1: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{emulateapj}
3:
4:
5: %\usepackage{amsmath}
6:
7:
8: \newcommand{\Mearth}{$M_\oplus$}
9: \newcommand{\Msun}{$M_\odot$}
10: \newcommand{\Mjup}{$M_\mathrm{J}$}
11: \newcommand{\Rjup}{$R_\mathrm{J}$}
12: \newcommand{\Rearth}{$R_\oplus$}
13: \newcommand{\Rsun}{$R_\odot$}
14: \newcommand{\Lsun}{$L_\odot$}
15: \newcommand{\Rstar}{$R_\star$}
16: \newcommand{\AU}{{\sc au}}
17: \newcommand{\CsurO}{\rm C/O|_\odot}
18: \newcommand{\corot}{\emph{CoRoT}}
19: \newcommand{\kepler}{\emph{Kepler}}
20: \newcommand{\spitzer}{\emph{Spitzer }}
21: \newcommand{\microns}{$\mu$m}
22: \newcommand{\etal}{et al.}
23: \newcommand{\deriv}{\mathrm{d}}
24:
25: \slugcomment{}
26:
27: \shorttitle{Primary transit of the planet HD189733b at 3.6 and 5.8 $\mu$m}
28:
29:
30:
31: \shortauthors{Beaulieu et al.}
32:
33: \begin{document}
34:
35: \title{Primary transit of the planet HD189733b at 3.6 and 5.8 $\mu$m}
36:
37: \author{
38: J.P. Beaulieu\altaffilmark{1,2},
39: S. Carey\altaffilmark{3}, I. Ribas\altaffilmark{4,2}, G. Tinetti\altaffilmark{5,2} }
40:
41: \altaffiltext{1}{Institut d'astrophysique de Paris, CNRS (UMR 7095), Universit\'e Pierre \& Marie Curie, Paris, France }
42: \altaffiltext{2}{HOLMES collaboration}
43: \altaffiltext{3}{IPAC-Spitzer Science Center, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California 91125, USA}
44: \altaffiltext{4}{Institut de Ci\`encies de l'Espai (CSIC-IEEC), Campus UAB, 08193 Bellaterra, Spain}
45: \altaffiltext{5}{European Space Agency/University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK}
46:
47: \begin{abstract}
48: The hot Jupiter HD 189733b was observed during its primary transit using
49: the Infrared Array Camera on the \spitzer\ \emph{Space Telescope}. The
50: transit depths were measured simultaneously at 3.6 and 5.8 $\mu$m. Our
51: analysis yields values of $2.356 \pm 0.019$\% and $2.436 \pm 0.020$\% at 3.6
52: and 5.8 $\mu$m respectively, for a uniform source. We estimated
53: the contribution of the limb-darkening and star-spot
54: effects on the final results. We concluded that although the limb darkening increases
55: by $\sim $ 0.02-0.03 \% the transit depths, and the differential effects
56: between the two IRAC bands is even smaller, 0.01 \%.
57: Furthermore, the host star is known to be an active spotted K star with
58: observed photometric modulation. If we adopt an extreme model of 20 \% coverage
59: with spots 1000K cooler of the star surface, it will make the observed
60: transits shallower by 0.19 and 0.18 \%. The difference between the two
61: bands will be only of 0.01 \%, in the opposite direction to the limb darkening
62: correction.
63: If the transit depth is affected by limb darkening and spots,
64: the differential effects between the 3.6 and 5.8 $\mu$m bands
65: are very small.
66: The differential transit depths at 3.6 and 5.8 $\mu$m
67: and the recent one published by Knutson et al.( 2007) at 8 \microns\ are in
68: agreement with the presence of water vapour in the upper atmosphere of the planet.
69: This is the companion paper to Tinetti et al. (2007b), where the detailed atmosphere models
70: are presented.
71: %\spitzer IRAC photometry is a unique tool to probe extrasolar planet atmospheres, to be continued in the warm \spitzer era.
72: \end{abstract}
73:
74: \keywords{Stars: planetary systems --- planetary systems: formation ---{\it Facilities:} \facility{Spitzer}}
75:
76: \section{Introduction}
77: %=====================
78: \label{sec:intro}
79:
80: Over 240 planets are now known to orbit stars different from our Sun
81: (Schneider 2007; Butler et al. 2007). This number is due to increase
82: exponentially in the near future thanks to space-missions devoted to the
83: detection of exoplanets and the improved capabilities of the ground-based
84: telescopes. Among the exoplanets discovered so far, the best known class
85: of planetary bodies are giant planets (EGPs) orbiting very close-in
86: (hot-Jupiters). In particular, hot-Jupiters that transit their parent
87: stars offer a unique opportunity to estimate directly key physical
88: properties of their atmospheres (Brown, 2001).
