• The study of extrasolar planets and of the Solar System provides complementary pieces of the mosaic represented by the process of planetary formation. Exoplanets are essential to fully grasp the huge diversity of outcomes that planetary formation and the subsequent evolution of the planetary systems can produce. The orbital and basic physical data we currently possess for the bulk of the exoplanetary population, however, do not provide enough information to break the intrinsic degeneracy of their histories, as different evolutionary tracks can result in the same final configurations. The lessons learned from the Solar System indicate us that the solution to this problem lies in the information contained in the composition of planets. The goal of the Atmospheric Remote-Sensing Infrared Exoplanet Large-survey (ARIEL), one of the three candidates as ESA M4 space mission, is to observe a large and diversified population of transiting planets around a range of host star types to collect information on their atmospheric composition. ARIEL will focus on warm and hot planets to take advantage of their well-mixed atmospheres, which should show minimal condensation and sequestration of high-Z materials and thus reveal their bulk composition across all main cosmochemical elements. In this work we will review the most outstanding open questions concerning the way planets form and the mechanisms that contribute to create habitable environments that the compositional information gathered by ARIEL will allow to tackle
  • Recent formation and structure models of Jupiter suggest that the planet can have composition gradients and not be fully convective (adiabatic). This possibility directly affects our understanding of Jupiter's bulk composition and origin. In this Letter we present Jupiter's evolution with a primordial structure consisting of a relatively steep heavy-element gradient of 40 Earth masses. We show that for a primordial structure with composition gradients, most of the mixing occurs in the outer part of the gradient during the early evolution (several 10^7 years), leading to an adiabatic outer envelope (60% of Jupiter's mass). We find that the composition gradient in the deep interior persists, suggesting that about 40% of Jupiter's mass can be non-adiabatic with a higher temperature than the one derived from Jupiter's atmospheric properties. The region that can potentially develop layered-convection in Jupiter today is estimated to be limited to about 10% of the mass.
  • Planets in the mass range from 2 to 15 MEarth are very diverse. Some of them have low densities, while others are very dense. By measuring the masses and radii, the mean densities, structure, and composition of the planets are constrained. These parameters also give us important information about their formation and evolution, and about possible processes for atmospheric loss.We determined the masses, radii, and mean densities for the two transiting planets orbiting K2-106. The inner planet has an ultra-short period of 0.57 days. The period of the outer planet is 13.3 days.Although the two planets have similar masses, their densities are very different. For K2-106b we derive Mb=8.36-0.94+0.96 MEarh, Rb=1.52+/-0.16 REarth, and a high density of 13.1-3.6+5.4 gcm-3. For K2-106c, we find Mc=5.8-3.0+3.3 MEarth, Rc=2.50-0.26+0.27 REarth and a relatively low density of 2.0-1.1+1.6 gcm-3.Since the system contains two planets of almost the same mass, but different distances from the host star, it is an excellent laboratory to study atmospheric escape. In agreement with the theory of atmospheric-loss processes, it is likely that the outer planet has a hydrogen-dominated atmosphere. The mass and radius of the inner planet is in agreement with theoretical models predicting an iron core containing 80+20-30% of its mass. Such a high metal content is surprising, particularly given that the star has an ordinary (solar) metal abundance. We discuss various possible formation scenarios for this unusual planet.
  • The Juno spacecraft has measured Jupiter's low-order, even gravitational moments, $J_2$--$J_8$, to an unprecedented precision, providing important constraints on the density profile and core mass of the planet. Here we report on a selection of interior models based on ab initio computer simulations of hydrogen-helium mixtures. We demonstrate that a dilute core, expanded to a significant fraction of the planet's radius, is helpful in reconciling the calculated $J_n$ with Juno's observations. Although model predictions are strongly affected by the chosen equation of state, the prediction of an enrichment of $Z$ in the deep, metallic envelope over that in the shallow, molecular envelope holds. We estimate Jupiter's core to contain an 7--25 Earth mass of heavy elements. We discuss the current difficulties in reconciling measured $J_n$ with the equations of state, and with theory for formation and evolution of the planet.
