I know this is a bit old, but it’s still cool: Astronomers bagged the lowest mass planet yet; it has just under twice the mass of Earth! It’s very close to its star and too hot for life as we know it, but that lower limit keeps creeping down. And with Kepler now patrolling a patch of the sky, how long will it be before Terra Nova is found?
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
The original BA site (with the Moon Hoax debunking, movie reviews, and all that) can be found here.
 | ||
 | Bad Astronomy was chosen as one of Time.com's Best Blogs of 2009. |
 |
DISCOVERmagazine.com: Latest Articles on Space DISCOVER Blogs: The Loom
Copyright © 2012, Kalmbach Publishing Co.
Privacy - Terms - Reader Services - Subscribe Today - Advertise - About Us
May 1st, 2009 at 8:05 am
Very cool. One step closer to an Earth-like planet.
May 1st, 2009 at 8:13 am
I was going to make an “in my pants” joke with your headline until I realized those don’t work for me, dangit.
May 1st, 2009 at 8:27 am
New and improved planetary discovery! Now with less mass!
Less mass!
Tastes great!
Less mass!
Tastes great!
May 1st, 2009 at 8:28 am
I think a better metric would be a hybrid metric of mass and distance from the parent star (or habitable zone). Closer planets are easier to find, but still inhospitable for life.
I’m not saying that this isn’t a great result, just that even if we find a planet that’s roughly the size of earth, it won’t mean much if its as close as Mercury is to the sun.
May 1st, 2009 at 8:40 am
Terra Nova? You mean Earth 2… Won’t be ‘new’ anymore a few thousand years after colonizing.
Like in the one Doctor Who episode:
That’s New New York. Well, technically, newnewnewnewnewnewnewnew New New York, but…”
May 1st, 2009 at 8:58 am
Close to the sun you say? Maybe it’s the evil-twin Mercury to our evil-twin earth. It’s a pity the goatee won’t show up as a gravitational wobble.
(Isn’t it messed up that capitalizing the E in Earth isn’t good grammar?)
May 1st, 2009 at 9:18 am
Here a wacky idea!
We start a pool on when Terra Nova is found. Earth mass in habitable zone.
1.1 Earth mass max. Liquid H2O.
Nothing but net. Swish!
$20 and you’re in.
I’m betting on Feb 4 2011.
May 1st, 2009 at 9:20 am
@Richard Drumm
That should give us enough time to load a bunch of people on a rocket and head there before the world ends in 2012.
May 1st, 2009 at 9:21 am
ROFLMA
Roll On Floor, Laughing My Azimuth!
May 1st, 2009 at 9:22 am
Lowest mass planet at twice the mass of Earth?
I smell a contradiction and buy an “Exo-”
May 1st, 2009 at 9:25 am
kepler didn t star scanning the skies yet it is still caliberating the instruments
May 1st, 2009 at 9:26 am
(Trying to find a way to shoehorn OTP post into this thread)
We may need to leave this planet soon. That laywer* who is trying to shut down the LHC says there is a 50% chance of the earth being assimilated. His reasoning is there are two outcomes (It does or it doesn’t) so the probability is 50%.
*As seen on The Dayly Show
May 1st, 2009 at 9:26 am
Why only around 100,000 stars when they can search a lot more?
May 1st, 2009 at 9:35 am
I’m hoping for a continent sized geographic feature that spells “HELLO”… or a
Dec 17 2010
May 1st, 2009 at 10:10 am
@ QUASAR
“Why only around 100,000 stars when they can search a lot more?”
Two reasons. First: That’s the amount of stars in the field of view that are similar to the Sun and could potentially host an Earth-like planet. These stars are the ones that could have a “habitable zone” where a rocky planet could contain water.
Second: Kepler uses what’s called the transit method. Instead of imaging a planet directly, Kepler will observe the change in the light of a star. Scientists are looking for a regular dip in the light in order t confirm that it is a planet. They’re looking for three dips over the 3+ year mission to confirm the light reduction is caused by a planet and not a sunspot or other object. If they don’t stare at the same field and the same stars, they could miss the grand prize.
May 1st, 2009 at 10:12 am
When we do find a truly Earth-like exoplanet, we are going to need a proper name for it. I even think that all of the existing exoplanets should have proper names wherever practical. Here is my proposal for a method for creating unique names based on star catalog numbers. It can be used for stars and planets.
I’ll use Gliese 581 as an example. The following names are possibilities for that star and its companions, based on the catalog numbers in the SIMBAD database.
