A Roadmap for Exoplanets The Exo Planet Roadmap

A Roadmap for Exoplanets The Exo. Planet Roadmap Advisory Team (EP-RAT)

The EPRAT Artie Hatzes, (Chair), Thüringer Landessternwarte, Germany Anthony Boccaletti, Observatoire de Meudon, France Rudolf Dvorak, Institute for Astronomy, University of Vienna, Austria Giusi Micela, INAF - Osservatorio Astronomico di Palermo, Italy Alessandro Morbidelli, Observatoire de la Cote d'Azur, France Andreas Quirrenbach, Landessternwarte, Heidelberg, Germany Heike Rauer, German Aerospace Center (DLR), Germany Franck Selsis, Laboratoire d'Astrophysique de Bordeaux (LAB), France Giovanna Tinetti, University College London, UK Stephane Udry, Université de Genevé, Switzerland Anja C. Andersen, Dark-Cosmology Center, Copenhagen, Dk (Expert) Malcolm Fridlund, (Secretary), ESA

The EPRAT was formed to: EPRAT is to advise ESA on the best scientific and technological roadmap to pursue in order to address the characterization of terrestrial exo-planets (up to the possible detection of biomarkers)

The Roadmap

Things to Keep in Mind • The Roadmap is just a draft and is by no means the final product. If you do not like it, now is the time to speak! • Like all roadmaps this one will be outdated in a few years • The EP-RAT is merely an advisory board to the community as a whole and not just to ESA does not propose missions, the community does • It is our opinion and we bring our own biases to the roadmap “Yeah, well, you know, that’s just, like, your opinion, man. “ Jeffery Lebowski „The Big Lebowski“

Things to Keep in Mind The EPRAT does not: • Propose missions, we propose science and a suggest directions the field should go • „Bless some missions over others“ • Replace the peer review process: proposals for space missions come from the community and we are not the ones evaluating these

Things to Keep in Mind: Budget Landscape Bleak Depressing Should we become truck drivers? Things are bad, and are not expected to get better in the next 10 -15 years. Large flagship missions may have gone the way of the dinosaurs, for now.

Approximate Timeline and Definitions Near term: ~2011 -2017: We know what we want to learn and we know how to do it. Mid-term : ~2015 -2022: We know what we want to learn and we think we know how to do it. Long-term: ~2020 and beyond We think we know what we want to learn but we are not quite sure how to do it. 8

Milestones for the Roadmap Milestones range from detection through characterization: • • • Architecture: multiple planets, accurate orbital elements Mass, radius, and mean density of exoplanets Spectroscopic features of exoplanetary atmospheres Exo-magnetospheres Possible biosignatures.

Key Questions • • • What is the diversity and architecture of exoplanetary systems? What is the diversity of composition, structure, and atmospheres? What is the origin of the diversity and how do planets form? What makes a planet habitable? Can we detect exo-life and if so, how common is it? We want to do comparative Exoplanetology

Short period high mass → Short period low mass → → → Long period high mass Long period low mass

The Path of Discovery Space

The Path of Characterization Moderately Easy Ground Co. Ro. T Difficult mostly Forget it 1 Moderately Kepler Easy Very Difficult PLATO Very Difficult 1 Radius and mass comes from evolutionary tracks Caveat: Characterization requires a discovery

NASA Explorer Competitive Mission Opportunities NASA Explorer Probe ESA CV 2: M-Class ALMA Long Wavelength facilities SKA LOFAR Imaging and Extreme Adaptive Optics on ELTs Planet Finders (Large Tel. ) 30 Meter Telescope and Giant Magellan Spectroscopy Large Binocular Interferometer European Extremely Large Telescope Herschel SPICA (Warm) Spitzer) HST James Web Space Telescope Astrometry Keck: ASTRA VLTI: PRIMA Space Interferomertry Mission GAIA Kepler Transit Survey Missions PLATO Co. Ro. T 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Detection: Radial Velocities N 2: Radial velocity monitoring of several thousand nearby F-K main sequence stars and evolved, intermediate mass stars using optical spectrographs. OPTICAL SURVEYS • Statistics as a function of stellar parameters (mass, abundance, binarity, etc) • Targets for characterization N 3: RV Planet Searches in the Infrared with emphasis on short-period, low-mass planets around M dwarfs. INFRARED SURVEYS • Atmospheric characterization of terrestrial planets in a habitable zone of a planet will most likely be done on M dwarfs • Targets for characterization • Planet formation around low mass stars • Planet confirmation

Detection: Radial Velocities N 4: Terrestrial planets in the habitable zone of G-type stars: High cadence monitoring of a sample of 50 -100 Gtype stars with low levels of activity. • Improved wavelength calibration (e. g. Laser Frequency Combs) • Lots of observations (beat down oscillations and activity noise) • Superearths and possibly earth-mass in habitable zone of G-type stars are detectable with RVs • Targets for characterization M 13 Obtain a sample of Terrestrial planets in the Habitable Zone of G-K type stars

Don‘t forget to keep monitoring the known exoplanet hosting stars: N 6: Continued RV monitoring of all known exoplanet hosting stars in order to investigate the architecture of exoplanetary systems and to derive accurate orbital parameters. • If a star has one planet it probably has several. We need to understand this architecture • Accurate orbital parameters are needed for dynamical studies (stable planets in habitable zone), accurate ephemeris needed (transit searches even for long period planets) M 5: Continue long term RV surveys to find planets at large orbital distances, multiple systems, and to refine orbital parameters of known exoplanets.

Detection: Radial Velocities N 5: A Search for Planets Among Stars in Diverse Environments • The role of environment for planet formation is still poorly known • Planet searches in clusters, binary stars, young stars, etc. M 10: Use of ALMA to study exoplanets in their birth environments

Detection: Radial Velocities N 7: Securing the necessary telescope resources • Dedicated facilities (4 -8 m class telescopes) for RV measurements. • Inclusion of small telescopes in the effort. Ideal niche for small, underutilized 2 -4 m class telescopes. • Coordinated search activities: Workshops and working groups • Increased funding at a National and European level.

Detection: Astrometry M 11: True mass determination of known giant planets with GAIA: Deriving the true mass function for giant exoplanets. . The most fundamental property of a planet is its mass. The true mass only comes from transiting planets, or astrometry. M 12: Astrometric Searches for Terrestrial Planets with SIM-lite • One goal of SIM-lite is to detect terrestrial planets in habitable zone of G-type star • Targets for future characterization missions

Detection: Microlensing N 15: Continue ground-based microlensing searches • Probes the low-mass planet regime • Can give statistics Do not recommend a dedicated microlensing space mission, but „piggy-back“ would be good. Note: Microlensing searches most likely cannot produce targets for future characterization studies

Detection: Pulsar Planets N 13: Increase the sample size of pulsar planets • We know very little about pulsar planets due to the very small number statistics • Every type of planet helps in our understanding of planet formation. • We need to find more milli-second pulsars (LOFAR)

Detection: Angularly Resolved Detections N 16: Make Effective use of Planet finders for Exoplanets Studies • Ground-based telescopes (VLT, Gemini and Subaru) will soon (2011) be equipped with “planet-finders” (SPHERE, GPI and Hi. CIAO) making use of extreme adaptive optics, achromatic coronagraphy and differential imaging. These instruments will achieve contrasts of 106 to 108 in the near IR and will be able to probe the region within 5 -10 AU to search for giant planets. M 6: Continue direct imaging studies from the ground (AO, coronography) to find large planets at large orbital distances.

Characterization: Structure (M, R) N 9: Optimizing ground-based transit searches M 7: Keep facilities to determine radii of transiting planets found by RV surveys and to search for transit timing and transit duration variations. • • Focusing on bright stars. Ideal for characterization studies. A search for transiting low-mass planets around M dwarfs (e. g MEarth project). Targets for Herschel, JWST, or future spectral characterization missions. A search for transits for planets found by the RV method, including long period systems. A search Transit timing variations (TTVs) and transit duration variations (TDVs).

Characterization: Structure (M, R) N 10: Continuation of the Co. Ro. T and Kepler past the nominal mission life • We are lucky to have 2 exoplanet space missions flying. We should keep them going as long as possible • Possible modest support from ESA?

Characterization: Structure (M, R) N 14: Ground-based support of Co. Ro. T, Kepler, and preparation for ground-based support for GAIA. M 3: Secure the ground-based support necessary for follow-up of PLATO transit candidates • Lesson from Co. Ro. T and Kepler: There can be insufficient telescope resources for support. For PLATO this essential for science goals. Organization of ground-based support should start as soon, if not sooner, PLATO is approved. • ESA support (in words if not resources) is important • Prepare for follow-up of Gaia detections. 1) High-resolution, high -precision spectroscopy of Gaia-discovered systems, 2) Direct imaging campaigns (SPHERE/VLT, EPICS/E-ELT) will complement astrometric detections.

Characterization: Structure (M, R) M 2: Transit Searches for Small Planets around solartype stars • This will require PLATO or TESS

Characterization: Atmospheres N 17: Effective use of JWST for Exoplanets Studies (spectral characterization, imaging, photometry, phase curves, colors) • JWST will a valuable facility for performing characterization studies of exoplanets, • General Purpose facility → few targets • European scientists get a small amount of time • The community must move fast and organize itself so as to effectively use its small share of the time effectively on exoplanet studies. M 8 Devote time on ELT and JWST for key programs for in transit spectroscopy of transiting planets and direct imaging of Giant planets at large orbital distances.

Characterization: Atmospheres N 8: Characterization of Transiting Planets in the visible and IR with ground-based and on-going space based facilities • Basis for planning of future space missions

Characterization: Magnetospheres N 12: A search for radio emission from exoplanets with LOFAR L 4: Use SKA for the detection of radio emission from exoplanets

Characterization: Theory + Observations N 21: Calibration of giant planet evolutionary tracks • The nature of „planetary“ companions at wide (a>100 AU) orbital distances and „free floating planets“ is unknown until you get the mass • When it comes to masses I trust Kepler and Newton • If you have calibrated these tracks, then we may believe your mass determination.

Characterization: Atmospheres N 19: Theoretical studies on the spectroscopic signatures expected from exoplanets covering a wide range of masses (terrestrial to giant planets) and a wide range of temperatures. If we want to do characterization of exo-atmospheres we need to know: 1. Spectral features 2. Spectral Coverage 3. Spectral Resolution 4. Minimum Signal-to-Noise ratio requirements 5. Exposure times 6. Required Instrumental Stability If you are going to propose a space mission do you homework!

Characterization: Atmospheres M 1. Preparation for an M-class and/or smaller mission for characterization of exoplanet atmospheres from gas giants to superearths Characterization of a large sample exoplanet atmospheres is major next step in exoplanet studies Transiting planets: The spectral investigation of Hot Jupiters, Hot Neptunes, and Hot Superearths using in-transit spectroscopy and radiated light (secondary eclipse). Angular Resolved Detections. Mature giant planets to Superearth at distances > 1 AU from the host star. Note: at some point we will need both!

Characterization: Atmospheres The type of mission that will fly first depends on: 1. Technological feasibility in the time frame of the proposed mission. 2. Suitable sample of target stars 3. Scientific return 4. Cost that can be accommodated in the current ESA budget Note to proposers, examine 2 options: • A small mission with a total cost of ~200 Million Euros and with reduced science objects. • A medium class mission with a total cost of ~400 Million Euros with larger sample and more ambitious goals.

Technology N 18: Technological studies for Angularly Resolved Detections Possible direct imaging techniques: 1. Coronography 2. Nulling Interferometry 3. Fresnel Interferometers 4. Occulters 5. Fancy new future technology Habitable exoearths It is not clear which is the best one to use for a future flagship mission to characterize terrestrial planets around G-K stars. This must be determined beforehand. M 9: Continued technological Research & Development studies into the various Angularly Resolved Detections.

Don‘t forget the stars! N 1: Stellar studies of all stars out to 50 pcs: understanding the host stars of exoplanet systems, statistics as a function of stellar properties. N 20: An investigation of the influence of stellar activity on habitability and anticipated atmospheric signatures • The habitable zone of an M-dwarf is habitable in an extreme sense of the word. • M dwarfs have high X-ray fluxes, CME, etc M 4: Obtain accurate stellar parameters using GAIA and PLATO

Long term Recommendations If there really is a Santa Claus: L 1: Begin work on a flagship mission to characterize all the known terrestrial planets in the habitable zone of FK type dwarfs. • Building on the scientific and technological experience from the near- and mid-term • Know what technology to employ • Know what targets to look at

Long term Recommendations L 5: Planning and technological development for the construction of Mega-telescopes L 6: Technological studies for extreme adaptive optics with Mega-telescopes

Recommendations to ESA 1. Open Time Key Program on JWST for Exoplanets • Europe has very little time on JWST the exoplanet community needs to use this effectively 2. Recommend a atmospheric characterization mission. We have discovered a lot of planets, but characterization across the parameter space is lacking. Internal structure characterization is well covered by Co. Ro. T, Kepler, and hopefully PLATO • Short period transiting systems (1 st and 2 nd transit) of G-M dwarfs • Warm/cool planets with direct imaging Note: this is a case of „one then the other“ not „either or“ → need to explore the full parameter space

Recommendations to ESA 3. Give us more options. If ESA and NASA (or other countries) can only fund small missions it makes sense to pool resources • Make the interface work 4. Talk to ESO, find a European solution to the ground-based support of space missions. We will need this for PLATO. • Outright purchase of telescope time? • ESO devote a fraction of telescope time to space support with its own panel and peer review process

Recommendations to ESA 5. „Support“ technology studies at university and national laboratories (G 5) • Technology breakthroughs often come at universities or national laboratories, but these lack the technical expertise for porting a system to space. • Consultations? • Take on „internal design studies“?

Recommendations to ESA 6. SIM-lite: NASA may becoming with hat in hand • If NASA needs a „small“ amount of money (100 -200 MEuros) EPRAT supports joining so long as it does not impact other programs • But… if it is a substantial amount (500 MEuros) this will seriously impact other missions and community should give careful thought → in either case this should be a formal proposal from the European community that goes through the peer review process

Recommendations to ESA 7. Coordination with national space agencies and possible support on small missions. • ESA had a small contribution to Co. Ro. T which was money well spent. • Similar support or coordination for technology missions.

General Recommendations G 1: Stronger International Cooperation • Budget situation is bad everywhere, we will need friends • Look towards „non-traditional partners“ (China and India)

General Recommendations G 2: Laboratory measurements to produce line lists, atomic and molecular transition probabilities, opacities, and equation of states, dust properties G 5: Involve the Planetary Community • The field is still dominated by astronomers - A community that can help support your next mission - Bi-annual meetings in the “Cool Stars” or “Protostars and Planets” → “Exoplanets, Planetary Systems, and the Solar System”

G 6: A Rigorous Public Outreach • Taxpayers ultimately fund space missions we need to keep them interested • ESA can learn much from NASA • „Grassroots“ Efforts

G 7: Keep a vibrant community going “… the torch has been passed to a new generation. . ” Inaugural address, John F. Kennedy • Keep this an exciting and vibrant field with a pool of talented young scientists • Don’t plan something where the scientific result is 20 years in the future, you will lose the best and the brightest. • Keep exciting new results coming so as to attract young scientists.

Final Remarks 1. We may get just one mission after PLATO. Think carefully what you want 2. Have broad community support for the mission 3. Make a good case that it can only be done from space Ø Can it be done from the ground ? Ø Are you adding substanitally more targets/science than JWST can provide

Final Remarks 4. For characterization missions you better have your targets before hand, or a good ideas as to how you will get them. 5. Think small, it has a better chance of getting funded; but Ø RV < 0. 1 m/s precision Ø Photometric precision ~ 10– 5 Ø Astrometric precision < 1 mas Ø Contrast ratios of 10– 9 to 10– 10 Probably not small and definitely not cheap!

Final Remarks 6. Speak with a unified voice. "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall hang separately. " Benjamin Franklin