Was Jupiter Born Beyond the Current Orbits of Neptune and Pluto?

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Was Jupiter Born Beyond the Current Orbits of Neptune and Pluto? INNER WORKINGS INNER WORKINGS Was Jupiter born beyond the current orbits of Neptune and Pluto? Ken Croswell, Science Writer Ancient people named the planet Jupiter well. Both gravity stunted the growth of newborn Mars, sculpts its brilliance and its slow, regal movement across the the asteroid belt today, and may even help protect sky evoked a king among gods. Today we know much Earth from catastrophic comet impacts. more about the influence of Jupiter, a planet boasting But how did such a behemoth arise? Conventional more than twice as much mass as the solar system’s theory says that Jupiter formed more or less where it other planets put together. Jupiter’s tremendous is now, about five times farther from the Sun than A new theory suggests that Jupiter formed its core far from the Sun, then moved inward. Image credit: Hubble Space Telescope – NASA, ESA, and Amy Simon (NASA Goddard). Published under the PNAS license. First published July 1, 2020. 16716–16719 | PNAS | July 21, 2020 | vol. 117 | no. 29 www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.2011609117 Downloaded by guest on September 29, 2021 Earth is. At that distance, the disk of gas and dust that swirled around the young Sun was dense enough to give birth to the planetary goliath. In 2019, however, two groups of researchers un- aware of each other’s work—one in America (1), the other in Europe (2)—proposed a literally far-out alter- native: Jupiter got its start in the solar system’s hinter- lands, probably beyond the current orbits of Neptune and Pluto, and then moved inward. “It’s the most fun I’ve had with a paper for some time,” says Karin Öberg, an astronomer at the Harvard- Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, MA, and one of the theory’s originators. “You can explain it to almost anyone in a couple of minutes.” The theory may be straightforward, but its consequences are profound: If it’s right, the solar system’s biggest planet was born some 10 times farther from the Sun than it now is, which means that some of the other giant worlds in our solar system and beyond likely arose at vast distances from their stars and then moved to their current locations. Nitrogen Provides a Solid Clue The idea that planets can rove from far to near was itself once radical. But in 1995, this notion became standard thinking after the shocking discovery of a giant planet closer to its sun than Mercury is to ours. Planets form in so-called protoplanetary disks, pancake- Nascent giant planets cut dark circular gaps in the protoplanetary disk around shaped gatherings of gas and dust that revolve around the newborn star HL Tauri. In this image from ALMA, the yellow disk’sedge, ’ newborn stars. Near the star, the protoplanetary disk is located inside the second dark gap, is about the size of Neptune s orbit. The giant planets sculpting dark gaps in the orange-red region are much farther out from the hot, so only rock and heavy elements such as iron can star than Pluto is from the Sun. Image credit: ALMA (ESO/NAOJ/NRAO). condense and make planets, whereas at larger dis- tances water molecules, formed from plentiful hydrogen and oxygen, freeze and help create much bigger worlds. Triton or far-off Pluto. In 1995, however, the Galileo Thus, astronomers suspected that the strange close-in probe dove into the Jovian atmosphere and measured giant planet developed farther from its star and then, a nitrogen-to-hydrogen ratio three to four times higher through interaction with the gas and dust in the disk, than the Sun’s. The larger ratio suggested that Jupiter spiraled inward. had somehow acquired nitrogen in solid form. Scientists later applied this idea of planetary mi- In both America and Europe, this was the starting gration to our solar system. In the Nice model, named point for the new theory. In each case its conception for a city in France where the theory came together, arose from a conversation. Öberg regularly visits with the Sun’s giant planets were once so close together Harvard planetary scientist Robin Wordsworth. “I that their gravitational pulls tugged on one another expressed my frustration with not being able to form and hurled Uranus and Neptune away from the Sun Jupiter where it currently is,” Öberg recalls. until they reached their present distances (3). Meanwhile, a similar discussion was unfolding in The The new theory doesn’t change the Nice model, Netherlands. “We started thinking: Well, OK, how can but it does propose that, while still an infant, Jupiter we get that extra nitrogen into Jupiter?” says Arthur made a much greater excursion across the solar sys- Bosman, an astrochemist then at Leiden University in tem. Moreover, whereas the Nice model was silent on The Netherlands and now at the University of Michigan Jupiter’s origin, the new theory attacks that issue head at Ann Arbor. He and his officemate, Alex Cridland, had on, focusing on a peculiarity in the planet’s atmo- both noticed the planet’s high nitrogen level. sphere: It’s rich in nitrogen. “It’s actually something And it’s not just nitrogen. Argon, a noble gas, also that started bothering me a few years ago,” Öberg freezes at frigid temperatures, and it too is abnormally says. “I can’t think of any way to explain it if Jupiter abundant on Jupiter. Ditto for two other noble gases, formed where it currently is sitting.” krypton and xenon. Molecular nitrogen is normally a gas, and most gases don’t glom onto planets in large amounts; only Ahead of Its Time solids—or gases in their frozen state—do. But nitro- In a 1999 article, other researchers had noted these gen freezes at temperatures far colder than those that oddities, proposing possible explanations, including one prevailed in the protoplanetary disk at Jupiter’s pre- which suggested that Jupiter migrated to its present sent position, which means the planet shouldn’t have position from beyond Neptune’s current orbit (4). But the much of the element. Indeed, to find nitrogen as an ice, idea was ahead of its time. For one thing, conventional you have to travel to places such as Neptune’smoon theory then said planets built up from dust grains that Croswell PNAS | July 21, 2020 | vol. 117 | no. 29 | 16717 Downloaded by guest on September 29, 2021 slowly grew larger, eventually leading to asteroid-sized their eyes,” says Jonathan Fortney, a planetary sci- bodies which later merged; but this process was slow in entist at the University of California at Santa Cruz. But the tenuous outskirts of the protoplanetary disk, so a thanks to pebble accretion theory, he says, that’sno planet as large as Jupiter wouldn’t have had enough time longer the case. Although it “sounds a little crazy,” it’s to arise there before the disk of gas and dust vanished. not unreasonable that you could create the core of a Since then, however, two new developments have giant planet beyond Pluto’s current orbit, Fortney says. made the bold idea more plausible. First, the Atacama David Stevenson, a planetary scientist at the Cal- ifornia Institute of Technology in Pasadena, is more skeptical. “It’s not that difficult to come up with a va- “It’s such a paradigm shift that I was really happy to see riety of stories, given our lack of understanding,” he that someone else was thinking the same way.“ says. Furthermore, even if Jupiter’s core arose far from —Arthur Bosman the Sun and thus acquired high levels of nitrogen and argon, he says it’s hard to get those elements up to the planet’s atmosphere, where the Galileo probe detected Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) radio them; after all, the core constitutes only a small fraction of telescope started operating in Chile and began imag- the planet. To solve this problem, Öberg and Wordsworth ing protoplanetary disks around newborn stars. The first invoke a giant impact on Jupiter to lift the elements from such image, of a young star named HL Tauri, came out thecoretotheatmosphere(7).“Well,” Stevenson says, in late 2014. “youcanuseagiantimpacttodoanything.” The picture was revolutionary. “It was difficult to believe that was a real image and not an artist’s im- Et Tu, Saturn? pression,” Öberg says. It showed a disk of gas and dust Still, the theory for Jupiter’s distant birthplace does with dark circular grooves. The grooves were pre- make testable predictions. The first concerns oxygen. sumably cut by unseen giant planets orbiting the star. In the protoplanetary disk, oxygen became part of sili- Moreover, some of the grooves were much farther out cates and water. These substances solidified closer to than Neptune and Pluto are from the Sun, a sign that gas the Sun than nitrogen and argon did and also existed at giants such as Jupiter can form even in remote regions. greater distances, where the temperature was even The second advance was theoretical. In recent colder. Thus, if Jupiter’scoreformedbeyondPluto’s years, researchers have formulated a new idea of current orbit, the giant planet incorporated all of these planet formation called pebble accretion, which posits elements as solids and should have similar overabun- ’ — that a giant planet s core builds up as small objects dances of them all with respect to the Sun. Both articles — pebbles flow past a budding core and stick to it (5, therefore predict that Jupiter’s oxygen-to-hydrogen “ ” 6). This process is orders of magnitudes faster than ratio is three to four times greater than the solar value.
Recommended publications
  • Exomoon Habitability Constrained by Illumination and Tidal Heating
    submitted to Astrobiology: April 6, 2012 accepted by Astrobiology: September 8, 2012 published in Astrobiology: January 24, 2013 this updated draft: October 30, 2013 doi:10.1089/ast.2012.0859 Exomoon habitability constrained by illumination and tidal heating René HellerI , Rory BarnesII,III I Leibniz-Institute for Astrophysics Potsdam (AIP), An der Sternwarte 16, 14482 Potsdam, Germany, [email protected] II Astronomy Department, University of Washington, Box 951580, Seattle, WA 98195, [email protected] III NASA Astrobiology Institute – Virtual Planetary Laboratory Lead Team, USA Abstract The detection of moons orbiting extrasolar planets (“exomoons”) has now become feasible. Once they are discovered in the circumstellar habitable zone, questions about their habitability will emerge. Exomoons are likely to be tidally locked to their planet and hence experience days much shorter than their orbital period around the star and have seasons, all of which works in favor of habitability. These satellites can receive more illumination per area than their host planets, as the planet reflects stellar light and emits thermal photons. On the contrary, eclipses can significantly alter local climates on exomoons by reducing stellar illumination. In addition to radiative heating, tidal heating can be very large on exomoons, possibly even large enough for sterilization. We identify combinations of physical and orbital parameters for which radiative and tidal heating are strong enough to trigger a runaway greenhouse. By analogy with the circumstellar habitable zone, these constraints define a circumplanetary “habitable edge”. We apply our model to hypothetical moons around the recently discovered exoplanet Kepler-22b and the giant planet candidate KOI211.01 and describe, for the first time, the orbits of habitable exomoons.
    [Show full text]
  • Geological Timeline
    Geological Timeline In this pack you will find information and activities to help your class grasp the concept of geological time, just how old our planet is, and just how young we, as a species, are. Planet Earth is 4,600 million years old. We all know this is very old indeed, but big numbers like this are always difficult to get your head around. The activities in this pack will help your class to make visual representations of the age of the Earth to help them get to grips with the timescales involved. Important EvEnts In thE Earth’s hIstory 4600 mya (million years ago) – Planet Earth formed. Dust left over from the birth of the sun clumped together to form planet Earth. The other planets in our solar system were also formed in this way at about the same time. 4500 mya – Earth’s core and crust formed. Dense metals sank to the centre of the Earth and formed the core, while the outside layer cooled and solidified to form the Earth’s crust. 4400 mya – The Earth’s first oceans formed. Water vapour was released into the Earth’s atmosphere by volcanism. It then cooled, fell back down as rain, and formed the Earth’s first oceans. Some water may also have been brought to Earth by comets and asteroids. 3850 mya – The first life appeared on Earth. It was very simple single-celled organisms. Exactly how life first arose is a mystery. 1500 mya – Oxygen began to accumulate in the Earth’s atmosphere. Oxygen is made by cyanobacteria (blue-green algae) as a product of photosynthesis.
    [Show full text]
  • Giant Planet Effects on Terrestrial Planet Formation and System Architecture
    MNRAS 485, 541–549 (2019) doi:10.1093/mnras/stz385 Advance Access publication 2019 February 8 Giant planet effects on terrestrial planet formation and system architecture 1‹ 2 2,3 1 Anna C. Childs, Elisa Quintana, Thomas Barclay and Jason H. Steffen Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-abstract/485/1/541/5309996 by NASA Goddard Space Flight Ctr user on 15 April 2020 1Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV 89154, USA 2NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, 8800 Greenbelt Road, Greenbelt, MD 20771, USA 3University of Maryland, Baltimore County, 1000 Hilltop Cir, Baltimore, MD 21250, USA Accepted 2019 February 4. Received 2019 January 16; in original form 2018 July 6 ABSTRACT Using an updated collision model, we conduct a suite of high-resolution N-body integrations to probe the relationship between giant planet mass and terrestrial planet formation and system architecture. We vary the mass of the planets that reside at Jupiter’s and Saturn’s orbit and examine the effects on the interior terrestrial system. We find that massive giant planets are more likely to eject material from the outer edge of the terrestrial disc and produce terrestrial planets that are on smaller, more circular orbits. We do not find a strong correlation between exterior giant planet mass and the number of Earth analogues (analogous in mass and semimajor axis) produced in the system. These results allow us to make predictions on the nature of terrestrial planets orbiting distant Sun-like star systems that harbour giant planet companions on long orbits – systems that will be a priority for NASA’s upcoming Wide-Field Infrared Survey Telescope (WFIRST) mission.
    [Show full text]
  • Outer Planets: the Ice Giants
    Outer Planets: The Ice Giants A. P. Ingersoll, H. B. Hammel, T. R. Spilker, R. E. Young Exploring Uranus and Neptune satisfies NASA’s objectives, “investigation of the Earth, Moon, Mars and beyond with emphasis on understanding the history of the solar system” and “conduct robotic exploration across the solar system for scientific purposes.” The giant planet story is the story of the solar system (*). Earth and the other small objects are leftovers from the feast of giant planet formation. As they formed, the giant planets may have migrated inward or outward, ejecting some objects from the solar system and swallowing others. The giant planets most likely delivered water and other volatiles, in the form of icy planetesimals, to the inner solar system from the region around Neptune. The “gas giants” Jupiter and Saturn are mostly hydrogen and helium. These planets must have swallowed a portion of the solar nebula intact. The “ice giants” Uranus and Neptune are made primarily of heavier stuff, probably the next most abundant elements in the Sun – oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, and sulfur. For each giant planet the core is the “seed” around which it accreted nebular gas. The ice giants may be more seed than gas. Giant planets are laboratories in which to test our theories about geophysics, plasma physics, meteorology, and even oceanography in a larger context. Their bottomless atmospheres, with 1000 mph winds and 100 year-old storms, teach us about weather on Earth. The giant planets’ enormous magnetic fields and intense radiation belts test our theories of terrestrial and solar electromagnetic phenomena.
    [Show full text]
  • Activity 16: Planets and Their Features Mercury Mercury Is an Extreme Planet
    Activity 16: Planets And Their Features Mercury Mercury.is.an.extreme.planet..It.is.the.fastest.of.all.the.planets..It.is.one.of.the.hottest. planets,.and.it.is.also.one.of.the.coldest!.It.may.be.the.site.of.the.largest.crash.in.the. history.of.the.solar.system..Mercury.may.also.have.the.strangest.view.of.the.sun.in.the. whole.universe! Mercury.zooms.around.the.sun.at.a.speed.of.48.kilometres.per.second,.or.half.as.fast. again.as.the.Earth.travels. At.certain.times.and.places,.Mercury’s.surface.temperature.can.rise.to.twice.the. temperature.inside.an.oven.when.you.are.baking.a.cake..On.the.other.hand,.in.the. shadow.of.its.North.Pole.craters,.Mercury.has.ice.like.our.North.Pole.does. Since.Mercury.is.so.close.to.the.sun,.we.have.never.been.able.to.see.it.in.any.detail..Even. with.the.most.powerful.telescope,.Mercury.looks.like.a.blurry.white.ball..It.wasn’t.until.1974. that.we.really.began.to.learn.about.Mercury..In.1974.and.1975,.Mariner.10.flew.by.Mercury.three.times.and.sent.back. about.12,000.images. These.pictures.combined.to.give.a.map.of.about.45%.of.Mercury’s.surface,.and.what.they.show.us.is.a.planet.covered. with.craters,.much.like.our.moon..Mercury’s.largest.land.feature.is.the.Caloris.Basin,.a.crater.formed.by.a.collision.with.a. meteorite.long.ago..The.size.of.the.Caloris.Basin,.about.1350.kilometres.in.diameter,.suggests.that.this.may.have.been.
    [Show full text]
  • The Solar System Cause Impact Craters
    ASTRONOMY 161 Introduction to Solar System Astronomy Class 12 Solar System Survey Monday, February 5 Key Concepts (1) The terrestrial planets are made primarily of rock and metal. (2) The Jovian planets are made primarily of hydrogen and helium. (3) Moons (a.k.a. satellites) orbit the planets; some moons are large. (4) Asteroids, meteoroids, comets, and Kuiper Belt objects orbit the Sun. (5) Collision between objects in the Solar System cause impact craters. Family portrait of the Solar System: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, (Eris, Ceres, Pluto): My Very Excellent Mother Just Served Us Nine (Extra Cheese Pizzas). The Solar System: List of Ingredients Ingredient Percent of total mass Sun 99.8% Jupiter 0.1% other planets 0.05% everything else 0.05% The Sun dominates the Solar System Jupiter dominates the planets Object Mass Object Mass 1) Sun 330,000 2) Jupiter 320 10) Ganymede 0.025 3) Saturn 95 11) Titan 0.023 4) Neptune 17 12) Callisto 0.018 5) Uranus 15 13) Io 0.015 6) Earth 1.0 14) Moon 0.012 7) Venus 0.82 15) Europa 0.008 8) Mars 0.11 16) Triton 0.004 9) Mercury 0.055 17) Pluto 0.002 A few words about the Sun. The Sun is a large sphere of gas (mostly H, He – hydrogen and helium). The Sun shines because it is hot (T = 5,800 K). The Sun remains hot because it is powered by fusion of hydrogen to helium (H-bomb). (1) The terrestrial planets are made primarily of rock and metal.
    [Show full text]
  • Discovery of a Low-Mass Companion to a Metal-Rich F Star with the Marvels Pilot Project
    The Astrophysical Journal, 718:1186–1199, 2010 August 1 doi:10.1088/0004-637X/718/2/1186 C 2010. The American Astronomical Society. All rights reserved. Printed in the U.S.A. DISCOVERY OF A LOW-MASS COMPANION TO A METAL-RICH F STAR WITH THE MARVELS PILOT PROJECT Scott W. Fleming1,JianGe1, Suvrath Mahadevan1,2,3, Brian Lee1, Jason D. Eastman4, Robert J. Siverd4, B. Scott Gaudi4, Andrzej Niedzielski5, Thirupathi Sivarani6, Keivan G. Stassun7,8, Alex Wolszczan2,3, Rory Barnes9, Bruce Gary7, Duy Cuong Nguyen1, Robert C. Morehead1, Xiaoke Wan1, Bo Zhao1, Jian Liu1, Pengcheng Guo1, Stephen R. Kane1,10, Julian C. van Eyken1,10, Nathan M. De Lee1, Justin R. Crepp1,11, Alaina C. Shelden1,12, Chris Laws9, John P. Wisniewski9, Donald P. Schneider2,3, Joshua Pepper7, Stephanie A. Snedden12, Kaike Pan12, Dmitry Bizyaev12, Howard Brewington12, Olena Malanushenko12, Viktor Malanushenko12, Daniel Oravetz12, Audrey Simmons12, and Shannon Watters12,13 1 Department of Astronomy, University of Florida, 211 Bryant Space Science Center, Gainesville, FL 326711-2055, USA; scfl[email protected]fl.edu 2 Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, The Pennsylvania State University, 525 Davey Laboratory, University Park, PA 16802, USA 3 Center for Exoplanets and Habitable Worlds, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA 4 Department of Astronomy, The Ohio State University, 140 West 18th Avenue, Columbus, OH 43210, USA 5 Torun´ Center for Astronomy, Nicolaus Copernicus University, ul. Gagarina 11, 87-100, Torun,´ Poland 6 Indian Institute of Astrophysics, Bangalore 560034, India 7 Department of Physics and Astronomy, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37235, USA 8 Department of Physics, Fisk University, 1000 17th Ave.
    [Show full text]
  • Simon Porter , Will Grundy
    Post-Capture Evolution of Potentially Habitable Exomoons Simon Porter1,2, Will Grundy1 1Lowell Observatory, Flagstaff, Arizona 2School of Earth and Space Exploration, Arizona State University [email protected] and spin vector were initially pointed at random di- Table 1: Relative fraction of end states for fully Abstract !"# $%& " '(" !"# $%& # '(# rections on the sky. The exoplanets had a ran- evolved exomoon systems dom obliquity < 5 deg and was at a stellarcentric The satellites of extrasolar planets (exomoons) Star Planet Moon Survived Retrograde Separated Impacted distance such that the equilibrium temperature was have been recently proposed as astrobiological tar- Earth 43% 52% 21% 35% equal to Earth. The simulations were run until they Jupiter Mars 44% 45% 18% 37% gets. Triton has been proposed to have been cap- 5 either reached an eccentricity below 10 or the pe- Titan 42% 47% 21% 36% tured through a momentum-exchange reaction [1], − Sun Earth 52% 44% 17% 30% riapse went below the Roche limit (impact) or the and it is possible that a similar event could allow Neptune Mars 44% 45% 18% 36% apoapse exceeded the Hill radius. Stars used were Titan 45% 47% 19% 35% a giant planet to capture a formerly binary terres- Earth 65% 47% 3% 31% the Sun (G2), a main-sequence F0 (1.7 MSun), trial planet or planetesimal. We therefore attempt to Jupiter Mars 59% 46% 4% 35% and a main-sequence M0 (0.47 MSun). Exoplan- Titan 61% 48% 3% 34% model the dynamical evolution of a terrestrial planet !"# $%& " !"# $%& " ' F0 ets used had the mass of either Jupiter or Neptune, Earth 77% 44% 4% 18% captured into orbit around a giant planet in the hab- and exomoons with the mass of Earth, Mars, and Neptune Mars 67% 44% 4% 28% itable zone of a star.
    [Show full text]
  • Explore Jupiter's Family Secrets: JUMP to JUPITER
    ~ LPI EDUCATION/PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT SCIENCE ACTIVITIES ~ Explore Jupiter’s Family Secrets: JUMP TO JUPITER OVERVIEW — Participants jump through a course from the grapefruit-sized “Sun,” past poppy-seed-sized “Earth,” and on to marble-sized “Jupiter” — and beyond! By counting the jumps needed to reach each object, children experience first-hand the vast scale of our solar system. WHAT’S THE POINT? The solar system is a family of eight planets, an asteroid belt, several dwarf planets, and numerous small bodies such as comets in orbit around the Sun. The four inner terrestrial planets are small compared to the four outer gas giants. The distance between planetary orbits is large compared to their sizes. Models can be used to answer questions about the solar system. MATERIALS — Facility needs: ☐ A large area, such as a long hallway, a sidewalk that extends for several blocks, or a football field (see Preparation section for setup options) ☐ A variety of memorable objects used to represent the Sun and planets, such as (use Jump to Jupiter: Planet Sizes and Distances to identify an appropriately-sized substitutes as needed): ☐ 1 (4 inch) grapefruit ☐ 2 (½ inch) marbles ☐ 2 peppercorns ☐ 2 poppy seeds ☐ 3 pepper flakes ☐ 1 pinch of fine sand or dust ☐ 1 set of solar system object markers created (preferably in color) from: • 1 set of Jump to Jupiter: Planet Information Sheets OR Credit: Enid Costley, Library of Virginia • Posters created by the participants OR • Optional: 1 set of Our Solar System lithographs (NASA educational product number LS-2013-07-003-HQ):
    [Show full text]
  • Planetary Science Decadal Survey 2009-2011
    PlanetaryPlanetary ScienceScience DecadalDecadal SurveySurvey 2009-20112009-2011 David H. Smith Space Studies Board, National Research Council Curation and Analysis Planning Team for Extraterrestrial Materials Houston, Texas, 6 October, 2009 OrganizationOrganization ofof thethe DecadalDecadal SurveySurvey SteeringSteering GroupGroup SteveSteve Squyres,Squyres, ChairChair LarryLarry SoderblomSoderblom,, ViceVice ChairChair ViceVice ChairsChairs ofof PanelsPanels 99 othersothers InnerInner PlanetsPlanets GiantGiant PlanetsPlanets PrimitivePrimitive BodiesBodies PanelPanel PanelPanel PanelPanel EllenEllen StofanStofan,, ChairChair HeidiHeidi Hammel,Hammel, ChairChair JosephJoseph VeverkaVeverka,, ChairChair StephenStephen MackwellMackwell,, ViceVice ChairChair AmyAmy Simon-Miller,Simon-Miller, ViceVice ChairChair HarryHarry Y.Y. McSweenMcSween,, ViceVice ChairChair 1010 othersothers 99 othersothers 1010 othersothers MarsMars GiantGiant PlanetPlanet SatellitesSatellites PanelPanel PanelPanel PhilipPhilip Christensen,Christensen, ChairChair JohnJohn Spencer,Spencer, ChairChair WendyWendy Calvin,Calvin, ViceVice ChairChair DavidDavid Stevenson,Stevenson, ViceVice ChairChair 1111 othersothers 1010 othersothers 2 OverallOverall ScheduleSchedule 2008-20112008-2011 2008 4th Quarter Informal request received, NRC approves initiation, Formal request received, Proposal to NASA. 2009 1st Quarter Funding received, Chair identified, Chair and vice chair appointed 2nd Quarter Steering Group appointed, Panels Appointed 3rd Quarter Meetings of the Steering
    [Show full text]
  • The Nature of the Giant Exomoon Candidate Kepler-1625 B-I René Heller
    A&A 610, A39 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201731760 Astronomy & © ESO 2018 Astrophysics The nature of the giant exomoon candidate Kepler-1625 b-i René Heller Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research, Justus-von-Liebig-Weg 3, 37077 Göttingen, Germany e-mail: [email protected] Received 11 August 2017 / Accepted 21 November 2017 ABSTRACT The recent announcement of a Neptune-sized exomoon candidate around the transiting Jupiter-sized object Kepler-1625 b could indi- cate the presence of a hitherto unknown kind of gas giant moon, if confirmed. Three transits of Kepler-1625 b have been observed, allowing estimates of the radii of both objects. Mass estimates, however, have not been backed up by radial velocity measurements of the host star. Here we investigate possible mass regimes of the transiting system that could produce the observed signatures and study them in the context of moon formation in the solar system, i.e., via impacts, capture, or in-situ accretion. The radius of Kepler-1625 b suggests it could be anything from a gas giant planet somewhat more massive than Saturn (0:4 MJup) to a brown dwarf (BD; up to 75 MJup) or even a very-low-mass star (VLMS; 112 MJup ≈ 0:11 M ). The proposed companion would certainly have a planetary mass. Possible extreme scenarios range from a highly inflated Earth-mass gas satellite to an atmosphere-free water–rock companion of about +19:2 180 M⊕. Furthermore, the planet–moon dynamics during the transits suggest a total system mass of 17:6−12:6 MJup.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Detection of Exomoons in Photometric Time Series
    On the Detection of Exomoons in Photometric Time Series Dissertation zur Erlangung des mathematisch-naturwissenschaftlichen Doktorgrades “Doctor rerum naturalium” der Georg-August-Universität Göttingen im Promotionsprogramm PROPHYS der Georg-August University School of Science (GAUSS) vorgelegt von Kai Oliver Rodenbeck aus Göttingen, Deutschland Göttingen, 2019 Betreuungsausschuss Prof. Dr. Laurent Gizon Max-Planck-Institut für Sonnensystemforschung, Göttingen, Deutschland und Institut für Astrophysik, Georg-August-Universität, Göttingen, Deutschland Prof. Dr. Stefan Dreizler Institut für Astrophysik, Georg-August-Universität, Göttingen, Deutschland Dr. Warrick H. Ball School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Birmingham, UK vormals Institut für Astrophysik, Georg-August-Universität, Göttingen, Deutschland Mitglieder der Prüfungskommision Referent: Prof. Dr. Laurent Gizon Max-Planck-Institut für Sonnensystemforschung, Göttingen, Deutschland und Institut für Astrophysik, Georg-August-Universität, Göttingen, Deutschland Korreferent: Prof. Dr. Stefan Dreizler Institut für Astrophysik, Georg-August-Universität, Göttingen, Deutschland Weitere Mitglieder der Prüfungskommission: Prof. Dr. Ulrich Christensen Max-Planck-Institut für Sonnensystemforschung, Göttingen, Deutschland Dr.ir. Saskia Hekker Max-Planck-Institut für Sonnensystemforschung, Göttingen, Deutschland Dr. René Heller Max-Planck-Institut für Sonnensystemforschung, Göttingen, Deutschland Prof. Dr. Wolfram Kollatschny Institut für Astrophysik, Georg-August-Universität, Göttingen,
    [Show full text]