I hope I remembered my prefixes correctly, and the other rules. (I don’t have my notes with me right now.)
V* HO Lib –> Valibien, or is it Vaidolib?
BD-07 4003 –> Duatlaak
Ci 20 923 –> Ciuzik
GCRV 8863 –> Wivurk
GEN# -0.00704003 –> Svia-batalaak
G 152-9 –> Gidohx
G 151-46 –> Gifpelq
GJ 581 –> Glinue, Janve
GSC 05594-00593 –> Ghuannym-acnyk ?
HIP 74995 –> Patlyxo
JP11 273 –> Jaisk ?
LFT 1195 –> Lideyn
LHS 394 –> Lhakym
LPM 564 –> Loorm
LTT 6112 –> Luqedi
MCC 159 –> Vydox
NLTT 39886 –> Nujyvur
NSV 7023 –> Ensutahk
8pc 159.52 –> Epidox-ni
PLX 3458 –> Plakmov
UBV M 5243 –> Umbunilk
UBV 13194 –> Ubuekeym
Wolf 562 –> Wunri
Zkh 217 –> Zages
[RHG95] 2420 –> Rhiglia
Prefixes for each catalog can be settled by the IAU. A standard conversion chart changes numbers into any of two or three possible letters, and final choices among the letter-groups can be chosen by the discoverers. Mine are used here just to show how my proposal works.
I know some of these names wouldn’t work, especially for the popular press. But enough do for all six of the bodies found in that particular star system. We can even choose some of them alphabetically by their current designations, for example Gliese 581 d could be “Duatlaak” and Gliese 581 e could be “Ensutahk”.
Comments? Questions?
May 1st, 2009 at 10:12 am
Terra Nova was discovered about a thousand years ago at 49ºN 56ºW.
May 1st, 2009 at 10:34 am
So I hate to nitpick something this awesome, but doesn’t this represent the lowest POSSIBLE mass for this planet? After all it was detected by the wobble method and we don’t know the inclination of this solar system to us. The planet is, in all likelyhood, heavier than stated.
May 1st, 2009 at 10:55 am
I don’t think we have any idea on the odds for finding an Earthlike planet. It’s not just planetary mass that matters or Venus would be habitable. Is a large moon along with the impact event that formed it necessary to get the chemistry right? Venus doesn’t have plate tectonics like Earth despite the similar mass/size and we know that tectonics are essential to having continents and a carbon cycle like this planet. The universe is big, so habitable (for us) planets are out there but I think the planetary scientists are too surprised by the planets they are finding to suggest they have a theoretical grasp of how often we might find a planet like ours.
May 1st, 2009 at 11:04 am
Terra Nova? I prefer Asimov’s name: Aurora.
May 1st, 2009 at 11:26 am
I imagine that Gliese 581 e is tidally locked so it always has the same face toward its star. If so, and one were to stand on the night side of the planet, the stars in the night sky would be moving at quite a clip. After all, you’d orbit the star completely in pi days.
May 1st, 2009 at 11:28 am
@BJN
Exact odds, no. That’s really the point here with Kepler, to determine the odds. Compund that with the fact the planet has to be oriented correctly and the chance aren’t stellar, excuse the pun.
May 1st, 2009 at 11:40 am
Roll On Floor, Laughing My Azimuth!
Or is that Roll on Floor Laughing my Asimov?
May 1st, 2009 at 11:48 am
The lower limit of the mass indeed keeps creeping down, but does the distance from the star increase as well?
May 1st, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Kepler got the dust cover off safely, yay! Seems the calibration is working too. I assume all actuators are now tested good, and that’s a load of good news.
That is why Kepler and its successors are out there.
Kepler will as I understand it get a handle on sun types and ages, masses, orbits and habitable zone statistics. The outcome will AFAIU, perhaps with some independent measurements of planetary disc light scattering properties(?), decide the requirements on the successors who will study atmospheres and temperatures for signs of life. (Though I assume if we are lucky some of existing telescopes can start out with that.)
I know I have said it before, but I feel the urge to say it again: it would IMHO be really interesting to have some statistics on biospheres ages vs external conditions. This may be the best earliest handle on constraints for abiogenesis theories.
And considering that most questions may be too large to test in the lab by order of magnitudes, nature may give us the only tests we get. The field may go from abiogenesis to astrobiogenesis.
[You know it will happen: some day Bad Astronomy will spin off the daughter blog Bad Astrobiology to fight the new type of denialist that will poop out. It may well become worse than then biology stumbled onto the fact of evolution.]
Yes, that must be strictly correct. But OTOH the researchers who found it claim an upper mass bound required for orbital stabilities in the system of 3.1 earth-mass IIRC. The range in difference between minimum and maximum isn’t all that massive [oy] this time, and cutting it will result in a toss up if it is roughly twice the mass or not.
May 1st, 2009 at 5:27 pm
We’re getting there. Discovery of Earth mass and lower planets is only a matter of time now.
It’s by no means certain, but hopefully some of them will turn out to be in their parent stars’ habitable zones.
May 1st, 2009 at 9:04 pm
Thanks for finally posting on this news BA – been waiting a while for your take on it.
@ GK4 with names – I agree with the idea of exoplanets having proper pronouncable names rather than catalogue numbers.
I’m not quite sure how you derived yours from the SINBAD data.
I know some exoplanets already have their own informal names such as
1. “Hoth” for OGLE 05-390-Lb,
2. “Tatooine”for the one with three suns, HD 188753 b.
3. the “Genesis” or “Methuselah” planet for the one around the millisecond pulsar and white dwarf in globular cluster M4, PSR B1620-26 b.
4. “Bellopheron” for the first exoplanet discovered around a normal star – 51 Pegasi b.
5. “Polydeuces” for the exoplanet orbiting Pollux – still the extrasolar planet with the brightest star in our sky. (Just pipping Fomalhaut b.)
6. “Osiris” for the first transiting exoplanet found -and one studied in much detail and found to be evapourating under its stars heat – HD 209458
7. “the Balsawood planet” for TrES-4 the largest and least dense extrasolar planet yet found.
& so on …
I suggest we use a mixture of techniques to ensure that notable and significant exoplanets (the respective record-holders, historic and frequently discussed ones) get names your average persononthe street can easily say and remember – which is where catalogues names really fail.
(Any catalogue name with more than say three, four at most, numerals frankly gets hard. In general practice, the number usually gets dropped by the media as no-one is sure how to pronunce it anyway, eg. Gliese five hundred and eight one versus Five-eight-one versus Five-eigthy-one,etc ..)
I’d also propose naming some star systems. For instance, the first pulsar planets which were discovered around PSR B 1257+12 in 1991 suggest to me that the star could be better known as Anthelios – from the same derivation as Antares – Anti-Helios or “rival of the Sun” (then contracted to a single euphonious [good sounding] word.) The pulsar planets system would then become the “Antheliosan system” as compared with our Solar system or the Fomalhautese system etc …
Similarly, the first exoplanet that truly compares with Earth in mass and distance and possible habitabilty might be named “Antiterra” (Rival of Earth.)
I also think we can make use of alternative star and constellation names such as Polydeuces being an alternate name for Pollux for Pollux b. For example Alpha Centauri also has three other archaic and rarely used but still valid star names – Rigil Kentaurus, Toliman and Bungula. So I’d suggest the first four planets found around Alpha Cen (or even by extension Proxima Cen) could therefore become Rigil, Kentaurus, Toliman & Bungula.
Plus there are still many classical names that are in keeping with solar system nomenclature that can be adopted; for instance, Chronous, Poseidon, Aphrodite, Hades, Zeus, Demeter, Hermes etc .. are the Greek versions of our Roman planet names which are unused. Why notaply themimaginaitively to other exoplanet analogues? Eg. Epsilon Eridani b could become Zeus being a similar type of planet to Jupiter (albeit younger) and significantly is the nearest exoplanet known & confirmed to date.
(Or if these names are used then they are “wasted” on very small & obscure solar system bodies – I think we could even get away with using names twice if context enables us to be clear. Example : ‘Hydra’ is both Pluto’s moon & a constellation name.)
Then also there is the idea of honouring the discovering astronomers or teams or instruments as in the case of Barnard’s Star, Van Maannen’s Star, Plaskett’s star, Luyten’s Flare Star, etc .. This can be used sparingly but well for instance, Hubble’s World, Spitzer’s World (yeah I know but people will forget that governor a lot sooner than the telescope!), Mayor’s World, Fischer’s World ( be great if that was a waterworld!
), etc ..
Finally, we can make compunds for planet names that signify something worth remembering for the particular planet or star. For example, HR 8799 the one where 3 exoplanets were photographed at the same time Fomalhaut b was found. This star is the only known example of a star that is simultanously a Lambda Bootis (metal poor) star, a Gamma Doradus* variable and also boasts a Vega style circumstellar disk. Thus we could combine these points into the name, say Gadolabove (Gamma (Doradus (Lamda (Bootis (Vega.
Which names the star & system – then we could also use Marois’ World (the discover), Keck’s World (for the discovering telescope) & Antifomalhaut (‘rival of Fomalhaut’ for having the first photographed exoplanets!) for each of the planets!
So there are many possibilities that we can use if we apply some imagination and associations that carry meaning and hint at the significance, position or other factors related to the star and planet and also sound better and can be prounounced,remembered and used poetically and popularly far better than any catalogue name.
I honestly think performing such naming excercises as this would help communicate and benefit astronomy among thegeneral public and capture the imagination and add another dimension that is so far lacking.
People need names – not numbers. So, I beleive, do these remarkable new worlds we are discovering.
If asteroids and comets merit names that ordinary people can follow and rejoice in, then why not these exoplanets which are larger, more varied and fascinating in themselves?
—-
* Gamma Doradus variables are subtle variables similar to Delta Scuti “dwarf cepheids” only smaller and less massive. See Kaler’s stars website for more info.
May 1st, 2009 at 9:18 pm
One slight nit to pick BA – its NOT the lowest mass planet – the smallest ever found still is the smallest of the Pulsar planets of PSR B 1257 +12 which is smaller even than Pluto!
PSR B 1257+12 (or “Anthelios”
) e has only 1/5th the mass of Pluto – but is still termed a(n) (extrasolar) planet! 
May 1st, 2009 at 9:22 pm
Oh for the ability to edit here … *Sigh*
—-
meant to be italics not bold :
Fischer’s World (be great if that was a waterworld!
), etc ..
&
Not sure why the brackets eneded up everywhere …
Thus we could combine these points into the name, say “Gadolabove”
from Ga-mma Do-radus / La-mda Bo-otis / Ve-ga.
May 2nd, 2009 at 1:09 am
@ Joe Meils : (May 1st, 2009 at 8:27 am)
“New and improved planetary discovery! Now with less mass! Less mass!Tastes great!Less mass! Tastes great!”
Sorry Joe, didn’t quite catch it there. Was that ‘less’ mass or ‘more’?
“Tastes great?”
Hmmm .. I dunno. Its a loo-oong waty for a meal.
Plus at the searing tmeperature that hot Super-Earth (SuperVenus more like?) planet’s at its sure to burn your tongue, mouth and everything else!
Nup, think I’ll pass.
Dine on tasty Jupiter instead. Mmmm .. Ice cold hydrogen and ammonia!
May 2nd, 2009 at 1:15 am
waty = way
tmeperature = temperature
No editing so we can’t take out typos (that I swear I didn’t write & weren’t there until *after* I clicked submit) =
AAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The BA : (pedant mode on)
I know this is a bit old, but it’s still cool …
& in the next sentence
It’s very close to its star and too hot for life as we know it,
Cool? No way, man its red hot molten glowing lava!
(Pedant mode off)
May 2nd, 2009 at 1:20 am
its red hot molten glowing lava!
Well now we know where lava world Mustafar from ‘Revenge of the Sith’ is located! Its Gliese 581 e. Not in another galaxy and surprisingly close to home really!
Can I propose that Gliese 5981e = Mustafar officially here folks?
May 2nd, 2009 at 7:46 am
OOoh! I can nitpick and be annoying!
I think you mean smallest mass *extrasolar* planet.
And has already been pointed out, there are the classic Pulsar Planets (the first extrasolar planets discovered– around a star very much unlike our own).
May 2nd, 2009 at 2:11 pm
“!astralProjectile Says:
May 1st, 2009 at 9:26 am
(Trying to find a way to shoehorn OTP post into this thread)
We may need to leave this planet soon. That laywer* who is trying to shut down the LHC says there is a 50% chance of the earth being assimilated.”
—————————–
So you’re telling me there’s a 50/50 chance of the human race becoming Borg?
NOOOO!
May 4th, 2009 at 8:57 am
@ StevoRaine
I appreciate your comments. There are some good ideas there.
You asked how I get the names from SIMBAD data. Let’s take Gliese 581 as an example.
There are a couple dozen catalog numbers for that one star. I looked at all of them to cast the widest net for names, especially since there are so many planets there. The star itself does not have a proper name, either, so one of those names can go to the star and the extras can be used for planets. Since all of these catalog numbers refer to the same “place”, I think that any of the derived names can be applied to any stars or planets that are part of that “place”.
Take the Luyten Two-Tenths catalogue number of LTT 6112, which is another designation for Gliese 581.
In my proposal, each catalog is given a prefix (that follows its own set of rules). I use the prefix “Lu” for “Luyten tU-tenths”.
The numbers which follow are turned into letters. My conversion table changes zero to a or b or c, 1 to d or e or f, etcetera. From the letters produced, I choose the best-sounding, most pronounceable combination.
In this example, 6 yields q/r, 1 yields d/e/f, and 2 yields g/h/i. With those options, I liked the combination “Luqedi”, but other choices are possible, such as “Lureeg”. The discoverers would be able to choose their own preference. Some numbers yield impossible letter combinations, such as the number sequence 6763, which means that that catalog number would not be used for names. Hopefully there are other catalog numbers we can use, and as more attention is paid to a star system, we’ll have more catalog numbers for it, and more choices over time.
The names in my process are reversible. You can’t insert extra letter to make things sound nice, because that would confuse matters. I think that one should be able to de-convert from the invented name to the original catalog number.
Every prefix ends with one consonant and one vowel, so you can figure out where to start converting letters back into numbers. Take “Epidox-ni”. The first consonant-vowel combination is “pi”, so “Epi” is the prefix. Your conversion chart tells you that “Epi” is the prefix for the 8 parsec listing, and “dox” yields 159, the dash represents a dash or a period (the latter in the case of this catalog), and “ni” gives 52. So if you only knew the name “Epidox-ni”, you could reverse the process to get 8pc 159.52, and from that get more information about the star under that number.
Of course, the IAU would have to check the proposed name to make sure it doesn’t mean something unpleasant in any language, or isn’t already used for a drug or somesuch. (Apparently, that’s a problem with “Vydox”.)
There are some variations on the method. Bonner Durchmusterung numbers use different prefixes for the different hemispheres (+ or -). Variable stars follow a different conversion method to make the letter code back into a number and then back into my letter codes. Also, I’m having trouble developing a method for CoRoT and TrES numbers. I might need to insert zeroes in front of the lower numbers to get more flexibility in the letters, and some of the other catalog numbers for those stars are way too long.
You ask about naming the star system. That would simply be the adjective form of the name of the star. Since Gliese 581 is most often identified with that particular catalog number (as opposed to any of the others), I would recommend “Glinue” or maybe “Gliove” as the name for the star itself. The nice thing about Gliese numbers is that they are compatible with Jahreiß numbers (as I understand it), so there is some added flexibility for names. This star could alternatively be called “Janve”. Adjectives could be “Glinuean” or “Janvean”, for example.
I agree about using uncommon proper names for planets. But I think that companion stars should get first dibs. “Sirius” could be Alpha Centauri A, “Toliman” could be Alpha Centauri B, and “Proxima” for the third star, which is closest to us (now). I also agree about the significant exoplanetary firsts being given names such as “Osiris” and “Bellopheron”.
I disagree about naming planets after people. A habitable planet won’t be Mr. Spitzer’s; it will belong to the people who colonize it. And I think culturally-specific names should be avoided in favor of completely invented words. Neologisms have no historical or personal baggage.
As for the “anti” names, would people understand that? And naming things after SF worlds would get really silly, really fast. Never mind the copyright issues.
Finally, you suggest an idea for HR 8799, but I would be careful about naming things for their “unique” qualities. What if we find another thing just like it? Instead, here are a few other suggestions for that system (I especially like the Harvard and Yale names):
V342 Pegasi –> Vapegkli (?)
BD+20 5278 –> Boganisu
HD 218396 –> Dagevkyr
HIP 114189 –> Padeleux
HR 8799 –> Hausyx
SAO 91022 –> Sazechi
TYC 1718-2350-1 –> Tyesev-iknad
YZ 20 8860 –> Yagavura
Thanks for your interest. Where else should I take this proposal? Do I just write the IAU?
May 4th, 2009 at 9:44 am
@ GK4 :
Thanks for your reply & explanation.
“Where else should I take this proposal? Do I just write the IAU?”
I honestly have no idea, but if you ever find out can you please let *me* know too?
May 4th, 2009 at 9:53 am
@ Jar-Jya Binks Killer :
I do kinda like ‘Mustafar’ for Gliese 581 e too!
… Although there are quite a few other star-brushing searing low mass hot exoplanets that would also make candidates for that name too.
What really puzzles me is why so many exoplanets that must surely be closer to an even worse Venus or superheated Neptune in nature get rather misleadingly labelled “SuperEarth’s.” The term ‘SuperVenus’ would seem far more apt.
As Venus amply demonstrates just because a planet may be the same as Earth mass-wise does NOT make an inhabitable, living Earth-like world in the important ways!