WFIRST Preparatory Science (WPS) Project: The Circumstellar Environments of Exoplanet Host Stars (NNH14ZDA001N-WPS; PI: Christine Chen)

Similar documents
2018 TIARA Summer School Origins of the Solar System. Observations and Modelling of Debris Disks. J.P. Marshall (ASIAA) Wednesday 18 th July 2018

Debris dust tell us much about planetesimals and planets and sheds light to formation and evolution of planetary systems. KALAS et al.

The Fomalhaut Debris Disk

Mid-IR and Far-IR Spectroscopic Measurements & Variability. Kate Su (University of Arizona)

Formation and Evolution of Planetary Systems

Debris Disks and the Formation and Evolution of Planetary Systems. Christine Chen October 14, 2010

HIGH-CONTRAST IMAGING OF YOUNG PLANETS WITH JWST

Conceptual Themes for the 2017 Sagan Summer Workshop

Origins of Stars and Planets in the VLT Era

Design reference mission construction for planet finders

The WFIRST Coronagraphic Instrument (CGI)

IRS SPECTRA OF SOLAR-TYPE STARS: A SEARCH FOR ASTEROID BELT ANALOGS

Setting the Stage for Planet Formation: Grain Growth in Circumstellar Disks

Kate Su (University of Arizona)

The architecture of planetary systems revealed by debris disk imaging

Exoplanets Atmospheres. Characterization of planetary atmospheres. Photometry of planetary atmospheres from direct imaging

arxiv:astro-ph/ v1 2 Oct 2002

Debris Disks and the Evolution of Planetary Systems. Christine Chen September 1, 2009

Gemini Planet Imager. Raphaël Galicher from presentations provided by James Graham and Marshall Perrin

Debris Disks from Spitzer to Herschel and Beyond. G. H. Rieke, K. Y. L. Su, et al. Steward Observatory The University of Arizona

Placing Our Solar System in Context with the Spitzer Space Telescope

Circumstellar disks The MIDI view. Sebastian Wolf Kiel University, Germany

Coronagraphic Imaging of Exoplanets with NIRCam

Recent advances in understanding planet formation

Pluto, the Kuiper Belt, and Trans- Neptunian Objects

Exoplanetary Atmospheres: Temperature Structure of Irradiated Planets. PHY 688, Lecture 23 Mar 20, 2009

Observations of exozodiacal disks. Jean-Charles Augereau LAOG, Grenoble, France. ISSI team: Exozodiacal dust diks and Darwin. Cambridge, August 2009

Science Olympiad Astronomy C Division Event National Exam

Detectability of extrasolar debris. Mark Wyatt Institute of Astronomy, University of Cambridge

Spitzer Space Telescope Imaging of Spatially- Resolved Debris Disks. Karl Stapelfeldt Jet Propulsion Laboratory MSC d2p: Mar

DETAILED MODEL OF THE EXOZODIACAL DISK OF FOMALHAUT AND ITS ORIGIN

How inner planetary systems relate to inner and outer debris belts. Mark Wyatt Institute of Astronomy, University of Cambridge

The Future of Exoplanet Science from Space

Direct imaging of extra-solar planets

Dynamic Exoplanets. Alexander James Mustill

Searching for Other Worlds

Techniques for direct imaging of exoplanets

Internal structure and atmospheres of planets

Introduction to SDSS -instruments, survey strategy, etc

Water Ice on the Satellite of Kuiper Belt Object 2003 EL61

Dynamical Stability of Terrestrial and Giant Planets in the HD Planetary System

The SPICA Coronagraph

Are planets and debris correlated? Herschel imaging of 61 Vir

Infrared-Optical observations of magnetars

Th. Henning, J. Bouwman, J. Rodmann MPI for Astronomy (MPIA), Heidelberg. Grain Growth in Protoplanetary Disks From Infrared to Millimetre Wavelengths

WFIRST Exoplanet Imaging: Datacubes, Community Challenges, and the Starshade Study W F I R S T

Optical Properties and Thermal Modeling of Dust Grains in Circumstellar Environments

Exoplanetary Atmospheres: Atmospheric Dynamics of Irradiated Planets. PHY 688, Lecture 24 Mar 23, 2009

Direct imaging and characterization of habitable planets with Colossus

Discovering and Characterizing the Planetary Systems of Nearby Stars The scientific need for medium aperture space coronagraph observations

Hubble Science Briefing

( ) a3 (Newton s version of Kepler s 3rd Law) Units: sec, m, kg

DEPARTMENT OF PHYSICS AND ASTRONOMY. Planets around white dwarfs Matt Burleigh

Exoplanets Direct imaging. Direct method of exoplanet detection. Direct imaging: observational challenges

Warm dust ring. Hot dust. H2L2 3.5 Diameter of the solar Diameter of the solar Diameter of the solar system

Our Planetary System & the Formation of the Solar System

Directing Imaging Techniques of Exoplanets

Chapter 4 Nadir looking UV measurement. Part-I: Theory and algorithm

Transneptunian objects. Minor bodies in the outer Solar System. Transneptunian objects

Exoplanet Microlensing Surveys with WFIRST and Euclid. David Bennett University of Notre Dame

Modeling interactions between a debris disc and planet: which initial conditions?

Survey of the Solar System. The Sun Giant Planets Terrestrial Planets Minor Planets Satellite/Ring Systems

SPITZER SPACE TELESCOPE

Finding Extra-Solar Earths with Kepler. William Cochran McDonald Observatory

A study upon Eris. I. Describing and characterizing the orbit of Eris around the Sun. I. Breda 1

Studies of diffuse UV radiation

Scientific Capability of the James Webb Space Telescope and the Mid-InfraRed Instrument

On the direct imaging of Exoplanets. Sebastian Perez Stellar Coffee - December 2008

Gemini NICI Planet-Finding Campaign: Statistical Constraints on Planet Populations

Planet formation in protoplanetary disks. Dmitry Semenov Max Planck Institute for Astronomy Heidelberg, Germany

CIRCUMSTELLAR DISKS AND OUTER PLANET FORMATION

Astrometric Detection of Exoplanets

High-contrast Coronagraph Development in China for Direct Imaging of Extra-solar Planets

James Webb Space Telescope Cycle 1 Call for Proposals

Exoplanets in the mid-ir with E-ELT & METIS

Revealing the evolution of disks at au from high-resolution IR spectroscopy

First Science with JouFLU and some instrument updates

ASTB01 Exoplanets Lab

High mass star formation in the Herschel era: highlights of the HOBYS key program

r p L = = So Jupiter has the greater angular momentum.

4 1 Extrasolar Planets

On the Effects of Extended-Source Morphology on Emission-Line Redshift Accuracy

EXOPLANET LECTURE PLANET FORMATION. Dr. Judit Szulagyi - ETH Fellow

Time-variable phenomena in Herbig Ae/Be stars

High contrast imaging at 3-5 microns. Philip M. Hinz University of Arizona Matt Kenworthy, Ari Heinze, John Codona, Roger Angel

Jupiter Trojan Survey

What will the future bring? Scientific discoveries expected from the E-ELT

Design Reference Mission. DRM approach

Synergies of Subaru and CGI. Tyler D. Groff

Ay 20 Basic Astronomy and the Galaxy Problem Set 2

Characterizing Exoplanets and Brown Dwarfs With JWST

Forming habitable planets on the computer

HNRS 227 Fall 2006 Chapter 13. What is Pluto? What is a Planet? There are two broad categories of planets: Terrestrial and Jovian

Exoplanet Science with SPHEREx s All-Sky Spectro-photometric Survey in the Near-Infrared. A White Paper in support of the Exoplanet Science Strategy

Observational Techniques: Ground-based Transits

Exoplanet Detection and Characterization with Mid-Infrared Interferometry

Active wavefront control for high contrast exoplanet imaging from space

Radiation from planets

Astronomy 111 Review Problems Solutions

The Infrared Universe as Seen by Spitzer and Beyond. February 20, 2007

Transcription:

Permission to use these WFIRST CGI simulated data products and information within this document is granted under the condition that credit is given to: Charles Poteet (STScI), Christine Chen (STScI), Maxime Rizzo (NASA GSFC), and Gaspard Duchene (UC Berkeley) WFIRST Preparatory Science (WPS) Project: The Circumstellar Environments of Exoplanet Host Stars (NNH14ZDA001N-WPS; PI: Christine Chen) Document preparation: Charles Poteet (05 October 2018) Contact information: cchen@stsci.edu Overview: This document serves as a reference for the procedures associated with simulating WFIRST CGI observations of seven known debris disk systems (61 Vir, Eps Eri, HD 10647, HD 69830, HD 95086, HR 8799, and Tau Ceti) using the HLC coronagraphic mode at 0.575 microns. In addition to simulating the dusty debris disks of these systems, a Neptune- or Jupiter-mass planet has been injected about the host star at a given separation and orbital angle, using realistic flux estimates determined from geometric albedo model spectra (Cahoy et al. 2010, ApJ, 724, 189). Observations of the star+disk+planet systems have been simulated using the WFIRST Coronagraph and Rapid Imaging Spectrograph in Python (CRISPY; Rizzo et al. 2017, SPIE, 10400, 104000B) simulator. The data products resulting from this effort may be used to assist the astronomy community in determining: (1) how WFIRST CGI observations will contribute to our knowledge of debris disks (e.g., discovery of inner dust belts, dust scattering phase functions), (2) what constraints simulated scattered light imaging of debris disk systems place on the detectability of planets orbiting within and outside of dusty disks, and (3) what the general feasibility and expectations will be in detecting Neptune- and Jupiter-mass planets around realistic exoplanetary systems. The following sections reveal more insight into the processes involved in producing the simulated WFIRST CGI data products. Radiative Transfer Modeling (SEDs and Images): The spectral energy distributions (SEDs) of the debris disk systems are modeled using the radiative transfer code MCFOST (Pinte et al. 2006, A&A, 459, 797). For each system, the SED models are constructed using previously published star and disk parameters from the literature. However, the model parameters are adjusted as needed to adequately simulate the mid-infrared to millimeter observational fluxes. Using the current WFIRST telescope and HLC coronagraph parameters from the Cycle 7 release (May 24, 2018), an unconvolved model image is produced for each debris disk system at a central wavelength of 0.575 microns. The orientation of the resulting images is North up and East left. For each debris disk system, the measured flux densities (*_phot.txt), Spitzer-IRS spectrum (*_IRS.sav from Chen et al. 2014, ApJS, 211, 25), MCFOST model SED (*_sed_rt.fits.gz),

MCFOST model image at 0.575 microns (*_RT.fits.gz), and model SED figure (*_SED_model.eps) are provided as auxiliary data products. Basic model parameters for individual targets are provided at the end of this document. Note that the final star and disk model parameters for each system are not unique, but adequate for the purposes of carrying out the WFIRST CGI simulations. For a give debris disk system, all SED model data are located within the SED_model directory. Planet Injected Model Images: The flux density of either a Neptune- or Jupiter-mass planet is calculated for each debris disk system using: F p = A g (R p /d ) 2 F * Φ, where A g, R p, d, F *, and Φ are the geometric albedo from Cahoy et al. (2010), planet radius, orbital semi-major axis, stellar flux density, and planet scattering phase function, respectively. The scattering phase function is approximated as a Lambert phase function and depends on the planet phase angle ( α). The planet phase angle is defined from Burrow (2014, arxiv:1412.6097) as: cos(α) = cos(θ + ω p )sin(i), where θ, ω p and i are the orbital angle, argument of periapsis and disk inclination, respectively. For the purpose of these simulations, the argument of periapsis is defined as 0 degrees (i.e., the periapsis coincides with the ascending node). The planet orbital angle ( θ) is measured on the projected plane of the sky in the counterclockwise direction from the backscattering side of the disk (i.e., from the semi-minor axis associated with the far side of the disk). As the Lambert scattering phase function is symmetric about a 360 degree orbit, only planet orbital angles from 0 to 180 degrees are considered when calculating the scattering phase function of the injected planet. Once the flux density of the planet is determined, the theoretical Neptune- or Jupiter-mass planet is injected as a single pixel into the model image at an assumed separation (0.8, 2, 5, 10, 12 or 13 au) and orbital angle. For a given separation, five orbital angles are typically selected using the statistics of the available angles falling within the inner and outer working angles of the HLC coronagraphic mode; these angles correspond to the minimum, maximum, median, upper quartile, and lower quartile values. In the case of small orbital separations, only three orbital angles may be present. We simulate an additional observation at a different spacecraft roll angle, where the second resulting star+disk+planet model image is rotated by 26 degrees with respect to the first. All model images are converted to photons/s and cropped to 71 pixels x 71 pixels. In addition, information important to the simulations (e.g., planet-to-star contrast, position of planet in the detector frame, orbital angle, etc.) are saved to the fits header. These resulting model images are the input products for the CRISPY simulator and possess the following filename structure: RT_PLANET_##au_##deg_x##_y##.fits, where PLANET is either Neptune or Jupiter, ##au is the orbital separation, ##deg is the orbital angle, x## is the position of the planet along the x-direction of the detector frame, and y## is the position of the planet along the y-direction of the detector frame. For example, within the Tau Ceti directory, the fits file RT_Jupiter_0.8au_12deg_x31_y43.fits corresponds to an image of the Tau Ceti system with a Jupiter-mass planet injected at a separation of 0.8 au and an orbital angle of 12 degrees. The resulting planet occupies the pixel position at x,y = 31,43 in the detector frame. Similarly, the fits file RT_Jupiter_0.8au_12deg_x31_y43_rot.fits has been rotated by 26 degree in the

counterclockwise direction to simulate observations obtained at an additional spacecraft roll angle. Note that these fits filenames are identical except for the appended _rot designation. CRISPY Simulated Images: For each debris disk system, the star+disk+planet model images are simulated using the WFIRST CGI CRISPY simulator code (for more information and source code visit https://github.com/ mjrfringes/crispy). In particular, the CGI Observing Scenario 6 imaging simulations are performed using the simulated HLC image time sequences from John Krist at 0.575 microns. The resulting data products for each simulated debris disk system are provided within the crispy_output directory. (1) PSF reference image cube: RT_PLANET_##au_##deg_x##_y##_references_cube.fits (2) Target image cube (roll 1): RT_PLANET_##au_##deg_x##_y##_roll_minus_cube.fits (3) Target image cube (roll 2): RT_PLANET_##au_##deg_x##_y##_roll_plus_cube.fits (4) PSF-subtracted target cube (roll 1): RT_PLANET_##au_##deg_x##_y##_roll_minus_classicsub_cube.fits (5) PSF-subtracted target cube (roll 2): RT_PLANET_##au_##deg_x##_y##_roll_plus_classicsub_cube.fits (6) Roll-averaged PSF-subtracted target image (~1.83 hr total exposure time per spacecraft roll): RT_PLANET_##au_##deg_x##_y##_classicsub_roll_avg_2.fits (7) Roll-averaged PSF-subtracted target image (~3.67 hr total exposure time per spacecraft roll): RT_PLANET_##au_##deg_x##_y##_classicsub_roll_avg_4.fits The PSF reference image cube is comprised of 14 observational chunks, where a chunk is an average of 55 exposures of 120 s each. The roll-specific target image cubes are individually comprised of 26 observational chunks, where, again, a chunk is an average of 55 exposures of 120 s each. The roll-specific PSF-subtracted target cubes are constructed from classical PSF subtraction techniques, using the provided PSF reference star images. The PSF subtraction procedure is performed by the CRISPY code (see source code for more details). The roll-specific PSFsubtracted target cubes possess the same dimensions (i.e., observational chunks) as the target image cubes, with each slice corresponding to ~1.83 hr of total exposure time. Averaging over a selected number of observational chunks will yield different total exposure time scenarios. For example, averaging over the first two chunks (image slices 0 and 1) would result in a observational sequence consisting of ~3.67 hr of total exposure time. Moreover, averaging over the first three chunks (image slices 0, 1, and 2) would yield a total exposure time of ~5.49 hr.

For convenience, roll-averaged PSF-subtracted target images have been provided for observational sequences consisting of ~1.83 hr and ~3.67 hr for each spacecraft roll angle. For these products, the slice-averaged roll_plus PSF-subtracted image are rotated 26 degrees and subsequently averaged with the roll_minus PSF-subtracted image to simulate a total on-target exposure time of ~3.67 hr and ~ 7.34 hr, respectively. However, using the roll-specific PSFsubtracted target cube, the user may choose to average over any number of observational chunks (image slices) to simulate a number of different observational sequences. Alternatively, the user may elect to use the target and PSF reference star image cubes with additional post-processing techniques like reference differential imaging or angular differential imaging (e.g., NMF and KLIP/PCA, respectively) to construct roll-specific PSF-subtracted image cubes. For each debris disks system, PDF files of the CRISPY simulated images are provided as a auxiliary data product. More specifically, these PDF files correspond to the roll-averaged PSFsubtracted target images with total exposures times of ~1.83 hr and ~3.67 hr per roll angle. For a give debris disk system, all crispy input model images (star+disk+planet) are located within the crispy_simulation/crispy_input directory. Similarly, all crispy output simulated images are located within the crispy_simulation/crispy_output directory. Individual Radiative Transfer Modeling Notes (assumed disk and geometrical parameters): (1) 61 Vir SED model parameters based loosely on work by Marino et al. (2017, MNRAS, 469, 3518) and Wyatt et al. (2012, MNRAS, 424, 1206) effective temperature = 5500 K, log g = 4.5 inclination = 77 degrees distance = 8.6 pc semi-minor axis PA = 335 degrees (back-scattering side of disk measured East of North) dust mass = 1.96e-9 solar masses inner radius = 25 au outer radius = 150 au scale height = 0.5 au (at inner radius) surface density exponent = 0.1 minimum grain size = 0.8 microns maximum grain size = 1000 microns grains size power law slope = -3.5

dust composition via effective medium theory: amorphous silicates (70%), amorphous carbon (15%), water ice (15%) (2) Eps Eri SED model parameters based loosely on work by Booth et al. (2017, MNRAS, 469, 3200), Su et al. (2017, ApJ, 153, 12), and MacGregor et al. (2015, ApJ, 809, 47) effective temperature = 5000 K, log g = 4.5 inclination = 34 degrees distance = 3.2 pc semi-minor axis PA = 266 degrees (back-scattering side of disk measured East of North) dust mass = 5.38e-13 solar masses (zone 1), 6.0e-9 solar masses (zone 2) inner radius = 3 au (zone 1), 63 au (zone 2) outer radius = 21 au (zone 1), 76 au (zone 2) scale height (at inner radius) = 1.3 au (zone 1), 3.15 au (zone 2) surface density exponent = -1 (zone 1), 0 (zone 2) minimum grain size = 1 microns (zone 1), 1 microns (zone 2) maximum grain size = 1000 microns (zone 1), 1000 microns (zone 2) grains size power law slope = -3.5 (zone 1), -3.5 (zone 2) dust composition via effective medium theory (zones 1 and 2): amorphous silicates (100%)

(3) HD 10647 SED model parameters based loosely on work by Schuppler et al. (2016, MNRAS, 461, 2146) effective temperature = 6000 K, log g = 4.5 inclination = 70 degrees distance = 17.34 pc semi-minor axis PA = 324.2 degrees (back-scattering side of disk measured East of North) dust mass = 4.48e-11 solar masses (zone 1), 5.08e-8 solar masses (zone 2) inner radius = 3 au (zone 1), 70 au (zone 2) outer radius = 10 au (zone 1), 125 au (zone 2) scale height (at inner radius) = 0.15 au (zone 1), 3.5 au (zone 2) surface density exponent = 0 (zone 1), -1.5 (zone 2) minimum grain size = 2 microns (zone 1), 2 microns (zone 2) maximum grain size = 1000 microns (zone 1), 1000 microns (zone 2) grains size power law slope = -3.5 (zone 1), -3.5 (zone 2) dust composition via effective medium theory (zones 1 and 2): amorphous silicates (70%), water ice (30%)

(4) HD 69830 SED model parameters based loosely on work by Beichman et al. (2011, ApJ, 743, 85) and Smith et al. (2012, MNRAS, 422, 2560) effective temperature = 5400 K, log g = 4.5 inclination = 70 degrees distance = 12.56 pc semi-minor axis PA = 60 degrees (back-scattering side of disk measured East of North) dust mass = 1.5e-13 solar masses inner radius = 0.8 au outer radius = 1.3 au scale height = 0.04 au (at inner radius) surface density exponent = -1 minimum grain size = 0.7 microns maximum grain size = 10 microns grains size power law slope = -3.9 dust composition via effective medium theory: amorphous silicates (50%), amorphous crystalline silicates (50%)

(5) HD 95086 SED model parameters based loosely on work by Su et al. (2017, ApJ, 153, 12), Su et al. (2015, ApJ, 799, 146), and Moor et al. (2015, MNRAS, 447, 577) effective temperature = 7400 K, log g = 3.5 inclination = 30 degrees distance = 83.8 pc semi-minor axis PA = 7 degrees (back-scattering side of disk measured East of North) dust mass = 1.2e-10 solar masses (zone 1), 7.5e-7 solar masses (zone 2), 7.5e-8 solar masses (zone 3) inner radius = 7 au (zone 1), 106 au (zone 2), 320 au (zone 3) outer radius = 10 au (zone 1), 320 au (zone 2), 800 au (zone 3) scale height (at inner radius) = 0.35 au (zone 1), 5.3 au (zone 2), 16 au (zone 3) surface density exponent = 0 (zone 1), -0.5 (zone 2), -1.5 (zone 3) minimum grain size = 1.8 microns (zones 1 and 2), 1 microns (zone 3) maximum grain size = 1000 microns (zones 1 and 2), 10 microns (zone 3) grains size power law slope = -3.65 (zone 1), -3.5 (zones 2 and 3) dust composition via effective medium theory (zone 1): amorphous silicates (100%) dust composition via effective medium theory (zones 2 and 3): amorphous silicates (70%), water ice (30%)

(6) HR 8799 SED model parameters based loosely on work by Su et al. (2015, ApJ, 799 146), Su et al. (2009, ApJ, 705, 314), and Wilner et al. (2018, ApJ, 855, 56) effective temperature = 7500 K, log g = 4.5 inclination = 32.8 degrees distance = 41.29 pc semi-minor axis PA = 54.4 degrees (back-scattering side of disk measured East of North) dust mass = 3.3e-12 solar masses (zone 1), 3.6e-7 solar masses (zone 2), 5.7e-8 solar masses (zone 3) inner radius = 6 au (zone 1), 104 au (zone 2), 361 au (zone 3) outer radius = 8 au (zone 1), 361 au (zone 2), 1000 au (zone 3) scale height (at inner radius) = 0.3 au (zone 1), 5.2 au (zone 2), 18.1 au (zone 3) surface density exponent = 0 (zone 1), -0.4 (zone 2), -1 (zone 3) minimum grain size = 1.5 microns (zone 1), 10 microns (zone 2), 1 microns (zone 3) maximum grain size = 4.5 microns (zone 1), 1000 microns (zone 2), 10 microns (zone 3) grains size power law slope = -3.5 (zone 1), -3.3 (zone 2) and -3.5 (zone 3) dust composition via effective medium theory (zone 1): amorphous silicates (100%) dust composition via effective medium theory (zones 2 and 3): amorphous silicates (70%), water ice (30%)

(7) Tau Ceti SED model parameters based loosely on work by Lawler et al. (2014, MNRAS, 444, 2665) and MacGregor et al. (2016, ApJ, 828, 8) effective temperature = 5400 K, log g = 4.5 inclination = 35 degrees distance = 3.6 pc semi-minor axis PA = 15 degrees (back-scattering side of disk measured East of North) dust mass = 1.9e-10 solar masses inner radius = 6.2 au outer radius = 52 au scale height = 0.31 au (at inner radius) surface density exponent = -0.3 minimum grain size = 15 microns maximum grain size = 1000 microns grains size power law slope = -3.5 dust composition via effective medium theory: amorphous silicates (100%)