1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3: %Comment out these lines for ApJ submission
4: %\documentclass[twocolumn]{emulateapj}
5: %\usepackage{natbib}
6:
7: %\textwidth=5.7in %%emulateapj single text column is too wide for my taste
8: %\hoffset=0.4in%%but when you modify the textwidth, the text is offcenter
9:
10:
11: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
12: \def\au{\rm AU}
13: \def\mearth{ M_{\earth}}
14: \def\rearth{ R_{\earth}}
15: \def\mjup{\rm M_{J}}
16: \def\rjup{\rm R_{J}}
17: \def\mnep{\rm M_{N}}
18: \def\rnep{\rm R_{N}}
19: \def\rsun{\rm R_{\odot}}
20: \def\msun{\rm M_{\odot}}
21:
22: %\lesssim
23:
24: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}
25:
26:
27: \begin{document}
28:
29: \title{Design Considerations for a Ground-based Transit Search for Habitable Planets
30: Orbiting M dwarfs}
31:
32: \author{Philip Nutzman and David Charbonneau \altaffilmark{1}}
33: \affil{Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 60 Garden St.,
34: Cambridge, MA 02138}
35:
36: \altaffiltext{1}{Alfred P. Sloan Research Fellow}
37: \email{pnutzman@cfa.harvard.edu}
38: \keywords{stars: low mass --- stars: planetary systems --- techniques:
39: photometric --- surveys --- extrasolar planets}
40:
41: \begin{abstract}
42:
43: By targeting nearby M dwarfs, a transit search using modest equipment is
44: capable of discovering planets as small as 2 $R_{\earth}$ in the habitable zones of their host stars.
45: The MEarth Project, a future transit search, aims to employ a
46: network of ground-based robotic telescopes to monitor
47: M dwarfs in the northern hemisphere with sufficient precision and cadence to detect such planets.
48: Here we investigate the design requirements for the MEarth Project.
49: We evaluate the optimal bandpass, and the necessary field of view, telescope aperture, and telescope time allocation
50: on a star-by-star basis, as is possible for the well-characterized nearby M
51: dwarfs. Through these considerations, 1,976 late M dwarfs ($R
52: < 0.33 ~R_{\odot}$) emerge as favorable targets for transit monitoring.
53: Based on an observational cadence and on total telescope time allocation tailored
54: to recover 90 \% of transit signals from planets in habitable zone orbits,
55: we find that a network of ten 30 cm telescopes
56: could survey these 1,976 M dwarfs in less than 3 years. A null
57: result from this survey would set an upper limit (at 99 \% confidence) of 17
58: \% for the rate of occurrence of planets larger than 2 $R_{\earth}$ in the
59: habitable zones
60: of late M dwarfs, and even stronger constraints for planets lying closer than the
61: habitable zone. If the true occurrence rate
62: of habitable planets is 10 \%, the expected
63: yield would be 2.6 planets.
64:
65:
66: \end{abstract}
67:
68: \section{Introduction}
69:
70: In upcoming years, the study and characterization of exoplanets will
71: depend largely on the unique window that transiting planets offer into their
72: properties. Transit observations reveal a planet's radius, and in combination
73: with radial-velocity measurements, permit a determination of the planet's mass. This
74: combination of measurements provides the only available direct constraint on
75: the density and hence bulk composition of exoplanets. When a planet cannot be
76: spatially resolved from its host star, transit-related observations typically
77: offer the only means for direct measurements of planetary emission and
78: absorption.
79: Already, transmission spectroscopy has probed the atmospheric chemistries of
80: HD~209458b
81: \citep{Charbonneau2002,Vidal-Madjar2003,Barman2007} and HD~189733b
82: \citep{Tinetti2007}, while infrared monitoring during secondary eclipse has led to
83: the detection of broadband thermal emission from HD 209458b, TrES-1, HD
84: 189733b, HD 149026b, and GJ 436b \citep{Deming2005,Charbonneau2005,Deming2006,
85: Harrington2007,Deming2007}.
86: Precise spectroscopic measurements during secondary
87: eclipse have unveiled the infrared spectrum of HD 209458b
88: \citep{Richardson2007}, and HD 189733b \citep{Grillmair2007}.
89: Most recently, infrared observations gathered at a variety of orbital
90: phases have allowed the characterization of the longitudinal temperature
91: profiles for several Hot Jupiters
92: \citep{Harrington2006,Knutson2007,Cowan2007}.
93: These and a host of other studies (as reviewed by Charbonneau et al 2007)
94: \nocite{Charbonneau2007}
95: demonstrate the profound impact of the transiting class of exoplanets.
96:
97: Given the importance of the transiting planets, it is critical to extend
98: their numbers to planets in different mass regimes, different irradiation
99: environments, and around varied star types. Until the recent
100: discovery that the Neptune-sized GJ 436b transits its host M dwarf \citep{Gillon2007},
101: all known transiting planets were hot gas giants orbiting
102: Sun-like stars. A discovery like this points to the advantages
103: that M dwarfs provide for expanding the diversity of the transiting planets;
104: the advantages are particularly acute for the detection of rocky, habitable
105: planets (see e.g. Gould et al. 2003). \nocite{Gould2003}
106: We review these observational opportunities by explicitly considering the case of a 2 $R_{\earth}$ planet (representing
107: the upper end of the expected radius range for super-Earths, see Valencia et
108: al. 2007 and Seager et al. 2007) \nocite{Valencia2007,Seager2007} orbiting in
109: the habitable zones of the Sun and a fiducial M5 dwarf ($0.25 ~M_{\odot},
110: 0.25 ~R_{\odot}, 0.0055 ~L_{\odot}$).
111: \begin{enumerate}
112: \item The habitable zones of M dwarfs are drawn in close to the
113: stars, improving the transit likelihood. A planet receiving the
114: same stellar flux as the Earth would lie only 0.074 AU from the M5, and
115: would present a 1.6 \% geometric probability of transiting,
116: compared to the 0.5 \% probability for the Earth-Sun system. Note that here,
117: and throughout the paper, we define habitable zone orbits to be at the
118: orbital distance for which the planet receives the same insolation
119: flux as the Earth receives from the Sun.
120: \item Transits from the habitable zones of M dwarfs happen much more
121: frequently. At 0.074 AU from the M5, a planet would transit once every 14.5
122: days, compared to 1 year for the Earth-Sun system.
123: This is critical for detectability, as dramatically less observational time is
124: required to achieve a transit detection.
125: \item The small radii of M dwarfs lead to much deeper transits. The
126: 2-$R_{\earth}$ planet would eclipse 0.5 \% of an M5's stellar disk area, but only
127: 1 part in 3000 of that of the Sun.
128: \item The small masses of M dwarfs lead to larger induced radial
129: velocity variations. Taking a mass of $7 ~M_{\earth}$ for the super-Earth (in a
130: habitable zone orbit with P=14.5 days), the
131: induced peak-to-peak velocity variation on the M5 is 10 m/s, versus an induced 1.3 m/s
132: variation at 1 AU from the Sun.
133: \end{enumerate}
134: A transit survey targeting nearby, proper motion selected M dwarfs would
135: also avoid a number of astrophysical false alarms
136: (see e.g. Mandushev et al. 2005 and O'Donovan et al. 2006).
137: \nocite{Mandushev2005,ODonovan2006} Among the most common false alarms are
138: those caused by eclipsed giant stars, hierarchical triples composed of
139: a star plus an eclipsing pair, grazing eclipsing
140: binaries, and blends with fainter background eclipsing binaries.
141: The survey would avoid eclipsed giant stars by construction; a giant
142: would never be confused as a nearby, high proper motion M dwarf.
143: Hierarchical triple systems would be exceedingly unlikely,
144: given the red colors and low intrinsic luminosity
145: of the system. In any case, given its proximity, such a system would likely be
146: partially resolvable through high-resolution imaging.
147: Grazing eclipsing binaries would also be unlikely, though interesting, given the rarity of double M
148: dwarf eclipsing pairs. A spectroscopic study looking for
149: the presence of double lines could easily confirm or rule out this scenario.
150: Blends with background binaries are, in principle, still an issue for a targeted M dwarf
151: survey. However, because of the high proper
152: motions of the M dwarfs, chance alignments could be confirmed or ruled out with archived
153: or future high resolution observations.
154:
155: Aside from these observational advantages, several developments in
156: astrophysics point to exciting possibilities with M dwarfs.
157: Firstly, the growing number of M dwarf exoplanet discoveries, including the
158: $\sim$5.5-$\mearth$ planet orbiting Gliese 581c \citep{Udry2007} and
159: the microlensing discovery OGLE 2005-BLG-390Lb \citep{Beaulieu2006},
160: suggest an abundance of \emph{sub}-Neptune mass planets orbiting M dwarfs. It is an
161: open challenge to find a transiting planet in this mass regime; simply
162: obtaining a radius measurement for such a planet (for which there are no Solar
163: System analogs) would be extremely fruitful as it might allow one to distinguish between
164: rocky or ocean planet composition models \citep{Valencia2007}.
165: Intriguingly, the idea that life can survive on habitable zone planets around M dwarfs has
166: been recently rehabilitated (see Scalo et al. 2007 and Tarter et al. 2007 for
167: detailed discussion) \nocite{Scalo2007,Tarter2007}. Previously, it had been
168: assumed that the rotational synchronization expected of close-in habitable zone planets
169: would lead either to atmospheric collapse or to steep temperature gradients and
170: climatic conditions not suitable for life. Works reviewed in Scalo et al. and Tarter et al.
171: argue that atmospheric heat circulation should prevent each of these
172: barriers to habitability. Regardless, the absence of such heat
173: redistribution would be readily observable with precise infrared photometric
174: monitoring as a large day-night temperature
175: difference, while the detection of a small day-night difference
176: would provide a strong case for the existence of a thick atmosphere.
177:
178: With Spitzer and the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), atmospheric
179: observations similar to those mentioned earlier for Hot Jupiters can be extended to habitable, Earth-sized planets orbiting M dwarfs. This possibility is brought about by the small surface areas and
180: temperatures of M dwarfs, which lead to significantly more favorable
181: planet-star contrast ratios. This ratio for a habitable 2-$\rearth$ planet
182: orbiting an M5 is $0.05 ~\%$ (in the Rayleigh-Jeans limit), leading to secondary eclipse depths well reachable with Spitzer's sensitivity (this compared to a contrast ratio $0.0017 ~\%$ for a habitable 2-$\rearth$
183: orbiting the Sun). JWST photometry will be capable of measuring the day-night
184: temperature difference for warm Earth-like planets orbiting M dwarfs
185: \citep{Charbonneau2007b}, thus addressing the extent of heat redistribution on
186: these planets and hence the presence or absence of an atmosphere.
187:
188: It is interesting to consider the place of M dwarf planets in the expected
189: yields of ongoing and upcoming transit surveys. The COROT \citep{Baglin2003}
190: and Kepler \citep{Borucki2003} space missions are the most ambitious of the transit
191: surveys; with long, uninterrupted time baselines and excellent
192: photometric precision, these missions should yield rocky planets with orbital
193: periods much longer than those detected by ground-based transit searches.
194: Gould et al. (2003) point out that missions like COROT and Kepler are much more
195: sensitive to M dwarf habitable planets than to solar-type habitable planets, if
196: they can be reliably monitor the M dwarfs to faint magnitudes ($V > 17$). In practice,
197: stellar crowding, noise from sky background, and other technical issues
198: \citep{Gould2003,Deeg2004} strongly limit their sensitivity to these faint magnitudes.
199: COROT and Kepler can precisely monitor bright, nearby M dwarfs, but
200: with Kepler observing one fixed field of roughly 100 square degrees, and
201: COROT monitoring much less sky area, these missions probe only a small
202: number of such nearby M dwarfs. Wide-angle ground surveys, such as HATNet
203: \citep{Bakos2004}, SuperWASP \citep{Pollacco2006}, TrES
204: \citep{Alonso2004}, and XO \citep{McCullough2005}
205: cumulatively cover swaths of sky containing large numbers of nearby M dwarfs,
206: but at the expense of employing apertures too modest to effectively probe any but the brightest of
207: these M dwarfs (see e.g. McCullough \& Burke 2007).\nocite{McCullough2007}
208:
209: Motivated by these difficulties, and the fact that the closest, most observationally favorable M dwarfs are spread sparsely throughout the sky, we consider an alternative approach in
210: which these M dwarfs are \emph{individually} targeted.
211: In this paper, we develop a concept that we term the MEarth
212: Project, which envisions a cluster of robotic telescopes
213: dedicated to targeted, sequential photometric monitoring of nearby M dwarfs.
214: We determine the necessary design elements for a survey searching for
215: transiting planets as small as $2~ R_{\earth}$ (the upper end of the rocky
216: planet regime), and out to the M dwarf habitable zones.
217: In \S 2, we briefly discuss the MEarth Project concept.
218: In \S 3 we describe already compiled lists of nearby M dwarfs suitable for
219: observations. We discuss their observational properties and use these to
220: estimate basic stellar parameters. In \S 4 we determine the necessary
221: telescope aperture through a calculation that estimates the photometric
222: precision for M dwarf stars. In \S 5 we determine the necessary field of
223: view, which is driven by the need for a sufficient number of calibrator stars.
224: In \S 6 we estimate the amount of gross telescope time necessary for a successful survey
225: for an optimal list of late M dwarf targets for the MEarth project.
226: In \S 7 we wrap up with a discussion of our conclusions and the design
227: implications for the MEarth project.
228:
229: \section{MEarth Project: Discussion}
230:
231: The heart of the MEarth concept is to use a network of robotic telescopes
232: to precisely monitor the brightness of roughly 2000 northern, nearby M dwarfs, with a
233: sensitivity sufficient to detect 2-$R_{\earth}$ planets.
234: The MEarth network will be housed in a single enclosure on Mt. Hopkins,
235: Arizona. Multiple sites spread in longitude would
236: be observationally favorable, but would unfortunately be a cost-prohibitive arrangement.
237: The number of targets is selected to ensure that even a null result is
238: astrophysically interesting, while the sensitivity goal reaches into the upper
239: end of the radius range expected for rocky planets.
240: If we take the fiducial M5V star
241: as typical of the M dwarfs being monitored, and assume an
242: occurrence rate of 10 \% for habitable zone planets larger than 2 $\rearth$, the
243: expected yield from 2000 M dwarfs is 3.2 planets, which would complement Kepler's expected harvest of
244: habitable planets around Sun-like stars \citep{Gillon2005}.
245: Correspondingly, a null result places an upper limit
246: for the occurrence rate of such habitable planets at 15 \% (at 99 \%
247: confidence). Note that later we will refine this calculation using actual estimates of
248: $R_{\star}$ and $a_{\rm HZ}$ for 1,976 observationally favorable M dwarf targets.
249:
250: Perhaps the most critical aspect of the MEarth project is that the M dwarfs
251: are observed one-by-one. This sequential mode of observing comes with a certain
252: benefit: the field of view requirements are relaxed and set only by
253: the need for the field to contain a sufficient number of comparison stars (see \S 5).
254: A modest field of view requirement opens up the possibility of using
255: off-the-shelf equipment and dodges many of the technical
256: challenges that beset wide-field transit searches (see e.g. Bakos et
257: al. 2004 and McCullough \& Burke 2007 for a discussion of these issues).
258:
259: On the other hand, the observational cadence achieved per target when
260: sequentially targeting M dwarfs is significantly less than when
261: staring at and repeatedly imaging a single field. There are two issues which
262: help compensate for the sparse cadence. Firstly, typical levels and
263: timescales of correlated noise in photometric surveys \citep[see e.g.][]{Pont2006}
264: suppress the benefit of dense time sampling such that the
265: `standard' $N^{-1/2}$ improvement in precision generally does not apply.
266: Secondly, the flexibility of being able to choose your targets and when to
267: observe them greatly enhances the efficiency per observation of the
268: transit survey. We envision an adaptively scheduled transit search,
269: wherein the observing sequence is updated as the images are
270: gathered and analyzed. We consider a design in which transits
271: are identified while in progress by the automated reduction software. The
272: subsequent alert triggers other telescopes in the MEarth array (or at another
273: observatory) for high-cadence monitoring at improved precision and in multiple
274: colors until a time after transit egress.
275: Intense coverage following this could then pin down the orbital period.
276: Under this observing strategy, the amount of time required to achieve detection
277: is the amount of time until the first transit event falls during an observation
278: session. This is significantly less time than is required for
279: current transit surveys, which spot transits in phase-folded archived data and
280: typically require at least 3 distinct transit events.
281:
282: Note that in this adaptive mode of observing, a false positive triggered by
283: photometric noise is addressed immediately and, in most cases, easily
284: dismissed with a few
285: additional exposures. False positives, in this context, are thus far less
286: costly than in traditional transit surveys. This, coupled with the fact
287: that the MEarth network will monitor only a couple hundred M dwarfs on any given
288: night, means that the follow-up mode can be triggered at a relatively low
289: statistical threshold. In our paper, we require a per-point photometric
290: precision that is three times smaller than the given transit depth of
291: interest. A threshold near `3 sigma' would be outlandish for a traditional
292: transit survey monitoring hundreds of thousands of stars, but here would lead to
293: an inexpensive fraction of time spent on false alarms each night. It is
294: important to note that while follow-up is triggered at relatively low
295: significance, a genuine transit would be detected by MEarth to higher
296: significance, as the entire MEarth network would be galvanized to high-cadence
297: follow-up.
298:
299: The level of significance of this transit detection would depend on the
300: transit depth and on the details of the photometric noise, especially the
301: level of correlated noise on the timescale of a transit. Most transit surveys
302: show such red noise at levels of 3-6 mmag for untreated light curves, which
303: can often be reduced to 1-2 mmag with decorrelation algorithms
304: \citep{Pont2007,Tamuz2005,Jenkins2000}. As an example, the Monitor project
305: shows red noise levels of 1-1.5 mmag \citep{Irwin2007}. The
306: MEarth project's employment of multiple telescopes may be a weapon against red
307: noise if the systematics/correlated noise are largely independent from one
308: telescope to another. Nevertheless, these considerations suggest that for
309: transit depths less than $\sim 5$ mmag, MEarth may have to alert an outside
310: observatory to achieve a very high significance transit detection.
311:
312:
313: \section{Catalog of Potential M dwarf Targets}
314:
315: Despite their low intrinsic luminosities, M dwarfs are intrinsically abundant,
316: and provide a bounty of bright survey targets. We have consulted the
317: L\'epine-Shara Proper Motion Catalog of northern stars
318: \citep[LSPM-North;][]{LSPM2005} for
319: potential targets and their observational properties.
320: LSPM-North is a nearly complete list of northern stars with proper
321: motion greater than $0''.15 ~\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$. \citet{Lepine2005} identifies a
322: subsample of 2459 LSPM stars for which either trigonometric
323: parallaxes or spectroscopic/photometric distance moduli indicate that their
324: distance is less than 33 pc, as well as more than 1600 stars suspected to be dwarfs within 33 pc.
325: Restricting to d $<$ 33 pc keeps the rate of contamination from high proper
326: motion subdwarfs small. At this distance, incompleteness is mainly
327: due to the proper motion limit ($\mu > 0''.15 ~ \mathrm{yr}^{-1}$).
328:
329: LSPM gives $V$ for stars with Tycho-2 magnitudes, and
330: estimates $V$ from USNO-B1.0 photographic magnitudes for the remaining stars.
331: These magnitudes are supplemented with 2MASS $JHK$ magnitudes.
332: When there is a distance measurement in the literature, L\'epine
333: provides these (1676 with trigonometric parallaxes and 783 with
334: spectroscopic/photometric distance moduli). For the remaining 1672 stars, L\'epine
335: estimates distance through a piecewise $V-J$ vs. $M_V$ relationship which is calibrated by stars with
336: known parallaxes. In assigning distances, we always use the value tabulated
337: by L\'epine, except for a small fraction of cases when the trigonometric
338: parallax is uncertain by more than 15 \%. In these cases we use L\'epine's
339: piecewise $V-J$ vs. $M_V$ relationship.
340: We cull the L\'epine (2005) subsample to probable M dwarfs
341: dwarfs by requiring $V-J> 2.3, J-K > 0.7, J-H > 0.15$ (motivated by
342: Figures 28 and 29 in L\'epine \& Shara 2005). This leaves nearly 3300
343: probable nearby M, or late K, dwarfs. We hereafter refer to this culled
344: sample of stars as the LSPM M dwarfs.
345:
346:
347: \subsection{Estimating Stellar Parameters}
348:
349: We considered three routes towards estimating the
350: luminosities, masses, and radii of the LSPM M dwarfs:
351: \begin{enumerate}
352: \item theoretical models of \citet{Baraffe1998}, which offer synthetic $V-K$
353: colors that can then be matched to observed
354: $V-K$ colors
355: \item empirically determined fits for the stellar parameters as a function
356: of $V-K$ colors
357: \item the $M_{\star}$-$M_K$ relations of \citet{Delfosse2000},
358: combined with the empirical mass-radius relation of \citet{Bayless2006}, and the
359: bolometric corrections of \citet{Leggett2000}.
360: \end{enumerate}
361: The first method is problematic in that the theoretical models (not just those
362: of Baraffe et al. 1998) are known to underestimate radii by 5-15 \% for stars in the range 0.4
363: $M_{\odot} \lesssim $ M $ \lesssim 0.8 M_{\odot}$ \citep{Ribas2006}.
364: Furthermore, as noted by Baraffe et
365: al. (1998), the synthetic colors involving the $V$ band are systematically too blue
366: by $\sim 0.5 $ mags, which is suggested to be due to some unmodeled source of
367: $V$ band opacity.
368: While the second method avoids these problems,
369: it suffers from significant dispersion in the stellar parameters for a
370: given $V-K$ (see for example Figure 2 of Delfosse et al. 2000).
371: When the absolute $K$ magnitude, $M_K$, is well known, the third method does very
372: well at estimating the mass and radius, relying on the small intrinsic
373: scatter of the Delfosse and empirically determined
374: mass-radius relations. However, only a third of the LSPM M dwarfs have
375: trigonometric parallaxes, and the distance moduli for the remaining M dwarfs
376: have uncertainties up to $\pm$ 0.6 mag. This uncertainty in distance
377: propagates to a roughly $ \pm 30 \%$ uncertainty in mass,
378: which is comparable to the scatter in the relations based on $V-K$ color.
379: We settled on the third method, which at its worst produces errors
380: comparable to the second method, while performing significantly better when the
381: distance to the M dwarf is relatively well determined.
382:
383: For each star, we insert the estimated $M_K$ into the polynomial fit of
384: Delfosse et al. (2000) to infer the mass. We then apply a polynomial fit to
385: the mass-radius data of Ribas (2005) to convert this to a radius. To estimate
386: the stellar luminosity, we adopt the bolometric corrections of Leggett (2000).
387: Given this luminosity and radius, we estimate the $T_{\mathrm{eff}}$, while we
388: combine the mass and radius to estimate the star's $\log{g}$. The determined
389: $T_{\mathrm{eff}}$ and $\log{g}$ drive our choice of synthetic spectra, as
390: described below in \S 4.1.1.
391:
392: In Table 1, we show a selection of adopted stellar parameters for different radius bins,
393: along with approximate spectral types (calculated from the mean $V-K$ of each
394: bin, and using Table 6 of Leggett 1992).
395: We note that of all the estimated parameters, our calculations below
396: are most sensitive to the inferred radius. This is simply because
397: the transit depth and hence the necessary photometric precision
398: goes as $R_{\star}^{-2}$. We estimate the uncertainty in radius for individual
399: determinations to be roughly 30-35 \% (though better than 15\% for the third
400: of stars with trigonometric parallaxes), with this figure dominated by the uncertainty in distance
401: modulus. Errors at this level are tolerable (as long as they are not
402: significantly biased in one direction) and do not alter our conclusions.
403:
404: \section{Telescope Aperture Requirements}
405: \subsection{Photometric Precision}
406:
407: We follow standard calculations of photon, scintillation, and detector noise to
408: simulate photometric precision for a variety of possible observational set-ups.
409: The simulated systems described below are intended to be representative
410: of commercially available CCDs and telescopes. We adopt the
411: site characteristics of the Whipple Observatory on Mt. Hopkins, Arizona
412: (altitude 2350 m) and the specifications of common semi-professional
413: thinned, back-illuminated CCD detectors,
414: but allow for other parameters, such as the aperture and filter to vary.
415:
416: We calculate the precision as follows:
417: \begin{equation}
418: \mathrm{precision} = \frac{\sqrt{N_{\star}+\sigma^2_{\mathrm{scint}}+n_{\mathrm{pix}} (N_S+N_D+N_R^2)}}
419: {N_{\star}}
420: \end{equation}
421: where $N_{\star}$ is the number of detected source photons, $n_{\mathrm{pix}}$ is the
422: number of pixels in the photometric aperture, $N_S$ is the number of photons
423: per pixel from background or sky, $N_D$ is the number of dark current
424: electrons per pixel, and $N_R$ is the RMS readout noise in electrons per
425: pixel. We adopt the scintillation expression of \citet{Dravins1998}
426: \begin{equation}
427: \frac{\sigma_{scint}}{N_{\star}} = 0.09 \frac{X^{3/2}}{D^{2/3} \sqrt{2 t}} \exp{(-
428: \frac{h}{8}})
429: \end{equation}
430: where $X$ gives the airmass (which we set at 1.5), $D$ gives the
431: aperture diameter in cm, $t$ gives the exposure time in s, and h
432: gives the observatory altitude above sea level in km.
433:
434: For a common, commercially-packaged, Peltier-cooled CCD camera, $N_R$ =10
435: e$^-/$pixel, and $N_D$ = 0.1 e$^-/$pixel/s, each of which are negligible for bright
436: sources. To calculate $n_{\mathrm{pix}}$ we assume a circular photometric
437: aperture of radius 5 $\arcsec$. For 13 \micron ~$\times$ 13 \micron ~pixels, and
438: a typical focal ratio of f/8, $n_{\mathrm{pix}}= 62.9 * (D/30
439: ~\mathrm{cm})^2$.
440:
441: We calibrated the sky background flux estimates (photons cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ arcsec$^{-2}$)
442: for our simulated system using $i$ and $z$ band observations taken over several nights
443: with KeplerCam (see, e.g., Holman et al. 2007) and the 1.2 m telescope located at the Whipple Observatory.
444: These measurements differ from what would be received by our hypothetical
445: system by a factor of the overall throughput
446: of the 1.2m system over the overall throughput of our system,
447: in each bandpass of interest. We make a first order estimate of this ratio by
448: using KeplerCam observations of stars with calibrated i and z magnitudes to determine the
449: scale factor necessary for our simulated system to reproduce the number of
450: counts received by KeplerCam. The sky background flux received by our
451: hypothetical system is then approximately the observed flux divided by
452: this scale factor. Of course,
453: the actual sky background present
454: in an exposure depends on many factors, in particular the phase of the moon
455: and its proximity to the target object. For our calculations we take the
456: median of our sky flux measurements. This estimate turns out to be an
457: overestimate of the true median sky value because a disproportionate fraction
458: of our observations were taken near full lunar phase.
459:
460: We calculate $N_{\star}$ with
461: \begin{equation}
462: N_{\star} = t \times \pi (D/2)^2 \times \int{T(\lambda) f(\lambda) \frac{\lambda}{h c} d\lambda}
463: \end{equation}
464: where t is the exposure time, D is the aperture diameter,
465: $f(\lambda)$ is the stellar flux described in \S 4.1.1 and $T(\lambda)$ is the
466: overall system transmission described in \S 4.1.2.
467:
468: In our calculation, we do not include the potentially significant
469: noise from the intrinsic variability of the star. Though variability is
470: common among M dwarfs, it is often on timescales different from
471: the transit timescale or of a form distinct from a transit signal and thus removable.
472: One common form of M dwarf variability is that of flares, which are easily
473: distinguished from a transit in that flares result in an increase in flux as
474: opposed to a decrement. Starspots are also a concern, but induce variability
475: on a timescale defined by the stellar rotation period, which is much longer
476: than that of a transit and hence may be distinguished. Because the MEarth
477: project is a targeted survey, troublesome variable M dwarfs could possibly be
478: dropped in favor of photometrically quiet M dwarfs (such as the
479: transiting-planet host GJ 436), though such variables might be worth retaining
480: for non-transit related studies.
481:
482:
483: \subsubsection{Synthetic M dwarf Spectra}
484:
485: We employ \texttt{PHOENIX}/NextGen model spectra (see Hauschildt, Allard, \& Baron
486: 1999 \nocite{Hauschildt1999}and references therein) to simulate the flux of our target M dwarfs.
487: These model spectra have subsequently been updated with new TiO and H$_2$O line
488: lists \citep{Allard2000}, which significantly improve M
489: dwarf spectral energy distributions on the blue side of the optical. However, as
490: pointed out by \citet{Knigge2006}, this improvement appears to be somewhat at the
491: expense of accuracy in $I-K$ colors, which the original NextGen models reproduce well.
492: Given the importance of this spectral
493: region for our studies, we exclusively use the original NextGen models.
494:
495: The NextGen models are
496: available over the range of M dwarf temperatures (2000 K to 4000 K), in steps
497: of 100 K, for $ 4.0 \leq \log{g} \leq 5.5$ in steps of 0.5 dex, with [Fe/H]=0.
498: For each star, we choose the spectrum with $T_{\mathrm{eff}}$ and $\log{g}$
499: most similar to the star's inferred $T_{\mathrm{eff}}$ and $\log{g}$.
500:
501: The synthetic spectra give the star's surface flux, and therefore require a dilution
502: factor, $x=(R_{\star}/d)^2$, to reproduce the flux incident on the Earth's
503: atmosphere. Since precise measurements of $R_{\star}$ and $d$ are not available for
504: the M dwarf candidates, we instead calculate $x$ by using observed
505: magnitudes and scaling with respect to the zero magnitude fluxes.
506: For example, we calculate the $V=0$ dilution
507: factor by equating $f(\lambda)_{V}= \int T_{V}(\lambda) f(\lambda) d \lambda/\int
508: T_{V}(\lambda) d \lambda$ with the
509: zero point $f(\lambda)_{V=0}$ taken from Bessell and Brett (1988), where $T_V$ is the
510: standard bandpass response of $V$ (Bessell 1990, Bessell and Brett
511: 1988).
512:
513: If the photometric colors of the star match well with the colors of the
514: synthetic spectrum, the dilution factor
515: depends little on which band is chosen for the calculation. In practice, the
516: synthetic and observed colors do not necessarily match up well.
517: To more robustly estimate the dilution factor, we average the $x$'s determined
518: separately through the $V$,$J$, and $K$ bands.
519:
520: \subsubsection{Transmission}
521:
522: With properly scaled synthetic spectra, we can simulate photometry for a
523: rich variety of transmission functions. We perform our calculations for three
524: scenarios: through the SDSS $i$ and $z$ filters (as defined by the transmission curves available from the
525: SDSS DR1 webpage), and through a filter which cuts on and is open beyond $\sim 700$ nm,
526: which we'll refer to as the $i+z$ filter.
527: For optical transmission, we take the square of the reflectivity
528: curve (i.e. two mirror reflections) measured for a typical aluminum-coated
529: mirror. To incorporate atmospheric transmission, we adopt the extinction
530: coefficients of \citet{Hayes1975}, determined by observation from the Mt.
531: Hopkins Ridge (altitude 2350 m).
532: For CCD response, we assume the quantum efficiency of a typical thinned, back
533: illuminated CCD camera. Note that the overall
534: system response beyond 800 nm is essentially set by the CCD.
535: From our experience in trying to match simulated photon fluxes to actual
536: observations of stars with known photometry, we find it prudent to adopt an
537: additional overall transmission factor of 0.5. There are a variety of places
538: where unaccounted for losses of transmission may creep in, e.g. when the QE,
539: or mirror reflectivity do not meet the manufacturer's specifications. Note
540: that we have neglected the reduction in collecting area due to a central
541: obstruction (e.g. the secondary mirror), but this is more than accommodated for by our assumed loss factor.
542: The overall system response through the $i+z$ filter is depicted in Fig
543: \ref{fig_response}, along
544: with a $T_{\mathrm{eff}} = 3000 K$ synthetic M dwarf spectrum for comparison.
545:
546:
547: \begin{figure}[t]
548: \epsscale{1.0}
549: \plotone{f1.ps}
550: \caption{The overall system response (thick black) through the $i+z$ filter,
551: incorporating atmospheric extinction, CCD quantum efficiency, mirror
552: reflectivity, and an overall 50 \% throughput loss.
553: At long wavelengths, the system response is dominated by the CCD quantum efficiency
554: (dashed). For
555: comparison, we show the transmission curves of SDSS $i$ and $z$
556: filters. In
557: gray, a NextGen M dwarf spectrum with $T_{\mathrm{eff}} = 3000$ K,
558: scaled for clarity. }
559: \label{fig_response}
560: \end{figure}
561:
562: \subsection{Precision and Aperture}
563:
564: In this section, we look at each of the LSPM M dwarfs, and ask what is the
565: necessary telescope aperture diameter to achieve a desired precision in a
566: fixed exposure time.
567: In this section, we fix the exposure time to 150 seconds, an arbitrarily
568: chosen exposure time but useful for comparing necessary apertures (later we allow the
569: exposure time to vary).
570: We also set the desired
571: precision to that which is necessary for a 3 sigma detection, per measurement,
572: of the transit of a 2-$R_{\earth}$ planet.
573: Note that the required precision then varies for each of the
574: stars, as a function of the estimated stellar radius. For a 0.33-$R_{\odot}$
575: M dwarf, a 3 sigma detection requires a precision of 0.001, but for
576: a 0.10-$R_{\odot}$ M dwarf, it corresponds to a precision of only 0.011.
577:
578: With this varying precision and fixed exposure time, we have calculated the necessary
579: aperture for each of the LSPM M dwarfs through the $z$
580: and $i+z$ filters. In Figure \ref{cum_ap} we display the cumulative
581: distribution of LSPM M dwarfs as a function of aperture for the
582: $z$ and $i+z$ cases. In comparison to the $z$ filter (dot-dashed curve), it is apparent
583: that using the $i+z$ filter (dashed curve) significantly
584: increases the fraction of stars that meet the desired precision in 150 s.
585: This is particularly important for apertures in the range 35-40 cm, where use
586: of $i+z$ more than doubles the number of stars meeting the precision
587: requirements.
588:
589: This calculation also drives home a very important point: even though late
590: M dwarfs are intrinsically less luminous, and on the mean, fainter than
591: earlier M dwarfs, this is more than compensated by the relaxed precision
592: requirements that accompany their smaller radii. In fact, the stars with the
593: smallest necessary aperture are dominated by late M dwarfs. In Figure
594: \ref{cum_ap} we have overplotted (solid curve) the cumulative distribution of stars with
595: estimated radii $< 0.33 ~R_{\odot}$ (N=1976) as a function of necessary
596: aperture through the $i+z$ band.
597: This selection of stars is motivated by the practical difficulty
598: of achieving a precision better than 0.001 from the ground, which corresponds to the 3 sigma
599: precision of 2-$R_{\earth}$ planet transiting a 0.33-$R_{\odot}$ star.
600: One can see that the aperture requirements for these stars are
601: quite favorable; 80 \% of the sample can be observed at the requisite
602: precision in 150 s integrations with telescopes of aperture 40 cm.
603:
604: \begin{figure}[ct1]
605: \epsscale{1.0}
606: \plotone{f2.ps}
607: \caption{Cumulative distribution of LSPM M dwarfs as a function of aperture.
608: The aperture is that necessary for achieving, in a 150 second integration,
609: the requisite sensitivity for a 3 sigma detection of a 2-$R_{\earth}$ planet.
610: Note that the required sensitivity varies from M dwarf to M dwarf as a
611: function of stellar radius.
612: The dot-dashed curve is for a calculation through the $z$
613: filter, while the dashed curve is for the $i+z$. The solid curve is for a
614: subset of LSPM M dwarfs with estimated radii $ < 0.33 R_{\odot}$
615: ($i+z$ filter).}
616: \label{cum_ap}
617: \end{figure}
618:
619:
620: \section{Field of View Requirements}
621:
622: Since we target only one star per field, the required size of the
623: field of view (FOV) is defined
624: by the need to have an adequate number of calibrating stars.
625: For each field, we require the number of photons
626: received from calibrating stars to be 10 times the number of photons received
627: from the target M dwarf. We further require that each calibrating star be
628: between 0.2 and 1.2 times the brightness of the target star. Note that these
629: requirements are relatively strict to give tolerance for the possibility
630: of variables or other unsuitable stars being among the calibrators.
631: For each LSPM M dwarf, we determine the size of the smallest square box
632: (centered on the M dwarf) that meets the calibration requirements.
633:
634: For this calculation, we query the 2MASS Point Source Catalog
635: \citep{Cutri2003}, using WCSTools \citep{Mink1998} around the position of each M dwarf. This
636: query results in a list of potential calibrating stars. For each of these
637: potential calibrators, we transform from 2MASS $J$ and $K_s$ magnitudes
638: into estimates of $i$ and $z$ magnitudes. This transformation is necessary
639: since the calibrator stars do not, in general, lie in fields covered by the
640: SDSS survey, and in cases where they do, the SDSS photometry is usually saturated.
641: The transformation relies on a
642: polynomial fit to $i-J$ as a function of $J-K_s$ as we now detail.
643: Our dataset
644: for the transformation is a sample of cross-matched stars in 2MASS
645: and the SDSS Photometric Data Release 5 \citep{Adelman-Mccarthy2007} from an
646: arbitrarily chosen $3^{\circ}$ by $3^{\circ}$ field covered by the SDSS DR5 dataset. SDSS
647: photometry was accepted if not flagged as
648: SATURATED, EDGE, DEBLENDED\_AS\_MOVING, CHILD, INTERP\_CENTER, or BLENDED.
649:
650: We derived a quadratic fit to $i-J$ and a linear function fit to $z-J$, each as a
651: function of $J-K_s$. The resulting fits, displayed in Figure
652: \ref{colortrans}, are:
653: \begin{equation}
654: i-J =1.09 - 1.46*(J-K_s) + 2.50 * (J-K_s)^2~~~~ 0.2 < J-K_s<0.9
655: \end{equation}
656: \begin{equation}
657: z-J =0.56 + 0.73*(J-K_s) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 0.2 < J-K_s <0.9
658: \end{equation}
659:
660: \begin{figure}[ct1]
661: \epsscale{1.0}
662: \plotone{f3.ps}
663: \caption{Transformation from $J$ and $K_s$ to $i$ (top panel) and $z$
664: (bottom panel). Each point represents a star that has been cross-matched
665: in the 2MASS and SDSS surveys from an arbitrarily chosen field covered by
666: the SDSS DR5
667: dataset. The displayed best-fit curves and corresponding equations are
668: determined by a least squares fit to these data.}
669: \label{colortrans}
670: \end{figure}
671:
672:
673: For the primary M dwarfs, $J-K_s$ is degenerate, so we rely instead on the
674: $M_J$ vs. $i-J$ and $M_J$ versus $z-J$ relations of \citet{Hawley2002}.
675: The uncertainty in $M_J$ reaches $\pm 0.6$ mag (dominated by
676: the uncertainty in distance), but leads to a much smaller uncertainty in $i-J$ ($<
677: 0.3$ mag) and $z-J$ ($<0.2$ mag) because of the small dynamic range of these
678: colors over the M dwarf sequence.
679:
680: We estimate the ratio of photon fluxes in each band by
681: $10^{-0.4 \Delta i}$ or $10^{-0.4 \Delta z}$, where $\Delta i$, $\Delta z$
682: are the differences in $i$,$z$ magnitude between target and calibrator.
683: To compare photon fluxes
684: through different bands, one must of course take into account the difference in
685: relative throughput between each band.
686: For these quick estimates, we account for the relative throughput of
687: $i$ vs. $z$ via the Q factor described in \citet{Fukugita1996}. To
688: illustrate, a source with equal $i$ and $z$ magnitudes will have approximately
689: $\mathrm{Q_i}/\mathrm{Q_z}$ ($\approx 2$) more
690: photons through the $i$ band than through the $z$ band. With estimates for the
691: relative number of photons in the calibrators now in hand, we place
692: successively larger boxes around the target M dwarf, until the calibration
693: requirement is met. In Figure \ref{cum_fov}, we show the cumulative
694: distribution of all LSPM M dwarfs as a function of the required FOV
695: for both the $z$ filter (dot-dashed), and $i+z$ filter (dashed).
696:
697: \begin{figure}[ct1]
698: \epsscale{1.0}
699: \plotone{f4.ps}
700: \caption{Cumulative distribution of LSPM M dwarfs as a function of the necessary field
701: of view, where we require that the field includes ten times the photon flux
702: from calibrator stars than from the target M dwarf. The required FOV is
703: determined on a star-by-star basis by querying 2MASS for appropriate
704: calibrating stars around the position of each target M dwarf. The dot-dashed curve is for a calculation through the $z$
705: filter, while the dashed curve is for the $i+z$. The solid curve is for a
706: subset of LSPM M dwarfs with estimated radii $ < 0.33 R_{\odot}$
707: ($i+z$ filter). }
708: \label{cum_fov}
709: \end{figure}
710:
711:
712: Some key points arise from this investigation.
713: An unsurprising one is that brighter targets require significantly larger
714: fields than fainter targets, due simply to the relative sparseness of brighter
715: calibrators.
716: Another is that using an $i+z$ filter (rather than $z$ alone) saves somewhat
717: on the field of view.
718: This is again unsurprising since cutting on at a bluer wavelength increases the relative
719: number of photons from generally bluer calibrators. Note that although the
720: use of the $i+z$ filter adds to the number of M dwarfs observable by our
721: criteria, it may complicate calibration. Fringing, for example, may be an issue in this
722: bandpass with a thinned, back-illuminated CCD. We expect however, that the
723: situation will not be too different from the $z$ band observing experiences of
724: Holman et al. (2007),
725: where fringing was apparent, but had little effect
726: on the photometric precision. In addition, the generally bluer
727: comparison stars may introduce calibration issues. We expect that this too
728: will be surmountable, for example, through the use of color-dependent
729: extinction corrections.
730:
731: The relative faintness of late M dwarfs emerges as a very
732: favorable characteristic in this calculation. In Figure \ref{cum_fov}, we have included the
733: cumulative distribution for the subset of LSPM M dwarfs with estimated radius
734: $< 0.33 ~R_{\odot}$ (solid curve) for $i+z$. This is the same subset of
735: stars motivated by aperture considerations and described in \S 4.2.
736:
737: The propitious aspects of these late M dwarfs that arise in both aperture and FOV
738: considerations are worthy of further investigation. In Figure 5, we have plotted
739: the necessary aperture versus necessary field of view for each of the LSPM M
740: dwarfs, with stars of radius $< 0.33 ~R_{\odot}$ represented by filled circles, and stars of radius
741: $> 0.33 ~ R_{\odot}$ by open circles. The criteria for calibrators,
742: photometric precision, and exposure time are again as described above.
743: We see that the late M dwarfs occupy a locus in aperture-FOV
744: space that is very fortunate from an instrumental design standpoint.
745:
746:
747: \begin{figure}[ct1]
748: \epsscale{1.0}
749: \plotone{f5.ps}
750: \caption{ Necessary aperture vs. necessary FOV for LSPM M dwarfs.
751: Stars with radius $ > 0.33 ~ R_{\odot} $ are represented by open circles,
752: while stars with radius $ < 0.33 ~ R_{\odot}$ are represented by filled
753: circles. The required precision (for aperture calculation) is that
754: necessary to achieve a 3 sigma detection of a transiting 2 $R_{\earth}$
755: planet in a 150 second integration through the $i+z$ filter. The range of
756: the x and y axes match that of the radius $ < 0.33 ~ R_{\odot}$ stars,
757: while 30 \% of the radius $ > 0.33 ~ R_{\odot} $ M dwarfs require more
758: than a 100 cm aperture, and thus fall above the plot limits.
759: }
760: \label{ap_fov}
761: \end{figure}
762:
763: \section{Survey Duration and Number of Telescopes}
764:
765: In this section we estimate the amount of telescope time necessary for a
766: successful MEarth Project. Our conclusion is framed in units of
767: \emph{telescope-years}, reflecting the fact that the survey duration and the number of
768: telescopes is a trade-off.
769: Our calculation is tailored to the characteristics of
770: 2-$R_{\earth}$-sized planets orbiting in the habitable zones of the host
771: stars.
772:
773: The outline of the calculation is as follows. We
774: first determine the fraction of a telescope's time, f$_{\mathrm{tel}}$ that must be devoted
775: to each star to guarantee the temporal coverage necessary for catching
776: transits of habitable zone planets. We then calculate the number of
777: observing nights, N$_{\mathrm{nights}}$, that are necessary until one can be 90
778: \% confident that at least one transit would have fallen during an observation
779: session.
780: The effective number of telescope nights,
781: N$_{\mathrm{eff}}$ is then N$_{\mathrm{eff}} = $ N$_{\mathrm{nights}}
782: \times$ f$_{\mathrm{tel}}$. The total effective number of telescope nights is
783: determined by calculating and summing N$_{\mathrm{eff}}$ over the list of
784: stars to survey.
785:
786: The calculation of f$_{\mathrm{tel}}$ is done as follows:
787: 1) For each star, and for a given
788: aperture, we determine the necessary exposure time to achieve a 3 sigma detection
789: of a 2 $R_{\earth}$ planet. In addition, we assume an overhead time of 60 s to account
790: for time spent slewing between targets.
791: 2) We determine the transit duration using the
792: inferred stellar parameters from section 3. We assume a circular orbit
793: at a distance from the star for which the planet receives the same stellar
794: flux as the Earth. We further assume a
795: mid-latitude transit, which leads to a transit duration of 0.866 times that of
796: an equatorial transit.
797: 3) We require at least 2 visits to the star per transit duration. This then sets
798: the cadence to 2/transit duration (cycles per unit time).
799: We impose a minimum cadence of one
800: visit per 60 minutes, to ensure that we have sufficient temporal coverage to
801: catch shorter transit duration planets (i.e. planets interior of the
802: habitable zone).
803: 4) Finally, the f$_{\mathrm{tel}}$ dedicated to a given star is given by f$_{\mathrm{tel}}$ = cadence $\times$ (exposure time + overhead).
804: In the top panel of Figure \ref{tel_histo}, we display a histogram of the
805: sample of 1,976 late M
806: dwarfs, binned by f$_{\mathrm{tel}}$. These histograms give a sense of what
807: fraction of a telescope's time must be devoted to individual M dwarfs, when those stars are
808: being actively observed.
809: f$_{\mathrm{tel}}$ is calculated as described above for aperture diameters of
810: 20 cm (dashed), 35 cm (dotted), and 50 cm (solid). One can see that for 20 cm apertures, a
811: significant fraction of stars would require more than 10 \% of the telescope's
812: time while actively being observed. For 35 and 50 cm apertures, a typical star
813: requires $\sim$ 5\% and $\sim$ 3\%, respectively, of a telescope's time.
814:
815: Our calculation for N$_{\mathrm{nights}}$ involves simulations similar to
816: those performed in `window function' calculations that are common in the literature
817: (see, for example, Pepper et al 2005). \nocite{Pepper2005} The major
818: difference is that here we require only one transit. This is justified because we
819: anticipate reducing photometry in real-time, so that transits events can identified
820: and confirmed while still in progress. We inject transit signals over an extensive grid of possible phases, with periods
821: assigned to each star corresponding to planets in habitable zone orbits.
822: For the purposes of simulation, we assume observational seasons of 60 nights with 9 hours of observing each night.
823: We randomly knock out 50 \% of observing nights to account for weather effects.
824: In practice, most stars in the sample are visible from Mt. Hopkins (latitude
825: 31.6$^{\circ}$ N) for more than 60 nights each year (neglecting weather) and are visible for less than 9 hours each night, but
826: 9 hours $\times$ 60 roughly represents the number of hours
827: a typical star is visible over the course of a season.
828: To avoid skewed results from periods near integer or half-integer number of days (which are known to show
829: resonances in detection probability),
830: we simulate over a uniform range of possible periods for each star. The upper end of this range of periods
831: is defined by planets receiving the same stellar flux as Earth, and at the lower end by planets with
832: an equilibrium temperature of 290 K (assuming a wavelength-integrated Bond
833: albedo of 0.3). We determine N$_{\mathrm{nights}}$ by
834: requiring that 90 \% of transit signals are recovered.
835: In the bottom panel of Figure \ref{tel_histo}, we give a histogram for the
836: total number of nights during which
837: each star must observed.
838:
839: The only remaining issue is to select which M dwarfs to sum N$_{\mathrm{eff}}$
840: over. The stars with the optimal N$_{\mathrm{eff}}$ are the
841: coolest M dwarfs, for which the periods of habitable zone orbits are shortest.
842: The previously described sample of 1,976 late M dwarfs with radius $< ~ 0.33
843: R_{\odot}$ are once again very appropriate under this consideration. In
844: Figure \ref{eff_nights}, we have summed N$_{\mathrm{eff}}$ over these M dwarfs as a function of
845: aperture. The effect of increasing the aperture size is to decrease the
846: integration times required to each star, and hence to decrease the fraction of
847: its time that a
848: telescope must devote to each star. At $\sim$ 30 cm, the marginal benefit
849: of adding more aperture diminishes, simply because at this aperture,
850: overhead time spent slewing between targets begins to dominate over the
851: actual time spent integrating on targets.
852:
853: At 30 cm, N$_{\mathrm{eff}}$=22.1 telescope-years. Thus ten such telescopes could survey the sample of 1,976
854: late M dwarfs in 2.2 years. Note that simply adding more
855: telescopes to the network does not necessarily reduce the survey completion
856: time. For example a significant fraction of the stars in the late M dwarf
857: sample require a time baseline of more than 90 nights to achieve 90 \%
858: confidence that a transit event would have occurred during an observational session
859: (see Figure \ref{tel_histo}).
860: If many of these stars are only visible 30 good weather nights a year, then
861: observations of these stars must be spread out over 3 years, regardless of the
862: amount of telescope time one devotes to each star.
863:
864: \section{Conclusions and Discussion}
865:
866: We have investigated the design requirements for the MEarth Project, a
867: survey conceived to monitor Northern Hemisphere M dwarfs for transits of habitable
868: planets, with a sensitivity to detect planets down to a radius of $2 R_{\earth}$.
869: In our investigation, 1,976 late M dwarfs ($R < 0.33 R_{\odot}$) emerged as the most favorable survey
870: targets, initially for reasons related to photometric precision.
871: Despite their relative faintness, it is easier to achieve the required
872: sensitivity to detect a given planet because their small radii lead to deep transit signals. In
873: consideration of the required field-of-view, late M dwarfs once again arose as
874: the most favorable survey targets-- in this case \emph{because} of their relative
875: faintness. A final investigation into the amount of telescope time required to
876: achieve transit detections of habitable planets again favored late M dwarfs,
877: because of the short periods of habitable zone orbits.
878:
879: Because of
880: the increased geometric probability of transit for habitable planets around
881: the late M dwarfs, the constraints on the occurrence rate of such planets
882: are correspondingly tighter. We can perform an ex post facto analysis on the sample
883: of 1,976 late M dwarfs with an estimated $R < 0.33 R_{\odot}$, using their
884: individual inferred stellar radii and the estimated semi-major axes of planets in
885: their habitable zones, and assuming a recovery rate of 90 \% for planets
886: transiting from the habitable zone. For this sample of stars, a lack of any transit detections of
887: habitable planets would lead to an upper limit (99 \% confidence) of 17 \% for
888: the occurrence of such
889: planets. For a true occurrence rate of 10 \% for habitable planets
890: (larger than 2 $R_{\earth}$), the expected yield would be 2.6 such planets.
891: We note that for even closer planets, such as the hot Neptune transiting
892: GJ 436, the expected yield is significantly larger, and thus, in their own
893: right could justify a project to monitor this many M dwarfs. We also note
894: that our sample of M dwarfs include 450 stars with an estimated $R < 0.17
895: R_{\odot}$, to which the MEarth network could be sensitive to transiting
896: planets as small as 1 $\rearth$. To achieve this sensitivity, the exposure times
897: for these 450 stars would need to be increased by roughly a factor of 4 compared to the exposure
898: times calculated in this paper.
899:
900: Once built, the MEarth network of robotic telescopes will be able to survey
901: the 1,976 late M dwarfs in 22 telescope-years, if equipped with 30 cm aperture
902: telescopes, using the 'i+z' filter described in section 4.
903: From an instrumental viewpoint, successfully observing this sample
904: of M dwarfs is challenged by the $\sim$ 10 \% of
905: this sample (see Figure \ref{cum_fov}) for which the estimated field of view
906: requirements are greater than 30 arcmin by 30 arcmin. Possible
907: solutions to this challenge worth exploring include, for example, the addition of a wide angle-node
908: to the MEarth network, or simply using a large-format camera. It may also be possible to accommodate these
909: stars by using custom field orientations in order to grab extra
910: calibrating stars, or to relax the conservative calibrating criteria that we
911: assumed in our field of view calculations.
912:
913: This study has confirmed the status of nearby
914: late M dwarfs as bearers of the lowest hanging fruit in the search for
915: habitable rocky planets. Excitingly, these
916: stars remain largely unexplored: Since late M dwarfs are very faint at the
917: visible wavelengths at which iodine provides reference lines, they are
918: not accessible to current radial velocity planet searches.
919: Besides the search for transiting planets, a plan to photometrically monitor this many M
920: dwarfs represents a large step forward in the study of the intrinsic
921: variability, and long-term activity of M dwarfs. The identification and monitoring of spotted stars, for example, will
922: be useful to future, near IR radial velocity observational programs which will
923: be compromised by the radial velocity jitter and spurious signals that might
924: result.
925: \linebreak
926:
927: We gratefully acknowledge funding for this project from the David and Lucile
928: Packard Fellowship for Science and Engineering.
929: We would like to thank Andrew Szentgyorgyi, David Latham, Matt Holman
930: and Cullen Blake for helpful comments, and an anonymous referee for thoughtful
931: comments and helpful recommendations.
932: This publication makes use of data products from the Two Micron All Sky
933: Survey, which is a joint project of the University of Massachusetts and the
934: Infrared Processing and Analysis Center/California Institute of Technology,
935: funded by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the National
936: Science Foundation.
937:
938:
939: \begin{figure}[ct1]
940: \epsscale{1.0}
941: \plotone{f6.ps}
942: \caption{\emph{Top:} Histogram of the late M dwarf sample, binned by f$_{\mathrm{tel}}$
943: , the fraction of telescope's time devoted to the star. The dashed curve
944: give results for 20 cm aperture, dotted for 35 cm, and solid for 50 cm.
945: \emph{Bottom:} Histogram of the late M dwarf sample, binned by N$_{\mathrm{nights}}$, the number of
946: observing nights required to be 90 \% confident that at least one transit
947: event from a habitable zone-orbiting planet would have fallen during an
948: observational session.
949: }
950: \label{tel_histo}
951: \end{figure}
952:
953:
954: \begin{figure}[ct1]
955: \epsscale{1.0}
956: \plotone{f7.ps}
957: \caption{Number of telescope-years required to survey the sample of 1,976
958: late M dwarfs, as a function of aperture. This is calculated by summing
959: f$_{\mathrm{tel}} \times $N$_{\mathrm{nights}}$ over each M dwarf, where f$_{\mathrm{tel}}$ is the fraction of telescope's time devoted
960: to the star, and N$_{\mathrm{nights}}$ is the number of
961: observing nights required to be 90 \% confident that at least one transit
962: event from a habitable zone-orbiting planet would have fallen during an
963: observational session.
964: }
965: \label{eff_nights}
966: \end{figure}
967:
968: \bibliographystyle{apj}
969:
970: \begin{thebibliography}
971:
972: \bibitem[{{Adelman-McCarthy} \& {et al.}(2007)}]{Adelman-Mccarthy2007}
973: {Adelman-McCarthy}, J.~K. \& {et al.} 2007, VizieR Online Data Catalog, 2276, 0
974:
975: \bibitem[Aigrain \& Pont(2007)]{Aigrain2007} Aigrain, S., \& Pont,
976: F.\ 2007, \mnras, 378, 741
977:
978: \bibitem[{{Allard} {et~al.}(2000){Allard}, {Hauschildt}, \&
979: {Schwenke}}]{Allard2000}
980: {Allard}, F., {Hauschildt}, P.~H., \& {Schwenke}, D. 2000, \apj, 540, 1005
981:
982: \bibitem[{{Alonso} {et~al.}(2004){Alonso}, {Brown}, {Torres}, {Latham},
983: {Sozzetti}, {Mandushev}, {Belmonte}, {Charbonneau}, {Deeg}, {Dunham},
984: {O'Donovan}, \& {Stefanik}}]{Alonso2004}
985: {Alonso}, R., {Brown}, T.~M., {Torres}, G., {Latham}, D.~W., {Sozzetti}, A.,
986: {Mandushev}, G., {Belmonte}, J.~A., {Charbonneau}, D., \& {et al.} 2004, \apjl, 613,
987: L153
988:
989: \bibitem[{{Baglin}(2003)}]{Baglin2003}
990: {Baglin}, A. 2003, Advances in Space Research, 31, 345
991:
992: \bibitem[{{Bakos} {et~al.}(2004){Bakos}, {Noyes}, {Kov{\'a}cs}, {Stanek},
993: {Sasselov}, \& {Domsa}}]{Bakos2004}
994: {Bakos}, G., {Noyes}, R.~W., {Kov{\'a}cs}, G., {Stanek}, K.~Z., {Sasselov},
995: D.~D., \& {Domsa}, I. 2004, \pasp, 116, 266
996:
997: \bibitem[{{Baraffe} {et~al.}(1998){Baraffe}, {Chabrier}, {Allard}, \&
998: {Hauschildt}}]{Baraffe1998}
999: {Baraffe}, I., {Chabrier}, G., {Allard}, F., \& {Hauschildt}, P.~H. 1998, \aap,
1000: 337, 403
1001:
1002: \bibitem[Barman(2007)]{Barman2007} Barman, T.\ 2007, \apjl, 661, L191
1003:
1004: \bibitem[{{Bayless} \& {Orosz}(2006)}]{Bayless2006}
1005: {Bayless}, A.~J. \& {Orosz}, J.~A. 2006, \apj, 651, 1155
1006:
1007: \bibitem[{{Beaulieu} {et~al.}(2006){Beaulieu}, {Bennett}, {Fouqu{\'e}},
1008: {Williams}, {Dominik}, {Jorgensen}, {Kubas}, {Cassan}, {Coutures},
1009: {Greenhill}, {Hill}, {Menzies}, {Sackett}, {Albrow}, {Brillant}, {Caldwell},
1010: {Calitz}, {Cook}, {Corrales}, {Desort}, {Dieters}, {Dominis}, {Donatowicz},
1011: {Hoffman}, {Kane}, {Marquette}, {Martin}, {Meintjes}, {Pollard}, {Sahu},
1012: {Vinter}, {Wambsganss}, {Woller}, {Horne}, {Steele}, {Bramich}, {Burgdorf},
1013: {Snodgrass}, {Bode}, {Udalski}, {Szyma{\'n}ski}, {Kubiak}, {Wi{\c e}ckowski},
1014: {Pietrzy{\'n}ski}, {Soszy{\'n}ski}, {Szewczyk}, {Wyrzykowski},
1015: {Paczy{\'n}ski}, {Abe}, {Bond}, {Britton}, {Gilmore}, {Hearnshaw}, {Itow},
1016: {Kamiya}, {Kilmartin}, {Korpela}, {Masuda}, {Matsubara}, {Motomura},
1017: {Muraki}, {Nakamura}, {Okada}, {Ohnishi}, {Rattenbury}, {Sako}, {Sato},
1018: {Sasaki}, {Sekiguchi}, {Sullivan}, {Tristram}, {Yock}, \&
1019: {Yoshioka}}]{Beaulieu2006}
1020: {Beaulieu}, J.~P., {Bennett}, D.~P., {Fouqu{\'e}}, P., {Williams}, A.,
1021: {Dominik}, M., {Jorgensen}, U.~G., {Kubas}, D., {Cassan}, A., \& {et al.}
1022: 2006, \nat, 439, 437
1023:
1024: \bibitem[{{Borucki} {et~al.}(2003){Borucki}, {Koch}, {Basri}, {Brown},
1025: {Caldwell}, {Devore}, {Dunham}, {Gautier}, {Geary}, {Gilliland}, {Gould},
1026: {Howell}, \& {Jenkins}}]{Borucki2003}
1027: {Borucki}, W.~J., {Koch}, D., {Basri}, G., {Brown}, T., {Caldwell}, D.,
1028: {Devore}, E., {Dunham}, E., {Gautier}, \& {et al.} 2003, in ESA Special Publication,
1029: Vol. 539, ESA Special Publication, ed. M.~{Fridlund}, T.~{Henning}, \&
1030: H.~{Lacoste}, 69
1031:
1032: \bibitem[{{Charbonneau} {et~al.}(2005){Charbonneau}, {Allen}, {Megeath},
1033: {Torres}, {Alonso}, {Brown}, {Gilliland}, {Latham}, {Mandushev}, {O'Donovan},
1034: \& {Sozzetti}}]{Charbonneau2005}
1035: {Charbonneau}, D., {Allen}, L.~E., {Megeath}, S.~T., {Torres}, G., {Alonso},
1036: R., {Brown}, T.~M., {Gilliland}, R.~L., {Latham}, D.~W., {Mandushev}, G.,
1037: {O'Donovan}, F.~T., \& {Sozzetti}, A. 2005, \apj, 626, 523
1038:
1039: \bibitem[{{Charbonneau} {et~al.}(2007){Charbonneau}, {Brown}, {Burrows}, \&
1040: {Laughlin}}]{Charbonneau2007}
1041: {Charbonneau}, D., {Brown}, T.~M., {Burrows}, A., \& {Laughlin}, G. 2007, in
1042: Protostars and Planets V, ed. B.~{Reipurth}, D.~{Jewitt}, \& K.~{Keil},
1043: 701
1044:
1045: \bibitem[{{Charbonneau} {et~al.}(2002){Charbonneau}, {Brown}, {Noyes}, \&
1046: {Gilliland}}]{Charbonneau2002}
1047: {Charbonneau}, D., {Brown}, T.~M., {Noyes}, R.~W., \& {Gilliland}, R.~L. 2002,
1048: \apj, 568, 377
1049:
1050: \bibitem[Charbonneau \& Deming(2007)]{Charbonneau2007b} Charbonneau, D.,
1051: \& Deming, D.\ 2007, ArXiv e-prints, 706, arXiv:0706.1047
1052:
1053: \bibitem[{{Christian} {et~al.}(2005){Christian}, {Pollacco}, {Clarkson},
1054: {Collier Cameron}, {Evans}, {Fitzsimmons}, {Haswell}, {Hellier}, {Hodgkin},
1055: {Horne}, {Kane}, {Keenan}, {Lister}, {Norton}, {Ryans}, {Skillen}, {Street},
1056: {West}, \& {Wheatley}}]{Christian2005}
1057: {Christian}, D.~J., {Pollacco}, D.~L., {Clarkson}, W.~I., {Collier Cameron},
1058: A., {Evans}, N., {Fitzsimmons}, A., {Haswell}, C.~A., {Hellier}, C.,
1059: \& {et al.} 2005, in ESA Special Publication, Vol. 560, ESA
1060: Special Publication, ed. F.~{Favata} \& {et al.}, 475
1061:
1062: \bibitem[{Cowan {et~al.}(2007)Cowan, Agol, \& Charbonneau}]{Cowan2007}
1063: Cowan, N.~B., Agol, E., \& Charbonneau, D. 2007, \mnras
1064:
1065: \bibitem[{{Cutri} {et~al.}(2003){Cutri}, {Skrutskie}, {van Dyk}, {Beichman},
1066: {Carpenter}, {Chester}, {Cambresy}, {Evans}, {Fowler}, {Gizis}, {Howard},
1067: {Huchra}, {Jarrett}, {Kopan}, {Kirkpatrick}, {Light}, {Marsh}, {McCallon},
1068: {Schneider}, {Stiening}, {Sykes}, {Weinberg}, {Wheaton}, {Wheelock}, \&
1069: {Zacarias}}]{Cutri2003}
1070: {Cutri}, R.~M., {Skrutskie}, M.~F., {van Dyk}, S., {Beichman}, C.~A.,
1071: {Carpenter}, J.~M., {Chester}, T., {Cambresy}, L., {Evans}, T., \& {et al.}, N. 2003, {2MASS All Sky Catalog of
1072: point sources.}
1073:
1074: \bibitem[Deeg(2004)]{Deeg2004} Deeg, H.~J.\ 2004, Stellar
1075: Structure and Habitable Planet Finding, 538, 231
1076:
1077: \bibitem[{{Delfosse} {et~al.}(2000){Delfosse}, {Forveille}, {S{\'e}gransan},
1078: {Beuzit}, {Udry}, {Perrier}, \& {Mayor}}]{Delfosse2000}
1079: {Delfosse}, X., {Forveille}, T., {S{\'e}gransan}, D., {Beuzit}, J.-L., {Udry},
1080: S., {Perrier}, C., \& {Mayor}, M. 2000, \aap, 364, 217
1081:
1082: \bibitem[{{Deming} {et~al.}(2005){Deming}, {Seager}, {Richardson}, \&
1083: {Harrington}}]{Deming2005}
1084: {Deming}, D., {Seager}, S., {Richardson}, L.~J., \& {Harrington}, J. 2005,
1085: \nat, 434, 740
1086:
1087: \bibitem[{{Deming} {et~al.}(2006){Deming}, {Harrington}, {Seager}, \&
1088: {Richardson}}]{Deming2006}
1089: {Deming}, D., {Harrington}, J., {Seager}, S., \& {Richardson}, L.~J. 2006,
1090: \apj, 644, 560
1091:
1092: \bibitem[Deming et al.(2007)]{Deming2007} Deming, D., Harrington, J.,
1093: Laughlin, G., Seager, S., Navarro, S.~B., Bowman, W.~C., \& Horning, K.\ 2007,
1094: ArXiv e-prints, 707, arXiv:0707.2778
1095:
1096: \bibitem[{{Dravins} {et~al.}(1998){Dravins}, {Lindegren}, {Mezey}, \&
1097: {Young}}]{Dravins1998}
1098: {Dravins}, D., {Lindegren}, L., {Mezey}, E., \& {Young}, A.~T. 1998, \pasp,
1099: 110, 610
1100:
1101: \bibitem[{{Fukugita} {et~al.}(1996){Fukugita}, {Ichikawa}, {Gunn}, {Doi},
1102: {Shimasaku}, \& {Schneider}}]{Fukugita1996}
1103: {Fukugita}, M., {Ichikawa}, T., {Gunn}, J.~E., {Doi}, M., {Shimasaku}, K., \&
1104: {Schneider}, D.~P. 1996, \aj, 111, 1748
1105:
1106: \bibitem[{{Gillon} {et~al.}(2005){Gillon}, {Courbin}, {Magain}, \&
1107: {Borguet}}]{Gillon2005}
1108: {Gillon}, M., {Courbin}, F., {Magain}, P., \& {Borguet}, B. 2005, \aap, 442,
1109: 731
1110:
1111: \bibitem[Gillon et al.(2007)]{Gillon2007} Gillon, M., et al.\
1112: 2007, \aap, 472, L13
1113:
1114: \bibitem[Gould et al.(2003)]{Gould2003} Gould, A., Pepper, J., \&
1115: DePoy, D.~L.\ 2003, \apj, 594, 533
1116:
1117: \bibitem[{{Grillmair} {et~al.}(2007){Grillmair}, {Charbonneau}, {Burrows},
1118: {Armus}, {Stauffer}, {Meadows}, {Van Cleve}, \& {Levine}}]{Grillmair2007}
1119: {Grillmair}, C.~J., {Charbonneau}, D., {Burrows}, A., {Armus}, L., {Stauffer},
1120: J., {Meadows}, V., {Van Cleve}, J., \& {Levine}, D. 2007, \apjl, 658, L115
1121:
1122: \bibitem[{{Harrington} {et~al.}(2006){Harrington}, {Hansen}, {Luszcz},
1123: {Seager}, {Deming}, {Menou}, {Cho}, \& {Richardson}}]{Harrington2006}
1124: {Harrington}, J., {Hansen}, B.~M., {Luszcz}, S.~H., {Seager}, S., {Deming}, D.,
1125: {Menou}, K., {Cho}, J.~Y.~K., \& {Richardson}, L.~J. 2006, Science, 314, 623
1126:
1127: \bibitem[Harrington et al.(2007)]{Harrington2007} Harrington, J., Luszcz, S.,
1128: Seager, S., Deming, D., \& Richardson, L.~J. \ 2007, \nat, 447, 691
1129:
1130: \bibitem[{{Hauschildt} {et~al.}(1999){Hauschildt}, {Allard}, \&
1131: {Baron}}]{Hauschildt1999}
1132: {Hauschildt}, P.~H., {Allard}, F., \& {Baron}, E. 1999, \apj, 512, 377
1133:
1134: \bibitem[{{Hawley} {et~al.}(2002){Hawley}, {Covey}, {Knapp}, {Golimowski},
1135: {Fan}, {Anderson}, {Gunn}, {Harris}, {Ivezi{\'c}}, {Long}, {Lupton},
1136: {McGehee}, {Narayanan}, {Peng}, {Schlegel}, {Schneider}, {Spahn}, {Strauss},
1137: {Szkody}, {Tsvetanov}, {Walkowicz}, {Brinkmann}, {Harvanek}, {Hennessy},
1138: {Kleinman}, {Krzesinski}, {Long}, {Neilsen}, {Newman}, {Nitta}, {Snedden}, \&
1139: {York}}]{Hawley2002}
1140: {Hawley}, S.~L., {Covey}, K.~R., {Knapp}, G.~R., {Golimowski}, D.~A., {Fan},
1141: X., {Anderson}, S.~F., {Gunn}, J.~E., {Harris}, H.~C., \& {et al.} 2002, \aj, 123, 3409
1142:
1143: \bibitem[{{Hayes} {et~al.}(1975){Hayes}, {Latham}, \& {Hayes}}]{Hayes1975}
1144: {Hayes}, D.~S., {Latham}, D.~W., \& {Hayes}, S.~H. 1975, \apj, 197, 587
1145:
1146: \bibitem[Holman et al.(2007)]{Holman2007} Holman, M.~J., et al.\
1147: 2007, \apj, 664, 1185
1148:
1149: \bibitem[Irwin et al.(2007)]{Irwin2007} Irwin, J., Irwin, M.,
1150: Aigrain, S., Hodgkin, S., Hebb, L., \& Moraux, E.\ 2007, \mnras, 375, 1449
1151:
1152: \bibitem[Jenkins et al.(2000)]{Jenkins2000} Jenkins, J.~M.,
1153: Witteborn, F., Koch, D.~G., Dunham, E.~W., Borucki, W.~J., Updike, T.~F.,
1154: Skinner, M.~A., \& Jordan, S.~P.\ 2000, \procspie, 4013, 520
1155:
1156: \bibitem[{{Knigge}(2006)}]{Knigge2006}
1157: {Knigge}, C. 2006, \mnras, 373, 484
1158:
1159: \bibitem[{{Knutson} {et~al.}(2007){Knutson}, {Charbonneau}, {Allen}, {Fortney},
1160: {Agol}, {Cowan}, {Showman}, {Cooper}, \& {Megeath}}]{Knutson2007}
1161: {Knutson}, H.~A., {Charbonneau}, D., {Allen}, L.~E., {Fortney}, J.~J., {Agol},
1162: E., {Cowan}, N.~B., {Showman}, A.~P., {Cooper}, C.~S., \& {Megeath}, S.~T.
1163: 2007, \nat, 447, 183
1164:
1165: \bibitem[{{Leggett} {et~al.}(2000){Leggett}, {Allard}, {Dahn}, {Hauschildt},
1166: {Kerr}, \& {Rayner}}]{Leggett2000}
1167: {Leggett}, S.~K., {Allard}, F., {Dahn}, C., {Hauschildt}, P.~H., {Kerr}, T.~H.,
1168: \& {Rayner}, J. 2000, \apj, 535, 965
1169:
1170: \bibitem[{{L{\'e}pine}(2005)}]{Lepine2005}
1171: {L{\'e}pine}, S. 2005, \aj, 130, 1680
1172:
1173: \bibitem[{{L{\'e}pine} \& {Shara}(2005)}]{LSPM2005}
1174: {L{\'e}pine}, S. \& {Shara}, M.~M. 2005, \aj, 129, 1483
1175:
1176: \bibitem[{{Mandushev} {et~al.}(2005){Mandushev}, {Torres}, {Latham},
1177: {Charbonneau}, {Alonso}, {White}, {Stefanik}, {Dunham}, {Brown}, \&
1178: {O'Donovan}}]{Mandushev2005}
1179: {Mandushev}, G., {Torres}, G., {Latham}, D.~W., {Charbonneau}, D., {Alonso},
1180: R., {White}, R.~J., {Stefanik}, R.~P., \& {et al.} 2005, \apj, 621, 1061
1181:
1182: \bibitem[{{McCullough} {et~al.}(2005){McCullough}, {Stys}, {Valenti},
1183: {Fleming}, {Janes}, \& {Heasley}}]{McCullough2005}
1184: {McCullough}, P.~R., {Stys}, J.~E., {Valenti}, J.~A., {Fleming}, S.~W.,
1185: {Janes}, K.~A., \& {Heasley}, J.~N. 2005, \pasp, 117, 783
1186:
1187: \bibitem[McCullough \& Burke(2007)]{McCullough2007} McCullough, P.~R.,
1188: \& Burke, C.~J.\ 2007, Transiting Extrapolar Planets Workshop, 366, 70
1189:
1190: \bibitem[{{Mink}(1998)}]{Mink1998}
1191: {Mink}, D.~J. 1998, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol.~30,
1192: 1144
1193:
1194: \bibitem[{{O'Donovan} {et~al.}(2006){O'Donovan}, {Charbonneau}, {Torres},
1195: {Mandushev}, {Dunham}, {Latham}, {Alonso}, {Brown}, {Esquerdo}, {Everett}, \&
1196: {Creevey}}]{ODonovan2006}
1197: {O'Donovan}, F.~T., {Charbonneau}, D., {Torres}, G., {Mandushev}, G., {Dunham},
1198: E.~W., {Latham}, D.~W., {Alonso}, R., {Brown}, T.~M., {Esquerdo}, G.~A.,
1199: {Everett}, M.~E., \& {Creevey}, O.~L. 2006, \apj, 644, 1237
1200:
1201: \bibitem[Pepper \& Gaudi(2005)]{Pepper2005} Pepper, J., \& Gaudi,
1202: B.~S.\ 2005, \apj, 631, 581
1203:
1204: \bibitem[Pollacco et al.(2006)]{Pollacco2006} Pollacco, D., et al.\
1205: 2006, \apss, 304, 253
1206:
1207: \bibitem[{{Pont} {et~al.}(2006){Pont}, {Zucker}, \& {Queloz}}]{Pont2006}
1208: {Pont}, F., {Zucker}, S., \& {Queloz}, D. 2006, \mnras, 373, 231
1209:
1210: \bibitem[Pont et al.(2007)]{Pont2007} Pont, F., et al.\ 2007,
1211: Transiting Extrapolar Planets Workshop, 366, 3
1212:
1213: \bibitem[{{Ribas}(2006)}]{Ribas2006}
1214: {Ribas}, I. 2006, Astrophysics and Space Science, 304, 89
1215:
1216: \bibitem[{{Richardson} {et~al.}(2007){Richardson}, {Deming}, {Horning},
1217: {Seager}, \& {Harrington}}]{Richardson2007}
1218: {Richardson}, L.~J., {Deming}, D., {Horning}, K., {Seager}, S., \&
1219: {Harrington}, J. 2007, \nat, 445, 892
1220:
1221: \bibitem[Scalo et al.(2007)]{Scalo2007} Scalo, J., et al.\ 2007,
1222: Astrobiology, 7, 85
1223:
1224: \bibitem[Seager et al.(2007)]{Seager2007} Seager, S., Kuchner, M.,
1225: Hier-Majumber, C., \& Militzer, B.\ 2007, ArXiv e-prints, 707, arXiv:0707.2895
1226:
1227: \bibitem[Tamuz et al.(2005)]{Tamuz2005} Tamuz, O., Mazeh, T., \&
1228: Zucker, S.\ 2005, \mnras, 356, 1466
1229:
1230: \bibitem[{{Tarter} {et~al.}(2007){Tarter}, {Backus}, {Mancinelli}, {Aurnou},
1231: {Backman}, {Basri}, {Boss}, {Clarke}, {Deming}, {Doyle}, {Feigelson},
1232: {Freund}, {Grinspoon}, {Haberle}, {Hauck}, {Heath}, {Henry}, {Hollingsworth},
1233: {Joshi}, {Kilston}, {Liu}, {Meikle}, {Reid}, {Rothschild}, {Scalo}, {Segura},
1234: {Tang}, {Tiedje}, {Turnbull}, {Walkowicz}, {Weber}, \& {Young}}]{Tarter2007}
1235: {Tarter}, J.~C., {Backus}, P.~R., {Mancinelli}, R.~L., {Aurnou}, J.~M.,
1236: {Backman}, D.~E., {Basri}, G.~S., {Boss}, A.~P., {Clarke}, A., \& {et al.} 2007, Astrobiology, 7, 30
1237:
1238: \bibitem[Tinetti et al.(2007)]{Tinetti2007} Tinetti, G., et al.\ 2007, \nat,
1239: 448, 169
1240:
1241: \bibitem[Udry et al.(2007)]{Udry2007} Udry, S., et al.\ 2007,
1242: \aap, 469, L43
1243:
1244: \bibitem[{{Valencia} {et~al.}(2007){Valencia}, {Sasselov}, \&
1245: {O'Connell}}]{Valencia2007}
1246: {Valencia}, D., {Sasselov}, D.~D., \& {O'Connell}, R.~J. 2007, \apj, 656, 545
1247:
1248: \bibitem[{{Vidal-Madjar} {et~al.}(2003){Vidal-Madjar}, {Lecavelier des Etangs},
1249: {D{\'e}sert}, {Ballester}, {Ferlet}, {H{\'e}brard}, \&
1250: {Mayor}}]{Vidal-Madjar2003}
1251: {Vidal-Madjar}, A., {Lecavelier des Etangs}, A., {D{\'e}sert}, J.-M.,
1252: {Ballester}, G.~E., {Ferlet}, R., {H{\'e}brard}, G., \& {Mayor}, M. 2003,
1253: \nat, 422, 143
1254:
1255: \end{thebibliography}
1256:
1257:
1258: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccc}
1259: \setlength{\tabcolsep}{0.1in}
1260: \tablecaption{LSPM M dwarf Parameters\tablenotemark{a} }
1261: \tablecolumns{7}
1262: \tablewidth{0pt}
1263: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
1264: \tablehead{
1265: \colhead{Sp. Type \tablenotemark{b}} &
1266: \colhead{$N$} &
1267: \colhead{$R$ [$R_{\sun}$]} &
1268: \colhead{$M$ [$M_{\sun}$]} &
1269: \colhead{$J$}
1270: }
1271: \startdata
1272: M0 & 129 & .69 & .68 & 7.58 \\ %
1273: M1 & 128 & .62 & .61 & 7.80 \\ %
1274: M2 & 225 & .55 & .54 & 8.10 \\ %
1275: M3 & 419 & .44 & .43 & 8.64 \\ %
1276: M4 & 890 & .33 & .32 & 9.44 \\ %
1277: M5 & 1043 & .24 & .22 & 10.21 \\ %
1278: M6 & 348 & .15 & .13 & 11.15 \\ %
1279: M7 \& M8 & 114 & .12 & .09 & 12.06 \\ %
1280:
1281: \enddata
1282: \tablenotetext{a}{Mean Values for different radius bins}
1283: \tablenotetext{b}{Spectral type estimated by a fit to Leggett (2000) data as
1284: function of $V-K$ color.}
1285: \end{deluxetable}
1286:
1287:
1288:
1289: \end{document}
1290:
1291:
1292: