Twitter Facebook Flickr YouTube
LATEST AUDIO > May 2013 Extra | LATEST VIDEO > LOFAR
 

July 2011: Transmission

July 2011

In this show we talk to Dr Giovanna Tinetti about exoplanet atmospheres. Megan rounds up the latest news and we hear what we can see in the July night sky from Ian Morison.

The News

In the news this month:

Interview with Dr Giovanna Tinetti

Dr Giovanna Tinetti (University College London) researches exoplanets - planets orbiting around other stars. At the time of release there are 564 known exoplanets and Dr Tinetti begins this interview by explaining the different methods used to detect these planets. Instead of just trying to find these planets, Dr Tinetti's research is focused on characterising exoplanet atmospheres by observing them as they pass in front of, and behind, their parent star. She explains how studying the atmospheres can give us information about how the planets formed and even if there is life on them. We also talk about work done by Dr Tinetti's former PhD student, Dr David Kipping, looking at the possibility of detecting exomoons, especially using data from the Kepler mission. Finally Dr Tinetti tells us about a proposed future mission, EChO, which would be dedicated to studying exoplanet atmospheres. EChO is one of four missions currently under review by ESA and, if selected, would be launched between 2020 and 2022.

The Night Sky

Northern Hemisphere

Ian Morison tells us what we can see in the northern hemisphere night sky during July 2011.

The nights are getting slightly longer. One effect of this is that the night we see soon after sunset stays sort of the same throughout the late summer and autumn because as the stars move round a bit earlier by about 4 minutes per day, the sunset also gets a bit earlier so the same sort of things are visible. The brightest star in the July night sky is Arcturus in Bootes, which is the second brightest star in the northern night sky after Sirius. Up to the left of Arcturus is a little circlet of stars called Corona Borealis and over to its left, towards the bright star Vega in Lyra, is the constellation of Hercules. There are four stars at the heart of Hercules which form an asterism known as the keystone because of its shape. With binoculars or a small telescope, up the right hand side is a fuzzy object called M13, which is the best globular cluster we can see in the northern night sky. Often overlooked, just above the keystone, is a second globular cluster called M92, which can be found by scanning to the west from Vega. Below Hercules is a large constellation called Ophiuchus. Over to the east, fairly high up at 11pm in the middle of month, is Cygnus the swan with Deneb its brightest star, Lyra with Vega and Aquila with Altair - those three bright stars make up the summer triangle. Down to the left of Cygnus, across from Altair, is a nice trapezium of stars with a couple more making a tail, this is Delphinus the dolphin. All through the month, the Moon is at very low declination so doesn't rise very high above the horizon, resulting in the illusion that the Moon looks larger.

The Planets

Highlights

Southern Hemisphere

Unfortunately, the Carter Observatory have been unable to supply us with a southern night sky segment this month. We apologise for this and suggest you check out the night sky podcast from the Sydney observatory instead. Hopefully we will be back to normal in August.

Odds and Ends

The last ever space shuttle launch is scheduled for July 8. Space shuttle Atlantis will be launched on a 12 day mission (STS-135) to the International Space Station.

Show Credits

News:Megan Argo
Interview:Dr Giovanna Tinetti, Jen Gupta and Mark Purver
Night sky:Ian Morison
Presenters:David Ault and Jen Gupta
Editors:Jen Gupta, Megan Argo and Melanie Gendre
Intro/outro:Dr Chris Lintott
Segment Voice:Liz Guzman
Website:Jen Gupta and Stuart Lowe
Producer:Jen Gupta
Cover art:Image of the asteroid 2011MD on its near approach to Earth. CREDIT:: Nick Howes/Faulkes Telescope South/LCOGT

Comments

  • Comment by Jen Gupta on Jul 01 2011:

    Comments, corrections and clarifications for the July 2011 show go in here :-)

    The Jodcast have a couple of apologies to make for this show. Firstly, the Carter observatory have been unable to provide us with a southern night sky segment for this month so sorry about that. Secondly, we're having a few issues with recording equipment so sorry if the audio quality isn't as good as normal. I figured that most people would rather have a slightly worse sounding podcast than not have a show at all!