89: In particular, the use of the primary transit (when the planet passes in front of its parent
90: star) and transmission spectroscopy to probe the upper layers of the
91: transiting EGPs, has been particularly successful in the UV and visible
92: ranges (Charbonneau et al. 2002; Richardson et al. 2003, 2003a; Deming et
93: al. 2005a; Vidal-Madjar et al. 2003, 2004; Knutson et al. 2007; Ballester,
94: Sing, \& Herbert 2007; Ben-Jaffel, 2007) and in the
95: thermal IR (Richardson et al. 2006; Knutson et al. 2007).
96:
97: The hot-Jupiter HD 189733b (Bouchy et al. 2005) has a mass of $M_p=1.15
98: \pm 0.04$~$M_{\rm Jup}$, a radius of $R_p=1.26 \pm 0.03$~$R_{\rm Jup}$,
99: and orbits a main sequence K-type star at a distance of 0.0312 AU. This
100: exoplanet is orbiting the brightest and closest star discovered so far,
101: making it one of the prime targets for observations (Bakos et al. 2006;
102: Winn et al. 2007; Deming et al. 2006; Grillmair et al. 2007; Knutson et
103: al. 2007).
104:
105: Tinetti et al. (2007a) have modeled the infrared transmission spectrum of
106: the planet HD 189733b during the primary transit and have shown that
107: \spitzer observations are well suited to probe the atmospheric
108: composition and, in particular, constrain the abundances of water vapor
109: and CO. Here we analyze the observations of HD 189733b with the Infrared
110: Array Camera (IRAC Fazio et al., 2004) on board the \spitzer Space Telescope in two bands
111: centered at 3.6 and 5.8 $\mu$m. We report the data reduction, and discuss
112: our results in light of the theoretical predictions and the recent
113: observation at 8 $\mu$m (Knutson et al. 2007).
114:
115:
116: \section{Methods}
117: %=======================================
118: \label{sec:obs}
119:
120: \subsection{The observations}
121:
122: HD 189733 was observed on October 31, 2006 (program id 30590) during the
123: primary transit of its planet with the IRAC instrument.
124: During the 4.5 hours of observations, 1.8 hours were spent on the
125: planetary transit, and 2.7 hours outside the transit. High accuracy in the
126: relative photometry was obtained so that the transit data in the two bands
127: could be compared. During the observations, the pointing was held constant to
128: keep the source centered on a given pixel of the detector. Two reasons
129: prompted us to adopt this approach:
130: \begin{itemize}
131: \item[-] The amount of light detected in channel 1 shows variability that
132: depends on the relative position of the source with respect to a pixel
133: center (called the pixel-phase effect). This effect could be up to 4\%
134: peak-to-peak at 3.6 $\mu$m. Corrective terms have been determined for channel
135: 1 and are reported in the IRAC Manual, but also by Morales-Calder\'on et
136: al. (2006; hereafter MC06). These systematic effects are known to be
137: variable across the field. At first order we can correct them using the
138: prescriptions of MC06 or of the manual, and then check for the need of
139: higher order corrections.
140: \item[-] Flat-fielding errors are another important issue. Observations at
141: different positions on the array will cause a systematic scatter in the
142: photometric data which may swamp the weak signal we are aiming to detect.
143: \end{itemize}
144: Therefore, to achieve high-precision photometry at $3.6~\mu$m, it is
145: important to keep the source fixed at a particular position in the array.
146: Staring mode observations can keep a source fixed within 0.15 arcsecond.
147: It is crucial to have pre-transit and post-transit data to estimate the systematic
148: effects and to understand how to correct for them.
149:
150: There is no significant pixel-phase effect for channel 3 of IRAC.
151: However, the constraint on the flat-fielding error requires that the
152: source is centered on the same pixel of the detector during the
153: observations. A latent buildup may affect the response of the detector as
154: a function of time. To avoid the saturation of the detector for this $K=5.5$
155: mag target, a short exposure time was used. The observations were split in
156: consecutive sub-exposures each integrated over 0.4 and 2 seconds for
157: channel 1 and 3, respectively.
158:
159: \subsection{Data reduction}
160:
161: We used the flat-fielded, cosmic ray-corrected and flux-calibrated data
162: files provided by the \spitzer pipeline. We treated the data of the two
163: channels separately. We used the BLUE software (Alard 2007) which performs
164: PSF photometry. Below we describe the details of this approach.
165:
166: The PSF was reconstructed from a compilation of the brightest, unsaturated
167: stars in the image. Once the local background had been subtracted and the
168: flux normalized, we obtained a data set representing the PSF at different
169: locations on the image. An analytical model was fitted to this dataset by
170: using an expansion of Gaussian polynomial functions. To fit the PSF
171: spatial variations, the coefficients of the local expansion are polynomial
172: functions of the position in the image. Note that the functions used for
173: the expansion of the PSF are similar to those used for the kernel
174: expansion in the image subtraction process. A full description of this
175: analytical scheme is given in Alard (2000).
176:
177: The position of the centroid was quantified by an iterative process.
178: Starting from an estimate, based on the position of the local maximum of
179: the object, we performed a linear fit of the amplitude and the PSF offsets
180: $(dx,dy)$ to correct the position. The basic functions for this fit were
181: the PSF and its first two derivatives. Note that in general the
182: calculation of the PSF derivatives from its analytical model is
183: numerically sensitive. We recall also that the first moments are exactly
184: the PSF derivatives in the case of a Gaussian PSF. This procedure
185: converges quickly: only few iterations are necessary for an accuracy of
186: less than 1/100 of a pixel.
187:
188: We performed photometry on all the frames of ch1 and ch3. We tried two
189: different approaches: we used a Poisson weighting of the PSF fits and then
190: the weight maps provided by the \spitzer pipeline. These maps contain
191: for each pixel the propagated errors of the different steps through the
192: \spitzer pipeline. The results of these two processing runs are almost
193: indistinguishable. Systematic trends were present in both channels. Here
194: we discuss each channel separately.
195:
196: \section{RESULTS}
197: %===============================
198: \label{sec:results}
199:
200: \subsection{Channel 1}
201:
202: Figure \ref{fig:fig1} shows the different steps of the data processing. In
203: the upper panel we report the raw photometry as produced by BLUE.
204: Inspection of the lightcurve in the pre-transit and post-transit phases
205: shows systematic trends with time scales of about 1 hour, with a
206: peak-to-peak amplitude of 0.7\%, related to the variation of the
207: pixel-phase due to the jitter of the satellite. The middle panel shows the
208: pixel-phase. We can clearly see that the flux in the upper panel is correlated
209: with the pixel-phase. We adopted the MC06 prescription to correct for the
210: pixel-phase, and show the results binned by 10. Most of the systematic
211: trends present in the raw photometry are removed, but not entirely. There
212: are still some trends present for the lowest value of the pixel phase
213: during the transit, pre-transit, and post-transit. Therefore, we used the
214: pre and post-transit data to fit the corrective terms, as in the approach
215: of MC06, and applied them to the full light curve. The results are shown
216: in the lower panel of Fig. \ref{fig:fig1}. There is an improvement in the
217: baseline, and also in the transit. The central part of the transit has
218: still four consecutive
219: points deviating by 1--2 $\sigma$ around $t \sim 200$~s, corresponding to
220: the lowest phase value. They are shown on Fig. \ref{fig:fig1} but we will exclude
221: them from further analysis (Fig. \ref{fig:fig3}).
222: These remaining systematic effects are due to the phase. We ran calculations both by
223: including these points and by excluding them, and then compared the
224: results. Also, we adopted different binning: by 5, 10, 20 or 50 points.
225: The results are compatible within the errorbars.
226: As we discuss in more detail below, limb darkening effects
227: are very small at 3.6 $\mu$m so the shape
228: of the transit light-curve is box-like.
229:
230:
231: \begin{figure}
232: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=9cm]{f1.ps}
233: \caption{Top panel: raw photometric light curve, with systematic trends
234: due to the pixel-phase effect. Middle panel: variation of the pixel-phase
235: as a function of time. We can clearly see some correlations between these
236: two panels, as expected from the known behavior of the IRAC Channel 1.
237: Bottom panels: data binned by 10 after the correction for the
238: pixel-phase. In the MC06 labeled panel we corrected the raw photometry
239: using the prescription of Morales-Calder\'on et al. (2006). In the lowest
240: panel, we estimated the corrective terms from pre-transit and post-transit
241: data, and applied them to the full data set.}
242: \label{fig:fig1}
243: \end{figure}
244:
245:
246: \subsection{Channel 3}
247:
248: In Fig. \ref{fig:fig2} we report the raw (upper panel) and the final
249: (lower panel) photometric data. There is no correlation with the
250: pixel-phase, but a long term systematic trend can be seen both out of and
251: in the transit. This trend does not appear to be caused by a latent
252: buildup, but it is probably linked to the variation of response of the pixels
253: due to a long period of illumination. We used the pre-transit and the post-transit
254: data to fit a linear corrective term that we applied to all the data.
255: The results, binned by 10, are shown in the lower panel of Fig.\ref{fig:fig2}.
256:
257:
258: \begin{figure}
259: \resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics[angle=0,width=9cm]{f2.ps}}
260: \caption{Upper panel: raw photometric light curve with a long term
261: systematic trend. Lower panel : we estimated the corrective terms from
262: pre-transit and post-transit data, and applied them to the full data set.
263: We then bin the data by 10, and estimated the associated errorbar for each
264: measurement.}
265: \label{fig:fig2}
266: \end{figure}
267:
268: %\subsection{A different reduction with aperture photometry}
269:
270: %As a cross-check we performed a completely independent reduction using
271: %classical aperture photometry. We fitted a Gaussian to the central pixels to
272: %estimate the centroid. We used a 2 pixel aperture with a 2-6 pixel background
273: %annulus. Aperture corrections of 1.049 and 1.379 were applied for channels 1
274: %and 3, respectively. Systematic trends were observed in the photometric data
275: %with the same characteristics of the analysis described in 2.2, but with a
276: %slightly larger scatter.
