_Augustus_

TRAPPIST-1 now has seven planets. (Possible life?)

213 posts in this topic

Guys, apparently this is what TRAPPIST-1 looks like, this is possibly the image from the Transiting Planets and Planetesimals Small Telescope at the La Silla Observatory, or through the Spitzer space telescope.

giphy.gif

 

It's being discussed on Reddit, including how they are able to tease out the data on the planets, you might want to take a look.

More info including graphs and the animation above are here.

And raw data here.

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Planet h has an equil temp of 169k, putting it on the snow line, and an orbital period of 18.764 days.

Additionally, TRAPPIST-1 has a rotational period of 3.3 days, and has a number of flares consistent with an active, middle aged, late M dwarf.

More info here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.04166.pdf

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

More data via the Nature page or through the team of the University of Liége. The first name in the authors list of the original paper is the one to address.

Guys, you overestimate our momentary possibilities by magnitudes. Also much has been put as facts which are just fantasies. Nobody knows what these planets look like, no spectral traces of atmospheres were found (though featureless atmospheres can not be ruled out completely).

The orbital parameters of the planets where deduced by changes in the apparent magnitude of the star. I'd laugh out loud if one day we find out that we were hunting sun spots or a yet unknown form of solar activity.

This does not mean that i think it is bogus, i think it is serious data that yet needs some interpretation (that's why all the speculation takes place ;-)) but i also think it'll take yet a few years and maybe new telescopes to get a clearer view of that system

Btw., the thrilling question for planetary science is not whether there is life but how could such a system possibly form.

:-)

Edited by Green Baron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On 14.3.2017 at 5:47 PM, Spaceception said:

Planet h has an equil temp of 169k, putting it on the snow line, and an orbital period of 18.764 days.

Additionally, TRAPPIST-1 has a rotational period of 3.3 days, and has a number of flares consistent with an active, middle aged, late M dwarf.

More info here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.04166.pdf

I just wanted to link this but you already did so :-)

May i add: preliminary evaluation of the K2 data, not yet published.

I do not agree with the "169K is on the snow line" part. At least not H20 snow. 100K are missing if we ignore highly speculative atmospheres or other heating mechanisms that we don't know about.

Be it as it may: the star is between 3 and 8 billion years old. There is no reason to assume that the planets have not formed in place. But the system might get instable in the future (a billion of years), see original paper.

The E-ELT might be able to actually give images of the planets :-)

 

Edited by Green Baron
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎3‎/‎3‎/‎2017 at 0:54 AM, 0111narwhalz said:

Problem is, there're no gas giants. Probably. I'd expect they would find a large body like a gas giant before a pile of little pebbles, but this is outside my range of (mediocre) expertise.

Red dwarf stars have very low likelihood for gas giants. This star has an unusally high metallicity, so rocky planets could be fairly likely.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

April fools paper on TRAPPIST-1 :D

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.10803.pdf

 

Beer jokes galore!

TRAPPIST-1b as
Achel the brown
.
TRAPPIST-1c as
Isid’or the amber
.
TRAPPIST-1d as
Trappe the blond
.
TRAPPIST-1e as
Chimay la bleue
.
TRAPPIST-1f as
Chimay la rouge
.
TRAPPIST-1g as
Chimay the gold-i-locked
.
TRAPPIST-1h as
Chimay la blanch
Edited by Spaceception
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how many six-packs were consumed during this thirst-inducing research process :D Or was it kegs? :lol:Na zdrowie!!! As we say in Poland raising full glasses.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Scotius said:

I wonder how many six-packs were consumed during this thirst-inducing research process :D Or was it kegs? :lol:Na zdrowie!!! As we say in Poland raising full glasses.

I like TRAPPIST-1d's name the best :D

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some interesting stuff published recently. There's been some 3D atmosphere modeling on the TRAPPIST planets, and guess who's survived to become the prime potentially habitable planet of the system?

*drumroll*

TRAPPIST-1E!

Here's the article: http://www.space.com/36349-trappist-1e-just-right-for-life.html

Also, some preliminary analysis of the radiation coming from Trappist-1 is making people conclude that all the planets have be stripped of their atmospheres. Here's what's irking me: 

PLANETS B AND C HAVE CONFIRMED ATMOSPHERES! DON'T YOU PEOPLE REMEMBER?!

*deep breath* Okay, here's the link: https://www.universetoday.com/134882/trappist-1-showing-bit-much-flare/

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Here's the pre-print: https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.05815

The model is based on assumptions of liquid water and atmospheres, not observations, or am i getting something severely wrong ? Sorry for spoiling if so :-). Edit: the applied model calculations suggest that 1e is the only planet that could have kept its water at least partially liquid under the assumptions made. "Just right for life" sounds a little lurid ...

All i remember is that no spectral traces of atmospheres were detected, or do we have new data ? Am heavily interested of course ...

 

Edited by Green Baron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main problem i have with much of the work on exoplanets is that so much is based on assumptions and hypothetical preconditions that it is really close to guessing imo. Like "if there was water" and "if there was an atmosphere" and "if we interpreted this as flares" ... it seems like in the recent past people got ever more eager to outrival each other with these "ifs".

I am not sure whether all these assumptions can be confirmed by observations in the future. I really would not be surprised if different explanations turn out to explain the flickering of some of these pixels that represent stars, or if some of our models that represent radiation transport in stars are not as applicable as we might think.

We need bigger telescopes. Bigger is better, as is sooner :-)

 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://astrobiology.com/2017/04/updated-masses-for-the-trappist-1-planets.html

New masses for the Trappist planets! And the results...are kinda weird.

While the masses are not entirely pinned down, there are some interesting things suggested with this data. Theros (b) definitely seems like a coreless planet, Auxo (c) appears to be an iron-rich planet, Thallo (d), may have a more rocky composition than previously thought (less iron), Eiar (e) is in a very interesting spot (more on that later), Irene (f) still seems to be a mainly oceanic planet, Carphos (g) is FAR more water-rich than before, and Cheimon (h) appears to be just around 8.6% the mass of Earth. This shows that many of the Trappist planets are either frozen icy planets or have retained quite a lot of liquid water despite their attention-seeking star. That boosts some hope for worlds like Kepler-438b and Proxima b (the latter I still believe to host some sort of civilization).

Back to Eiar, it has the least certain mass of all the planets. Cheimon could arguably be worse, but the upper and lower limits of Eiar's mass are more over the place. It could be less than 0.24 Earth masses (ocean planet/gas dwarf) or as high as 0.80 Earth masses, making it a rock-rich planet slightly denser than Earth. The former seems too low mass and too rich in hydrogen and water to stay intact over the 3-8 billion year lifespan of the Trappist system. I would put my money closer to the upper limit, which makes sense with Auxo's ridiculous iron content and the unusually high metallicity of Trappist-1 - +0.04 [Fe/H], rather high among tiny red dwarfs.

Also, more cool news for the system: a bio-signature (or water signature) search with the THIRSTY telescope! Man, those guys LOVE making awesome acronyms.

http://astrobiology.com/2017/04/observations-of-trappist-1-exoplanetary-system-fosters-a-new-biomarker.html

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now