Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-8r8nv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-08T08:45:10.375Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Dynamical simulations of the HR8799 planetary system

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 August 2010

J. Marshall*
Affiliation:
Department of Physics and Astronomy, The Open University, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes MK7 6AA, UK Departamento de Física Teoríca, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Cantoblanco, 28049 Madrid, Spain
J. Horner
Affiliation:
Department of Physics, Science Laboratories, University of Durham, South Road, Durham DH1 3LE, UK
A. Carter
Affiliation:
Department of Physics and Astronomy, The Open University, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes MK7 6AA, UK
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

HR8799 is a young (20–160 Myr) A-dwarf main sequence star with a debris disc detected by IRAS (InfraRed Astronomical Satellite). In 2008, it was one of two stars around which exoplanets were directly imaged for the first time. The presence of three Jupiter-mass planets around HR8799 provoked much interest in modelling the dynamical stability of the system. Initial simulations indicated that the observed planetary architecture was unstable on timescales much shorter than the lifetime of the star (~105 yr). Subsequent models suggested that the system could be stable if the planets were locked in a 1:2:4 mutual mean motion resonance (MMR). In this work, we have examined the influence of varying orbital eccentricity and the semi-major axis on the stability of the three-planet system, through dynamical simulations using the MERCURY n-body integrator. We find that, in agreement with previous work on this system, the 1:2:4 MMR is the most stable planetary configuration, and that the system stability is dominated by the interaction between the inner pair of planets. In contrast to previous results, we find that with small eccentricities, the three-planet system can be stable for timescales comparable to the system lifetime and, potentially, much longer.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Image of the three planets orbiting HR8799 (position marked by white cross) produced from Keck Ks band near infrared images (taken from M08).

Figure 1

Table 1. Summary of the stellar and planetary properties used in our simulations. In our simulations the planetary masses were fixed at the observed values, and the initial orbital radius of the middle planet was similarly held constant

Figure 2

Fig. 2. Plots show the stability of the three-planet HR8799 system as a function of the semi-major axis of the innermost planet (x-axis) and outermost planet (y-axis). Bluer colours denote weaker system stability. The ‘dots’ at the end of each row/column show the mean stability for all objects along that row/column, in order to ease the identification of the band of (in)stability that results purely from the location of one of the planets. In this case, the inner planet has high initial e (0.2) whilst the other two have low initial e (0.01) values. The initial semi-major axis of the centre planet was fixed at 38 AU. The semi-major axis of the innermost planet was varied in 0.15 AU steps between 22.5 and 25.5 AU, and the outermost was varied between 66.5 and 69.5 AU, again in 0.15 AU steps. Each possible combination of locations was the subject of 10 independent integrations, each with the initial mean anomalies of the planets randomly assigned between 0 and 360 degrees. The relative stability of each combination is calculated by examining the times at which one or more of the planets are either ejected from the system or collide with one another or the central body. The 10 system lifetimes are then combined to determine the overall stability for that combination of initial conditions.

Figure 3

Fig. 3. Plot showing the stability of the three-planet HR8799 system as a function of the semi-major axis of the innermost planet (x-axis) and outermost planet (y-axis). Bluer colours denote weaker system stability. The ‘dots’ at the end of each row/column show the mean stability for all objects along that row/column, in order to ease the identification of band of (in)stability that results purely from the location of one of the planets. In this case, the outer planet had a high initial e and the other two have low initial e values. The initial semi-major axis of the centre planet was fixed at 38 AU. The semi-major axis of the innermost planet was varied in 0.15 AU steps between 22.5 and 25.5 AU, and the outermost was varied between 66.5 and 69.5 AU, again in 0.15 AU steps. Each possible combination of locations was the subject of 10 independent integrations, each with the initial mean anomalies of the planets randomly assigned between 0 and 360 degrees. The relative stability of each combination is calculated by examining the times at which one or more of the planets are either ejected from the system or collide with one another or the central body. The 10 system lifetimes are then combined to determine the overall stability for that combination of initial conditions.