1: \documentclass[11pt,twoside]{article}
2:
3: \usepackage{asp2006}
4: \usepackage{epsf}
5: %\usepackage{psfig}
6: \usepackage{lscape}
7:
8: \markboth{Nader Haghighipour}{Habitable Planets in Binaries}
9:
10: \pagestyle{myheadings}
11: \setcounter{equation}{0}
12: \setcounter{figure}{0}
13: \setcounter{footnote}{0}
14: \setcounter{section}{0}
15: \setcounter{table}{0}
16:
17:
18: \begin{document}
19: \title{Habitability of Planets in Binaries}
20: \author{Nader Haghighipour}
21: \affil{Institute for Astronomy and NASA Astrobiology Institute,
22: University of Hawaii-Manoa}
23:
24: \begin{abstract}
25: A survey of currently known extrasolar planets indicates that close to
26: 20\% of their hosting stars are members of binary systems. While the
27: majority of these binaries are wide (i.e., with separations between 250
28: and 6500 AU), the detection of Jovian-type planets in the three binaries of
29: $\gamma$ Cephei (separation of 18.5 AU), GL 86 (separation of 21 AU),
30: and HD 41004 (separation of 23 AU)
31: have brought to the forefront questions on the formation of giant planets
32: and the possibility of the existence of smaller bodies in moderately
33: close binary star systems. This paper
34: discusses the late stage of the formation of habitable planets in
35: binary systems that host
36: Jovian-type bodies, and reviews the effects of the binary companion
37: on the formation of Earth-like planets in the system's habitable zone.
38: The results of a large survey of the parameter-space of
39: binary-planetary systems in search of regions where habitable planets
40: can form and have long-term stable orbits are also presented.
41: \end{abstract}
42:
43:
44: \section{Introduction}
45:
46: Among the currently known planet-hosting stars, approximately 20\%
47: are members of binary systems \citep{Hagh06}. Although
48: to observers, the existence of such {\it binary-planetary}
49: systems is not unexpected \footnote{Observations of star-forming
50: regions have indicated that a large
51: fraction of main and pre-main sequence stars are formed in dual
52: or multistar environments \citep{Abt79,Duq91,Math94,Math00,White01}.
53: There is also substantial evidence
54: on the existence of planet-forming disks around stellar components
55: of binary systems \citep{Math94,Akeson98,Rodriguez98,White99,
56: Silbert00,Math00}.}, to theorists, such
57: {\it extreme} planetary environments pose major challenges
58: to theories of planet formation.
59: While observations of systems
60: such as L1551 \citep{Rodriguez98} indicate that planet-forming
61: circumstellar disks, with
62: masses similar to the mass of the primordial nebula of our
63: solar system, exist around the components of binaries (implying
64: that planet-formation in dual-star systems can begin and proceed in
65: the same fashion as around our Sun), simulations of the formation
66: of giant planets around stars of a binary yield mixed results. For instance,
67: as shown by \citet{Nelson00}, giant planets cannot form in binary systems with
68: separations of $\sim 50$ AU through disk instability or core
69: accretion mechanisms. However, as shown by
70: \citet{Boss06} and by \citet{Mayer07}, disk instability
71: can indeed form giant planets in binary systems, and
72: as indicated by \citet{Thebault04},
73: the core-accretion mechanism is also capable of
74: forming planets in dual-star systems [see \citet{Hagh07b}
75: for a comprehensive review].
76:
77: The fact that giant planets exist in binary systems
78: implies that planet formation in dual-star environments
79: is robust. One important concern with such systems
80: is, then, whether they can also form and harbor
81: habitable planets. In this paper,
82: we study habitable planet formation in binary systems that are
83: moderately close (i.e., separation smaller then 50 AU), and also
84: harbor giant planets. Among the currently known binary-planetary
85: systems only three are of this kind:
86: GL 86 \citep{Els01}, $\gamma$ Cephei \citep{Hatzes03},
87: and HD 41004 \citep{Zucker04,Ragh06}.
88: We are in particular interested to understand
89: how the dynamics of the secondary star affects the late stage of the
90: formation of terrestrial-class planets in the habitable zone
91: of the primary and the delivery of water
92: to its habitable planets.
93:
94:
95:
96: \section {Numerical Simulations}
97:
98: To study the late stage of habitable planet formation,
99: the collisional growth of a few hundred Moon- to Mars-sized objects
100: (planetary embryos) has to be simulated. In a recent article
101: \citep{Hagh07}, we carried out such simulations for a binary-planetary
102: system with a solar-type star as its primary, a Jupiter-sized
103: object at 5 AU as its planetary companion, and a 0.5-1.5 solar-masses
104: star as its secondary.
105: In these simulations, we assumed that planetesimal
106: formation has been efficient and has resulted in the formation of a disk of
107: approximately 115 planetary embryos with masses ranging from 0.01 to 0.1
108: Earth-masses. We randomly distributed these objects between 0.5 AU and 4 AU
109: by 3 to 6 mutual Hill radii, and considered the increase in their
110: masses with their semimajor axes $(a)$ and the number of their
111: mutual Hill radii $(\Delta)$ follow \citet{Raymond04}, and be given by
112: ${a^{3/4}}{\Delta^{3/2}}$. The surface density of our disk model,
113: normalized to a density of 8.2 g/cm$^2$ at 1 AU, was assumed to follow
114: an $r^{-1.5}$ profile, where
115: $r$ is the radial distance from the primary star. We also
116: assumed that the water to mass ratios
117: of embryos followed the current distribution of water in
118: primitive asteroids of the asteroid belt \citep{Abe00}. That is,
119: embryos inside 2 AU were taken to be dry, the ones
120: between 2 and 2.5 AU were considered to contain 1\% water, and those
121: beyond 2.5 AU were assumed to have water to mass ratios of 5\%
122: \citep{Raymond04}.
123: \begin{figure}
124: \vskip -1.2in
125: \plotone {f1.eps}
126: \vskip 0.2in
127: \caption{Formation of water-bearing terrestrial-class planets around
128: the primary of a binary-planetary system with solar-mass stars.
129: The big black circles
130: represent the Jupiter-like planet of the system. Figure from \citet{Hagh07}.}
131: \label{fig1}
132: \end{figure}
133:
134: We simulated the collisional growth of the planetary embryos of our
135: binary-planetary system for 100 Myr,
136: and for different values of the semimajor axis $(a_b)$, orbital eccentricity
137: $(e_b)$, and mass of the secondary star.
138: We followed \citet{Kasting93}, and considered a conservative
139: habitable zone for the primary of our system
140: at a distance
141: between 0.9 AU and 1.5 AU from this star. Figure 1 shows the results of some of
142: our simulations for an equal-mass binary with solar-type stars.
143: As shown here, terrestrial-class planets with substantial
144: amounts of water can form in the habitable zone of the primary star.
145:
146: An important result obtained from our simulations was the relation
147: between the binary perihelion $(q_b)$ and the location
148: of the outermost terrestrial planet $(a_{\rm out})$.
149: The left graph of figure 2 shows this for different simulations.
150: As shown here, in simulations with no giant planet, similar
151: to \citet{Quintana07},
152: terrestrial planet formation favors regions interior to $0.19 {q_b}$.
153: Given the location of the inner edge of the habitable zone
154: (i.e., 0.9 AU), our simulations indicated that, in a binary-planetary system
155: with a Sun-like primary, a stellar companion with a perihelion distance
156: smaller than 0.9/0.19 = 4.7 AU$\sim$5 AU may not allow Earth-like
157: planets to form in the system's habitable zone.
158: In simulations with giant planets, on the other hand, figure 2
159: shows that terrestrial planets form closer-in.
160: The ratio $a_{out}/q_b$ in these
161: systems varies between 0.06 and 0.13.
162:
163: A detailed analysis of the results of our simulations
164: indicate that the systems, in which water-bearing planets were formed
165: in their habitable zones,
166: have relatively large perihelia. The right graph of figure 2 shows this for
167: simulations in a binary with equal-mass Sun-like stars.
168: The circles in this figure correspond to systems in which
169: simulations resulted in the formation of habitable planets.
170: The numbers on the top of the circles represent
171: the mean eccentricity of the giant planet during the simulation.
172: For comparison, the systems in which
173: the giant planet is unstable have also been marked.
174: Since at the beginning of each simulation,
175: the orbit of the giant planet was considered to be
176: circular, a non-zero eccentricity is indicative of the interaction
177: of this body with the secondary star. As shown here, Earth-like objects
178: are formed in systems where the average eccentricity of the giant
179: planet is small. That is, in systems where the interaction
180: between the giant planet and the secondary star has been weak.
181: That implies, habitable planet formation is more favorable in
182: binaries with moderate to large perihelia, and with giant
183: planets on low eccentricity orbits.
184:
185: \begin{figure}
186: \plottwo {f2.eps}{f3.eps}
187: \vskip 0.2in
188: \caption{The graph on the left shows the relation between the perihelion
189: of an equal-mass binary and the location of its
190: outermost terrestrial planet.
191: The graph on the right shows the region of the $({e_b},{a_b})$ space
192: for a habitable binary-planetary system. Figures from \citet{Hagh07}.}
193: \label{fig2}
194: \end{figure}
195:
196:
197: \acknowledgements
198: Support by the NASA Astrobiology Institute under Cooperative Agreement
199: NNA04CC08A with the Institute for Astronomy at the University of
200: Hawaii-Manoa is acknowledged.
201:
202: \begin{thebibliography}{}
203: \bibitem[Abe et al. (2000)]{Abe00}
204: Abe, Y., Ohtani, E., Okuchi, T., Righter, K., \& Drake, M. 2000,
205: in Origin of the Earth and the Moon, ed. K. Righter \& R. Canup
206: (Tucson: Univ. Arizona Press), 413
207: \bibitem[Abt (1979)]{Abt79}
208: Abt, H. A. 1979, \aj, 84, 1591
209: \bibitem[Akeson, Koerner $\&$ Jensen (1998)]{Akeson98}
210: Akeson, R. L., Koerner, D. W. \& Jensen, E. L. N. 1998,
211: \apj, 505, 358
212: \bibitem[Boss (2006)]{Boss06}
213: Boss, A. P. 2006, \apj, 641, 1148
214: \bibitem[Duquennoy \& Mayor (1991)]{Duq91}
215: Duquennoy, A. \& Mayor, M. 1991, \aap, 248, 485
216: \bibitem[Els et al. (2001)]{Els01}
217: Els, S. G., Sterzik, M. F., Marchis, F., Pantin, E., Endl, M.,
218: Kruster, M. 2001, \aap, 370, L1
219: \bibitem [Haghighipour (2006)]{Hagh06}
220: Haghighipour, N. 2006, \apj, 644, 543
221: \bibitem[Haghighipour \& Raymond (2007)]{Hagh07}
222: Haghighipour, N. \& Raymond, S. N. 2007, \apj, 666, 436
223: \bibitem [Haghighipour (2007)]{Hagh07b}
224: Haghighipour, N. 2007, in EXOPLANETS: Research into Planets Around
225: Other Stars, ed. J. Mason (Parix Pub. Ltd.)
226: \bibitem[Hatzes et al.(2003)]{Hatzes03}
227: Hatzes, A. P., Cochran, W. D., Endl, M., McArthur, B., Paulson, D. B.,
228: Walker, G. A. H., Campbell, B. \& Yang, S. 2003, \apj, 599, 1383
229: \bibitem[Kasting, Whitmire, $\&$ Reynolds (1993)]{Kasting93}
230: Kasting, J. F., Whitmire, D. P. \& Reynolds, R. T. 1993,
231: Icarus, 101, 108
232: \bibitem[Mathieu (1994)]{Math94}
233: Mathieu, R. D. 1994, \araa, 32, 465
234: \bibitem[Mathieu et al. (2000)]{Math00}
235: Mathieu, R. D., Ghez, A. M., Jensen, E. L. \& Simon, M. 2000
236: in Protostars and Planets IV, ed. V. Mannings,
237: A. P. Boss \& S. S. Russell (Tucson: Univ. Arizona Press), 703
238: \bibitem[Mayer, Boss \& Nelson (2007)]{Mayer07}
239: Mayer, L., Boss, A. P. \& Nelson, A. F. 2007, arXiv:0705.3182M
240: \bibitem[Nelson (2000)]{Nelson00}
241: Nelson, A. F. 2000, \apj, 537, L65
242: \bibitem[Quintana et al. (2007)]{Quintana07}
243: Quintana, E. V., Adams, F. C., Lissauer, J. J. \& Chambers, J. E. 2007,
244: \apj, 660, 807
245: \bibitem[Raghavan et al. (2006)]{Ragh06}
246: Raghavan, D., Henry, T. J., Mason, B. D., Subasavage, J. P.,
247: Jao, W. C, B, T. D.\& Hambly, N. C. 2006, \apj, 646, 523
248: \bibitem[Raymond et al. (2004)]{Raymond04}
249: Raymond, S. N., Quinn, T., \& Lunine, J., I. 2004, Icarus, 168, 1
250: \bibitem[Rodriguez et al. (1998)]{Rodriguez98}
251: Rodriguez, L. F., D'Alessio, P., Wilner, D. J., Ho, P. T. P.,
252: Torrelles, J. M., Curiel, S., Gomez, Y., Lizano, S., Pedlar, A.,
253: Canto, J. \& Raga, A. C. 1998, Nature, 395, 355
254: \bibitem[Silbert et al. (2000)]{Silbert00}
255: Silbert, J., Gledhill, T., Duch\'ene, G. \& M\'enard, F. 2000,
256: \apj, 536, L89
257: \bibitem[Th\'ebault et al. (2004)]{Thebault04}
258: Th\'ebault, P., Marzari, F., Scholl, H., Turrini, D. \& Barbieri, M.
259: \aap, 427, 1097
260: \bibitem[White et al. (1999)]{White99}
261: White, R. J., Ghez, A. M., Reid, I. N. \& Schultz, G. 1999,
262: \apj, 520, 811
263: \bibitem[White $\&$ Ghez (2001)]{White01}
264: White, R. J. \& Ghez, A. M. 2001, \apj, 556, 265
265: \bibitem[Zucker et al. (2004)]{Zucker04}
266: Zucker, S., Mazeh, T., Santos, N. C., Udry, S., \& Mayor, M. 2004,
267: \aap, {\bf 426}, 695
268:
269:
270:
271:
272:
273:
274:
275:
276: \end{thebibliography}
277:
278: \end{document}
279: