1: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: \documentclass{emulateapj}
3: %
4: % --------------
5: \def\degpoint{\ifmmode ^{\rm{o}}\!. \else $^{\rm{o}}\!.$\fi}
6: \newcommand{\degrees}{$^{\rm{o}}$}
7: \newcommand{\ms}{\mbox{m\ s$^{-1}$}}
8: \newcommand{\kms}{\mbox{km \ s$^{-1}$}}
9: \newcommand{\Msun}{\mbox{M$_{\odot}$}}
10: \newcommand{\Rsun}{\mbox{R$_{\odot}$}}
11: \newcommand{\Mjup}{\mbox{M$_{\rm Jup}$}}
12: \newcommand{\Rjup}{\mbox{R$_{\rm Jup}$}}
13: \newcommand{\Lsun}{\mbox{L$_{\odot}$}}
14: \newcommand{\hst}{\textit{Hubble Space Telescope} }
15: % Define commands for `less than or approximately equal to' \ltsimeq
16: % `greater than or approximately equal to' \gtsimeq
17: \newcommand{\ltsimeq}{\raisebox{-0.6ex}{$\,\stackrel
18: {\raisebox{-.2ex}{$\textstyle <$}}{\sim}\,$}}
19: \newcommand{\gtsimeq}{\raisebox{-0.6ex}{$\,\stackrel
20: {\raisebox{-.2ex}{$\textstyle >$}}{\sim}\,$}}
21: \newcommand{\prpsimeq}{\raisebox{-0.6ex}{$\,\stackrel
22: {\raisebox{-.2ex}{$\textstyle \propto $}}{\sim}\,$}}
23: %--------------
24: \begin{document}
25: \title{Dynamical and Observational Constraints on Additional Planets in
26: Highly Eccentric Planetary Systems\footnotemark[1]}
27: \author{Robert A.~Wittenmyer, Michael Endl, William D.~Cochran}
28: \affil{McDonald Observatory, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX
29: 78712}
30: \email{
31: robw@astro.as.utexas.edu }
32: \author{Harold F.~Levison}
33: \affil{Department of Space Studies, Southwest Research Institute, Boulder,
34: CO 80302}
35: %\email{hal@boulder.swri.edu}
36:
37: \shorttitle{Highly Eccentric Planetary Systems}
38: \shortauthors{Wittenmyer et al.}
39: \slugcomment{Accepted for publication in AJ}
40: \footnotetext[1]{Based on observations obtained with the Hobby-Eberly
41: Telescope, which is a joint project of the University of Texas at Austin,
42: the Pennsylvania State University, Stanford University,
43: Ludwig-Maximilians-Universit{\" a}t M{\" u}nchen, and
44: Georg-August-Universit{\" a}t G{\" o}ttingen.}
45: %-------------------------------------------------------------------
46: \begin{abstract}
47:
48: \noindent Long time coverage and high radial velocity precision have
49: allowed for the discovery of additional objects in known planetary
50: systems. Many of the extrasolar planets detected have highly eccentric
51: orbits, which raises the question of how likely those systems are to host
52: additional planets. We investigate six systems which contain a very
53: eccentric ($e>0.6$) planet: HD~3651, HD~37605, HD~45350, HD~80606,
54: HD~89744, and 16~Cyg~B. We present updated radial-velocity observations
55: and orbital solutions, search for additional planets, and perform test
56: particle simulations to find regions of dynamical stability. The
57: dynamical simulations show that short-period planets could exist in the
58: HD~45350 and 16~Cyg~B systems, and we use the observational data to set
59: tight detection limits, which rule out additional planets down to a few
60: Neptune masses in the HD~3651, HD~45350, and 16~Cyg~B systems.
61:
62: \end{abstract}
63:
64: \keywords{extrasolar planets -- planetary dynamics -- stars: planetary
65: systems }
66:
67: %--------------------------------------------------------------------
68: \section{Introduction}
69:
70: One surprising result that has come out of the more than 200 extrasolar
71: planet discoveries to date is the wide range of eccentricities observed.
72: Unlike our own Solar system, many of the extrasolar planets which are not
73: tidally locked to their host stars have moderate eccentricities ($e>0.2$),
74: and 15 planets have high eccentricities ($e>0.6$). These observations
75: have spawned several theories as to the origin of highly eccentric
76: extrasolar planets. One such method, planet-planet scattering, occurs
77: when multiple jovian planets form several astronomical units (AU) from the
78: host star and then interact, leaving one in an eccentric orbit and often
79: ejecting the other \citep{rasio96}. This method has been proposed to
80: explain the architecture of the $\upsilon$ And planetary system
81: \citep{ford05}, which contains a hot Jupiter as well as two jovian planets
82: in moderately eccentric orbits. \citet{linida97} suggested a merger
83: scenario in which inner protoplanets perturb each other and merge to form
84: a single massive, eccentric planet with $e\gtsimeq 0.3$ and $a\sim 0.5-1$
85: AU.
86:
87: Interactions with stellar companions are another possible way to boost a
88: planet's eccentricity. Of the 15 stars hosting a planet with $e>0.6$, six
89: are also known to possess stellar-mass companions in wide binary orbits:
90: HD~3651 \citep{mugrauer06, luhman07}, HD~20782 \citep{desidera07},
91: HD~80606, HD~89744 \citep{wilson01, mugrauer04}, 16~Cyg~B, and HD~222582
92: \citep{raghavan06}. If the inclination angle between the planetary orbit
93: and a stellar companion is large, the Kozai mechanism \citep{kozai} can
94: induce large-amplitude oscillations in the eccentricity of the planet
95: (e.g.~Malmberg et al.~2006). These oscillations can be damped by general
96: relativistic effects and by interaction with other planets, and hence are
97: most effective in systems with a single planet in an orbit $a\gtsimeq$1~AU
98: from the host star \citep{takeda05}. The Kozai mechanism has been
99: suggested to explain the high eccentricity of 16~Cyg~Bb \citep{holman97,
100: mazeh97} and HD~80606b \citep{wu03}. \citet{hauser99} found the
101: inclination of 16~Cyg~B orbiting the system barycenter to lie between 100
102: and 160 degrees, where 90 degrees is an edge-on orientation. However, it
103: is the difference in inclination between the orbital planes of the
104: planetary and stellar companion that is critical in determining the
105: importance of the Kozai mechanism, and the inclination of the planet's
106: orbit is generally not known for non-transiting systems.
107:
108: Of the 192 known planetary systems, 23 (12\%) are multi-planet systems.
109: Recent discoveries of additional objects in systems known to host at least
110: one planet \citep{udry07, destructor, rivera05, vogt05, mcarthur04,
111: santos04} suggest that multiple-planet systems are common. Of particular
112: interest are systems which host a jovian planet and a low-mass ``hot
113: Neptune,'' e.g.~55~Cnc (=HD~75732), GJ~876, $\mu$ Arae (=HD~160691),
114: Gl~777A (=HD~190360). Motivated by the discoveries of hot Neptunes in
115: known planetary systems, we have undertaken an intensive survey of
116: selected single-planet systems to search for additional low-mass
117: companions. Three of the planetary systems discussed in this paper
118: (HD~3651, HD~80606, HD~89744) are part of this campaign. The excellent
119: radial-velocity precision of the High Resolution Spectrograph on the
120: Hobby-Eberly Telescope (HET), combined with queue-scheduling, allow us to
121: time the observations in such a way as to minimize phase gaps in the orbit
122: of the known planet, and also to act quickly on potential new planet
123: candidates. The use of the HET in this manner is discussed further in
124: \citet{cochran04} with regard to the discovery of HD~37605b.
125:
126: In this work, we aim to combine observational limits on additional planets
127: in known planetary systems with dynamical constraints obtained by N-body
128: simulations. The observations address the question: What additional
129: planets are (or are not) in these systems? The dynamical simulations can
130: answer the question: Where are additional planets possible? Section~2
131: describes the observations and the test particle simulations for six
132: highly eccentric planetary systems: HD~3651, HD~37605, HD~45350, HD~80606,
133: HD~89744, and 16~Cyg~B. We have chosen these systems based on two
134: criteria: (1) Each hosts a planet with $e>0.6$, and (2) Each has been
135: observed by the planet search programs at McDonald Observatory. In \S 3,
136: we present and discuss the results of the updated orbital fits, dynamical
137: simulations, and detection limit computations.
138:
139:
140: %--------------------------------------------------------------------
141: \section{Observations and Data Analysis}
142:
143: \subsection{Radial-Velocity Observations}
144:
145: Five of the six stars considered in this work have been observed with the
146: McDonald Observatory 9.2~m Hobby-Eberly Telescope (HET) using its High
147: Resolution Spectrograph (HRS) \citep{tull98}. A full description of the
148: HET planet search program is given in \citet{cochran04}. For 16~Cyg~B,
149: observations from McDonald Observatory were obtained only with the 2.7~m
150: Harlan J.~Smith (HJS) telescope; the long-term planet search program on
151: this telescope is described in \citet{limitspaper}. All available
152: published data on these systems were combined with our data from McDonald
153: Observatory in the orbit fitting procedures.
154:
155: \subsection{Numerical Methods}
156:
157: To place constraints on the architecture of planetary systems, we would
158: like to know where additional objects can remain in stable orbits in the
159: presence of the known planet(s). We performed test particle simulations
160: using SWIFT\footnote{SWIFT is publicly available at
161: http://www.boulder.swri.edu/$\sim$hal/swift.html.} \citep{levison94} to
162: investigate the dynamical possibility of additional low-mass planets in
163: each of the six systems considered here. Low-mass planets can be treated
164: as test particles since the exchange of angular momentum with jovian
165: planets is small. We chose the regularized mixed-variable symplectic
166: integrator (RMVS3) version of SWIFT for its ability to handle close
167: approaches between massless, non-interacting test particles and planets.
168: Particles are removed if they are (1) closer than 1 Hill radius to the
169: planet, (2) closer than 0.05~AU to the star, or (3) farther than 10~AU
170: from the star. Since the purpose of these simulations is to determine the
171: regions in which additional planets could remain in stable orbits, we set
172: this outer boundary because the current repository of radial-velocity data
173: cannot detect objects at such distances.
174:
175: The test particle simulations were set up following the methods used in
176: \citet{barnes04}, with the exception that only initially circular orbits
177: are considered in this work. For each planetary system, test particles
178: were placed in initially circular orbits spaced every 0.002~AU in the
179: region between 0.05-2.0~AU. We have chosen to focus on this region
180: because the duration of our high-precision HET data is currently only 2-4
181: years for the objects in this study. The test particles were coplanar
182: with the existing planet, which had the effect of confining the simulation
183: to two dimensions. Input physical parameters for the known planet in each
184: system were obtained from our Keplerian orbit fits described in \S~3.1,
185: and from recent literature for 16~Cyg~B \citep{destructor} and HD~45350
186: \citep{endl06}. The planetary masses were taken to be their minimum
187: values (sin~$i=1$). The systems were integrated for $10^7$ yr, following
188: \citet{barnes04} and allowing completion of the computations in a
189: reasonable time. We observed that nearly all of the test-particle
190: removals occurred within the first $10^6$ yr; after this time, the
191: simulations had essentially stabilized to their final configurations.
192:
193:
194: %--------------------------------------------------------------------
195: \section{Results and Discussion}
196:
197: \subsection{Updated Keplerian Solutions for 4 Systems}
198:
199: We present updated Keplerian orbital solutions for HD~3651b, HD~37605b,
200: HD~80606b, and HD~89744b in Table~1. A summary of the data used in our
201: analysis is given in Table~2, and the HET radial velocities are given in
202: Tables~3-6. The velocity uncertainties given for the HET data represent
203: internal errors only, and do not include any external sources of error
204: such as stellar ``jitter.'' The parameters for the remaining two planets,
205: HD~45350b and 16~Cyg~Bb, are taken from \citet{endl06} and
206: \citet{destructor}, respectively. Radial velocity measurements from the
207: HET are given for HD~45350 in \citet{endl06}, and velocities for 16~Cyg~B
208: from the HJS telescope are given in \citet{destructor}. As in
209: \citet{destructor}, all available published data were combined with those
210: from McDonald, and the known planet in each system was fit with a
211: Keplerian orbit using GaussFit \citep{jefferys87}, allowing the velocity
212: offset between each data set to be a free parameter. Examination of the
213: residuals to our Keplerian orbit fits revealed no evidence for additional
214: objects in any of the six systems in this study.
215:
216: The Saturn-mass (M~sin~$i=0.2$\Mjup) planet HD~3651b was discovered by
217: \citet{fischer03} using observations from Lick and Keck. We fit these
218: data, which were updated in \citet{butler06}, in combination with
219: observations from the HJS and HET at McDonald Observatory. The HET data,
220: which consist of multiple exposures per visit, were binned using the
221: inverse-variance weighted mean value of the velocities in each visit.
222: The standard error of the mean was added in quadrature to the weighted rms
223: about the mean velocity to generate the error bar of each binned point
224: (N=29). The rms about the combined fit for each dataset is: Lick \&
225: Keck--6.6 \ms, HET--9.4 \ms, HJS--12.2 \ms. The fitted orbital parameters
226: for HD~3651b are of comparable precision to those reported in
227: \citet{butler06}, and agree within 2$\sigma$. The recent discovery of a T
228: dwarf companion to HD~3651 \citep{mugrauer06, luhman07} prompts an
229: interesting exercise: Can the radial-velocity trend due to this object be
230: detected in the residuals after removing the planet? We detect a slope of
231: $-0.27\pm0.05$ \ms~yr$^{-1}$, indicating that we are indeed able to
232: discern a trend which is possibly due to the binary companion. However,
233: the reduced $\chi^{2}$ of the orbital solution is not significantly
234: improved by the inclusion of a linear trend ($\Delta
235: \chi^{2}_{\nu}$=0.18). The parameters given in Table~1 were obtained from
236: the fit which did not include a trend.
237:
238: We present 23 new HET observations for HD~37605 obtained since its
239: announcement by \citet{cochran04}. The data now span a total of
240: 1065~days. The best fit is obtained by including an acceleration of
241: $-20.5\pm 2.1$ \ms~yr$^{-1}$, indicating a distant orbiting body. Such a
242: finding would lend support to the hypothesis that very eccentric
243: single-planet systems originate by interactions within a wide binary
244: system. The shortest period that this outer companion could have and
245: still remain consistent with the observed acceleration and its uncertainty
246: over the timespan of the observations is about 40~yr, assuming a circular
247: orbit. This object would then have a minimum mass in the brown dwarf
248: range.
249:
250: The planet orbiting HD~80606, first announced by \citet{naef01}, is the
251: most eccentric extrasolar planet known, with $e=0.933\pm 0.001$ (Table~1).
252: We have fit the CORALIE data in combination with the Keck data given in
253: \citet{butler06} and 23 observations from HET. The extreme velocity
254: variations induced by this planet greatly increase the sensitivity of
255: orbit fits to the weighting of individual measurements. Since the
256: uncertainties of the HET velocities given in Tables~3-6 represent internal
257: errors only, we experimented with adding 1-7 \ms of radial-velocity
258: ``jitter'' in quadrature before fitting the data for HD~80606. For all of
259: these jitter values, the fitted parameters remained the same within their
260: uncertainties. Table~1 gives the parameters derived from a fit which
261: added 3.5~\ms of jitter \citep{butler06} to the HET data. The rms about
262: the combined fit is: CORALIE--18.7 \ms, HET--7.5 \ms, Keck--5.6 \ms.
263: \citet{butler06} noted that the eccentricity $e$ and the argument of
264: periastron $\omega$ had to be held fixed in their fit to the Keck data
265: alone. However, the large number of measurements included in this work
266: allowed GaussFit to converge with all parameters free.
267:
268: For HD~89744b, we combine data from the HET with 6 measurements from the
269: HJS telescope and Lick data from \citet{butler06}. The HET data were
270: binned in the same manner as for HD~3651, resulting in N=33 independent
271: visits. The rms about the combined fit for each dataset is: Lick--17.1
272: \ms, HET--10.7 \ms, HJS--9.5 \ms. As with HD~3651b, our derived
273: parameters agree with those of \citet{butler06} within 2$\sigma$. The
274: scatter about our fit remains large, most likely due to the star's early
275: spectral type (F7V), which hinders precision radial-velocity measurements
276: due to the smaller number of spectral lines. For example, the F7V star
277: HD~221287 was recently found to host a planet \citep{naef07}; despite the
278: superb instrumental precision of the HARPS spectrograph, that orbital
279: solution has a residual rms of 8.5 \ms.
280:
281:
282: \subsection{Test Particle Simulations}
283:
284: The results of the dynamical simulations are shown in Figures~1-3. The
285: survival time of the test particles is plotted against their initial
286: semimajor axis. As shown in Figure~1, the short-period planets HD~3651
287: and HD~37605 sweep clean the region inside of about 0.5~AU. In both of
288: these systems, however, a small number of test particles remained in
289: low-eccentricity orbits near the known planet's apastron distance, near
290: the 1:2 mean-motion resonance (MMR). In the HD~3651 system, particles
291: remained stable beyond about 0.6~AU, which is not surprising given the low
292: mass of the planet. For HD~37605, two distinct strips of stability are
293: seen in Fig.~1, corresponding to the 1:2 and 1:3 MMRs. The eccentricity
294: of the test particles in the region of the 1:2 MMR oscillated between 0.00
295: and 0.06. Particles in 1:3 MMR oscillated in eccentricity with a larger
296: range, up to $e\sim 0.4$, which is expected due to secular forcing. As
297: with HD~3651, the region beyond about 0.8~AU was essentially unaffected by
298: the planet.
299:
300: Figure~2 shows the results for the HD~45350 and HD~80606 systems. The
301: long period (963.6 days) and relatively large mass (M~sin~$i$=1.8 \Mjup)
302: of HD~45350b restricted stable orbits to the innermost 0.2~AU. These test
303: particles oscillated in eccentricity up to $e\sim 0.25$. The
304: 4\Mjup~planet orbiting HD~80606 removed all test particles to a distance
305: of about 1.5~AU, and only beyond 1.75~AU did test particles remain in
306: stable orbits for the duration of the simulation ($10^7$ yr). A region of
307: instability is evident at 1.9~AU due to the 8:1 MMR. Figure~3 shows that
308: HD~89744b eliminated all test particles except for a narrow region near
309: the 8:3 resonance. For the 16~Cyg~B system, only particles inside of
310: about 0.3~AU remained stable, leaving open the possibility of short-period
311: planets. The surviving particles oscillated in eccentricity up to $e\sim
312: 0.45$, but these simulations treat the star as a point mass, and hence
313: tidal damping of the eccentricity is not included. Our results are
314: consistent with those of \citet{menou03}, who investigated dynamical
315: stability in extrasolar planetary systems and found that no test particles
316: survived in the habitable zones of the HD~80606, HD~89744, and 16~Cyg~B
317: systems.
318:
319:
320: \subsection{Detection Limits}
321:
322: Three of these systems (HD~3651, HD~80606, HD~89744) were monitored
323: intensely with the HET as part of a larger effort to search for low-mass,
324: short period planets. No evidence was found for any such objects in these
325: or any of the six systems in this work. We then asked what limits can be
326: set on additional planets using the high-precision HET data we have
327: obtained. The procedure for determining companion limits was identical to
328: the method described in \citet{limitspaper}, except that in this work, the
329: best-fit Keplerian orbit for the known planet (see \S~3.1) was removed
330: before performing the limits computations. In this way, we determined the
331: radial-velocity amplitude $K$ for which 99\% of planets would have been
332: detected in the residuals. The eccentricity of the injected test signals
333: was chosen to be the mean eccentricity of the surviving particles from the
334: simulations described in \S~3.2. Only the regions in which test particles
335: survived were considered in these limits computations.
336:
337: The results of these computations were highly varied, reflecting the
338: differing observing strategies employed for these six objects. In
339: particular, HD~3651, HD~80606, and HD~89744 were monitored intensely with
340: the HET as part of a search for short-period objects, whereas HD~37605 and
341: HD~45350 were only observed sporadically after the known planet orbits
342: were defined and published \citep{cochran04, endl06}, and 16~Cyg~B has
343: only been observed with the HJS telescope at a frequency of at most once
344: per month. The companion limits are shown in Figures~4-6; planets with
345: masses above the solid line can be ruled out by the data with 99\%
346: confidence. Not surprisingly, the tightest limits were obtained for
347: HD~3651 (Figure~4), which had a total of 195 measurements, including 29
348: independent HET visits. For periods less than about 1~year, we can
349: exclude planets with M~sin~$i$~\gtsimeq~2 Neptune masses. Similar results
350: were obtained for 16~Cyg~B (N=161), where the limits approach a Neptune
351: mass (Figure~6). Since the detection limits generally improve with the
352: addition of more data and with higher-quality data, we can define a
353: quantity to measure the goodness of the limits. A simple choice would be
354: $N/\bar{\sigma}$, where $N$ is the total number of observations, and
355: $\bar{\sigma}$ is the mean uncertainty of the radial-velocity
356: measurements. The values of $N$ and $\bar{\sigma}$ are given in Table~2.
357:
358: In the HD~45350 system, the results of the dynamical simulations
359: complement those of the detection limit determinations. Very tight limits
360: are obtained in close orbits ($a\ltsimeq$0.2~AU). In this region, test
361: particles were stable (Fig.~2) and our observations can exclude planets
362: with M~sin~\textit{i} between about 1 and 4 Neptune masses. Similar
363: results were obtained for the 16~Cyg~B system, in which test particles
364: remained stable inward of $a\sim$~0.3~AU. In that region, planets of 1-3
365: Neptune masses can be excluded by our limits determinations (Fig.~6). In
366: most of the limits determinations, there are multiple ``blind spots''
367: evident where the periodogram method failed to significantly recover the
368: injected signals. Typically this occurs at certain trial periods for
369: which the phase coverage of the observational data is poor, and often at
370: the 1-month and 1-year windows.
371:
372: For none of HD~37605 (Fig.~4), HD~80606 (Fig.~5), or HD~89744 (Fig.~6)
373: could additional companions be ruled out below about 0.7 \Mjup, and for
374: most orbital periods tested, the limits were substantially worse. One
375: possible explanation for this result is that the sampling of the
376: observations was poorly distributed in phase for many of the injected test
377: signals, making significant recovery by the periodogram method difficult.
378: This is evidenced by the ``jagged'' regions in the plots. Also, the
379: intrinsic scatter for those three systems was too large to permit tight
380: limits determination. This is certainly reasonable for the F7 star
381: HD~89744. The three systems with the best limits (HD~3651, HD~45350, and
382: 16~Cyg~B) also had the lowest rms scatter about their orbital solutions
383: (mean=$8.9\pm1.4$ \ms; Table~1). In contrast, the mean rms for the
384: remaining three systems was $13.7\pm0.6$ \ms. Additional factors such as
385: a paucity of data (HD~37605) and short time baselines (HD~80606, HD~89744)
386: made the determination of useful companion limits challenging for some of
387: the planetary systems in this study.
388:
389:
390: % -------------------------------------------------------------------
391: \section{Summary}
392:
393: We have shown that for a sample of six highly eccentric extrasolar
394: planetary systems, there is no evidence for additional planets. Test
395: particle simulations show that there are regions detectable by current
396: surveys (i.e.~for $a<2$ AU) where additional objects can exist. For
397: HD~3651 and HD~37605, we find that protected resonances are also present.
398: Combining these simulations with detection limits computed using new
399: high-precision HET data combined with all available published data is
400: particularly effective for the HD~3651 and HD~45350 systems. Additional
401: short-period planets can be ruled out down to a few Neptune masses in the
402: dynamically stable regions in these systems.
403:
404:
405: %--------------------------------------------------------------------
406: \acknowledgements
407:
408: This material is based upon work supported by the National Aeronautics and
409: Space Administration under Grant Nos.~NNG04G141G and NNG05G107G issued
410: through the Terrestrial Planet Finder Foundation Science program. We are
411: grateful to the HET TAC for their generous allocation of telescope time
412: for this project. We also would like to thank Barbara McArthur for her
413: assistance with GaussFit software. We thank the referee, Greg Laughlin,
414: for his careful review of this manuscript. This research has made use of
415: NASA's Astrophysics Data System (ADS), and the SIMBAD database, operated
416: at CDS, Strasbourg, France. The Hobby-Eberly Telescope (HET) is a joint
417: project of the University of Texas at Austin, the Pennsylvania State
418: University, Stanford University, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universit{\" a}t
419: M{\"u}nchen, and Georg-August-Universit{\" a}t G{\" o}ttingen The HET is
420: named in honor of its principal benefactors, William P.~Hobby and Robert
421: E.~Eberly.
422:
423: \clearpage
424:
425: %--------------------------------------------------------------------
426: \begin{thebibliography}{}
427:
428: \bibitem[Barnes \& Raymond(2004)]{barnes04} Barnes, R., \&
429: Raymond, S.~N.\ 2004, \apj, 617, 569
430:
431: \bibitem[Butler et al.(2006)]{butler06} Butler, R.~P., et al.\
432: 2006, \apj, 646, 505
433:
434: \bibitem[Cochran et al.(2004)]{cochran04} Cochran, W.~D., et al.\ 2004,
435: \apjl, 611, L133
436:
437: \bibitem[Desidera \& Barbieri(2007)]{desidera07} Desidera, S., \&
438: Barbieri, M.\ 2007, \aap, 462, 345
439:
440: \bibitem[Eggenberger et al.(2004)]{eggenberger04} Eggenberger, A.,
441: Udry, S., \& Mayor, M.\ 2004, \aap, 417, 353
442:
443: \bibitem[Endl et al.(2006)]{endl06} Endl, M., Cochran, W.~D.,
444: Wittenmyer, R.~A., \& Hatzes, A.~P.\ 2006, \aj, 131, 3131
445:
446: \bibitem[Fischer et al.(2003)]{fischer03} Fischer, D.~A., Butler, R.~P.,
447: Marcy, G.~W., Vogt, S.~S., \& Henry, G.~W.\ 2003, \apj, 590, 1081
448:
449: \bibitem[Ford et al.(2005)]{ford05} Ford, E.~B., Lystad, V.,
450: \& Rasio, F.~A.\ 2005, \nat, 434, 873
451:
452: \bibitem[Goldreich \& Sari(2003)]{goldreich03} Goldreich, P., \&
453: Sari, R.\ 2003, \apj, 585, 1024
454:
455: \bibitem[Hauser \& Marcy(1999)]{hauser99} Hauser, H.~M., \&
456: Marcy, G.~W.\ 1999, \pasp, 111, 321
457:
458: \bibitem[Holman et al.(1997)]{holman97} Holman, M., Touma, J.,
459: \& Tremaine, S.\ 1997, \nat, 386, 254
460:
461: \bibitem[Jefferys et al.(1987)]{jefferys87} Jefferys, W.~H.,
462: Fitzpatrick, M.~J., \& McArthur, B.~E.\ 1987, Celestial Mechanics, 41, 39
463: % GaussFit paper
464:
465: \bibitem[Kozai(1962)]{kozai} Kozai, Y.\ 1962, \aj, 67, 591
466:
467: \bibitem[Levison \& Duncan(1994)]{levison94} Levison, H.~F., \&
468: Duncan, M.~J.\ 1994, Icarus, 108, 18
469:
470: \bibitem[Lin \& Ida(1997)]{linida97} Lin, D.~N.~C., \& Ida, S.\
471: 1997, \apj, 477, 781
472:
473: \bibitem[Lomb(1976)]{lomb76} Lomb, N.~R.\ 1976, \apss, 39,
474: 447
475:
476: \bibitem[Luhman et al.(2007)]{luhman07} Luhman, K.~L., et al.\
477: 2007, \apj, 654, 570
478:
479: \bibitem[Malmberg et al.(2007)]{malmberg06} Malmberg, D., Davies,
480: M.~B., \& Chambers, J.~E.\ 2007, \mnras, L18
481:
482: \bibitem[Mazeh et al.(1997)]{mazeh97} Mazeh, T., Krymolowski,
483: Y., \& Rosenfeld, G.\ 1997, \apjl, 477, L103
484:
485: \bibitem[McArthur et al.(2004)]{mcarthur04} McArthur, B.~E., et
486: al.\ 2004, \apjl, 614, L81
487:
488: \bibitem[Menou \& Tabachnik(2003)]{menou03} Menou, K., \&
489: Tabachnik, S.\ 2003, \apj, 583, 473
490:
491: \bibitem[Mugrauer et al.(2004)]{mugrauer04} Mugrauer, M.,
492: Neuh{\"a}user, R., Mazeh, T., Guenther, E., \& Fern{\'a}ndez, M.\ 2004,
493: Astronomische Nachrichten, 325, 718
494:
495: \bibitem[Mugrauer et al.(2006)]{mugrauer06} Mugrauer, M.,
496: Seifahrt, A., Neuh{\"a}user, R., \& Mazeh, T.\ 2006, \mnras, 373, L31
497:
498: \bibitem[Naef et al.(2001)]{naef01} Naef, D., et al.\ 2001,
499: \aap, 375, L27
500:
501: \bibitem[Naef et al.(2007)]{naef07} Naef, D., et al.\ 2007,
502: \aap, in press, arXiv:0704.0917
503:
504: \bibitem[Raghavan et al.(2006)]{raghavan06} Raghavan, D., Henry,
505: T.~J., Mason, B.~D., Subasavage, J.~P., Jao, W.-C., Beaulieu, T.~D., \&
506: Hambly, N.~C.\ 2006, \apj, 646, 523
507:
508: \bibitem[Rasio \& Ford(1996)]{rasio96} Rasio, F.~A., \& Ford,
509: E.~B.\ 1996, Science, 274, 954
510:
511: \bibitem[Rivera \& Haghighipour(2007)]{rivera07} Rivera, E., \&
512: Haghighipour, N.\ 2007, \mnras, 374, 599
513:
514: \bibitem[Rivera et al.(2005)]{rivera05} Rivera, E.~J., et al.\
515: 2005, \apj, 634, 625
516:
517: \bibitem[Santos et al.(2004)]{santos04} Santos, N.~C., et al.\
518: 2004, \aap, 426, L19
519:
520: \bibitem[Scargle(1982)]{scargle82} Scargle, J.~D.\ 1982, \apj,
521: 263, 835
522:
523: \bibitem[Takeda \& Rasio(2005)]{takeda05} Takeda, G., \& Rasio,
524: F.~A.\ 2005, \apj, 627, 1001
525:
526: \bibitem[Tull(1998)]{tull98} Tull, R.~G.\ 1998, \procspie,
527: 3355, 387
528:
529: \bibitem[Udry et al.(2007)]{udry07} Udry, S., et al.\ 2007,
530: \aap, submitted, arXiv:0704.3841
531:
532: \bibitem[Vogt et al.(2005)]{vogt05} Vogt, S.~S., Butler,
533: R.~P., Marcy, G.~W., Fischer, D.~A., Henry, G.~W., Laughlin, G., Wright,
534: J.~T., \& Johnson, J.~A.\ 2005, \apj, 632, 638
535:
536: \bibitem[Wilson et al.(2001)]{wilson01} Wilson, J.~C., Kirkpatrick, J.~D.,
537: Gizis, J.~E., Skrutskie, M.~F., Monet, D.~G., \& Houck, J.~R.\ 2001, \aj,
538: 122, 1989
539:
540: \bibitem[Wittenmyer et al.(2006)]{limitspaper} Wittenmyer, R.~A.,
541: Endl, M., Cochran, W.~D., Hatzes, A.~P., Walker, G.~A.~H., Yang, S.~L.~S.,
542: \& Paulson, D.~B.\ 2006, \aj, 132, 177
543:
544: \bibitem[Wittenmyer et al.(2007)]{destructor} Wittenmyer, R.~A.,
545: Endl, M., \& Cochran, W.~D.\ 2007, \apj, 654, 625
546:
547: \bibitem[Wu \& Murray(2003)]{wu03} Wu, Y., \& Murray, N.\
548: 2003, \apj, 589, 605
549:
550: \end{thebibliography}
551:
552: %--------------------------------------------------------------------
553: % table updated with new psf results for 3651, 80606, 89744,37605.
554: % 16 cyg and 45350 params from published papers.
555: % fully updated and done as of 4/2/07.
556:
557: \clearpage
558:
559: \begin{deluxetable}{lllllllll}
560: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
561: \tablecolumns{9}
562: \tablewidth{0pt}
563: \tablecaption{Keplerian Orbital Solutions \label{tbl-1}}
564: \tablehead{
565: \colhead{Planet} & \colhead{Period } & \colhead{$T_0$ } &
566: \colhead{$e$} & \colhead{$\omega$} & \colhead{K } & \colhead{M
567: sin $i$ } & \colhead{$a$ } & \colhead{rms }\\
568: \colhead{} & \colhead{(days)} & \colhead{(JD-2400000)} & \colhead{} &
569: \colhead{(degrees)} & \colhead{(\ms)} & \colhead{(\Mjup)} & \colhead{(AU)}
570: & \colhead{\ms}
571: }
572: \startdata
573: HD 3651 b & 62.197$\pm$0.012 & 53932.2$\pm$0.4 & 0.630$\pm$0.046 &
574: 250.7$\pm$6.3 & 15.6$\pm$1.1 & 0.20$\pm$0.01 & 0.280$\pm$0.006 & 7.1 \\
575: HD 37605 b & 55.027$\pm$0.009 & 52992.8$\pm$0.1 & 0.677$\pm$0.009 &
576: 218.4$\pm$1.7 & 201.5$\pm$3.9 & 2.39$\pm$0.12 & 0.263$\pm$0.006 & 13.0 \\
577: HD 45350 b & 963.6$\pm$3.4 & 51825.3$\pm$7.1 & 0.778$\pm$0.009 &
578: 343.4$\pm$2.3 & 58.0$\pm$1.7 & 1.79$\pm$0.14 & 1.92$\pm$0.07 & 9.1 \\
579: HD 80606 b & 111.428$\pm$0.002 & 53421.928$\pm$0.004 & 0.933$\pm$0.001 &
580: 300.4$\pm$0.3 & 470.2$\pm$2.5 & 4.10$\pm$0.12 & 0.460$\pm$0.007 & 13.5 \\
581: HD 89744 b & 256.78$\pm$0.05 & 53816.1$\pm$0.3 & 0.689$\pm$0.006 &
582: 194.1$\pm$0.6 & 263.2$\pm$3.9 & 7.92$\pm$0.23 & 0.91$\pm$0.01 & 14.4 \\
583: 16 Cyg B b & 799.5$\pm$0.6 & 50539.3$\pm$1.6 & 0.689$\pm$0.011 &
584: 83.4$\pm$2.1 & 51.2$\pm$1.1 & 1.68$\pm$0.07 & 1.68$\pm$0.03 & 10.6 \\
585: \enddata
586: \end{deluxetable}
587: %----------------------------------------------------------
588:
589: % These numbers fully updated as of 4/2/07.
590: \begin{deluxetable}{lllll}
591: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
592: \tablecolumns{5}
593: \tablewidth{0pt}
594: \tablecaption{Summary of Radial-Velocity Data \label{tbl-2}}
595: \tablehead{
596: \colhead{Star} & \colhead{$N$} & \colhead{$\bar{\sigma}$ (\ms)} &
597: \colhead{$\Delta T$ (days)} & \colhead{Source}
598: }
599: \startdata
600: HD 3651 & 163 & 3.4 & & \citet{butler06} \\
601: HD 3651 & 3 & 6.1 & & HJS\tablenotemark{a} \\
602: HD 3651 & 29 & 2.1 & & HET\tablenotemark{b} \\
603: HD 3651 (total) & 195 & 3.2 & 7083 & \\
604: \hline
605: HD 37605 (total) & 43 & 2.9 & 1065 & HET \\
606: \hline
607: HD 45350 & 38 & 2.8 & & \citet{butler06} \\
608: HD 45350 & 28 & 4.2 & & HET \\
609: HD 45350 & 47 & 8.9 & & HJS \\
610: HD 45350 (total) & 113 & 5.7 & 2265 & \\
611: \hline
612: HD 80606 & 61 & 13.7 & & \citet{naef01} \\
613: HD 80606 & 46 & 5.1 & & \citet{butler06} \\
614: HD 80606 & 23 & 2.5 & & HET \\
615: HD 80606 (total) & 130 & 8.7 & 2893 & \\
616: \hline
617: HD 89744 & 50 & 11.2 & & \citet{butler06} \\
618: HD 89744 & 33 & 3.2 & & HET \\
619: HD 89744 & 6 & 9.4 & & HJS \\
620: HD 89744 (total) & 89 & 8.1 & 2687 & \\
621: \hline
622: 16 Cyg B & 95 & 6.3 & & \citet{butler06} \\
623: 16 Cyg B & 29 & 19.7 & & HJS Phase II\tablenotemark{c} \\
624: 16 Cyg B & 37 & 7.4 & & HJS Phase III \\
625: 16 Cyg B (total) & 161 & 9.0 & 6950 & \\
626: \enddata
627: \tablenotetext{a}{McDonald Observatory 2.7~m Harlan J.~Smith Telescope.}
628: \tablenotetext{b}{McDonald Observatory 9.2~m Hobby-Eberly Telescope.}
629: \tablenotetext{c}{Phase~II indicates an earlier instrument setup detailed
630: in \citet{limitspaper}. Phase~III is the current configuration. }
631: \end{deluxetable}
632:
633: \clearpage
634:
635: %----------------------------------------------------------
636:
637: \begin{figure}
638: \plottwo{f1a.eps}{f1b.eps}
639: \caption{Left panel: Survival time as a function of initial semimajor axis
640: for test particles in the HD~3651 system after $10^7$ yr. The filled
641: regions indicate test particles which survived. The orbital excursion of
642: HD~3561b is indicated by the horizontal error bars at the top. Particles
643: were placed on initially circular orbits with $0.05<a<2.00$~AU. For all
644: systems, the known planet removed particles which crossed its orbit. The
645: dark region near 0.5~AU shows the stable 1:2 mean-motion resonance (MMR).
646: Right panel: Same, but for the HD~37605 system. The dark regions near
647: 0.45~AU and 0.6~AU show the stable 1:2 and 1:3 MMRs. }
648: \end{figure}
649:
650: \begin{figure}
651: \plottwo{f2a.eps}{f2b.eps}
652: \caption{Same as Fig.~1, but for the HD~45350 (left) and HD~80606
653: (right) systems. }
654: \end{figure}
655:
656: \begin{figure}
657: \plottwo{f3a.eps}{f3b.eps}
658: \caption{Same as Fig.~1, but for the HD~89744 (left) and 16~Cyg~B (right)
659: systems. }
660: \end{figure}
661:
662: \begin{figure}
663: \plottwo{f4a.eps}{f4b.eps}
664: \caption{Left panel: Detection limits for additional planets in orbits
665: with $e=0.18$ in the HD~3651 system. Planets in the parameter space above
666: the plotted points are excluded at the 99\% confidence level. The
667: horizontal dashed line indicates the mass of Neptune. Right panel: Same,
668: but for planets with $e=0.20$ in the HD~37605 system. }
669: \end{figure}
670:
671: \begin{figure}
672: \plottwo{f5a.eps}{f5b.eps}
673: \caption{Left panel: Detection limits for additional planets with $e=0.22$
674: in the HD~45350 system. The horizontal dashed line indicates the mass of
675: Neptune. Right panel: Same, but for planets with $e=0.31$ in the HD~80606
676: system. Planets in the parameter space above the plotted points are
677: excluded at the 99\% confidence level. }
678: \end{figure}
679:
680: \begin{figure}
681: \plottwo{f6a.eps}{f6b.eps}
682: \caption{Left panel: Detection limits for additional planets with $e=0.28$
683: in the HD~89744 system. Right panel: Same, but for planets with $e=0.23$
684: in the 16~Cyg~B system. The horizontal dashed line indicates the mass of
685: Neptune. Planets in the parameter space above the plotted points are
686: excluded at the 99\% confidence level. }
687: \end{figure}
688:
689: \clearpage
690:
691: % vels.hd3651.522752
692: % this table current as of 2/22/07.
693: \begin{deluxetable}{lrr}
694: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
695: \tablecolumns{3}
696: \tablewidth{0pt}
697: \tablecaption{HET Radial Velocities for HD 3651}
698: \label{tbl-3}
699: \tablehead{
700: \colhead{JD-2400000} & \colhead{Velocity (\ms)} & \colhead{Uncertainty
701: (\ms)}}
702: \startdata
703: 53581.87326 & -19.1 & 2.9 \\
704: 53581.87586 & -19.4 & 2.7 \\
705: 53581.87846 & -20.7 & 2.7 \\
706: 53600.79669 & -11.5 & 2.4 \\
707: 53600.79860 & -15.5 & 3.0 \\
708: 53600.80050 & -22.8 & 2.9 \\
709: 53604.79166 & -15.8 & 1.9 \\
710: 53604.79356 & -18.8 & 2.1 \\
711: 53604.79548 & -21.3 & 2.1 \\
712: 53606.78169 & -19.3 & 1.8 \\
713: 53606.78360 & -14.8 & 2.1 \\
714: 53606.78551 & -24.0 & 1.8 \\
715: 53608.77236 & -18.8 & 1.9 \\
716: 53608.77426 & -18.0 & 1.9 \\
717: 53608.77617 & -18.8 & 1.8 \\
718: 53615.96280 & -28.0 & 2.6 \\
719: 53615.96471 & -31.9 & 2.4 \\
720: 53615.96662 & -37.8 & 2.5 \\
721: 53628.74050 & -6.8 & 2.2 \\
722: 53628.74240 & -14.5 & 2.4 \\
723: 53628.74431 & -5.5 & 2.2 \\
724: 53669.61012 & -18.2 & 2.1 \\
725: 53669.61203 & -19.2 & 2.2 \\
726: 53669.61394 & -17.7 & 2.4 \\
727: 53678.78954 & -10.6 & 2.4 \\
728: 53678.79141 & -8.6 & 2.3 \\
729: 53678.79332 & -2.3 & 2.1 \\
730: 53682.78423 & -15.4 & 2.2 \\
731: 53682.78609 & -15.0 & 2.3 \\
732: 53682.78801 & -11.9 & 2.3 \\
733: 53687.77684 & 11.3 & 2.2 \\
734: 53687.77875 & 8.7 & 2.2 \\
735: 53687.78066 & 15.9 & 2.2 \\
736: 53691.75967 & 9.6 & 2.2 \\
737: 53691.76158 & 20.3 & 2.1 \\
738: 53691.76349 & 15.9 & 2.0 \\
739: 53696.75837 & 16.1 & 1.8 \\
740: 53696.76028 & 18.6 & 1.8 \\
741: 53696.76220 & 20.0 & 2.0 \\
742: 53694.75275 & 18.0 & 1.9 \\
743: 53694.75466 & 15.1 & 2.0 \\
744: 53694.75656 & 17.8 & 2.0 \\
745: 53955.83401 & -0.5 & 1.9 \\
746: 53955.83593 & -1.2 & 2.0 \\
747: 53955.83785 & 1.3 & 1.9 \\
748: 53956.82850 & 0.4 & 2.0 \\
749: 53956.83046 & -1.0 & 2.0 \\
750: 53956.83236 & -5.4 & 2.2 \\
751: 53957.82201 & -2.1 & 2.0 \\
752: 53957.82392 & -1.3 & 2.0 \\
753: 53957.82583 & -3.6 & 2.0 \\
754: 53973.80721 & 9.8 & 7.3 \\
755: 53973.81020 & 3.5 & 2.3 \\
756: 53973.81200 & -3.5 & 2.0 \\
757: 53976.78393 & -10.4 & 2.4 \\
758: 53976.78586 & -5.4 & 2.1 \\
759: 53976.78778 & -6.7 & 2.3 \\
760: 53978.97197 & -3.8 & 2.6 \\
761: 53985.95886 & -9.0 & 2.3 \\
762: 53985.96079 & 4.3 & 3.3 \\
763: 53987.95335 & -8.3 & 2.2 \\
764: 53987.95527 & -8.0 & 2.2 \\
765: 53987.95719 & -12.0 & 2.3 \\
766: 53989.73817 & -13.2 & 2.2 \\
767: 53989.74009 & -13.2 & 2.1 \\
768: 53989.74203 & -18.6 & 2.1 \\
769: 54003.70719 & 2.0 & 2.2 \\
770: 54003.70915 & 4.7 & 2.4 \\
771: 54005.68297 & 7.0 & 2.5 \\
772: 54005.68488 & 11.1 & 2.0 \\
773: 54005.68690 & 10.2 & 2.1 \\
774: 54056.77919 & -7.5 & 2.2 \\
775: 54056.78110 & -11.5 & 2.1 \\
776: 54056.78302 & -9.6 & 2.3 \\
777: 54062.55119 & 20.1 & 1.8 \\
778: 54062.55312 & 21.9 & 2.0 \\
779: 54062.55505 & 20.9 & 2.0 \\
780: 54064.54710 & 12.8 & 2.0 \\
781: 54064.54902 & 16.7 & 2.1 \\
782: 54064.55094 & 16.6 & 2.1 \\
783: 54130.55316 & 19.1 & 2.4 \\
784: 54130.55508 & 16.9 & 2.5 \\
785: 54130.55701 & 17.6 & 2.5 \\
786: \enddata
787: \end{deluxetable}
788:
789: % this table current as of 12/14/06. 1 outlier removed.
790: \begin{deluxetable}{lrr}
791: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
792: \tablecolumns{3}
793: \tablewidth{0pt}
794: \tablecaption{HET Radial Velocities for HD 37605}
795: \label{tbl-4}
796: \tablehead{
797: \colhead{JD-2400000} & \colhead{Velocity (\ms)} & \colhead{Uncertainty
798: (\ms)}}
799: \startdata
800: 53002.67151 & 487.6 & 3.8 \\
801: 53003.68525 & 495.5 & 3.0 \\
802: 53006.66205 & 496.2 & 3.0 \\
803: 53008.66407 & 501.3 & 2.9 \\
804: 53010.80477 & 499.8 & 2.9 \\
805: 53013.79399 & 482.1 & 2.6 \\
806: 53042.72797 & 269.7 & 2.8 \\
807: 53061.66756 & 489.0 & 2.6 \\
808: 53065.64684 & 479.0 & 2.8 \\
809: 53071.64383 & 463.8 & 2.6 \\
810: 53073.63819 & 460.4 & 2.6 \\
811: 53082.62372 & 422.8 & 2.5 \\
812: 53083.59536 & 422.2 & 2.8 \\
813: 53088.59378 & 418.6 & 4.0 \\
814: 53089.59576 & 379.1 & 2.2 \\
815: 53092.59799 & 343.7 & 2.5 \\
816: 53094.58658 & 323.2 & 2.4 \\
817: 53095.58642 & 302.1 & 2.4 \\
818: 53096.58744 & 302.1 & 3.2 \\
819: 53098.57625 & 193.8 & 2.7 \\
820: 53264.95137 & 164.9 & 3.0 \\
821: 53265.94744 & 112.9 & 3.0 \\
822: 53266.94598 & 113.2 & 3.7 \\
823: 53266.95948 & 74.6 & 3.6 \\
824: 53266.97396 & 119.2 & 8.0 \\
825: 53283.92241 & 471.6 & 2.7 \\
826: 53318.81927 & 213.3 & 3.0 \\
827: 53335.92181 & 496.9 & 2.6 \\
828: 53338.90602 & 493.9 & 2.6 \\
829: 53377.81941 & 109.1 & 2.7 \\
830: 53378.81189 & 214.6 & 2.7 \\
831: 53379.80225 & 338.3 & 2.6 \\
832: 53381.64429 & 436.1 & 2.7 \\
833: 53384.64654 & 482.9 & 2.8 \\
834: 53724.85584 & 468.2 & 2.6 \\
835: 53731.69723 & 435.4 & 2.7 \\
836: 53738.67472 & 404.3 & 2.6 \\
837: 53743.81020 & 400.5 & 2.6 \\
838: 53748.64724 & 348.4 & 2.7 \\
839: 54039.85015 & 272.5 & 3.1 \\
840: 54054.96457 & 437.4 & 2.7 \\
841: 54055.95279 & 422.0 & 2.9 \\
842: 54067.76282 & 376.4 & 2.6 \\
843: \enddata
844: \end{deluxetable}
845:
846:
847: % this table current as of 4/2/07.
848: \begin{deluxetable}{lrr}
849: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
850: \tablecolumns{3}
851: \tablewidth{0pt}
852: \tablecaption{HET Radial Velocities for HD 80606 }
853: \label{tbl-5}
854: \tablehead{
855: \colhead{JD-2400000} & \colhead{Velocity (\ms)} & \colhead{Uncertainty
856: (\ms)}}
857: \startdata
858: 53346.88103 & -20.8 & 3.0 \\
859: 53358.02089 & -49.5 & 2.7 \\
860: 53359.82400 & -60.4 & 3.0 \\
861: 53361.02985 & -64.7 & 2.5 \\
862: 53365.03079 & -77.4 & 2.4 \\
863: 53373.98282 & -88.4 & 3.0 \\
864: 53377.80112 & -105.5 & 2.4 \\
865: 53379.75230 & -109.3 & 2.7 \\
866: 53389.74170 & -115.3 & 2.5 \\
867: 53391.74400 & -129.4 & 2.4 \\
868: 53395.72763 & -146.4 & 2.3 \\
869: 53399.72518 & -158.4 & 2.5 \\
870: 53401.72497 & -174.7 & 2.7 \\
871: 53414.67819 & -219.8 & 3.0 \\
872: 53421.85529 & 261.0 & 2.2 \\
873: 53423.86650 & 322.1 & 2.0 \\
874: 53424.85231 & 245.9 & 2.1 \\
875: 53432.87120 & 87.5 & 1.9 \\
876: 53433.60628 & 70.0 & 2.1 \\
877: 53446.79322 & 4.5 & 1.9 \\
878: 54161.85400 & -109.5 & 2.8 \\
879: 54166.83797 & -119.3 & 2.4 \\
880: 54186.76189 & -184.2 & 2.3 \\
881: \enddata
882: \end{deluxetable}
883:
884:
885: % vels.hd89744.610035
886: % this table current as of 4/2/07.
887: \begin{deluxetable}{lrr}
888: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
889: \tablecolumns{3}
890: \tablewidth{0pt}
891: \tablecaption{HET Radial Velocities for HD 89744 }
892: \label{tbl-6}
893: \tablehead{
894: \colhead{JD-2400000} & \colhead{Velocity (\ms)} & \colhead{Uncertainty
895: (\ms)}}
896: \startdata
897: 53709.89685 & -184.5 & 2.3 \\
898: 53723.85188 & -238.6 & 2.2 \\
899: 53723.85367 & -238.2 & 2.5 \\
900: 53723.85546 & -227.7 & 2.3 \\
901: 53727.84394 & -238.9 & 2.5 \\
902: 53727.84573 & -244.9 & 2.4 \\
903: 53727.84752 & -242.9 & 2.6 \\
904: 53736.81887 & -257.6 & 2.5 \\
905: 53736.82100 & -248.2 & 2.9 \\
906: 53736.82315 & -253.4 & 2.4 \\
907: 53738.03261 & -246.7 & 2.8 \\
908: 53738.03441 & -243.3 & 2.4 \\
909: 53738.03620 & -236.0 & 2.5 \\
910: 53738.80860 & -240.5 & 2.6 \\
911: 53738.81040 & -258.9 & 2.4 \\
912: 53738.81219 & -249.3 & 2.5 \\
913: 53734.81795 & -242.8 & 2.6 \\
914: 53734.81973 & -243.9 & 2.8 \\
915: 53734.82152 & -248.5 & 2.4 \\
916: 53742.79119 & -252.0 & 2.8 \\
917: 53742.79299 & -257.2 & 2.8 \\
918: 53742.79479 & -239.7 & 2.8 \\
919: 53751.78199 & -257.4 & 2.9 \\
920: 53751.78378 & -263.1 & 2.5 \\
921: 53751.78558 & -268.0 & 2.3 \\
922: 53753.78155 & -273.1 & 2.5 \\
923: 53753.78381 & -278.7 & 2.5 \\
924: 53753.78607 & -266.4 & 2.4 \\
925: 53755.76038 & -286.6 & 2.3 \\
926: 53755.76218 & -266.5 & 2.6 \\
927: 53755.76397 & -274.9 & 2.7 \\
928: 53746.81506 & -257.1 & 1.9 \\
929: 53746.81778 & -250.9 & 2.1 \\
930: 53746.82051 & -245.2 & 2.3 \\
931: 53757.77002 & -277.6 & 2.4 \\
932: 53757.77181 & -280.3 & 2.4 \\
933: 53757.77360 & -288.7 & 2.2 \\
934: 53797.64609 & -439.8 & 3.1 \\
935: 53797.64834 & -462.6 & 2.8 \\
936: 53797.65059 & -452.5 & 2.9 \\
937: 53809.62428 & -658.6 & 2.4 \\
938: 53809.62700 & -658.8 & 2.5 \\
939: 53809.62972 & -659.2 & 2.3 \\
940: 53837.76359 & -304.3 & 3.0 \\
941: 53837.76670 & -324.0 & 2.9 \\
942: 53837.78731 & -308.6 & 2.7 \\
943: 53837.79077 & -285.2 & 2.6 \\
944: 53866.69987 & -215.9 & 1.7 \\
945: 53866.70329 & -228.3 & 1.7 \\
946: 53866.70670 & -220.4 & 1.8 \\
947: 53868.68349 & -251.6 & 3.8 \\
948: 53868.68562 & -208.6 & 2.9 \\
949: 53868.68777 & -247.4 & 9.7 \\
950: 53875.66956 & -215.7 & 1.6 \\
951: 53883.65565 & -213.8 & 1.8 \\
952: 53883.65837 & -209.2 & 1.7 \\
953: 53883.66109 & -200.4 & 1.7 \\
954: 53890.63776 & -203.4 & 1.7 \\
955: 53890.63954 & -202.6 & 1.9 \\
956: 53890.64134 & -203.2 & 1.9 \\
957: 53893.62959 & -193.8 & 2.0 \\
958: 53893.63139 & -189.3 & 1.9 \\
959: 53893.63318 & -189.7 & 1.8 \\
960: 54047.94811 & -375.2 & 4.8 \\
961: 54047.94991 & -353.2 & 4.5 \\
962: 54047.95172 & -362.6 & 4.4 \\
963: 54050.96248 & -415.0 & 2.6 \\
964: 54050.96453 & -423.0 & 2.5 \\
965: 54050.96657 & -420.1 & 2.4 \\
966: 54052.96488 & -426.8 & 2.3 \\
967: 54052.96762 & -437.1 & 2.5 \\
968: 54052.97035 & -447.6 & 2.5 \\
969: 54056.94606 & -468.0 & 3.0 \\
970: 54056.94786 & -466.4 & 2.6 \\
971: 54056.94964 & -479.4 & 2.8 \\
972: 54063.92981 & -599.1 & 2.1 \\
973: 54063.93166 & -594.8 & 2.3 \\
974: 54063.93348 & -592.3 & 2.4 \\
975: 54073.91213 & -685.8 & 2.8 \\
976: 54073.91476 & -688.7 & 2.9 \\
977: 54073.91739 & -704.4 & 2.7 \\
978: 54122.01039 & -220.8 & 2.5 \\
979: 54122.01243 & -219.1 & 2.6 \\
980: 54122.01447 & -218.4 & 2.8 \\
981: 54129.74214 & -215.7 & 2.6 \\
982: 54129.74491 & -224.4 & 3.0 \\
983: 54129.74768 & -223.7 & 3.1 \\
984: 54160.65850 & -189.5 & 3.2 \\
985: 54160.66031 & -181.8 & 2.7 \\
986: 54160.66212 & -204.8 & 3.2 \\
987: 54163.66458 & -213.9 & 3.1 \\
988: 54163.66643 & -200.8 & 2.9 \\
989: 54163.66828 & -208.0 & 3.2 \\
990: 54165.88148 & -208.5 & 2.7 \\
991: \enddata
992: \end{deluxetable}
993:
994:
995:
996: \end{document}
997: