110 likes | 216 Views
Satellite meeting - Designating habitable planets for follow-up study: what are the relative parameter spaces of RV and astrometry? (P2 Panel) Scientific program Radial velocities to detect habitable planets in the visible: performance and limitations (F. Pepe)
E N D
Satellite meeting - Designating habitable planets for follow-up study: what are the relative parameter spaces of RV and astrometry? (P2 Panel) • Scientific program • Radial velocities to detect habitable planets in the visible: performance and limitations (F. Pepe) • Radial velocities to detect habitable planets in the nIR: performance and limitations (E. Martin) • Astrometry to detect habitable planets: performance and limitations (M. Shao) • Astrometry to detect habitable planets: future prospects (F. Malbet) • Double blind tests (W. Traub)
σO-C~ 0.8 m/s rms (raw) ~ 0.3 m/s rms (time-binned) Long-term precision P1 = 8.67 days M sini = 10.2 M P2 = 31.6 days M sini = 11.8 M P3 = 197 days M sini = 18.1 M F. Pepe HD69830 - Lovis et al., Nature, 2006
Error sources • Beat the stellar limitations with • good targe selection • clever observational strategy • Stellar noise (p modes, activity) • Contaminants (Earth’s atmosphere, moon, etc.) • Measurement noise • Photon noise • Instrumental errors (from calibration to measurement) • Calibration accuracy (any technique) F. Pepe
NIR is full of telluric lines => RV precision limit of 20 m/s • Nearby cool stars are plentiful • HZ planets have stronger RV signal • Current NIR RV precision ~20 m/s • New instruments & calibration methods need to be developed to reach 1 m/s (CRIRES, CARMENES, NAHUAL, PRVS, SPIROU) 4 E. Martín
Impact of Star Spots on Astrometry and RV We find that for the Earth-Sun system, starspots do not appreciably interfere with astrometric detection. impose significant requirements on the number of measurements and duration of an observing campaign needed for radial velocity detection. Example: Spot area 10-3, Sun @ 10pc Astrometry RV Spot bias 0.25 mas 1 m/s Earth @1AU amp 0.3 mas 0.09 m/s • Equiv ast noise ~0.08 mas 0.3 mas signature • Equiv RV noise ~0.45 m/s 0.09 m/s signature • Relative to a planet in a 1yr orbit, the star spot noise for RV is ~10X larger than for Astrometry. (short periods favor RV, long periods favor Astrometry) M. Shao
10 pc sample Henry 1998 Martín et al. 2004 E. Martín
Conclusions • Instrumental considerations: • RV is a time-tested technique, although no proof yet that it can get to a few cm/s (superEarths are better) but only minimum mass • Prospects seem good (50 cm/s today) • NIR RVs can help for planets in the HZs around cool stars ~10-20 m/s achieved so far but 1 m/s needed • Astrometry has 2D information and it is not severely affected by inclination degeneracy • Astrometry has not been tested at the mas level (best performance 300 mas) • Expensive space mission
Astrophysical noise • Limitation to visible RVs since only inactive stars (a few 10s within 15 pc) can be observed to the highest accuracy • This is less stringent for NIR RVs ½ of the jitter and more stars (Ms) • Astrometry is less affected in solar-type stars • Final considerations • Astrometry seems better suited to carry out a census of habitable planets for follow up • Especially so for Earth analogs (i.e., solar-like stars) • RVs are more cost-efficient and can find some valuable systems early on (JWST?) • NIR RVs have good potential for nearby stars