Paper detail

On the Completeness of Reflex Astrometry on Extrasolar Planets near the Sensitivity Limit

We provide a preliminary estimate of the performance of reflex astrometry on Earth-like planets in the habitable zones of nearby stars. In Monte Carlo experiments, we analyze large samples of astrometric data sets with low to moderate signal-to-noise ratios. We treat the idealized case of a single planet orbiting a single star, and assume there are no non-Keplerian complications or uncertainties. The real case can only be more difficult. We use periodograms for discovery and least-squares fits for estimating the Keplerian parameters. We find a completeness for detection compatible with estimates in the literature. We find mass estimation by least squares to be biased, as has been found for noisy radial-velocity data sets; this bias degrades the completeness of accurate mass estimation. When we compare the true planetary position with the position predicted from the fitted orbital parameters, at future times, we find low completeness for an accuracy goal of 0.3 times the semimajor axis of the planet, even with no delay following the end of astrometric observations. Our findings suggest that the recommendation of the ExoPlanet Task Force (Lunine et al. 2008) for "the capability to measure convincingly wobble semi-amplitudes down to 0.2 $μ$as integrated over the mission lifetime," may not be satisfied by an instrument characterized by the noise floor of the Space Interferometry Mission, $σ_\mathrm{floor}\approx0.035μ$as. An important, unsolved, strategic challenge for the exoplanetary science program is figuring out how to predict the future position of an Earth-like planet with accuracy sufficient to ensure the efficiency and success of the science operations for follow-on spectroscopy, which would search for biologically significant molecules in the atmosphere.

preprint2009arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access1 author1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.