Extrasolar Planets (updated catalogue)

The home for finished/released addons.
Avatar
Art Blos M
Moderator
Posts: 526
Joined: 31.08.2017
Age: 26
With us: 1 year 9 months
Location: Volgodonsk, Rostov Oblast, Russia

Post #21by Art Blos » 18.05.2019, 08:45

LukeCEL wrote:My "stars within galaxies" add-ons are semi-fictional; they shouldn't really be in the main Celestia package. Sure, they represent real stars as accurately as possible. However, their actual positions in 3D space are completely wrong because we don't know the distance to them. Other parameters, like spectral type and apparent magnitude, are also highly approximate guesses.
You can’t call your add-on fictional, precisely because the objects are real. Approximate (logically thought out) parameters are often found in other areas of astronomy. Just here we are faced with the limitations of science.
Founder and head of the project "Celestia Origin"

Avatar
Lafuente_Astronomy
Moderator
Posts: 285
Joined: 04.08.2018
Age: 21
With us: 10 months 22 days
Location: Cebu, Philippines
Contact:

Post #22by Lafuente_Astronomy » 18.05.2019, 14:40

Art Blos wrote:You can’t call your add-on fictional, precisely because the objects are real. Approximate (logically thought out) parameters are often found in other areas of astronomy. Just here we are faced with the limitations of science.

Agreed. We may have to wait for more advance satellites and technology to find more accurate readings for those stars. But at least millions, if not billions of stars are already being recorded on other galaxies each. We just have to make do with what we have. After all, Celestia can always be modified, updated and upgraded for future astronomical discoveries.
Official Administrator of the Celestia Discord Server.
Invite: https://discordapp.com/invite/WEWDcJh
If you don't have a Discord account, register here: https://discordapp.com/register
Have a blessed day.

Avatar
Topic author
Sirius_Alpha
Posts: 18
Joined: 21.03.2019
With us: 3 months 6 days

Post #23by Sirius_Alpha » 01.06.2019, 04:21

At the risk of dereailing this thread about Galaxy catalogues :p

I've implemented a way to estimate distances based on the star's V mag, T_eff and R_star. Many missing Kepler candidates were able to be added as a result, though their distances may not be as accurate as hoped. Among all the planets I have in my notes, at the present time there are 13 missing unconfirmed planets, which are not included usually because there is neither a specified mass or radius (long-term RV trends, unconstrained TTV solutions, etc). There is also a TESS CTOI with three planet candidates that have no orbital parameters.

I've finally finished the Kepler-K2 candidate planets. Frustratingly, there are two dissimilar catalogues available, each with some planets the other lacks. Several planets in the NASA Exoplanet Archive and several in the ExoFOP. Because several objects flagged as "possible false positive" or "positive eclipsing binary" went on to become confirmed K2 planets, these tags were not used as a criteria to not add the system. Rather, only Kepler-K2 candidates whose ExoFOP pages have observation notes indicating a significant centroid offset, even-odd transit depth disparity, transit chromaticity, or other conclusive indicators of being a false positive were rejected. Additionally, I have excluded planet candidates that are likely false positives based on their stated parameters -- several have extremely high radii (> 25 R_J) or absurd transit depths (>60% in some cases!). Otherwise, sometimes SIMBAD will actually list an eclipsing binary type (e.g., W UMa for EPIC 212499835). This was also taken to be confirmation of it being a false positive.

There are many new objects listed as Community TESS Objets of Interest (CTOI) since the last update which are clearly eclipsing binary systems. They'll have two planet candidates at basically the same period with rather high transit depths. Either these are incorrectly passing through the TESS pipeline (somehow not getting caught by the odd-even transit depth check), or the CTOI list intentionally includes systems that are clearly eclipsing binaries. I have chosen not to include such systems.

I also discovered that I had two definitions for OGLE-2015-BLG-0051L. One from Hwang, et al. (2015) under the designation KMT-2015-1, and another from Han, et al. (2016). This was fixed, and it inspired me to write a script to cross-reference all IDs I had in my input data for these systems to look for additional duplicates. This allowed me to find three more: K2-68 / EPIC 206146957, Kepler-1651 / KOI-1725, and Kepler-482 / KOI-174. These, too, have been fixed.

As always, I'm open to suggestions for improvements, corrections.

Celestia_Screenshot.png
Planets by detection method. Pink = RV, Green = transit, blue = Microlensing.


2019 Jun 01
- 45 TESS candidate planets added (TOI-691 through TOI-728).
- 6 TESS Community TOIs added.
- 11 TESS candidate planets have been determined to be false positives since the last update and removed.
- Reworked AppMag. Comments to clarify if AppMag is calculated, from Kepler Kp, etc.
- Corrected error converting transit depths to radii in some systems.
- Asteroids now handled explicitly (for SDSS J1228+1040, EPIC 210605073).
- For systems with no known distance, it is now estimated photometrically if possible.
- For TESS Single-Transit candidates, a comment is now in the .ssc file noting the period is a guess.
- Added unconfirmed SWEEPS candidates.
- Finished adding missing Kepler-K2 candidates.
- Fixed HW Vir.
- Removed some duplicate systems.
- Removed KOI-376 (false positive).
- Added scripts to mark *all* confirmed or unconfirmed exoplanet systems.
- Added OGLE-2018-BLG-0532L, OGLE-GD-ECL-11388, DW UMa, numerous (new!) small planets from Kepler-K2 (Heller et al.), LSPM J2116+0234.
- Updated L 98-59, HD 113337.
- Corrected CoRoT-30 position.
- Stopped defining rotation periods for planets in synchronous rotation.
- Calculated missing inclinations from transit impact parameters where possible (458 planets).
- Fixed issue where circumbinary planets with unknown periods/semi-major axis would have only the primary star's mass used to determine the missing parameter. Affected systems: FL Lyr, FW Tau, HD 106906, HD 284149, KOI-2938, KOI-6518, OGLE-2007-BLG-349L, Ross 458, ROXs 42B, SR 12, VHS J125601.92-125723.9.
- Changed planet rotation definition from obselete RotationPeriod, Obliquity and EquatorAscendingNode to a UniformRotation{} code, as per request.
- All planets now have LunarLambert 0.5, as per request.
- An additional alias has been added in each planet definition line for just the planet's letter (b, c, d, etc), as per request.
- Added InfoURL's for stars, as per request.

7291 planets (+2 asteroids).
4317 confirmed.
2974 unconfirmed.

Added after 12 hours:
I sincerely apologise for this, but I just discovered that there was a major error in the .stc files in the addon I posted earlier today. It has been corrected. I'm deeply sorry for the inconvenience.
Attachments
CelestiaExoplanets_2019_06_01.rar
Celestia Exoplanet Catalogue (up to date as of 01 Jun 2019)
(589.2 KiB) Downloaded 33 times

Avatar
Lafuente_Astronomy
Moderator
Posts: 285
Joined: 04.08.2018
Age: 21
With us: 10 months 22 days
Location: Cebu, Philippines
Contact:

Post #24by Lafuente_Astronomy » 01.06.2019, 21:37

It's ok. Keep up the good work! As far as I'm concerned, your work is already a huge step towards making Celestia more accurate
Official Administrator of the Celestia Discord Server.
Invite: https://discordapp.com/invite/WEWDcJh
If you don't have a Discord account, register here: https://discordapp.com/register
Have a blessed day.

Avatar
Topic author
Sirius_Alpha
Posts: 18
Joined: 21.03.2019
With us: 3 months 6 days

Post #25by Sirius_Alpha » 13.06.2019, 01:27

TESS Sector 10 planets are out! -- at least the first batch of them, it seems that they come out in smaller groups after an initial large release. Furthermore, a lot of new planets in very nearby systems was reported (Wolf 359, Lacaille 9352, Struve 2398 to name a few). So there's plenty of reason to post an update.

The paper for HAT-P-69 and HAT-P-70 did something a bit rare, and specified the stellar oblateness. They're rapidly rotating stars so they would have been given a calculated oblateness in my programme anyway. This gave me the opportunity to compare calculation to reality and I find that my programme underestimates the stellar oblatenesses by a bit. For HAT-P-69, I calculate an oblateness of 0.975, they report 0.969. For HAT-P-70, I caculate 0.963, they report 0.957. I took their values of course, but it's worth noting that with a whopping set of 2 datapoints, it looks like my programme is consistently underestimating stellar oblateness. This is great, because I would like to have more obvious oblatenesses to look at. I'll wait for more data to come in to better understand this before making a change.

I discovered that the inclination angle of the rotation axes of stars relative to the plane of the sky hasn't been taken into account. Some planets are in-fact known to have a misalignment between their orbital axis and the stellar rotation axis, λ, despite neither a detection of the Rossiter-McLaughlin effect or Doppler tomographic shadow. This is done for transiting planets (with orbital inclinations of i~90°) by determining the inclination of the star's rotation axis, and noting it's significantly inconsistent with i~90°. For example. Kepler-408 b is a transiting Venus-sized planet in a mis-aligned orbit, and is in fact the smallest known misaligned planet (Kamiaka, et al. (2019)). Well it wasn't rendered that way until this update.

Apparently the ExoFOP no longer uses CTOI identifiers for Community TESS Objects of Interest. Now they just use the TIC ID. So I've made the change here as well.

For reasons I don't really understand, a couple transiting circumbinary planets (Kepler-16 and Kepler-35) were rendered as having retrograde orbits. This has been fixed a rather ad-hoc way (giving the stars negative orbital periods) since I don't know why the problem was there in the first place.

Wolf-359b.jpg
The inner planet at Wolf 359


- 60 TESS candidate planets added (TOI-729 through TOI-784).
- Added TOI-# ID's for known transiting planets in TESS Sector 10 (WASP-87, WASP-167, HATS-18, HATS-22, etc).
- 15 TESS Community TOIs added.
- Added new TESS candidate planets in known TOI systems (TOI-171.02, TOI-282.03, TOI-553.03).
- Obsolete KID (Kepler ID) catalogue identifiers replaced with KIC (Kepler Input Catalogue) (see Howell (2010).
- Obsolete CTOI (Community TESS Object of Interest) catalogue identifiers replaced with TIC (TESS Input Catalogue).
- Added PDS 70 c, KELT-24 b, HD 144844 (AB)b, though since the nature of the secondary star is unknown, there is no attempt to render the system as binary.
- Added/updated numerous nearby planetary systems from Doppler spectroscopy, removed GJ 229 Ab (Tuomi, et al).
- Updated HAT-P-69, HAT-P-70, CI Tau b.
- Removed Kepler-429, Kepler-70 (see Blokesz, et al.)
- Stellar rotation axis inclination angle relative to the sky-plane now defined for some systems.
- Fixed issue where some planetary systems had incorrect inclination.
- Corrected HAT-P-12 V mag.

7403 planets (+2 asteroids).
4371 confirmed.
3032 unconfirmed.
Attachments
CelestiaExoplanets_2019_06_12.rar
Celestia exoplanet catalogue, up to date as of 12 June 2019.
(584.93 KiB) Downloaded 25 times

Avatar
LukeCEL
Posts: 186
Joined: 26.09.2017
With us: 1 year 9 months

Post #26by LukeCEL » 14.06.2019, 02:56

LukeCEL wrote:That being said, I still plan on finishing up and releasing mine soon. Textures are a problem though, we should have a discussion on this.

Change of plans. In the interest of not having two separate versions of what is essentially the same project, I'm not going to release my exoplanet catalogue after all. This change came after realizing 1) how busy I was (and still am), and 2) how little I knew about spin-orbit misalignment. I'm not too keen on learning that.

By the way, Sirius_Alpha, can I suggest a change to your "Stars_Binary_Exoplanets.stc" file? For stars of binary systems that are already subsystems, I recommend fixing the designation so the second letter is un-capitalized. So for example, "30 Ari Aa" instead of "30 Ari AA".

Avatar
Topic author
Sirius_Alpha
Posts: 18
Joined: 21.03.2019
With us: 3 months 6 days

Post #27by Sirius_Alpha » 14.06.2019, 04:33

My only concern about that is the eventuality that a planet will be discovered around such a star. Of course 30 Ari A is too tight a binary for this to actually occur, but if for example a planet were to be discovered orbiting 30 Ari Aa, what do you call it? Aab? That being said, I do recognize that lower-letter designations for stellar sub-systems isn't without precedent.

Avatar
gironde M
Posts: 367
Joined: 16.12.2016
Age: 66
With us: 2 years 6 months
Location: Montigny-Les-Metz, Grand Est, Lorraine, Moselle, France

Post #28by gironde » 14.06.2019, 10:37

For a planet b of 30 ARI Aa ===> 30 ARI Aa b
put a space between star and planet

:hi:


Return to “Add-on releases”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 4 guests