We just looked at how gravitational microlensing can be used to analyze the mass of a star, giving us a method beyond the mass-luminosity relationship to make the call. And we're going to be hearing a lot more about microlensing, especially in exoplanet research, as we move into the era of the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope (formerly WFIRST), which is scheduled to launch in 2027. A major goal for the instrument is the expected discovery of exoplanets by the thousands using microlensing. That's quite a jump - I believe the current number is less than 100. For while radial velocity and transit methods have served us well in establishing a catalog of exoplanets that now tops 5000, gravitational microlensing has advantages over both. When a stellar system occludes a background star, the lensing of the latter's light can tell us much about the planets that orbit the foreground object. Whereas radial velocity and transits work best when a planet is in an orbit close to its star,...

It’s not easy teasing out information about a tiny red dwarf star, even when it’s the closest star to the Sun. Robert Thorburn Ayton Innes (1861-1933), a Scottish astronomer, found Proxima using a blink comparator in 1915, noting a proper motion similar to Alpha Centauri (4.87” per year), with Proxima about two degrees away from the binary. Finding out whether the new star was actually closer than Centauri A and B involved a competition with a man with a similarly august name, Joan George Erardus Gijsbertus Voûte, a Dutch astronomer working in South Africa. Voûte’s parallax figures were more accurate, but Innes didn’t wait for debate, and proclaimed the star’s proximity, naming it Proxima Centaurus. The back and forth over parallax and the subsequent careers of both Innes and Voûte make for interesting reading. I wrote both astronomers up back in 2013 in Finding Proxima Centauri, but I’ll send you to my source for that article, Ian Glass (South African Astronomical Observatory), who...

Are there limits on how big a moon can be to orbit a given planet? All we have to work with, in the absence of confirmed exomoons, are the satellites of our Solar System’s planets, and here we see what appears to be a correlation between a planet’s mass and the mass of its moons. At least up to a point – we’ll get to that point in a moment. But consider: As Vera Dobos (University of Groningen, Netherlands) and colleagues point out in a recent paper for Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, if we’re talking about moons forming in the circumplanetary disk around the young Sun, the total mass is on the order of 10-4Mp. Here Mp is the mass of the planet. A planet with 10 times Jupiter’s mass, given this figure, could have a moon as large as a third of Earth’s mass, and so far observational evidence supports the idea that moons can form regularly in such disks. There is no reason to believe we won’t find exomoons by the billions throughout the galaxy. Image: The University of...

A liquid water-defined habitable zone is a way of establishing parameters for life as we know it around other stars, and with this in mind, scientists study the amount of stellar radiation a planet receives as one factor in making the assessment. But of course, not everything in a habitable zone is necessarily habitable, as our decidedly uninhabitable Moon makes all too clear. Atmospheric factors and tectonic activity, for example, have to be weighed as we try to learn what the actual temperature at the surface would be. We're learning as we go about other contributing factors. A problem of lesser visibility in the literature, though perhaps just as crucial, is whether a given planet can stay habitable on timescales of billions of years. This is where an interesting new paper from Cayman Unterborn (Southwest Research Institute) and colleagues enters the mix. A key question in the view of these researchers is whether carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gas whose ebb and flow on our world...

What to make of a Jupiter-class planet that orbits its host star at a distance of 13.8 billion kilometers? This is well over twice the distance of Pluto from the Sun, out past the boundaries of what in our system is known as the Kuiper Belt. Moreover, this is a young world still in the process of formation. At nine Jupiter masses, it's hard to explain through conventional modeling, which sees gas giants growing through core accretion, steadily adding mass through progressive accumulation of circumstellar materials. Core accretion makes sense and seems to explain typical planet formation, with the primordial cloud around an infant star dense in dust grains that can accumulate into larger and larger objects, eventually growing into planetesimals and emerging as worlds. But the new planet - AB Aurigae b - shouldn't be there if core accretion were the only way to produce a planet. At these distances from the star, core accretion would take far longer than the age of the system to produce...