  • Comment by inksmithy on Jul 02 2011:

    Just listened to it, sounds just fine and dandy.

  • Comment by Starbug on Jul 05 2011:

    Great show everyone - and I have to say I laughed out loud at the outro. :)

  • Comment by Megan Argo on Jul 05 2011:

    And apologies for it going out late... that was my fault.

  • Comment by Jen Gupta on Jul 05 2011:

    Megan it still went out on the 1st! That's, like, at least a day earlier than normal ;-)

  • Comment by RapidEye on Jul 06 2011:

    Yeah, but down under, that is like last week... =-)

    Good show guys - I really enjoyed the interview.

    Who is the next "retired" Jodcaster to return????

  • Comment by worcspaul on Jul 14 2011:

    Listened to it on way from/to work. Another great 'cast. Always interesting to hear what's happening in the world of astrophysics etc.

  • Comment by Megan Argo on Jul 14 2011:

    They don't retire, they just go on sabbatical. They never really leave....

  • Comment by MarkC on Jul 18 2011:

    Fascinating interview with Dr Tinetti. Makes you think.

    - When you consider the wobble technique, presumably it only really works for planets with a relatively large mass otherwise they'd be able to detect the Earth sized planets? If I think of our Sun, then due to the planets of varying mass and orbital velocity going round it then the wobble wouldn't be symmetric and would have a period longer than most human lives. It raises the question; from the characteristics of the wobble can you tell how many planets there are and their relative sizes? For example: If you have four planets spaced equally around a star with almost the same mass and orbital velocity, would the star wobble - probably not (is that likely though)? Could you distinguish if you had one Jupiter sized planet orbiting the star, or three planets, a third of the mass, orbiting in conjunction with one another?
    - When looking at a spectrum of an exoplanet with water vapour in its atmosphere, do you get 3 absorption lines - 1 for the water molecules, 1 for Hydrogen and 1 for Oxgen?
    - When looking from earth, how do you cancel out our atmosphere from the absorption lines? Can you take a reference / calibration and then deduct it from the results?
    - If you can't get a direct detection of the exoplanet how can you be sure the spectrum is from the one big planet? For example it could be from a snapshot of lots of small planets closely grouped together? If they were orbiting really slowly then it might look like one planet.
    Phew, that was good to get off my brain, it was running out of space!

  • Comment by Mark Purver on Jul 18 2011:

    Hi MarkC,

    I can give an answer to the first of those very good questions, though not the rest!

    - I think the precision of the wobble technique is now about 1 m/s. In other words, a planet could be detected if it made the star move with a velocity of 1 metre per second. The velocity depends on the masses of the planet and star and the distance between them. Earth only makes the Sun wobble at 9 cm/s, so that's ten times too small. An Earth-sized planet could be detected if it was much closer to the star - about 100 times closer in the case of the Earth and Sun, which would put the Earth only one Solar radius from the Sun's surface! I assume that's not a common place to find a little planet like the Earth, although I don't know if it's actually possible.

    Also, we only see the part of the wobble that's going towards and away from us. So if a planet's orbit around a star is edge-on to us, we see a bigger wobble than if it's face-on. The 9 cm/s figure for a planet exactly like the Earth is the maximum that would be observed and assumes that it is seen edge-on. The converse of this is that, when you measure a planet's mass and distance from the star by the Doppler method, it's a minimum mass and a minimum distance unless you can work out the inclination of the system in some way (which I believe you sometimes can by other methods).

    A star with one planet does a little orbit of it's own to mirror the planet's orbit. A star with more than one planet does a superposition of all the little orbits caused by the planets, and it ends up moving in a pattern that looks a bit like a spirograph drawing. The Doppler wobble can then be decomposed into its component wobbles, revealing planet masses and distances, in the same way that a wave can be split into its component frequencies. So systems with multiple planets can be found, and some have been. Here's one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/47_Ursae_Majoris

  • Comment by Mark Purver on Jul 18 2011:

    Very long-period planets would produce a slow wobble that would take a long time to detect - I'm not sure what the limit of detectability is with that. The wobble looks like a wave, and you have to be able to at least see the wave start to turn over to know it's a wave - if it's very slow it could look like a straight line and you wouldn't realise it was due to the influence of a planet. But, because you can decompose the wobble, a long-period planet shouldn't mess up the detection of a short-period one; you just might not know the long-period one was there.

    I don't think you can usually have several planets in the same orbital track (which is what's implied if they have the same orbital velocity) unless all-but-one of them is very small or they are all very far away from the star. The reason is that they would perturb each other with their mutual gravity and it would result in them moving to different orbital distances (and therefore different orbital velocities). A special exception might be if the planets were 60 degrees apart in their orbit, where there is a possible balancing point. One such system may have been found by the transit method, but the team that discovered it have since said that it probably isn't in that configuration after all: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20160-two-planets-found-sharing-one-orbit.html

  • Comment by Mark Purver on Jul 18 2011:

    I'm not sure if the wobble produced by such a system would be distinguishable from a single planet. Another special case would be two planets sharing an orbit but on exactly opposite sides of the star at all times. They would have to have exactly the same mass to remain in stable orbits, which I guess isn't likely. If they were slightly different in mass, or not quite on opposite sides of the star, they would soon force each other into different orbits. If there were four of them in a cross shape, I think they would definitely perturb each other into different orbits very quickly if they were of any appreciable mass.

    People talk about the timescale on which something is stable, so an unusual configuration could last for a while and might be detected if we were lucky. Two identical planets on exactly opposite sides of a star, though, would produce no overall wobble in the star at all and would not be found! Similarly, a belt of small objects around a star (like the asteroid belt) would produce almost no overall wobble, because of the symmetry of the situation.

    I enjoyed thinking about that one and hope I haven't got anything wrong!

  • Comment by MarkC on Jul 19 2011:

    Wow Mark, thanks for your very detailed answer!

    Whenever I think of the wobble I imagine a slightly rotund person near the fulcrum point of a see-saw and a lighter person far from the centre to balance it out. I then spin them and look from the plan / brids-eye view to imagine the wobble (although it works edge on too, the lighter person getting in the way of the rotund one as it rotates upsets the image somehow). Trying to think of lots of arms to the see-saw and different weights of people travelling at different velocities is too difficult. Needed some sort of animation instead.

    Perhaps if I'd thought of it edge on, and the doppler shift it might of made more sense to me but didn't consider it like that until I read your reply. Astronomy isn't the field I work in but when you consider a complex doppler waveform / wobble, I can relate that to a complex wave which when Fourier transformed I could pick out the individual frequencies of it. Each frequency a planet. That is, a planet big enough to contribute to the wobble down to the detectable limits. That makes more sense.

    Even still it's amazing to think you can resolve down to a metre when you consider just how far the star's are away from us. It's also amazing just how much info astronomers can obtain when all they really have to work with is light.

  • Comment by Mark Purver on Jul 20 2011:

    Fourier transform is actually exactly the phrase I was going to use! When you plot frequency shift versus time, the Doppler wobbles appear as waves (sine waves for a perfectly circular orbit, a different shape for elliptical orbits).

  • Comment by Jodatheoak on Aug 13 2011:

    playing catch-up
    Dave great to hear that voice and humor, have you done any other voice-over or stories we could listen to?
    Jen have you recovered from the last jodcast live?
    real enjoying the new voices :-P

  • Comment by Stuart Lowe on Aug 14 2011:

    Dave regularly appears in audio drama on the web. One of the roles he plays is The Doctor for Darker Projects http://www.darkerprojects.com/doctorwho.php

Leave a comment on this episode in the forum

Download Options

Subscribe (It's free)