  • We aim to present a generalized Bayesian inference method for constraining interiors of super Earths and sub-Neptunes. Our methodology succeeds in quantifying the degeneracy and correlation of structural parameters for high dimensional parameter spaces. Specifically, we identify what constraints can be placed on composition and thickness of core, mantle, ice, ocean, and atmospheric layers given observations of mass, radius, and bulk refractory abundance constraints (Fe, Mg, Si) from observations of the host star's photospheric composition. We employed a full probabilistic Bayesian inference analysis that formally accounts for observational and model uncertainties. Using a Markov chain Monte Carlo technique, we computed joint and marginal posterior probability distributions for all structural parameters of interest. We included state-of-the-art structural models based on self-consistent thermodynamics of core, mantle, high-pressure ice, and liquid water. Furthermore, we tested and compared two different atmospheric models that are tailored for modeling thick and thin atmospheres, respectively. First, we validate our method against Neptune. Second, we apply it to synthetic exoplanets of fixed mass and determine the effect on interior structure and composition when (1) radius, (2) atmospheric model, (3) data uncertainties, (4) semi-major axes, (5) atmospheric composition (i.e., a priori assumption of enriched envelopes versus pure H/He envelopes), and (6) prior distributions are varied. Our main conclusions are: [...]
  • The internal structure of gas giant planets may be more complex than the commonly assumed core-envelope structure with an adiabatic temperature profile. Different primordial internal structures as well as various physical processes can lead to non-homogenous compositional distributions. A non-homogenous internal structure has a significant impact on the thermal evolution and final structure of the planets. In this paper, we present alternative structure and evolution models for Jupiter and Saturn allowing for non-adiabatic primordial structures and the mixing of heavy elements by convection as these planets evolve. We present the evolution of the planets accounting for various initial composition gradients, and in the case of Saturn, include the formation of a helium-rich region as a result of helium rain. We investigate the stability of regions with composition gradients against convection, and find that the helium shell in Saturn remains stable and does not mix with the rest of the envelope. In other cases, convection mixes the planetary interior despite the existence of compositional gradients, leading to the enrichment of the envelope with heavy elements. We show that non-adiabatic structures (and cooling histories) for both Jupiter and Saturn are feasible. The interior temperatures in that case are much higher that for standard adiabatic models. We conclude that the internal structure is directly linked to the formation and evolution history of the planet. These alternative internal structures of Jupiter and Saturn should be considered when interpreting the upcoming Juno and Cassini data.
  • Remote sensing observations meet some limitations when used to study the bulk atmospheric composition of the giant planets of our solar system. A remarkable example of the superiority of in situ probe measurements is illustrated by the exploration of Jupiter, where key measurements such as the determination of the noble gases abundances and the precise measurement of the helium mixing ratio have only been made available through in situ measurements by the Galileo probe. This paper describes the main scientific goals to be addressed by the future in situ exploration of Saturn placing the Galileo probe exploration of Jupiter in a broader context and before the future probe exploration of the more remote ice giants. In situ exploration of Saturn's atmosphere addresses two broad themes that are discussed throughout this paper: first, the formation history of our solar system and second, the processes at play in planetary atmospheres. In this context, we detail the reasons why measurements of Saturn's bulk elemental and isotopic composition would place important constraints on the volatile reservoirs in the protosolar nebula. We also show that the in situ measurement of CO (or any other disequilibrium species that is depleted by reaction with water) in Saturn's upper troposphere would constrain its bulk O/H ratio. We highlight the key measurements required to distinguish competing theories to shed light on giant planet formation as a common process in planetary systems with potential applications to most extrasolar systems. In situ measurements of Saturn's stratospheric and tropospheric dynamics, chemistry and cloud-forming processes will provide access to phenomena unreachable to remote sensing studies. Different mission architectures are envisaged, which would benefit from strong international collaborations.
  • The PLATO 2.0 Mission (1310.0696)

    H. Rauer, C. Catala, C. Aerts, T. Appourchaux, W. Benz, A. Brandeker, J. Christensen-Dalsgaard, M. Deleuil, L. Gizon, M.-J. Goupil, M. Güdel, E. Janot-Pacheco, M. Mas-Hesse, I. Pagano, G. Piotto, D. Pollacco, N. C. Santos, A. Smith, J.-C., Suárez, R. Szabó, S. Udry, V. Adibekyan, Y. Alibert, J.-M. Almenara, P. Amaro-Seoane, M. Ammler-von Eiff, M. Asplund, E. Antonello, W. Ball, S. Barnes, F. Baudin, K. Belkacem, M. Bergemann, G. Bihain, A. C. Birch, X. Bonfils, I. Boisse, A. S. Bonomo, F. Borsa, I. M. Brandão, E. Brocato, S. Brun, M. Burleigh, R. Burston, J. Cabrera, S. Cassisi, W. Chaplin, S. Charpinet, C. Chiappini, R. P. Church, Sz. Csizmadia, M. Cunha, M. Damasso, M. B. Davies, H. J. Deeg, R. F. DÍaz, S. Dreizler, C. Dreyer, P. Eggenberger, D. Ehrenreich, P. Eigmüller, A. Erikson, R. Farmer, S. Feltzing, F. de Oliveira Fialho, P. Figueira, T. Forveille, M. Fridlund, R. A. García, P. Giommi, G. Giuffrida, M. Godolt, J. Gomes da Silva, T. Granzer, J. L. Grenfell, A. Grotsch-Noels, E. Günther, C. A. Haswell, A. P. Hatzes, G. Hébrard, S. Hekker, R. Helled, K. Heng, J. M. Jenkins, A. Johansen, M. L. Khodachenko, K. G. Kislyakova, W. Kley, U. Kolb, N. Krivova, F. Kupka, H. Lammer, A. F. Lanza, Y. Lebreton, D. Magrin, P. Marcos-Arenal, P. M. Marrese, J. P. Marques, J. Martins, S. Mathis, S. Mathur, S. Messina, A. Miglio, J. Montalban, M. Montalto, M. J. P. F. G. Monteiro, H. Moradi, E. Moravveji, C. Mordasini, T. Morel, A. Mortier, V. Nascimbeni, R. P. Nelson, M. B. Nielsen, L. Noack, A. J. Norton, A. Ofir, M. Oshagh, R.-M. Ouazzani, P. Pápics, V. C. Parro, P. Petit, B. Plez, E. Poretti, A. Quirrenbach, R. Ragazzoni, G. Raimondo, M. Rainer, D. R. Reese, R. Redmer, S. Reffert, B. Rojas-Ayala, I. W. Roxburgh, S. Salmon, A. Santerne, J. Schneider, J. Schou, S. Schuh, H. Schunker, A. Silva-Valio, R. Silvotti, I. Skillen, I. Snellen, F. Sohl, S. G. Sousa, A. Sozzetti, D. Stello, K. G. Strassmeier, M. Švanda, Gy. M. Szabó, A. Tkachenko, D. Valencia, V. van Grootel, S. D. Vauclair, P. Ventura, F. W. Wagner, N. A. Walton, J. Weingrill, S. C. Werner, P. J. Wheatley, K. Zwintz
    March 4, 2014 astro-ph.EP
    PLATO 2.0 has recently been selected for ESA's M3 launch opportunity (2022/24). Providing accurate key planet parameters (radius, mass, density and age) in statistical numbers, it addresses fundamental questions such as: How do planetary systems form and evolve? Are there other systems with planets like ours, including potentially habitable planets? The PLATO 2.0 instrument consists of 34 small aperture telescopes (32 with 25 sec readout cadence and 2 with 2.5 sec candence) providing a wide field-of-view (2232 deg2) and a large photometric magnitude range (4-16 mag). It focusses on bright (4-11 mag) stars in wide fields to detect and characterize planets down to Earth-size by photometric transits, whose masses can then be determined by ground-based radial-velocity follow-up measurements. Asteroseismology will be performed for these bright stars to obtain highly accurate stellar parameters, including masses and ages. The combination of bright targets and asteroseismology results in high accuracy for the bulk planet parameters: 2%, 4-10% and 10% for planet radii, masses and ages, respectively. The planned baseline observing strategy includes two long pointings (2-3 years) to detect and bulk characterize planets reaching into the habitable zone (HZ) of solar-like stars and an additional step-and-stare phase to cover in total about 50% of the sky. PLATO 2.0 will observe up to 1,000,000 stars and detect and characterize hundreds of small planets, and thousands of planets in the Neptune to gas giant regime out to the HZ. It will therefore provide the first large-scale catalogue of bulk characterized planets with accurate radii, masses, mean densities and ages. This catalogue will include terrestrial planets at intermediate orbital distances, where surface temperatures are moderate. Coverage of this parameter range with statistical numbers of bulk characterized planets is unique to PLATO 2.0.
  • We model the evolution of planets with various masses and compositions. We investigate the effects of the composition and its depth dependence on the long-term evolution of the planets. The effects of opacity and stellar irradiation are also considered. It is shown that the change in radius due to various compositions can be significantly smaller than the change in radius caused by the opacity. Irradiation also affects the planetary contraction but is found to be less important than the opacity effects. We suggest that the mass-radius relationship used for characterization of observed extrasolar planets should be taken with great caution since different physical conditions can result in very different mass-radius relationships.
  • Since the Voyager fly-bys of Uranus and Neptune, improved gravity field data have been derived from long-term observations of the planets' satellite motions, and modified shape and solid-body rotation periods were suggested. A faster rotation period (-40 min) for Uranus and a slower rotation period (+1h20) of Neptune compared to the Voyager data were found to minimize the dynamical heights and wind speeds. We apply the improved gravity data, the modified shape and rotation data, and the physical LM-R equation of state to compute adiabatic three-layer structure models, where rocks are confined to the core, and homogeneous thermal evolution models of Uranus and Neptune. We present the full range of structure models for both the Voyager and the modified shape and rotation data. In contrast to previous studies based solely on the Voyager data or on empirical EOS, we find that Uranus and Neptune may differ to an observationally significant level in their atmospheric heavy element mass fraction Z1 and nondimensional moment of inertia, nI. For Uranus, we find Z1 < 8% and nI=0.2224(1), while for Neptune Z1 < 65% and nI=0.2555(2) when applying the modified shape and rotation data, while for the unmodified data we compute Z1 < 17% and nI=0.230(1) for Uranus and Z1 < 54% and nI=0.2410(8) for Neptune. In each of these cases, solar metallicity models (Z1=0.015) are still possible. The cooling times obtained for each planet are similar to recent calculations with the Voyager rotation periods: Neptune's luminosity can be explained by assuming an adiabatic interior while Uranus cools far too slowly. More accurate determinations of these planets' gravity fields, shapes, rotation periods, atmospheric heavy element abundances, and intrinsic luminosities are essential for improving our understanding of the internal structure and evolution of icy planets.
  • The final composition of giant planets formed as a result of gravitational instability in the disk gas depends on their ability to capture solid material (planetesimals) during their 'pre-collapse' stage, when they are extended and cold, and contracting quasi-statically. The duration of the pre-collapse stage is inversely proportional roughly to the square of the planetary mass, so massive protoplanets have shorter pre-collapse timescales and therefore limited opportunity for planetesimal capture. The available accretion time for protoplanets with masses of 3, 5, 7, and 10 Jupiter masses is found to be 7.82E4, 2.62E4, 1.17E4 and 5.67E3 years, respectively. The total mass that can be captured by the protoplanets depends on the planetary mass, planetesimal size, the radial distance of the protoplanet from the parent star, and the local solid surface density. We consider three radial distances, 24, 38, and 68 AU, similar to the radial distances of the planets in the system HR 8799, and estimate the mass of heavy elements that can be accreted. We find that for the planetary masses usually adopted for the HR 8799 system, the amount of heavy elements accreted by the planets is small, leaving them with nearly stellar compositions.
  • We calculate heavy element enrichment in a Jupiter-mass protoplanet formed by disk instability at various radial distances from the star, considering different disk masses and surface density distributions. Although the available mass for accretion increases with radial distance (a) for disk solid surface density (sigma) functions sigma=sigma_0*a^(-alpha) with alpha < 2, the accretion timescale is significantly longer at larger radial distances. Efficient accretion is limited to the first ~ 1E5 years of planetary evolution, when the planet is extended and before gap opening and type II migration take place. The accreted mass is calculated for disk masses of 0.01, 0.05 and 0.1 M_sun with alpha = 1/2, 1, and 3/2. We show that a Jupiter-mass protoplanet can accrete 1 to 110 M_earth of heavy elements, depending on the disk properties. Our results explain the large variation in heavy element enrichment found in extra-solar giant planets. Since higher disk surface density is found to lead to larger heavy element enrichment, our model results are consistent with the correlation between heavy element enrichment and stellar metallicity. Our calculations also suggest that Jupiter could have formed at a larger radial distance than its current location while still accreting the mass of heavy elements predicted by interior models. We conclude that in the disk instability model the final composition of a giant planet is strongly determined by its formation environment. The heavy element abundance of a giant planet does not discriminate between its origin by either disk instability or core accretion.