ORBITAL MOTION OF HR 8799 b, c, d USING<i>HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE</i>DATA FROM 1998: CONSTRAINTS ON INCLINATION, ECCENTRICITY, AND STABILITY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
HR 8799 is currently the only multiple-planet system that has been detected with direct imaging, with four giant planets of masses 7-10 M Jup orbiting at large separations (15-68 AU) from this young late A star. Orbital motion provides insight into the stability and possible formation mechanisms of this planetary system. Dynamical studies can also provide constraints on the planets' masses, which help calibrate evolutionary models, yet measuring the orbital motion is a very difficult task because the long-period orbits (50-500 yr) require long time baselines and high-precision astrometry. This paper studies the three planets HR 8799b, c, and d in the archival data set of HR 8799 obtained with the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) NICMOS coronagraph in 1998. The detection of all three planets is made possible by a careful optimization of the Locally Optimized Combination of Images algorithm, and we used a statistical analysis of a large number of reduced images. This work confirms previous astrometry for planet b and presents new detections and astrometry for planets c and d. These HST images provide a ten-year baseline with the discovery images from 2008, and therefore offer a unique opportunity to constrain their orbital motion now. Recent dynamical studies of this system show the existence of a few possible stable solutions involving mean motion resonances (MMRs), where the interaction between c and d plays a major role. We study the compatibility of a few of these stable scenarios (1d:1c, 1d:2c, or 1d:2c:4d) with the new astrometric data from HST. In the hypothesis of a 1d:2c:4b MMR our best orbit fit is close to the stable solution previously identified for a three-planet system and involves low eccentricity for planet d (ed = 0.10) and moderate inclination of the system (i = 28.0 deg), assuming a coplanar system, circular orbits for b and c, and exact resonance with integer period ratios. Under these assumptions, we can place strong constraints on the inclination of the system (27.3-31.4 deg) and on the eccentricity for d ed and 0.46. Our results are robust to small departures from exact integer period ratios and consistent with previously published results based on dynamical studies for a three-planet system prior to the discovery of the fourth planet.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".