Astrometry Dept, Senior Engineer, and Catalogs Division Chief as oversight committee (and hire one postdoc operator); to building and initial operations of SST (Space Survey Telescope) in large etendue (A* ) catalog operations by DARPA – 2007

Co-I (with J. Lazio, D. Blank, G. D. Boboltz) on VLA and in concert with (G. Laughlin, W. Danchi) Spitzer Space Telescope for successful proposal to observe radio-IR exoplanet speriastron passage of highly eccentric system HD 80606 - 2007

245

One hour talk prepared for Teleconference to James Cook University – PhD review of Exoplanet research; powerpoint completed – 2006-2007, Exit Seminar expected Dec 2007

P-I (with Zachary Dugan, D. Blank, G. Laughlin) on Global Exoplanet M-dwarf Survey (GEMSS), Phase One complete 2007. Phase Two starts 2007-2009. http://gemss.wordpress.com/ . Obtained USNO 24” telescope, Instrument re-fabrication and cryogenic support, USNA CCD scientific camera support (details in PhD thesis). Successfully hired Z. Dugan at USNO for astrometric, VLBI, and GEMSS work.

P-I (with D. Blank, D. Boboltz, J. Lazio, G. White) for proposal to observe GL 876 at 7-mm using the Very Large Array (VLA), 2005-2006

Co-I (with D. Blank) for proposal to observe GL 876 for Doppler radial velocities using Gemini (2006)

Co-I (with J. Lazio, D. Blank, G. Laughlin, AAVSO,et al.) for proposal to observe radio-optical non-thermal/magneto-auroral studies of exoplanet systems Tau Boo, HD162020, 70 Vir, using the Giant Metre Radio Telescope (GMRT) and JCU, AU, AAVSO, USNO visual instruments. Announcement written, published with TransitSearch and AAVSO

Paper edit/review assistance (only), for Eugenio Rivera (UCSC), G. Laughlin (UCSC) et al. 2005, ApJ, 634, 625. A ~ 7.5 Earth-Mass Planet Orbiting the Nearby Star, GL 876 (first terrestrially massed exoplanet)

Complete overhaul of USNO Congressional Program Objective Memorandum (POM) budget at $19 Million US in Operations (per year) and $5 Million US Research (per year), for 2007-2016 – extensive analysis, staffing and review with USNO Scientific Director (K. Johnston), and Superintendent (J. White) – 2007

Facilitator and coordinator for SECDEF Defense Science Board (DSB, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Science_Board) meeting and Strategic Command (STRATCOM) Senior Warfighter Forum (SWarF, see http://www.d-n- i.net/grossman/top_priority.htm), both at USNO in 2007.

Successful (protracted through 2007) rehabilitation from injuries suffered during bicycle commute (struck by moving car 27 April 2007) (2 fractured vertebrae, calf, back lacerations)

Talks and Presentations 2-hour talk on GL 876 transit study, doctoral review, operations and research to date, to USNO Staff (55 PhD attendees) – 2005, 2007 (one at DC site, two at Flagstaff site)

Panel member, facilitator, senior USNO Decadal Review of all astrometry programs present and future, Flagstaff 2007

USNO Congressional Program Objective Memorandum (POM) budget review for 2009-2016 – to 3 staffs – Oceanographer of the Navy, Chief Naval Meteorological and Operations Command, and Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) staff, after presentation to USNO Department Heads (all 5 in 2007)

USNO Mission Vision: Strategic Plans, Programs and Requirements talk given to USNO department heads during reorganizing offsite seminar - 2007

Chair/facilitator/Organizer/Speaker: 2006 Quadrennial classified DoD Astrometry Forum (558 invited attendees/speakers, 33 theses/talks [classified and unclassified], 1 VIP Keynote) – 2006. Topics: Astrometry, Fundamental Astronomy, Space Operations, ISR, Precise Time, Spacecraft 246

Orientation, Ephemerides, Reference Frames, VLBI, OI, Earth Orientation. Chairman for preparations and colloquia refereeing for 2008 Forum.

One hour radio/webcast interview, “Slacker Astronomy” - 2006

Senior National Panel: DoD Space & Technology Alliance (STA) – co-brief Joint Milliarcsecond Astrometric Pathfinder Satellite (J-MAPS) to deputy cabinet members of government – Sept 2006, Mar 2007

Congressional discussions – dispersed Fourier Transform Spectrometer (Senate Intelligence Oversight Committee) – 2006, 2007

NGA (National Geospatial Intelligence Agency) / FBI discussions – dispersed Fourier Transform Spectrometer – 2007

NSA (National Security Agency) Disruptive Technology Office (DTO) director discussions – dispersed Fourier Transform Spectrometer – 2007

Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff (Resources) -- Pentagon brief on Joint Milliarcsecond Astrometric Pathfinder Satellite (J-MAPS) mission, background and funding – 2007

NGA (National Geospatial Intelligence Agency) / National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) – SECDEF - on Joint Milliarcsecond Astrometric Pathfinder Satellite (J-MAPS) funding – 2007

Presentation – Pentagon / Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) on Joint Milliarcsecond Astrometric Pathfinder Satellite (J-MAPS) mission, astrometry, and funding – 2007

Presentation – SECDEF National Security Space Office (NSSO) on Joint Milliarcsecond Astrometric Pathfinder Satellite (J-MAPS) funding – 2007

Discussions and facilitator – US Space Command on Joint Milliarcsecond Astrometric Pathfinder Satellite (J-MAPS) Mission, photometric capabilities concept of satellite operations by the USAF; also on SST (Space Survey Telescope) QPSR on large etendue (A* ) catalog operations by USNO – 2007

Informal presentation & facilitator – Naval SPAWAR (Space Warfare) San Diego, on Joint Milliarcsecond Astrometric Pathfinder Satellite (J-MAPS) funding – 2007

Presentation & facilitator – US Strategic Command on Joint Milliarcsecond Astrometric Pathfinder Satellite (J-MAPS) mission and funding – 2007

Presentation and facilitator – US Strategic Command on Joint Milliarcsecond Astrometric Pathfinder Satellite (J-MAPS) mission and funding – 2007

Presentation and facilitator – Pentagon / Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) on Joint Milliarcsecond Astrometric Pathfinder Satellite (J-MAPS) funding – 2007

NETWARCOM/Fleet Forces Command Intelligence-Surveillance-Reconnaissance (ISR) – Talk on Astrometry at USNO for ISR space-borne Systems – Feb 2006, Oct 2006

One hour interview for feature article, Editor, Stardate Magazine, McDonald Observatory, TX – 2006

Presented two poster papers at AAS/Astrobiology Conference, per above

247

Exhibition Presenter for US Naval Observatory at January 2006 (Washington, D.C.) American Astronomical Society (AAS) Annual Meeting.

Two presentations to USNO Flagstaff September 2007

Presentation to MIT – Lincoln Labs at SST (Space Survey Telescope) QPSR (Quarterly Performance Systems Review) on large etendue (A* ) catalog operations by USNO – October 2007

Presentation support to the Jasons Defense Advisory Group, Washington, DC, Oct 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JASON_Defense_Advisory_ Group)

Open House General Public at USNO Flagstaff 61” (1.55- meter) telescope, educator/presenter/astronomer at eyepiece for public viewing – 2007.

Five VIP tours at USNO Washington, DC, including 12” Clark refractor viewing - 2007. 26” Clark Great Refractor VIP Tour of Senior SECDEF staff (DSB, SWarF) – 2006