4.7 Article

Thermal emission at 4.5 and 8 μm of WASP-17b, an extremely large planet in a slightly eccentric orbit

Journal

MONTHLY NOTICES OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY
Volume 416, Issue 3, Pages 2108-2122

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19182.x

Keywords

methods: data analysis; techniques: photometric; occultations; planets and satellites: atmospheres; planets and satellites: individual: WASP-17b; stars: individual: WASP-17

Funding

  1. NASA through JPL/Caltech
  2. Belgian Science Policy Office
  3. NASA
  4. STFC [ST/J000035/1, ST/G002355/1, PP/D000955/1, PP/F000065/1, PP/F000057/1, ST/I001719/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  5. Science and Technology Facilities Council [ST/G002355/1, ST/J000035/1, ST/I001719/1, PP/D000955/1, PP/F000057/1, PP/F000065/1] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We report the detection of thermal emission at 4.5 and 8 mu m from the planet WASP-17b. We used Spitzer to measure the system brightness at each wavelength during two occultations of the planet by its host star. By combining the resulting light curves with existing transit light curves and radial-velocity measurements in a simultaneous analysis, we find the radius of WASP-17b to be 2.0R(Jup), which is 0.2R(Jup) larger than any other known planet and 0.7R(Jup) larger than predicted by the standard cooling theory of irradiated gas giant planets. We find the retrograde orbit of WASP-17b to be slightly eccentric, with 0.0012 < e < 0.070 (3 sigma). Such a low eccentricity suggests that, under current models, tidal heating alone could not have bloated the planet to its current size, so the radius of WASP-17b is currently unexplained. From the measured planet-star flux-density ratios we infer 4.5 and 8 mu m brightness temperatures of 1881 +/- 50 and 1580 +/- 150 K, respectively, consistent with a low-albedo planet that efficiently redistributes heat from its day side to its night side.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available