Hubble's Exoplanet Pics Outshined by Keck's 140
dtolman writes "Scientists at the Keck and Gemini telescopes stole the thunder of Hubble scientists announcing the first picture of an extrasolar world orbiting a star. Hubble scientists announced today that they were able to discover an extrasolar world for the first time by taking an actual image of the newly discovered exoplanet orbiting Fomalhaut — previous discoveries have always been made by detecting changes in the parent star's movement, or by watching the planet momentarily eclipse the star — not by detecting them in images. Hubble's time to shine was overshadowed though by the Keck and Gemini observatories announcing that they had taken pictures of not just one planet, but an entire alien solar system. The images show multiple planets orbiting the star HR 8799 — 3 have been imaged so far."
The Author (Score:5, Informative)
I think the discovery was made by the team led by Paul Kalas:
http://astro.berkeley.edu/~kalas/index.html [berkeley.edu]
Direct link to Hubble Press Release and pix (Score:5, Informative)
In the hubble picture (Score:5, Informative)
In the hubble picture, does anyone else see the shadow of the Enterprise?
Re:Planets look like... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:obligatory... (Score:3, Informative)
On the contrary, if it's in Kecks [odps.org], it might be Uranus.
Re:overshadowed? (Score:5, Informative)
Of course, this hasn't stopped both groups trying to spin up their results in a perfectly understandable fashion. The downside is that many online press stories are showing very signs of confusion as to what's what, not at all helped by the blizzard of parallel press releases from various institutions on the HR8799 3-planet system result.
Indeed, the Gemini Observatory release shows images taken with their telescope showing just two of the planets, presumably because they don't want to cede any ground to the Keck, their rivals on Mauna Kea, where the third planet was found. Again, potentially very confusing indeed to the public.
As for the complementary aspect of the two discoveries, that's mostly the case and both discoveries are very important. But it's not true to say that one's (Fomalhaut) an old planet seen in reflected visible light while the others (HR8799) are young and shining in their own heat: both stars are roughly equally young and the Fomalhaut planet seems also to be shining in some mix of its own heat even in the visible (it's at 400K, possibly), plus perhaps some additional reflected light from a dusty disk around the planet (as opposed to the obvious disk around the star itself).
Also, I wouldn't say the HR8799 planets are close to their star: nothing like. They're out at the equivalent of Neptune's orbit and beyond, even though the Fomalhaut planet's a bit further out still.
Hope this helps allay your (understandable) scepticism.
Re:Amazing (Score:5, Informative)
HD189733b: not directly imaged, but has had a temperature map of it reconstructed from very careful analysis of the change in the light from the parent star as the planet transits in front of and behind it.
2M1207b: this orbits a brown dwarf, not a star.
GQ Lup b: not a planet by any reasonable stretch of the scientific imagination, unless you happen to have been a co-author of the original paper. Believe me: this one is dead, Jim, and was known by most of us to be so on arrival.
Re:overshadowed? (Score:2, Informative)
More specifically, comparing the two is like comparing apples and oranges. The infrared image shows the planets because they are still glowing bright in infrared because they were very recently formed, and thus "hot out of the oven". The article said that the Hubble image was based on visible light reflected from the parent star, not from the planet's own heat. It's thus a dimmer target. (Hubble is not designed/optimized for infrared.)
It is true that Earth-based scopes have better resolution than Hubble in very *specific* circumstances with careful "tricks"; but in general, Hubble is still The King. (Although processing tricks to counter the atmosphere "wiggle" for Earth scopes are making incremental improvements and may catch up someday.)
Re:overshadowed? (Score:2, Informative)
See my post elsewhere in this thread, but this isn't true: if you read the Fomalhaut paper (as opposed to the PR), they're unsure quite what mix of reflected starlight, thermal self-emission, and additional reflected light from a circumplanetary disk makes up the light seen from Fomalhaut b, at both visible and IR wavelengths.
These objects are actually more similar than they are different, in my opinion.
As for HST still being king, well, yes and no: depends on what you're after. Ground-based AO has caught up and exceeded HST in some domains already, while HST still wins in others. Ultimately we need ground- and space-based telescopes to get the most complete view: today it's HST and the 8-10m telescopes, tomorrow it's JWST and the 30-40m extremely large telescopes.
Re:Gene Wolfe fans rejoice (Score:5, Informative)
It's unlikely there's any civilizations on ANY exoplanets we've discovered, since they're all gas giants. Civilizations like ours are only likely on small, rocky, warm planets, which are currently undetectable to us as they're too small, and too close to their stars.
Of course, Fomalhault "b" is only a temporary designation; if smaller planets are detected closer to the star, then one of those would become "b" I imagine. But even so, it still isn't likely there'd be a civilization on one of those, since this star is so young, and so would any planets orbiting it. If the age of this star is correct, it didn't even exist when our world had dinosaurs on it, which wasn't really that long ago considering the age of our planet.
As for moons, however, I wouldn't be surprised to find that Fomalhault's gas giant planets had some moons. Our own gas giants have tons of moons, many of them just tiny asteroids really. Surely at least a few stray asteroids have been captured by these gas giants over the past 60 million years.
Re:obligatory... (Score:2, Informative)
Papers available at ... (Score:3, Informative)