4.6 Article

Constraining planet structure from stellar chemistry: the cases of CoRoT-7, Kepler-10, and Kepler-93

期刊

ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS
卷 580, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

EDP SCIENCES S A
DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526850

关键词

planetary systems; planets and satellites: detection; stars: abundances; techniques: spectroscopic

资金

  1. Fundacao para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia (FCT) [UID/FIS/04434/2013]
  2. FCT through Investigador FCT by FEDER through the program Programa Operacional de Factores de Competitividade - COMPETE [IF/01037/201, IF/00169/2012, IF/00028/2014]
  3. FCT through POPH/FSE (EC) by FEDER through the program Programa Operacional de Factores de Competitividade - COMPETE
  4. FCT [IF/01037/2013CP1191/CT0001, SFRH/BPD/76606/2011, SFRH/BPD/70574/2010]
  5. EU under a Marie Curie Intra-European Fellowship for Career Development [627202]
  6. Swiss National Science Foundation [BSSGI0_155816]
  7. European Union Seventh Framework Program (FP7) [313014]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims. We explore the possibility that the stellar relative abundances of different species can be used to constrain the bulk abundances of known transiting rocky planets. Methods. We use high resolution spectra to derive stellar parameters and chemical abundances for Fe, Si, Mg, O, and C in three stars hosting low mass, rocky planets: CoRoT-7, Kepler-10, and Kepler-93. These planets follow the same line along the mass-radius diagram, pointing toward a similar composition. The derived abundance ratios are compared with the solar values. With a simple stoichiometric model, we estimate the iron mass fraction in each planet, assuming stellar composition. Results. We show that in all cases, the iron mass fraction inferred from the mass-radius relationship seems to be in good agreement with the iron abundance derived from the host star's photospheric composition. Conclusions. The results suggest that stellar abundances can be used to add constraints on the composition of orbiting rocky planets.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据