277:
278: %\begin{figure}
279: %\includegraphics[angle=0,width=9cm]{acqua_fig3.ps
280: %\caption{The different panels show the pixel-phase. From top to bottom: the channel 1
281: %transit curve with its model, the residuals of the fit, the channel 3
282: %transit curve with its model, and then the residuals of the fit. }
283: %\label{fig:fig3}
284: %\end{figure}
285: % pour la fig, les BoundingBox: 18 160 592 612
286:
287: \section{DISCUSSION}
288:
289: \subsection{Comments about the data reduction}
290:
291: Using the BLUE software we carried out a full modeling of the PSF and obtained
292: an optimal centroid determination. With an undersampled PSF, in data sets with
293: strong pixel-phase effects (channels 1 and 2 from \spitzer\ ), accurate
294: centroid determination is a key issue for achieving high precision
295: photometry.
296:
297: In order to tackle the systematic trends that are present in IRAC observations,
298: it is important to have sufficient baseline observations to analyze
299: transit data. Here, it has been vital to have sufficient pre-transit and
300: post-transit data in order to be able to check the nature of the systematics
301: and correct for them. The 4.5 hours of observations were centered on 1.8 hours
302: transit. Given the $\sim 1$ hour time scale of the pixel-phase variations, this
303: was well adapted, but it is clearly a lower limit on the necessary observing time
304: scale to achieve such observations.
305:
306: \subsection{Calculation of the transit depth}
307:
308: We decide to do a direct comparison between the out-of-transit flux
309: (Fig. \ref{fig:fig1} and Fig. \ref{fig:fig2}) and the in-transit flux
310: (the central 3500 sec) averaged over its flat part for each channel.
311: We estimate the weighted mean and its error both in the out-of-transit flux
312: and the in-transit flux.
313: For channel 1, we have excluded the measurements obtained at the lowest pixel
314: phase values as discussed in 3.1.
315: It yields values of $2.356 \pm 0.019$\% and $2.436 \pm 0.020$\% in
316: the 3.6- and 5.8-\microns\ bands, respectively (fig.
317: \ref{fig:absorptions}). This is the same approach as adopted by Knutson et al. (2007).
318:
319:
320: \subsection{Contribution of limb-darkening}
321:
322: As a further refinement in our analysis we considered the effects of limb
323: darkening. By inspection, the transit is clearly
324: flat bottomed, and limb darkening was expected to be negligible.
325: However, it was deemed worth calculating its contribution
326: because of the high accuracy claimed in the transit
327: depth measurement given above. We adopted a non-linear limb darkening law model
328: as described in Mandel \& Agol (2002) to calculate a limb-darkened light
329: curve. We considered the more sophisticated form using four coefficients
330: ($C_1$, $C_2$, $C_3$, and $C_4$), These were calculated using a Kurucz
331: (2005) stellar model ($T_{\rm eff}=5000$~K, $\log g=4.5$, solar
332: abundance), which matches closely the observed parameters of HD\,189733,
333: convolved with the IRAC passbands. Parameters are given in Table 1.
334:
335: \begin{deluxetable}{rllll}
336: \tablecaption{Limb darkening coefficients \label{tab:LD}}
337: \tablehead{
338: \colhead{IRAC} & \colhead{ C1 } & \colhead{ C2 } & \colhead{ C3 } & \colhead{ C4 }}
339: \startdata
340: {3.6~\microns} & 0.6023 & -0.5110 & 0.4655 & -0.1752 \\
341: {5.8~\microns} & 0.7137 & -1.0720 & 1.0515 & -0.3825 \\
342: \enddata
343: \end{deluxetable}
344:
345: A multi-parameter fit of the two light curves using the adopted non-linear
346: limb-darkening model yielded depths of $2.387 \pm 0.014$\% and $2.456 \pm
347: 0.017$\% in the 3.6- and 5.8-\microns\ bands, respectively. Two small
348: effects can be identified. First, the limb-darkened transits become some
349: 0.02--0.03\% deeper than those measured assuming a uniform stellar disk.
350: But also, and very importantly in our case, the relative transit depth
351: varies by no more than 0.01\%, which is actually about 1/2 of our quoted
352: error bars. In conclusion, the influence of limb darkening in our
353: measurements is not significant.
354:
355: \begin{deluxetable}{lcc}
356: \tablecaption{Fitting Parameters of the Transit Curves \label{tab:param}}
357: \tablehead{
358: \colhead{Parameter} & \colhead{3.6~\microns} & \colhead{5.8~\microns}}
359: \startdata
360: $R_p / R_\star$(LD) & $ 0.15285 \pm 0.0003$ & $0.1545 \pm 0.0004$ \\
361: $b$ & $0.620 \pm 0.01$ & $0.620 \pm 0.01$ \\
362: $(R_p/R_\star)^2$ \% (Uniform) & $2.356 \pm 0.019$ & $2.436 \pm 0.023$ \\
363: $(R_p/R_\star)^2$ \% (LD) & $2.383 \pm 0.014$ & $2.457 \pm 0.017$ \\
364: \enddata
365: \end{deluxetable}
366:
367:
368:
369:
370: \begin{figure}
371: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=9cm]{f3.ps}
372: \caption{From top to bottom: the
373: channel 1 transit curve with its Mandel and Agol (2002) model, the residuals of the fit,
374: the channel 3 transit curve with its model, and then the residuals of the fit. }
375: \label{fig:fig3}
376: \end{figure}
377:
378:
379: % pour la fig, les %%BoundingBox: 18 161 592 533
380:
381: \subsection{Contribution of spots}
382:
383: HD 189733 is known to be a relatively active star (Winn et al., 2007, Pont et al. 2007a),
384: with spots that can cause variations of $\sim$3\% at visible wavelengths
385: (Strassmeier et al. 2000). These likely arise from rotational modulation over
386: a period of 12.04 days. To set the context, the observed light variations
387: would be equivalent to a dark spot with a radius of 1 $R_{\rm Jup}$ and
388: effective temperature $\sim 1000 K$ cooler than the photospheric effective
389: temperature of the star. The effect of spots is expected to be
390: particularly important at visible wavelengths, because the the contrast
391: with the surrounding photosphere is larger.
392:
393: In our case the important issue is the possible impact of spots on the
394: determination of the planetary transit depth. Furthermore, the
395: effect would be inexistent if spots were distributed homogeneously on the
396: stellar surface. However, numerous surface maps of active stars, mostly
397: obtained with the so-called Doppler tomography technique (e.g.,
398: Strassmeier 2002, and references therein), have revealed that active stars
399: tend to have an accumulation of active areas (i.e., dark spots) at polar
400: latitudes. A possible scenario is one in which the planet path during the
401: transit occurs over an unspotted area of the star and therefore the
402: resulting transit would appear deeper (since the occulted area would
403: correspond to the brighter photosphere). Below we analyze this extreme
404: situation and evaluate the effect on the observed differential depth of
405: the two channels.
406:
407: To address this issue we modeled the effects of spots in the bands of
408: 3.6~\microns\ and 5.8~\microns. We took the stellar parameters described
409: in \S 3.1 and $T_{eff}=3500 K$, $\log g=4.5$ for the spots. We adopted the
410: NextGen atmosphere models (Hauschildt et al. 1999), based on the PHOENIX
411: code. The integrated stellar flux was simulated by adding the fluxes from
412: the photospheric and spotted regions with the appropriate weights to
413: consider different spot areal coverages. We then calculated photometry by
414: convolving with the IRAC passbands. Tests using this extreme model and a
415: 20\% surface spot coverage indicate that one could expect an absolute
416: effect of about 0.19\% in the measured transit depth at 3.6~\microns and
417: about 0.18\% at 5.8~\microns. Both would be in the sense of making the
418: spot-corrected transit shallower. As can be seen, while the correction is
419: large in absolute terms, the difference between the two bands is of about
420: 0.01\% (in the direction of making them more different than measured),
421: which corresponds to approximately 0.5$\sigma$ of our quoted error bars.
422: Larger spot coverages would also imply larger effects. For example, a
423: stellar surface covered 50\% with spots would result in a increased
424: difference between the two bands by 0.05\%, but this is a very extreme --
425: and possibly unphysical -- scenario.
426:
427: It is interesting to evaluate the effect of spot modulation when combining
428: multi-epoch transit depth measurements. This is relevant in our case
429: because we also consider the 8~\microns\ measurement by Knutson et al.
430: (2007), which was obtained with a difference of one orbital period (2.2
431: days). Using a spot modulation amplitude of $\sim$0.03 mag it can be
432: deduced that the spot coverage of the stellar hemisphere in view may have
433: changed by about 2\% during this time lapse. In the case of the 8~\microns\
434: band the correction for such spot change in the transit depth will be
435: around 0.01-0.02\% (in either direction depending on whether the spot
436: coverage has increased or decreased). Again, this is a small correction
437: (less than 1$\sigma$) that corresponds to an extreme scenario. The effect
438: is therefore negligible.
439:
440: Our model also predicts that the effects in the optical wavelengths can be
441: much larger (of the order of 0.5\% or more in the observed transit depth).
442: Therefore, the observed difference between the IR and visible radii might
443: be due to stellar activity. Tinetti et al. (2007a) propose the presence of
444: optically thick (in the visible) clouds/haze in the upper atmosphere as a
445: possible explanation of this difference. Additional -- and possibly
446: simultaneous -- observations in both the visible and IR are needed to draw
447: firmer conclusions and to disantangle these two potential contributions.
448:
449: \subsection{Comparison with previous analysis of the same data set}
450:
451: In an earlier letter, Ehrenreich et al. (2007) adopted a method to analyse the IRAC data that
452: differs from the standard ones reported in the literature and used here.
453: In their paper, they conclude that systematic effects contaminate the
454: final results in such a way that the error bars of Tinetti et al. (2007b)
455: and Knutson et al. (2007) are severely underestimated. According to the
456: authors, the accuracy in the radius determination in the IR is not of
457: sufficient accuracy for the spectroscopic characterization of close-in
458: atmospheres. In the remainder of this section we argue that it is not the
459: IR data, and \spitzer in particular, that have insufficient quality but
460: rather that the lack of accuracy can be attributed to shortcomings in the
461: analysis method devised by Ehrenreich et al.
462: As discussed below and as evidenced by the residuals in published Spitzer
463: photometry (Knutson et al. 2007, Deming et al., 2007,
464: Morales-Calder\'on et al., 2006), the systematic effects in the data can be
465: estimated and robustly corrected for.
466:
467:
468: Firstly, because of a non-optimal centroid determination, Ehrenreich et
469: al. found a larger sensitivity to pixel phase effects than the reduction
470: presented here. Secondly, these authors expressed concern about the
471: potential contamination by a hot pixel located 4 columns away from the
472: central pixel of the PSF. With our adopted weighted PSF fit, this pixel
473: was flagged and thus it is not contaminating the measurement. A third
474: concern raised by Ehrenreich et al. was the effect of limb darkening on
475: the measurement of the planet radius. We refer the reader back to \S 4.3
476: for detailed discussion on this point, but, in short, differential effects
477: between the 3.6 and 5.8 $\mu$m bands are below 0.01\%, i.e., 0.5 sigma. We
478: further note that Ehrenreich et al. did not consider the contribution from
479: star spots while this is of the same order as limb darkening effects, and
480: especially important when comparing with the results in the visible.
481:
482: Contrary to the statement of Ehrenreich et al., the 3.6 $\mu$m observations
483: are not saturated for any part of the observation. The maximum value of the
484: peak pixel for the 3.6 $\mu$m data is 115000 electrons which is
485: well below the published well depth of 145000 electrons. If the observations
486: were strongly saturated, we would expect the measured flux density to be
487: 10\% less than the predicted flux density of 1.807 Jy. Our measured flux at
488: the beginning of the observation is 1.799 Jy which is in good agreement with
489: expectations.
490:
491: We are also at variance with the suggestions of Ehrenreich et al. about
492: the need to observe multiple transits with the longest possible
493: out-of-transit baseline. It has not yet been demonstrated that residual
494: systematics would be reduced by analyzing multiple epochs. It is very likely
495: that the pixel-phase effect will have to be treated separately for each
496: epoch as the acquisitional pointing accuracy of \spitzer is $\sim$ 1
497: arcsecond (a good fraction of an IRAC array pixel). The ability to coadd
498: multiple epochs of IRAC data will tested with upcoming observations of
499: HD~209458b as part our \spitzer program WETWORLD (PI Tinetti), or,
500: alternatively, by using multiple epochs obtained by other groups.
501: Moreover, it is known that once the satellite settles in a repeatable
502: jitter pattern, the timescale of systematic effects is of the order of
503: $\sim$1 hour. Thus, 2.5 hours of pre-transit observations followed by 2
504: hours of post transit would be our recommended observing strategy to
505: carefully estimate and correct for systematic effects.
506:
507:
508: \subsection{Comparison with previous observations}
509: The most recent optical and IR measurements of the radius of HD\,189733b
510: are plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig:absorptions} with an underlying model similar
511: to the one presented by Tinetti et al, 2007b, with the addition of hazes contributing
512: in the visible. The $b$ and $R_\star$ values at
513: 3.6 and 5.8~\microns\ are consistent with the visible values (Winn et al.
514: 2007).
515:
516:
517: \begin{figure}
518: \resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics[width=9cm,angle=90]{f4.ps}}
519: \caption{Transit depths as a function of wavelength: our two measurements
520: at 3.6 and 5.8~\microns\ are indicated with their
521: error-bars. For comparison we show previous measurements at 8~\microns\
522: (Knutson et al. 2007) and in the visible (Winn et al.
523: 2007). Horizontal bars illustrate the instrument
524: bandpasses. The solid line shows the simulated absorption spectrum of the planet
525: between 0.5 and 10 $\mu$m. The atmospheric model includes water with a mixing ratio of
526: $5~10^{-4}$, Sodium and Potassium absorptions, and hazes at the millibar level in the visible.
527: The underlying continuum is given by $H_2-H_2$ contribution which is sensitive to
528: the temperature of the atmosphere at pressure higher than the $\sim$ bar level.
529: Details of the haze free model are given in Tinetti et al., (2007b). Here, hazes are
530: simulated with a distribution of particles peaked at 0.5 $\mu$m size. In
531: this example haze opacity mask the atomic and molecular features at wavelength bluer than 1.2 microns. See also Brown (2001) and Pont et al., (2007b).
532: }
533: \label{fig:absorptions}
534: \end{figure}
535:
536:
537: Our results are consistent, but not overlapping, with the Knutson et al.
538: (2007) measurement at 8~\microns. The three primary transit observations
539: at 3.6, 5.8 and 8~\microns\ with IRAC are in agreement with the
540: predictions of Tinetti et al. (2007a) and the presence of water vapor in
541: the atmosphere of the planet. This explanation is not necessarily in
542: contradiction with the most recent observation of HD 189733b with the
543: Spitzer Infrared Spectrograph (IRS) using the occultation -- as opposed to the
544: transit -- (Grillmair et al. 2007). Fortney \& Marley (2007) pointed out that
545: this observation does not agree with the Knutson et al. (2007) secondary
546: transit measurement at 8~\microns, hence the IRS observations might have
547: some problems in the 7.5--10~\microns\ range. Also, the absence of
548: atmospheric signatures in the thermal emission spectrum of HD\,189733b
549: might be explained by an isothermal atmosphere (Tinetti et al. 2007b;
550: Fortney et al. 2006) whereas the primary transit technique allows us to
551: probe the atmospheric content independently of the temperature gradient.
552:
553:
554: %\subsection{Future observations and perspectives}
555: %comparison between subarray and staring mode: pros and cons. suggestions to how to improve future measurements.
556: %The IRAC band centered at 4.5 \microns\ is desirable to constrain the presence of CO in the atmosphere
557: %(Tinetti et al., 2007a)
558:
559:
560: \section{CONCLUSIONS}
561: %====================
562: \label{sec:conclusions}
563:
564: We estimated accurately the radius of the extrasolar planet HD\,189733b
565: using its primary transit, at 3.6 and 5.8~\microns. The small error bars
566: are the result of a high signal-to-noise ratio and weak influence of the
567: limb-darkening effect in the IR. The planetary radius appears $(1.6 \pm
568: 0.5)$\% larger at 5.8~\microns\ than at 3.6~\microns. The
569: observations match the predictions by Tinetti et al. (2007a).
570:
571: Detailed interpretation of these results (Tinetti et al. 2007b) combined
572: with the 8 ~\microns\ observations (Knutson et al. 2007) confirm that
573: water vapor is the most likely explanation for the observed photometric
574: signature in the IR. The comparison with the visible is more complex
575: because of the possibly important role of star spots.
576:
577: Our observations show that the combination of the primary transit
578: technique and comparative band photometry at multiple wavelengths is an
579: excellent tool to probe the atmospheric constituents of transiting
580: extrasolar planets. Similar studies and observations should be considered
581: for other targets, especially with the foreseen {\it James Webb Space
582: Telescope}, which could observe more distant and smaller transiting
583: planets.
584:
585:
586:
587:
588: %===================
589:
590:
591:
592: \acknowledgements We thank the staff at the Spitzer Science Center for
593: their help. We are very grateful to Christophe Alard for having helped us
594: in the data reduction phases of \spitzer data. His optimal centroid
595: determination has been an important contribution to this analysis.
596: We thank David Kipping for careful reading of the manuscript, and David Sing for
597: providing the limb darkening coefficients.
598: This work is based on observations made with the \emph{Spitzer
599: Space Telescope}, which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory,
600: California Institute of Technology under a contract with NASA. G.~Tinetti acknowledge
601: the support of the European Space Agency.
602: IR acknowledges support from the Spanish Ministerio de Educaci\'on y Ciencia via grant AYA2006-15623-C02-02.
603: JPB, IR
604: and GT acknowledge the financial support of the ANR HOLMES.
605:
606:
607: \begin{thebibliography}{}
608: \item Alard, C., 2000, AAS, 144, 363
609: \item Alard, C., 2007, \aap, in prep
610: \item Bakos, G.~\'A., Knutson, H., Pont, F., \etal\ 2006, \apj, 650, 1160
611: \item Bakos, G.~\'A., P\'al, A., Latham, D.~W., Noyes, R.~W., \& Stefanik, R.~P.\ 2006, \apj, 641, L57
612: \item Ballester, G.~E., Sing, D.~K., \& Herbert, F.\ 2007, \nat, 445, 511
613: \item Ben-Jaffel, L., 2007, \apj, L671, L1
614: \item Bouchy, F., Udry, S., Mayor, M., \etal\ 2005, \aap, 444, L15
615: \item Brown, T.~M.\ 2001, \apj, 553, 1006
616: \item Butler P., Wright J., Marcy G., et al., 2007, {\sl ``http://exoplanets.org/planets.shtml''}
617: % \item Burrows, A., Sudarsky, D., Hubbard, W.~B.\ 2003, \apj, 594, 545
618: % \item Charbonneau, D., Allen , L.~E., Megeath, S.~T., \etal\ 2005, \apj, 626, 523
619: \item Charbonneau, D., Brown, T.~M., Noyes, R.~W., \& Gilliland, R.~L.\ 2002, \apj, 568, 377
620: % \item Deming, D., Brown, T.~M., Charbonneau, D., Harrington, J., \& Richardson, L.~J.\ 2005, \apj, 622, 1149
621: \item Deming, D., Seager, S., Richardson, L.~J., \& Harrington, J.\ 2005, \nat, 434, 740
622: \item Deming, D., Harrington, J., Seager, S., \& Richardson, L.~J.\ 2006, \apj, 644, 560
623: \item Deming, D.,Richardson, L.~J. \& Harrington, J., 2007 MNRAS, in press
624: \item Ehrenreich D., Hebrard G., Lecavelier des Etangs A., \etal\ 2007, \apj 668, L179
625: \item Fazio, G.~G., Hora, J.~L., Allen, L.~E., \etal\ 2004, \apjs, 154, 10
626: \item Fortney, J.~J., Cooper C.S., Showan A.P., Marley M.S. and Friedman R.S., \ 2006, \apj, 652, 746
627: \item Grillmair, C.~J., Charbonneau, D., Burrows, A., \etal\ 2007, \apj, 658, L115
628: \item Hauschildt, P.~H., Allard, F., Baron, E., 1999 \apj, 512,377
629: % \item Horne, K.\ 1986, \pasp, 98, 609
630: % \item Iro, N., B\'ezard, B., \& Guillot, T.\ 2005, \aap, 436, 719
631: \item Kurucz R.\ 2006, Stellar Model and Associated Spectra (http://kurucz.harvard.edu/grids.html)
632: \item Mandel, K., \& Algol, E.\ 2002, \apj, 580, L171
633: \item Morales-Calder\'on, M., Stauffer, J.~R., Kirkpatrick, J.~D., \etal\ 2006, \apj, 653, 1454
634: \item Pont F., et al., 2007a \aa in press 2007arXiv0707.1940P
635: \item Pont F., et al., 2007b MNRAS submitted
636: % \item Naylor, T.\ 1998, \mnras, 296, 339
637: % \item Richardson, L.~J., Deming, D., \& Seager, S., \apj, 597, 581
638: % \item Richardson, L.~J., Deming, D., Wiedemann, G., \etal\ 2003, \apj, 584, 1053
639: \item Richardson, L.~J., Harrington, J., Seager, S., \& Deming, D.\ 2006, \apj, 649, 1043
640: \item Richardson, L.~J., Deming, D., Horning, K., Seager, S., \& Harrington, J., 2007 \nat, 445, 892
641: \item Schneider J., 2007, http://exoplanet.eu/index.php {\sl ``The Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia''}
642: % \item Rowe, J.~F., Matthews, J.M., Seager, S., \etal\ 2006 \apj, 646, 1241
643: \item Strassmeier, K.~G.\ 2002, Astronomische Nachrichten, 323, 309
644: \item Strassmeier, K., Washuettl, A., Granzer, T., Scheck, M., \& Weber, M.\ 2000, \aaps, 142, 275
645: % \item Swain, M.~R., Bouwman, J., Akeson, R., Lawler, S., \& Beichman, C., \apj, submitted (astro-ph/0702593)
646: \item Tinetti, G., Liang, M.-C., Vidal-Madjar, A., \etal\ 2007a, \apj, 654, L99
647: \item Tinetti, G., Vidal-Madjar, A., Liang, M.-C., \etal\ 2007b, Nature 448, 169
648: \item Vidal-Madjar, A., Lecavelier des Etangs, A., D\'esert, J.-M., \etal\ 2003, \nat, 422, 143
649: \item Vidal-Madjar, A., D\'esert, J.-M., Lecavelier des Etangs, A., \etal\ 2004, \apj, 604, L69
650: \item Winn, J.~N., Holman, M.~J., Henry, G.~W., \etal\ 2006, AJ, accepted (astro-ph/0612224)
651: \end{thebibliography}
652:
653: %% FIGURES
654: %% =======
655: %
656:
657:
658:
659:
660:
661:
662: %\dataset{ads/sa.spitzer#0020678400}
663:
664: \end{document}
665:
666: \begin{deluxetable}{lcc}
667: \tablecaption{Visible\tablenotemark{a} versus Infrared Transit Parameters \label{tab:winn}}
668: \tablehead{
669: \colhead{Parameter} & \colhead{Value in the Visible\tablenotemark{a}} & \colhead{Deviation at } \cr
670: & & \colhead{3.6~\microns~and~5.8~\microns}}
671: \startdata
672: $R_p / R_\star$ & $0.1575 \pm 0.0017$ & $3.3\sigma~~~~~~~1.1\sigma$ \\
673: $k R_\star / R_\odot$\tablenotemark{b} & $0.753 \pm 0.025$ & $0.2\sigma~~~~~~~1.1\sigma$ \\
674: $b$ & $0.658 \pm 0.027$ & $0.6\sigma~~~~~~~1.2\sigma$ \\
675: \enddata
676: \tablenotetext{a}{Values measured in the visible by Winn \etal\ 2007}
677: \tablenotetext{b}{The value of $k$ is given in Table~\ref{tab:param}}
678: \end{deluxetable}
679:
680:
681:
682:
683: