Habitable Exoplanets Catalog: announcement 3rd January

According to the Habitable Exoplanets Catalog website there are "new significant results" that will be presented 3rd January at 14h00 EST.

Could be something new, could be the additional Gliese 667 C planet candidates which have not so far been added...

maybe a Kepler koi confirmed?

http://phl.upr.edu/press-releases/mygoditsfullofplanetstheyshouldhavesentapoet%E2%80%9D

http://phl.upr.edu/projects/habitable-exoplanets-catalog/data/kepler-tce

????

Well... hummm, uauuuuuuhhhh!!!

maybe indirect detections thanks to TTVs and TDVs. Not direct photometric transiting moon deteccions.

Yeeees well the HEC people have this habit of classing all gas giants in the habitable zone as "habitable exomoons". As far as I'm aware no-one's claiming an actual exomoon detection yet.

Well some people maybe want to live on gas or ice giants.Seriously there could be some moons around such gas or ice giants,but finding them and confirmation will be very difficult , especially if 3 or 4 moons orbit one such gas giant

One thing that I don't understand here: why KIC number instead of KOI number for this candidates??

About exomoons could be like Lazarus cited or could be that "The Hunt for Exomoons with Kepler (HEK) Project" did find they first exomoons but if this are new candidates I don't think so.

A few of those would pass for the Earth analogues that rumour has it Kepler isn't seeing. They cite this database which seems to list 18,000 or so planets. I recall I had a disagreement recently about this. Is there really 18,000 unique planets in this dataset? And if so, how many of them are secure enough to be considered having a good shot at being real? We're used to the 2300+ list, and I presume those have gone through some preliminary vetting. How about these 18000? Fourteen of these systems appear to host ten planets.

Sirius_Alpha wrote:

A few of those would pass for the Earth analogues that rumour has it Kepler isn't seeing.

Maybe now they start see it in the Kepler pipeline,Maybe are plenty of Earth-size planets candidates... remember the Stars in Kepler field it's too noise and this make Kepler have difficult to detect Earth-size planets,and this is one of the motives of why Kepler extension mission is necessary to detect such Earth-size planets candidates,specially in habitable zone of G type stars


14 of this system host 10 planets?? If turn to be truly Planets this systems will be very interesting indeed!

Daniel wrote:

One thing that I don't understand here: why KIC number instead of KOI number for this candidates??

These are not official candidates, they are TCEs, so don't have KOIs. Even if they did it appears to be a developing standard to refer to targets by the star's KIC until it has been confirmed.

Sirius_Alpha wrote:

A few of those would pass for the Earth analogues that rumour has it Kepler isn't seeing. They cite this database which seems to list 18,000 or so planets. I recall I had a disagreement recently about this. Is there really 18,000 unique planets in this dataset? And if so, how many of them are secure enough to be considered having a good shot at being real? We're used to the 2300+ list, and I presume those have gone through some preliminary vetting. How about these 18000? Fourteen of these systems appear to host ten planets.

No, the vast majority of these are spurious signals, variability etc. I mentioned this back when this paper was brought up on the Kepler thread. This is actually the second TCE paper, the last one was published early on in the mission and had ~5000 TCEs. The latest official candidates paper that used a far longer time series than that had only ~2300 (and plenty of these have turned out to be false positives anyway). These TCEs represent only the initial cull of a long validation process, and shouldn't be compared to actual candidates.

Since the latest TCE paper was published i've actually had a look at some of those supposed large multiplanet systems in the public data, sufficed to say the Kepler TPS seems to have gotten a little confused by some star's variability...



Incidentally this activity seems a little pointless as as far as I can see PHL probably used the KIC star data to make these judgements, and frankly the KIC data is so inaccurate that the true values for all these "candidates" are going to be way off.

To summarize, I understand the designation process is the following:

KIC (input catalog) -> TCE (transit-like event detected) -> KOI (probable transit) -> Kepler-XX (more or less confirmed planet using RV etc.)

For me, we can talk seriously with KOI (Kepler object of interest), not with TCE

To summarize HEC is not a serious website...

But, some KIC numbers have been confirmed as planets, without having assigned a KOI number.

HEC has done its own filtering of the TCEs, in order to have better candidates.... they said they have studied TCEs with more than 3 transit events, so they could be as good candidates as KOIs.

On the other hand, I agree with Kodas, KIC it' s not reliable to obtain planetary parameters from its star sizes.

Led_Zep wrote:

For me, we can talk seriously with KOI (Kepler object of interest), not with TCE

To summarize HEC is not a serious website...

It is sometimes too bold. But I think it has a valid point in the fact that Jupiters and super Jupiters ain habitable zones are not mentioned as habitable by scientists...I think they should be mentioned as planets with possible habitable moons around them.