Kepler News and Results (Thread 2)

Hmm. That wouldn't represent discoveries made "by its planet-hunting mission, the Kepler Space Telescope."

So it turns out to be... a batch of 1284 (!) planets.

http://www.astro.princeton.edu/~tdm/koi-fpp/ms.pdf

FALSE POSITIVE PROBABILITIES FOR ALL KEPLER OBJECTS OF INTEREST:
1284 NEWLY VALIDATED PLANETS AND 428 LIKELY FALSE POSITIVES

Now on arXiv.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1605.02825

The most interesting system is maybe Kepler-1229 b containing one 1.4 Rearth super-earth receiving half the earth's energy from his sun.


Here are some systems already known before

Kepler-1520 aka KIC 12557548, containing an evaporating mercury
Kepler-974 aka KOI-1843
Kepler-1004 aka KOI-1894
Kepler-492 aka KOI-205
Kepler-1115 aka KOI-2138 containing one very long period planet and a third planet detected by TTV (no Kepler designation for this one)
Kepler-1418 aka KOI-3049 A, part of a binary
Kepler-539 aka KOI-372
Kepler-462 aka KOI-89 containing a second validated planet but without kepler designation

A press release about Kepler-223 system :

http://news.uchicago.edu/article/2016/05/11/quartet-exoplanets-locked-complex-dance

The paper for the Kepler-223 (KOI-730) result is at Nature, for those with access behind their paywall.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature17445.html

There's a handy table of new planets provided by the NASA Exoplanet Archive. For cataloguing purposes and updating my notes, I wanted to go through and make note of some systems that have alternate designations. Especially previously confirmed/validated KOI-# systems that have now been assigned Kepler-# designations by virtue of their recent validation. Stalker hit on some of them already.

KIC 5437945 - Kepler-460 (Wang 2015). KIC 9663113 - Kepler-458 (Wang 2015). Kepler-449 - KOI-270 (Rowe 2014). Kepler-450 - KOI-279 (Rowe 2014). Kepler-462 - KOI-89 (Rowe 2014). Kepler-466 - KOI-112 (Rowe 2014). Kepler-471 - KOI-131 (Rowe 2014). Kepler-487 - KOI-191 (Rowe 2014). Kepler-489 - KOI-197 (Santerne 2015). Kepler-490 - KOI-199 (Rowe 2014). Kepler-491 - KOI-201 (Santerne 2015). Kepler-495 - KOI-221 (Santerne 2015). Kepler-515 - KOI-298 (Rowe 2014). Kepler-518 - KOI-304 (Rowe 2014). Kepler-520 - KOI-307 (Rowe 2014). Kepler-529 - KOI-339 (Rowe 2014). Kepler-539 - KOI-372 (Santerne 2015). Kepler-549 - KOI-427 (Rowe 2014). Kepler-553 - KOI-433 (Rowe 2014). Kepler-554 - KOI-439 (Rowe 2014). Kepler-561 - KOI-464 (Rowe 2014). Kepler-598 - KOI-555 (Rowe 2014). Kepler-603 - KOI-564 (Rowe 2014). Kepler-616 - KOI-593 (Rowe 2014). Kepler-619 - KOI-601 (Rowe 2014). Kepler-633 - KOI-645 (Rowe 2014). Kepler-647 - KOI-691 (Rowe 2014). Kepler-653 - KOI-717 (Rowe 2014). Kepler-656 - KOI-732 (Rowe 2014). Kepler-657 - KOI-734 (Rowe 2014).

Kepler-675 - KOI-780 (Rowe 2014). Kepler-712 - KOI-881 (Rowe 2014). Kepler-716 - KOI-892 (Rowe 2014). Kepler-725 - KOI-918 (Rowe 2014). Kepler-732 - KOI-936 (Rowe 2014). Kepler-750 - KOI-1015 (Rowe 2014). Kepler-755 - KOI-1050 (Rowe 2014). Kepler-758 - KOI-1060 (Rowe 2014). Kepler-760 - KOI-1069 (Rowe 2014). Kepler-784 - KOI-1175 (Rowe 2014). Kepler-799 - KOI-1261 (Rowe 2014). Kepler-804 - KOI-1279 (Rowe 2014). Kepler-814 - KOI-1312 (Rowe 2014). Kepler-822 - KOI-1338 (Rowe 2014). Kepler-825 - KOI-1342 (Rowe 2014). Kepler-853 - KOI-1445 (Rowe 2014). Kepler-859 - KOI-1480 (Rowe 2014). Kepler-903 - KOI-1601 (Rowe 2014). Kepler-913 - KOI-1627 (Rowe 2014). Kepler-948 - KOI-1750 (Rowe 2014). Kepler-949 - KOI-1751 (Rowe 2014). Kepler-951 - KOI-1788 (Santerne 2015). Kepler-953 - KOI-1792 (Rowe 2014). Kepler-974 - KOI-1843 (Rowe 2014). Kepler-975 - KOI-1845 (Rowe 2014). Kepler-985 - KOI-1858 (Rowe 2014). Kepler-997 - KOI-1883 (Adams 2013). Kepler-1001 - KOI-1889 (Rowe 2014). Kepler-1004 - KOI-1894 (Sato 2015). Kepler-1006 - KOI-1899 (Rowe 2014).

Kepler-1014 - KOI-1920 (Rowe 2014). Kepler-1016 - KOI-1922 (Rowe 2014). Kepler-1022 - KOI-1940 (Rowe 2014). Kepler-1023 - KOI-1945 (Rowe 2014). Kepler-1027 - KOI-1961 (Rowe 2014). Kepler-1050 - KOI-2007 (Rowe 2014). Kepler-1071 - KOI-2048 (Rowe 2014). Kepler-1093 - KOI-2098 (Rowe 2014). Kepler-1115 - KOI-2138 (Barnes 2015). Kepler-1125 - KOI-2160 (Rowe 2014). Kepler-1129 - KOI-2167 (Rowe 2014). Kepler-1130 - KOI-2169 (Rowe 2014). Kepler-1149 - KOI-2224 (Rowe 2014). Kepler-1164 - KOI-2261 (Rowe 2014). Kepler-1178 - KOI-2298 (Rowe 2014). Kepler-1185 - KOI-2311 (Rowe 2014). Kepler-1197 - KOI-2339 (Rowe 2014). Kepler-1208 - KOI-2362 (Rowe 2014). Kepler-1211 - KOI-2369 (Rowe 2014). Kepler-1232 - KOI-2422 (Rowe 2014). Kepler-1266 - KOI-2521 (Rowe 2014). Kepler-1270 - KOI-2533 (Rowe 2014). Kepler-1271 - KOI-2534 (Rowe 2014). Kepler-1282 - KOI-2586 (Rowe 2014). Kepler-1311 - KOI-2674 (Rowe 2014). Kepler-1513 - KOI-3678 (Santerne 2015). Kepler-1514 - KOI-3681 (Santerne 2015). Kepler-1520 - KIC 12557548 (Budaj 2012).

Why does Kepler-157 have two KOI-# designations? It's in (Rowe 2014) as a validated planet as KOI-1737, but the NASA Exoplanet Archive doesn't have KOI-1737. SIMBAD thinks Kepler-157 = KOI-442.
There's a similar problem for Kepler-317, which seems to be both KOI-1756 and KOI-1760.

The following systems I've had in my notes as hosting planets but some of the planets in these systems are listed as being false positives. I don't know if it's because I'm a moron or if they've been determined to be false positives by Morton 2016.
KOI-102, KOI-1119, KOI-1134, KOI-1231, KOI-1239, KOI-1271, KOI-1276, KOI-1316, KOI-1378, KOI-1408, KOI-1447, KOI-1639, KOI-1731, KOI-1747, KOI-1803, KOI-1944, KOI-2159, KOI-2188, KOI-2248, KOI-2671, KOI-376, KOI-379, KOI-414, KOI-489, KOI-549, KOI-989.

Sirius_Alpha wrote:

Why does Kepler-157 have two KOI-# designations? It's in (Rowe 2014) as a validated planet as KOI-1737, but the NASA Exoplanet Archive doesn't have KOI-1737. SIMBAD thinks Kepler-157 = KOI-442.
There's a similar problem for Kepler-317, which seems to be both KOI-1756 and KOI-1760.

The problem is already present in Rowe et al. (2014).

I checked the paper, both KOI-442 and KOI-1737 are listed in table 2, both referring to KIC 3745690. Rowe et al. (2014) also give entries for both KOI-1756 and KOI-1760, again with the same KIC number (KIC 3967760).

Interestingly the entries in table 3 list two candidates:

• 442.01 = Kepler-157 c, 13.540500d
• 442.02 = Kepler-157 b, 1.732342d

while for KOI-1737 they list 3, and reverse the assignment of 01 and 02:

• 1737.01, 1.732333d
• 1737.02, 13.540481d
• 1737.03, 7.025759d

This KOI-1737.03 seems to have become KOI-442.03 in the NASA Archive (it is also now designated Kepler-157 d).

At least with KOI-1756=KOI-1760=Kepler-317, the assignments of .01 and .02 look to be the same candidates!

The long-period circumbinary planet system KOI-2939 is now designated Kepler-1647.

STUDENT DISCOVERS FOUR NEW PLANETS

http://www.universetoday.com/129262/student-discovers-four-new-planets

KOI-205.02
KOI-488.02
KOI-290.02
KOI-408.05

Here is the pre-print of discovery paper.

Update on Kepler-108: the planets are likely in orbit around the secondary star Kepler-108 B, with a high mutual inclination between the two transiting planets (which suggests we have quite a bit of luck with our viewing angle on the system).

Mills & Fabrycky "Kepler-108: A Mutually Inclined Giant Planet System"
https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.04485

http://www.exoplanetscience.org/

Abstract of : Exoplanets I: Davos Congress Center, Switzerland (3-8 July 2016)

Density of 8.0 for K-20b ! and one more planet in the system...

Good to see Kepler-20 getting some attention, it hasn't seen much since the confirmation papers.

Those figures compare rather well with the confirmation values: m = 8.7 ^+2.1_-2.2 M_⊕, r = 1.91 ^+0.12_-0.21 R_⊕, ρ = 6.5 ^+2.0_-2.7 g/cm³. I would say that it's been fairly clear that b is dense, but the significance of this wasn't recognised back then because the terrestrial-gaseous transition was thought to be at 10 M_⊕ or so.

It is quite interesting that there is another planet in the system, as it is now entirely packed within the orbit of d. g's period ratios with f and d are ~1.75 and ~2.26. There seem to be no resonances in this system whatsoever, which is unusual among the high-multiplicity Kepler systems.

What is the status of the packed planetary systems hypothesis these days? Could Kepler-20 "g" have been predicted from the system architecture?

Well this is the first non  transiting planet found between 2 others which are transiting in the same system .First case when outer planet is transiting and inner to this one not .I am curious how many such cases will be found

Quote :

What is the status of the packed planetary systems hypothesis these days? Could Kepler-20 "g" have been predicted from the system architecture?

As I understand it, the idea that a planetary system has to be packed if there is free space has fallen out of favour (probably since the HD 74156 debacle), but the idea that a planet can exist in a stable region remains uncontested.

So in this case, it would be valid to have suggested that a planet could exist between f and d, but this could not be used as evidence for said planet's existence. In short, packing is not predictive, only indicative.

Quote :

Well this is the first non  transiting planet found between 2 others which are transiting in the same system .First case when outer planet is transiting and inner to this one not .I am curious how many such cases will be found

Even at such modest periods, only a few degrees of misalignment would make a planet non-transiting. If the inclination distribution of a planetary system is similar to that of the solar system, a scenario like this is not unlikely. With the number of Kepler and K2 systems known I expect there are tens of such systems present at the least, but identifying them is not a simple endeavour.

What Kepler planet within your opinion is the most habitable planet discovered so far? Let say humans needed to find a planet fast and the kepler database was our list of choices.

K2-3 d (rather on or close to poles) only one we are almost sure based on current data is rocky, besides k 442 b and K 186 f k 62 f without mass measurement all very likely rocky

None of them are particularly promising prospects even if we could reach them, which we can't. If humanity gets into a situation where it needs a new planet, we're basically doomed as there is no way that anyone but a tiny fraction of the population will be able to leave this one, let alone travel to the next one.

I just wonder how the most massive planet in kepler 20 system with period 34 days remained undetected by rv and planet d much lighter (7.5-9.5 earth mass) was? very  weird and DO we have any arxiv pdf paper about kepler 20 g is not even in unconfirmed table

Press-release about Kepler-80 system :

http://www.spaceflightinsider.com/press-releases/alien-solar-system-boasts-tightly-spaced-planets-unusual-orbits/

The paper (to be published shortly).

Kepler-80 (KOI-500) is a system which gained some early fame among the Kepler systems, but has certainly languished in terms of dynamical study. Based on this paper I would expect that the lack of attention was due to the sheer amount of processing power such a dynamically complex system demands, rather than negligence. And this was without considering transit durations!

With density errors at ~15%, these are some of the most precise mass measurements for low-mass planets so far. The differences in density are striking, and they clearly show that masses cannot be linked to radii by any simple expression - a variety of different radii are possible for a certain mass, and vice-versa.

Aside from Kepler-80, there are several systems dominated by resonances except for the innermost planet, which is decoupled from the rest; some examples are Kepler-32, Kepler-33 and Kepler-374. However, there are also several where the innermost planet fits in the resonant chain, e.g Kepler-84, Kepler-385, Kepler-444. These systems seem to overlap in parameter space, so it may be that some process causes this decoupling only under certain conditions.

Interesting system but density for planet e and others is counted wrong, for e mass 4.54 and radius 1.6 should be around 5.8g/cm3 (similar like HD 219134b) even for eccentric model should be around 5g/cm3. Nevertheless difference in density between planets b and e is rather caused by place where planets were created-planets d and e inside the snow line b and c outside as for example planet e is far too cool to loose any hydrogen atmosphere if it ever had (unlikely) Simply e  acreted no or very small amount H,He  in contrary to b.We have two planets straddling the line between rocky and gassy worlds with quite low incident flux.