Table 1
High priority targets for which we simulate spectra in this study.
| Planet name | MPl (M♃) | MPl (M⊕) | RPl (R♃) | log10(gPl) (cgs) | Tequf (K) | [Fe/H]∗ | [Fe/H] |
Similar planets | Obs. References |
|
|
|||||||||
| Super-Earths | |||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| GJ 1132b | 0.01 | 1.62 | 0.1 | 3.1 | 579 | –0.12 | 3a | – | – |
| GJ 1214b | 0.02 | 6.36 | 0.24 | 2.96 | 547 | 0.39 | 3a | – | (1.1–7) |
| Artificialb | 0.02 | 5 | 0.29c | 2.67 | 880 | 0.00 | 3a | – | – |
|
|
|||||||||
| Neptunes | |||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| GJ3470b | 0.04 | 13.9 | 0.37 | 2.91 | 604 | 0.17 | 1.98 | HATS-6bd | (2.1–6) |
| HAT-P-26b | 0.06 | 18.59 | 0.56 | 2.68 | 1001 | 0.01 | 1.56 | – | (3.1) |
| Artificialb | 0.06 | 20 | 0.65c | 2.45 | 1250 | 0.00 | 1.51 | – | – |
|
|
|||||||||
| Gas giants | |||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| WASP-80b | 0.56 | 178.62 | 0.99 | 3.18 | 825 | –0.14 | 0.60 | HAT-P-17b | (4.1–3) |
| HAT-P-12b | 0.21 | 66.74 | 0.94 | 2.79 | 960 | –0.29 | 0.75 | WASP-67b, | (5.1–5.4) |
| HAT-P-18b | |||||||||
| WASP-10b | 3.14 | 997.98 | 1.04 | 3.88 | 972 | 0.05 | 0.27 | WASP-8be | (6.1) |
| HAT-P-20b | 7.25 | 2302.98 | 0.87 | 4.4 | 970 | 0.35 | 0.32 | – | (7.1) |
|
|
|||||||||
| Inflated giants | |||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| TrES-4b | 0.49 | 157.01 | 1.84 | 2.58 | 1795 | 0.28 | 1.1 | WASP-17b, | (8.1–5) |
| WASP-94b, | |||||||||
| WASP-79b | |||||||||
| WASP-33b | 2.16 | 686.51 | 1.68 | 3.3 | 2734 | 0.1 | 0.44 | WASP-12b | (8.5), (9.1–5) |
| HAT-P-30b | 0.71 | 225.98 | 1.34 | 3.01 | 1630 | 0.12 | 0.80 | WASP-7b | (10.1) |
| Kepler-13Ab | 6.0 | 1906.97 | 1.41 | 3.9 | 2180f | 0.2 | 0.23 | – | (11.1) |
| WASP-32b | 3.6 | 1144.18 | 1.18 | 3.83 | 1560 | –0.13 | 0.05 | CoRoT-2b, | (12.1) |
| WASP-43b | |||||||||
| WASP-18b | 10.52 | 3343.55 | 1.16 | 4.3 | 2411f | 0.1 | –0.04 | – | (13.1) |
| XO-3b | 11.83 | 3759.9 | 1.25 | 4.29 | 1729 | –0.18 | –0.35 | HAT-P-2b | (14.1–2) |
| WASP-76b | 0.92 | 292.4 | 1.83 | 2.85 | 2160 | 0.23 | 0.84 | WASP-48b, | – |
| KELT-7b, | |||||||||
| WASP-82b | |||||||||
| HAT-P-19b | 0.29 | 92.81 | 1.13 | 2.77 | 1010 | 0.23 | 1.22 | WASP-69b | (6.1), (15.1) |
| WASP-39b | 0.28 | 88.99 | 1.27 | 2.65 | 1116 | –0.12 | 0.84 | – | (5.4), (6.1), |
| (16.1–2) | |||||||||
Notes. Note that for the planets listed in the “similar planet” column, the planetary masses usually agree relatively well with our target masses, therefore the enrichment (as estimated by Eq. (1)) may be similar. Note that the planetary enrichment is also linearly dependent on the host star’s metallicity, however. Footnotes: Note that Kepler-13Ab and WASP-18b have emission brightness temperatures hotter than even the dayside averaged effective temperatures. For these planets calculations at even higher temperatures were carried out, see Sect. 4.5 for more information.
For these planets the metal mass fraction as estimated by Eq. (1) was larger than 1, therefore we imposed a maximum metallicity value of 3. Additionally the calculations with enrichments ten times larger than the fiducial case, which would lead to a metallicity value of 4, have been neglected for these planets.
The artificial super-Earth and hot Neptune have relatively large radii because we assumed their ages to be 20 and 100 Myr for the super Earth and Neptune-like planet, respectively. At later ages they would be too strongly affected by envelope evaporation.
HATS-6b is much more massive than GJ 3470b. Therefore, only the metal depleted case (“FEH_m _1”) of GJ3470b in our calculations is comparable to what we would estimate for HATS-6b.
The equilibrium temperatures given in this table correspond to the values derived from the stellar and orbital parameteres, i.e. 
, where T∗ is the stellar effective temperature, R∗ the stellar radius and a the planet’s semi-major axis.
Reference. References for observational data: (1.1): Bean et al. (2010); (1.2): Désert et al. (2011); (1.3): Bean et al. (2011); (1.4): Berta et al. (2012); (1.5): Fraine et al. (2013); (1.6): Kreidberg et al. (2014); (1.7): Cáceres et al. (2014); (2.1): Crossfield et al. (2013); (2.2): Demory et al. (2013); (2.3): Nascimbeni et al. (2013); (2.4): Biddle et al. (2014); (2.5): Ehrenreich et al. (2014); (2.6): Dragomir et al. (2015); (3.1): Stevenson et al. (2016a); (4.1) Fukui et al. (2014); (4.2) Mancini et al. (2014); (4.3) Triaud et al. (2015); (5.1): Line et al. (2013); (5.2): Todorov et al. (2013); (5.3): Mallonn et al. (2015a); (5.4): Sing et al. (2015a); (6.1): Kammer et al. (2015); (7.1): Deming et al. (2015); (8.1): Knutson et al. (2009); (8.2): Chan et al. (2011); (8.3): Ranjan et al. (2014); (8.4): Sozzetti et al. (2015); (8.5): Turner et al. (2016); (9.1): Smith et al. (2011); (9.2): Deming et al. (2012); (9.3): de Mooij et al. (2013); (9.4): Haynes et al. (2015); (9.5): von Essen et al. (2015); (10.1) Foster et al. (2016); (11.1): Shporer et al. (2014); (12.1) Garland et al. (2016); (13.1): Nymeyer et al. (2011); (14.1): Wong et al. (2014); (14.2): Machalek et al. (2010); (15.1): Mallonn et al. (2015b); (16.1): Fischer et al. (2016); (16.2): Ricci et al. (2015).
Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.
Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.
Initial download of the metrics may take a while.