1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{emulateapj}
3:
4: \newcommand{\Mearth}{$M_\oplus$}
5: \newcommand{\Msun}{$M_\odot$}
6: \newcommand{\Mjup}{$M_\mathrm{J}$}
7: \newcommand{\Rjup}{$R_\mathrm{J}$}
8: \newcommand{\Rearth}{$R_\oplus$}
9: \newcommand{\Rsun}{$R_\odot$}
10: \newcommand{\Lsun}{$L_\odot$}
11: \newcommand{\Rstar}{$R_\star$}
12: \newcommand{\AU}{{\sc au}}
13: \newcommand{\CsurO}{\rm C/O|_\odot}
14: \newcommand{\corot}{\emph{CoRoT}}
15: \newcommand{\kepler}{\emph{Kepler}}
16: \newcommand{\spitzer}{\emph{Spitzer}}
17: \newcommand{\microns}{$\mu$m}
18: \newcommand{\etal}{et al.}
19: \newcommand{\deriv}{\mathrm{d}}
20: \newcommand{\ratiothree}{(R_p/R_\star)_{5.8\,\mu\mathrm{m}}}
21: \newcommand{\ratioone}{(R_p/R_\star)_{3.6\,\mu\mathrm{m}}}
22:
23: \begin{document}
24:
25: \title{A \emph{Spitzer} Search for Water \\ in the Transiting Exoplanet HD\,189733\lowercase{b} \\
26: {\scriptsize ---Accepted for publication in \emph{ApJ Letters}---}}
27: \author{David Ehrenreich, Guillaume H\'ebrard, Alain~Lecavelier des Etangs, David~K.~Sing,\\ Jean-Michel~D\'esert,
28: Fran\c{c}ois~Bouchy, Roger~Ferlet, and Alfred~Vidal-Madjar}
29:
30: \affil{Institut d'astrophysique de Paris, CNRS (UMR 7095), Universit\'e Pierre
31: et Marie Curie, 98 bis boulevard Arago, 75014 Paris, France}
32:
33: \begin{abstract}
34: We present \spitzer\ \emph{Space Telescope} observations of the extrasolar
35: planet HD\,189733b primary transit, obtained simultaneously at 3.6 and
36: 5.8~\microns\ with the Infrared Array Camera. The system parameters, including
37: planetary radius, stellar radius, and impact parameter are derived from fits to
38: the transit light curves at both wavelengths. We measure two consistent
39: planet-to-star radius ratios, $\ratioone = 0.1560 \pm 0.0008\textrm{(stat)} \pm
40: 0.0002\textrm{(syst)}$ and $\ratiothree = 0.1541 \pm 0.0009\textrm{(stat)} \pm
41: 0.0009\textrm{(syst)}$, which include both the random and systematic errors in
42: the transit baseline. Although planet radii are determined at 1\%-accuracy, if
43: all uncertainties are taken into account the resulting error bars are still too
44: large to allow for the detection of atmospheric constituants like water vapour.
45: This illustrates the need to observe multiple transits with the longest
46: possible out-of-transit baseline, in order to achieve the precision required by
47: transmission spectroscopy of giant extrasolar planets.
48: \end{abstract}
49:
50: \keywords{planetary systems --- stars: individual (HD\,189733)}
51:
52: \section{INTRODUCTION}
53: %=====================
54:
55: \label{sec:intro} During a planetary transit, the eclipsed light from the star
56: filters through the atmospheric limb of the planet. Transmission spectroscopy
57: of this light lead to detect and probe the deep and upper-escaping atmospheres
58: of HD\,209458b (Charbonneau \etal\ 2002; Vidal-Madjar \etal\ 2003, 2004;
59: Ballester \etal\ 2007). Richardson \etal\ (2006) obtained the first infrared
60: (IR) transit measurement for this planet and found its radius at 24~\microns\
61: consistent with the visible radius. Based on planetary radius measurements by
62: Knutson \etal\ (2007a) at optical wavelengths, Barman (2007) claimed the
63: identification of water in the planet atmosphere.
64:
65: HD\,189733b, discovered by Bouchy \etal\ (2005), is orbiting a small, close,
66: and bright main sequence K star, thus giving the deepest transit occultation
67: ever detected ($\sim$2.5\%). The planet has a mass $M_p = 1.13$~Jovian mass
68: (\Mjup) and its radius in the visible is $R_p = 1.16$~Jovian radius (\Rjup;
69: Bakos \etal\ 2006; Winn \etal\ 2007). Fortney \& Marley (2007) suggested a
70: possible water detection in this planet, yielding from \emph{Spitzer}
71: observations of an anti-transit, whereas Knutson \etal\ (2007b) obtained the
72: planet-to-star radius ratio at 8~\microns\ and found
73: $(R_p/R_\star)_\mathrm{8\,\mu m} = 0.1545 \pm 0.0002$.
74:
75: Here we describe the \spitzer\ observations collected during the primary
76: transit of HD\,189733b in order to measure its radius at two different IR
77: wavelengths and search for atmospheric water (H$_2$O). Models of the IR
78: transmission spectrum of this planet (Tinetti \etal\ 2007a,b) have shown that
79: \spitzer\ is well suited to probe the planet atmospheric composition, in
80: particular by comparing two photometric bands, centered at 3.6 and
81: 5.8~\microns. The absorption by H$_2$O should give a difference in the spectral
82: ratios measured at those two wavelengths of $\Delta_{\Re'}({\rm H_2O}) \equiv
83: (\Re'_{5.8\mathrm{\mu m}} - \Re'_{3.6\mathrm{\mu m}}) / \Re'_{3.6\mathrm{\mu
84: m}} \sim 1.7$--$3.4\%$, depending on the set of H$_2$O absorption cross-section
85: coefficients used for the calculation, and where $\Re' \approx (R_p /
86: R_\star)^2$, as defined by Brown (2001). This corresponds to a predicted
87: planetary radius relative difference due to absorption by H$_2$O of
88: $\Delta_{R}({\rm H_2O}) \sim 0.85$--$1.7\%$.
89:
90:
91: \section{OBSERVATIONS}
92: %=====================
93: \label{sec:observations}
94:
95: We observed HD\,189733 on 2006 October 31, during a primary transit of its
96: planet with the Infrared Array Camera (IRAC, Fazio \etal\ 2004). Our 4.5-h
97: observations covers the 1.8-h transit of HD\,189733b. We used only one IRAC
98: channel pair to avoid repointing the telescope during the observations: the
99: 0.75-\microns-wide channel~1 centered on 3.6~\microns, and the
100: 1.42-\microns-wide channel~3 centered on 5.8~\microns. We did not dither the
101: pointing in order to keep the source on a particular position of the detector
102: and increase the photometric accuracy.
103:
104: The observations were split in 1936 consecutive sub-exposures, each integrated
105: over 0.4 and 2~s (frame times) for channels~1 and~3, respectively. The short
106: exposure times in IRAC `stellar mode' avoid the saturation of the detector due
107: to HD\,189733, a $K=5.5$ magnitude star. We used the flat-fielded,
108: cosmic-ray-corrected, and flux-calibrated data files provided by the \spitzer\
109: pipeline.
110:
111: \section{DATA ANALYSIS}
112: %======================
113: \label{sec:data_analysis}
114:
115: \subsection{Photometry and background}
116: %-------------------------------------
117:
118: \label{sec:method} To obtain a transit light curve from the two-dimensional
119: 1936 images, we calculate a weighted aperture photometry by summing the
120: weighted background-subtracted flux on each pixel within an aperture of given
121: radius $r$ (Horne 1986; Naylor 1998). The optimal weighting on a pixel is $P /
122: \sigma^2$, where $P$ and $\sigma$ are the values of the point spread function
123: (PSF) and photon noise for this pixel. The PSF is estimated in each channel and
124: for each pixel as the median of the background-subtracted fluxes. Finally, the
125: estimated error on the weighted integrated flux is calculated as the
126: square-root of the weighted photon-noise quadratic sum; it remains a constant
127: throughout the time series.
128:
129: To estimate the sky and instrumental background for each exposure, we
130: calculated the mean value of the image in an annulus centered on the star with
131: inner and outer radii of 16 and 18 pixels, respectively. Different ring sizes
132: were tested to check that (1) the stellar PSF does not contaminate the
133: background and (2) other field stars contribution is minimized. Typical
134: background estimates are $\sim 0.05$ and $0.1$--$0.2$~mJy per pixel in
135: channels~1 and~3, respectively. They are $\sim 10^4$ times less than stellar
136: flux integrated over the 113-pixel photometric aperture.
137:
138: The initial weighted flux time series were extracted with an aperture radius $r
139: = 6$~pixels. The raw weighted light curves in channels~1 and~3 are plotted in
140: Fig.~\ref{fig:time_series}. Beyond the main trend due to the expected planetary
141: transit, with an occultation depth of more than 2\% during about 6,500~s,
142: additional effects pollute the signal. In both channels, there is a strong
143: decrease of the flux during the first $\sim 1,000$~s of observations. Most
144: noticeable in channel~1 at 3.6~\microns, the star is close to nominal
145: saturation limits and the light curve presents large fluctuations, attributed
146: to the `pixel-phase effect'. A close look to the 2D images obtained in
147: channel~3 at 5.8~\microns\ reveals a contamination of the photometry caused by
148: the `bandwidth effect'. The light curve baseline is also affected in this
149: channel by a decreasing drift. These effects and their corrections are now
150: further detailed.
151:
152: \subsection{Instrumental artifacts}
153: %----------------------------------
154: \label{sec:effects}
155:
156: \paragraph{Saturation.}
157: %'''''''''''''''''''''''''
158: \label{sec:saturation} The flux of HD\,189733 is 1,700~mJy at 3.6~\microns.
159: This is about twice the maximum recommended (and conservative) point source
160: value for a frame time of 0.4~s in stellar mode.\footnote{See
161: http://ssc.spitzer.caltech.edu/irac/sat.html.} Looking into the raw data from
162: channel~1, we found that the brightest pixel of the stellar PSF is above the
163: detector array saturating value ($DN = 30,000$) \emph{only} during the
164: $\sim100$ first sub-expsosures. Those are already discarded for the data
165: reduction. In the following sub-exposures, the flux remains below the
166: saturation limit, in the linear regime.
167:
168: \paragraph{Pixel-phase effect at 3.6~\microns.}
169: %'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
170: \label{sec:pixel-phase} The telescope jitter and intra-pixel sensitivity
171: variations for the observation of a bright star are likely responsible for the
172: large fluctuations seen in the light curve obtained at 3.6~\microns\ in
173: channel~1. These fluctuations are correlated to the pixel-phase variation,
174: whose effect is most severe in channel~1. A description of this effect and a
175: correction method are given in the IRAC data handbook (Reach et al.\ 2006,
176: p.~50). The method, also reported by Morales-Calder\'on \etal\ (2006), consists
177: in calculating a pixel-phase dependent correction on the flux, $F_w^{\rm cor} =
178: F_w \left[ 1 + k \left( 1 / 2\pi - \phi \right) \right]^{-1}$, where the pixel
179: phase is $\phi = [(x-x_0)^2 + (y-y_0)^2]^{1/2}$, $(x,y)$ is the centroid of the
180: point source, and $x_0$ and $y_0$ are the integer pixel numbers containing the
181: source centroid. The optimized correction is determined by iteratively fitting
182: the out-of-transit flux baseline. The pixel phase variations and the raw and
183: corrected light curves are plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig:time_series} (left). The
184: relative difference introduced by this correction on the value of $\ratioone$
185: can be estimated to $\Delta_{R}^\mathrm{3.6\mu m}(\mathrm{phase}) \sim 2$--3\%.
186:
187: \paragraph{Bandwidth effect at 5.8~\microns.}
188: %'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
189: \label{sec:bandwidth} The bandwidth effect reportedly affects those IRAC
190: channels fitted with detector arrays made of arsenic doped silicon (Si:As),
191: such as channel~3. The IRAC data handbook (Reach et al.\ 2006, p.~24) describes
192: it as decaying echoes 4, 8, and 12 columns to the right of a bright or
193: saturated pixel. HD\,189733 is no brighter than 700~mJy at 5.8~\microns,
194: whereas the maximum unsaturated point source brightness at this wavelength and
195: for 2-s frame time is 1,400~mJy.$^1~$ Yet, the pixel located 4 columns to the
196: right of the stellar maximum is anomalously bright in all exposures and appears
197: as a peak in the wing of the stellar PSF, $\sim 2$--3 times brighter than
198: closer-to-the-centroid adjacent pixels. Therefore, we rejected this suspicious
199: pixel from the aperture photometry integration, as recommended by IRAC status
200: reports.\footnote{See the October and December 2005 IRAC status reports at
201: https://lists.ipac.caltech.edu/mailman/htdig/irac-ig.} This decreases the value
202: obtained for $\ratiothree$, and the relative difference between the corrected
203: and uncorrected values is $\Delta_{R}^\mathrm{5.8\mu m}({\rm band}) \sim 1\%$.
204: The bandwidth effect could typically lead to obtain a planetary radius
205: systematically larger at 5.8 than at 3.6~\microns\ and mimic an absorption due
206: to atmospheric water, hence leading to a false detection.
207:
208: \paragraph{Drift of the flux at 5.8~\microns.}
209: %''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
210: \label{sec:drift} A non-linear decreasing drift can be seen in the channel-3
211: light curve (Fig.~\ref{fig:time_series}, right). After steeply decreasing, the
212: drift seems to set as a nearly linear trend after 2,500~s. This gives us the
213: choice to drop the exposures before that time and linearly fit the
214: out-of-transit baseline after, or keep most of the exposures at the beginning
215: of the observations and perform either a quadratic or exponential fit to the
216: baseline.
217: %
218: We tested the influence of both the polynomial fitted to the baseline and the
219: number of exposures dropped from the beginning of the observations on the
220: system parameters yielding from the fitting procedure. To this purpose, the
221: time $t_s$ defining the start of the fit was set as a free parameter. For
222: consistency, the same tests were performed in channel~1, and their results are
223: plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig:time_start}. A large dispersion of values is obtained,
224: especially for $\ratiothree$ in channel~3. Depending on the fit parameters, the
225: dispersion obtained are $\Delta_{R}^\mathrm{3.6\mu m}({\rm drift}) \sim 0.1\%$
226: and $\Delta_{R}^\mathrm{5.8\mu m}({\rm drift}) \sim 0.6\%$ at 3.6 and
227: 5.8~\microns, respectively.
228: %
229: The limited knowledge of the baseline exact level during the transit introduces
230: systematic uncertainties in the determination of the system parameters. These
231: uncertainties are further taken into account as systematic errors.
232:
233: \subsection{Determination of the system parameters}
234: %--------------------------------------------------
235: \label{sec:system_parameters}
236:
237: \paragraph{Selection of sub-exposures.}
238: %'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
239: \label{sec:selectexpo} We made a selection within the 1936~sub-exposures to
240: obtain the best possible photometry. Sub-exposures where the aperture contains
241: at least one pixel flagged by the \spitzer\ pipeline, are removed from our time
242: series. We did not apply such selection to one particular pixel always present
243: in the wing of the PSF in channel~1: it is systematically flagged as having a
244: `photometric accuracy unacceptably low,' which is verified when compared to
245: adjacent pixels. However, we found no significant differences when including or
246: excluding it from the aperture photometry. We also removed the dozen
247: sub-exposures in each channel where the integrated photometry of HD\,189733
248: presents strong and isolated variations. Finally, we kept in channel~1 the
249: exposures where the pixel phase was between $0.16 < \phi < 0.23$ (see
250: Fig.~\ref{fig:time_series}), and rejected the others in order to minimize the
251: influence of residuals from the correction for the pixel-phase effect. As a
252: result, when cutting out the first 500~s of data after the beginning of the
253: observations, we consider 75 and 96\% of the total number of exposures in
254: channels~1 and 3, respectively.
255:
256: \paragraph{Fitting the transit light curves.}
257: %'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
258: \label{sec:fit_method} The transit light curves at 3.6 and 5.8~\microns\ are
259: fitted with a procedure based on the analytical model of Mandel \& Agol (2002),
260: which includes the effect of limb-darkening. The procedure is able to fit
261: either linear, quadratic, or exponential baselines. The resulting parameters of
262: the fit at each wavelength are the planet-to-star radius ratio $R_p/R_\star$,
263: the impact parameter $b$ in units of stellar radii, the orbital velocity
264: $v_\mathrm{orb}$ in units of stellar radii which, because the planet orbital
265: period is known to high accuracy ($2.218574$~days, according to H\'ebrard \&
266: Lecavelier des Etangs 2006), can be converted into $R_\star M_\star^{-1/3}$,
267: where $M_\star$ is the stellar mass, and the heliocentric transit central time
268: $T_0$. The best fits obtained are plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig:fits}.
269:
270: \paragraph{Limb darkening effect.}
271: %'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
272: \label{sec:limb-darkening} The contribution of limb-darkening to the transit
273: light curve is calculated using a non-linear limb-darkening law (Mandel \&
274: Algol 2002) which has four wavelength-dependent coefficients. These
275: coefficients were fitted using a Kurucz (2005) stellar model
276: ($T_\mathrm{eff}=5,000$~K, $\log{g}=4.5$, solar abundance), which closely
277: matched the observed parameters of HD\,189733, at 17 different angles from
278: center to limb. The stellar model was convolved, at each angle, with the IRAC
279: photometric bandpasses before fitting the non-linear law. We found the
280: coefficients $C_1$, $C_2$, $C_3$, and $C_4$ of the law to be $0.6023$,
281: $-0.5110$, $0.4655$, and $-0.1752$ at 3.6~\microns, and $0.7137$, $-1.0720$,
282: $1.0515$, and $-0.3825$ at 5.8~\microns. The uncertainty in the limb-darkening
283: coefficients has no impact on the results.
284: %
285: However, the uncertainty in the impact parameter introduces an uncertainty in
286: the limb darkening amplitude and, therefore, an uncertainty in the measured
287: planetary radius. The relative radius difference at 3.6~\microns\ due to the
288: limb-darkening effect is $\Delta_{R}^\mathrm{3.6\mu m}({\rm limb}) \sim 1\%$
289: and $\Delta_{R}^\mathrm{5.8\mu m}({\rm limb}) \sim 0.3\%$ at 3.6 and
290: 5.8~\microns, respectively. The limb-darkening effect can be appreciated in the
291: bottom panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:fits}.
292: %
293: \paragraph{Statistical error bars.}
294: %''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
295: The statistical error bars on the parameters are calculated with the $\Delta
296: \chi^2$ method described by H\'ebrard \etal\ (2002). The quality of the fit is
297: given by the value of $\chi^2/n$, where $n$ is the degree of freedom of the
298: light curve. Assuming we are limited by the photon noise, we find $\chi^2/n$ of
299: $\sim 1.5$ and $1.3$ at 3.6 and 5.8~\microns, respectively. We thus scaled the
300: uncertainties larger by factors of $\sqrt{1.5} = 1.22$ and $\sqrt{1.3} = 1.14$
301: to obtain $\chi^2/n \sim 1$ in both channels.
302: %
303: Using various models and starting time for the baseline gives similar $\chi^2$
304: values, showing that the light curve does not contain enough information to
305: constrain that source of uncertainty.
306:
307: \paragraph{Systematics.}
308: %'''''''''''''''''''''''
309: The effects described above all introduce systematics that are clearly not
310: negligible compared to the predicted radius differences due to atmospheric
311: water, $\Delta_{R}({\rm H_2O}) \sim 0.85$--$1.7\%$. Limb-darkening effect,
312: introducing $\Delta_{R}^\mathrm{3.6\mu m}({\rm limb}) \sim 1\%$ in channel~1
313: and $\Delta_{R}^\mathrm{5.8\mu m}({\rm limb}) \sim 0.3\%$ in channel~3 is dealt
314: with as described in the previous section. Tests shown that we are able to
315: fairly correct for $\Delta_{R}^\mathrm{3.6\mu m}({\rm phase}) \sim 2\%$ and
316: $\Delta_{R}^\mathrm{5.8\mu m}({\rm band}) \sim 1\%$. On the other hand,
317: additional uncertainty have to be introduced to properly handle the systematics
318: linked to the drift in the flux seen in channel~3 and, to a lesser extent, in
319: channel~1. Indeed, basing ourselves on the similar reduced $\chi^2$ obtained
320: when fitting the baseline with different polynomials, we cannot choose one of
321: the sets of system parameters rather than another. Besides, in the absence of a
322: `plateau' in the plot of $\ratiothree$ vs.\ $t_s$, we cannot either favor one
323: solution based on the time $t_s$ chosen to start the fitting procedure.
324: %
325: After removing the solutions corresponding to the extreme values of $t_s$, we
326: thus set the value of each parameter, in each channel, to the mean of each
327: sample of solutions. The uncertainties on the obtained values should reflect
328: the dispersion observed. Therefore, we set a systematic error bar on each
329: parameter, equal to the standard deviation in each sample of solutions.
330:
331: \section{RESULTS AND DISCUSSION}
332: %===============================
333: \label{sec:results}
334:
335: The quality of the method is confirmed by the good agreement between system
336: parameters independently obtained with the best fits to the light curves at
337: both wavelengths (see Fig.~\ref{fig:fits}; the values are reported in
338: Table~\ref{tab:param}). We measure consistent planet-to-star radius ratios of
339: $0.1560 \pm 0.0008 \textrm{(stat)} \pm 0.0002 \textrm{(syst)}$ and $0.1541 \pm
340: 0.0009 \textrm{(stat)} \pm 0.0009 \textrm{(syst)}$, at 3.6 and 5.8~\microns,
341: respectively. Using the notation introduced above, we find $\Delta_{R}({\rm
342: obs}) = -0.84 \pm 1.00 \textrm{(stat)} \pm 0.84 \textrm{(syst)}$\%.
343:
344: Tinetti \etal\ (2007a,b) estimated that the presence of H$_2$O in the
345: atmosphere of the planet would result in a radius at 5.8~\microns\ being
346: $\Delta_{R}({\rm H_2O}) \sim 0.85$--$1.7\%$-larger than at 3.6~\microns. Our
347: result is 0.9$\sigma$ away from the lower bound of the predictions interval; it
348: is 1.4$\sigma$ away from the upper bound. The present results are also
349: significantly different from Tinetti \etal 's (2007b), which are obtained from
350: a preliminary analysis of the same data set. The difference is mainly due to
351: several effects taken into account and discussed in the present work: the
352: bandwidth effect, the determination of the light curve baseline, and the limb
353: darkening. All these effects have the same order of magnitude as the predicted
354: H$_2$O absorption and could cause a false positive detection. In particular,
355: the limb darkening -- in this system with a large $b$ -- makes the occultation
356: depth $\Re' \neq (R_p/R_\star)^2$ and impacts on the error budget. Since this
357: effect also depends on the wavelength, it is inaccurate to base the detection
358: of an atmospheric signature only on the raw difference of occultation depths.
359:
360: Most recent radius measurements for HD\,189733b are plotted in
361: Fig.~\ref{fig:radii}. A particular comparison between the system parameters we
362: derived in the IR and those derived by Winn \etal\ (2007) shows that $R_p$, $b$
363: and $R_\star$ values at 3.6 and 5.8~\microns\ are consistent with the visible
364: values (see Table~\ref{tab:param}). Our two radius measurements are also
365: compatible with the value derived at 8~\microns\ by Knutson \etal\ (2007b),
366: which has a rather small uncertainty compared to ours. Our statistical
367: uncertainty is of the same order than the one derived by Winn \etal\ (2007).
368: During the last stage of the publication of this work, new measurements in the
369: visible have been reported by Pont \etal\ (2007) using the \emph{Hubble Space
370: Telescope}. Their derived system parameters are within 1 to 2$\sigma$ from
371: ours; this marginal disagreement might be explained by stellar spots in such an
372: active K-type star observed at different epochs.
373:
374: More generally, the consistency between visible and IR radii for other
375: extrasolar planets, like HD\,209458b -- measured in the visible by Knutson
376: \etal\ (2006a) and at 24~\micron\ by Richardson \etal\ (2006) -- or GJ~436b
377: -- measured in the visible by Gillon \etal\ (2007a) and at 8~\micron\ by Gillon
378: \etal\ (2007b) and Deming \etal\ (2007) --, shows that we do not yet achieve
379: radius determination with enough accuracy in the IR to allow for a
380: spectroscopic characterization of close-in atmospheres. The accuracy required
381: ($\sim 10^{-4}$) could be obtained by observing several transits with the
382: longest possible out-of-transit baseline, in order to better constrain the
383: systematics in the transit curve. New \spitzer/IRAC observations of HD\,189733b
384: at 3.6, 4.5, and 8~\microns\ should allow the present results to be better
385: constrained.
386:
387: \acknowledgements We thank the anonymous referee who greatly contributed to
388: improve the paper, as well as S.~Carey and V.~Meadows for their help. D.K.S.\
389: is supported by CNES. This work is based on observations made with the
390: \emph{Spitzer Space Telescope}, which is operated by the Jet Propulsion
391: Laboratory, California Institute of Technology under a contract with NASA.
392:
393: \begin{references}
394: \reference{} Bakos, G.~\'A., \etal\ 2006, \apj, 650, 1160
395: \reference{} Ballester, G.~E., Sing, D.~K., \& Herbert, F.\ 2007, \nat, 445, 511
396: \reference{} Bouchy, F., \etal\ 2005, \aap, 444, L15
397: \reference{} Brown, T.~M.\ 2001, \apj, 553, 1006
398: \reference{} Charbonneau, D., Brown, T.~M., Noyes, R.~W., \& Gilliland, R.~L.\ 2002, \apj, 568, 377
399: \reference{} Deming, \etal\ 2007, \apj, submitted (arXiv:0707.2778)
400: \reference{} Fazio, G.~G., \etal\ 2004, \apjs, 154, 10
401: \reference{} Fortney, J.~J., \& Marley, M.~S.\ 2007, \apj, 666, L45
402: \reference{} Gillon, M., \etal\ 2007a, \aap, in press (arXiv:0705.2219)
403: \reference{} Gillon, M., \etal\ 2007b, \aap, submitted (arXiv:0707.2261)
404: \reference{} H\'ebrard, G., \& Lecavelier des Etangs, A.\ 2006, \aap, 445, 341
405: \reference{} H\'ebrard, G., \etal\ 2002, \apjs, 140, 103
406: \reference{} Horne, K.\ 1986, \pasp, 98, 609
407: \reference{} Knutson, H.~A., Charbonneau, D., Noyes, R.~W., Brown, T.~M., \& Gilliland, R.~L.\ 2007a, \apj, 655, 564
408: \reference{} Knutson, H.~A., et al.\ 2007b, \nat, 447, 183
409: \reference{} Kurucz R.\ 2006, Stellar Model and Associated Spectra (http://kurucz.harvard.edu/grids.html)
410: \reference{} Mandel, K., \& Agol, E.\ 2002, \apj, 580, L171
411: \reference{} Morales-Calder\'on, \etal\ 2006, \apj, 653, 1454
412: \reference{} Naylor, T.\ 1998, \mnras, 296, 339
413: \reference{} Pont, F., \etal\ 2007, \aap, submitted (arXiv:0707.1940)
414: \reference{} Reach, W.~T., \etal\ 2006, IRAC Data Handbook v3.0 \\(http://ssc.spitzer.caltech.edu/irac/dh/iracdatahandbook3.0.pdf)
415: \reference{} Richardson, L.~J., Harrington, J., Seager, S., \& Deming, D.\ 2006, \apj, 649, 1043
416: \reference{} Tinetti, G., Liang, M.-C., Vidal-Madjar, A., Ehrenreich, D., Lecavelier des Etangs, A., Yung, Y.~L.\ 2007a, \apj, 654, L99
417: \reference{} Tinetti, G., et al.\ 2007b, \nat, 448, 169
418: \reference{} Vidal-Madjar, A., Lecavelier des Etangs, A., D\'esert, J.-M., Ballester, G.~E., Ferlet, R., H\'ebrard, G., \& Mayor, M.\ 2003, \nat, 422, 143
419: \reference{} Vidal-Madjar, A., \etal\ 2004, \apj, 604, L69
420: \reference{} Winn, J.~N., \etal\ 2007, \aj, 133, 1828
421: \end{references}
422:
423: \clearpage
424:
425: \begin{deluxetable}{lrrr}
426: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
427: \tablecaption{System Parameters\label{tab:param}}
428: \tablehead{
429: \colhead{Parameter} & \colhead{Visible\tablenotemark{b}} & \colhead{3.6~\microns\tablenotemark{c}} & \colhead{5.8~\microns\tablenotemark{c}}}
430: \startdata
431: $R_p / R_\star$ & $0.1575 \pm 0.0017$ & $0.1560 \pm 0.0008 \pm 0.0002$ (0.8$\sigma$)\tablenotemark{d} & $0.1541 \pm 0.0009 \pm 0.0009$ (1.4$\sigma$)\tablenotemark{d} \\
432: $b$ & $0.658 \pm 0.027$ & $0.656 \pm 0.014 \pm 0.001 $ (0.1$\sigma$)\tablenotemark{d} & $0.638 \pm 0.020 \pm 0.002 $ (0.6$\sigma$)\tablenotemark{d} \\
433: $(R_\star / R_\odot)(M_\star/0.82M_\odot)^{-1/3}$ & $0.753 \pm 0.025$ & $0.747 \pm 0.011 \pm 0.001 $ (0.2$\sigma$)\tablenotemark{d} & $0.728 \pm 0.016 \pm 0.003 $ (0.8$\sigma$)\tablenotemark{d} \\
434: $T_0$\tablenotemark{a} (s) & & $53,214 \pm 9 \pm 2 $ & $53,218 \pm 11 \pm 5 $ \\
435: \enddata
436: \tablenotetext{a}{Given as $T_\mathrm{UTCS} - 215,500,000$~s.}
437: \tablenotetext{b}{From Winn \etal\ 2007.}
438: \tablenotetext{c}{This work; both statistical and systematic uncertainties are given.}
439: \tablenotetext{d}{Deviation from values in the visible.}
440: \end{deluxetable}
441:
442: \clearpage
443:
444: \begin{figure}
445: \resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{f1.eps}} \caption{Weighted light curves
446: in channel~1 at 3.6~\microns\ (left) and channel~3 at 5.8~\microns\ (right).
447: Data are rebinned by 10. The raw light curve at 3.6~\microns\ (grey diamonds)
448: has to be corrected for large fluctuations correlated to the `pixel phase',
449: plotted in the left lower panel. Those exposures with extreme pixel phases
450: (beyond the dashed lines) are rejected. The corrected light curve is
451: overplotted as black circles in the upper panel.} \label{fig:time_series}
452: \end{figure}
453:
454: \clearpage
455:
456: \begin{figure}
457: \resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{f2.eps}} \caption{System parameters
458: obtained in channels~1 (left) and~3 (right), as a function of the time from
459: which the transit light curve is fitted. The light curves in both channels are
460: plotted in the upper panels until the ingress. The parameters shown are, from
461: top to bottom, $R_p/R_\star$, $b$, $T_0$, and $v_\mathrm{orb}$. To correct for
462: the decreasing drift in channel~3, the transit light curve model can include a
463: linear (black), quadratic (grey), or exponential (empty symbols) out-of-transit
464: baseline. For consistency, we also applied these fitting tests to channel~1.
465: The dispersion observed in the results is accounted for by choosing the mean of
466: each sample (empty diamonds) and adding a systematic uncertainty equal to the
467: standard deviation in each sample. The error bar represented in each panel
468: accounts for the statistical \emph{and} systematic errors. The contribution of
469: the systematics is indicated by the horizontal bars.} \label{fig:time_start}
470: \end{figure}
471:
472: \clearpage
473:
474: \begin{figure}
475: \resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{f3.eps}} \caption{Final light curves of
476: HD\,189733 during the Oct.~31st 2006 transit at 3.6 (top) and 5.8~\microns\
477: (middle). Fits to the light curves (thick lines) are calculated from the system
478: parameters given in Table~\ref{tab:param}. The residuals are shown below each
479: fitted light curve. The lower panel shows a comparison between the two fits.
480: The inlet contains a zoom on the transit bottom, where our best-fits obtained
481: without limb-darkening are superimposed (dashed lines).} \label{fig:fits}
482: \end{figure}
483:
484: \clearpage
485:
486: \begin{figure}
487: \resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{f4.eps}} \caption{Radius of the
488: planet as a function of wavelength (upper panel), expressed in stellar radii.
489: The two measurements at 3.6 and 5.8~\microns\ are represented (filled diamonds)
490: in the near IR. Both IRAC bandpasses are also indicated (grey areas). Previous
491: measurements in the visible (Bakos \etal\ 2006 [square]; Winn \etal\ 2007
492: [triangle]) and in the IR (Knutson \etal\ (2007b [empty diamond]) are shown for
493: comparison.} \label{fig:radii}
494: \end{figure}
495:
496: \end{document}
497: