CHAPTER 14

Search for Habitable Planets

Antígona Segura1 , Lisa Kaltenegger2
1
Instituto de Ciencias Nucleares, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, México
2
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, MA, USA

CONTENTS
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2. Characteristics of a Habitable Planet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.1. The Solar System: Lessons on Planetary Habitability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.2. The Habitable Zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.3. The Parent Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.4. How Likely is it to form Habitable Planets? Answers from Planet
Formation Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Signatures from a Habitable Planet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Clouds and Non-Biological Surface Signatures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3. Biosignatures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.4. Evolution of a Habitable Planet: Lessons from Earth’s Geologic History . . . . 10
3.5. How to Interpret Biomarkers and False Positives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.6. Signatures from Planets Around Stars of Different Spectral Types . . . . . . . . 11
4. The Search for Habitable Planets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.1. Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.2. Instruments for Detection of Earth-Sized Planets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.3. Instruments for Characterization of Habitable Planets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5. Habitable Planets on the Known Exoplanetary Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6. Concluding Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

1. INTRODUCTION to sustain life. Planets as small as Earth have not been

We know about the existence of more than 250 planets.
Some of them so light that could float in water, others so hot
that they are evaporating leaving comet-like comas behind
them, circling young active stars as well as old fast rotating
stars. From this zoo of planets just eight of them are close
enough to be visited by our instruments, the ones around
our star, the Sun. The rest of the planets orbit other stars
and most of them are big gaseous bodies that are not able
found yet, but this is just because of the limits imposed by
the instruments we have. In the next decade new instru-
ments will be able to detect Earth-like planets. Two of those
planned missions, NASA’s Terrestrial Planet Finder (TPF)
and ESA’s Darwin will characterize the new worlds and
determine if they are habitable. Such missions will focus on
characteristics that can be remotely detected. Therefore we
need to understand what makes the Earth a habitable planet

ISBN: xxxx Astrobiology: Emergence, Search and Detection of Life

Copyright © 2009 by American Scientific Publishers Edited by V. A. Basiuk
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. Pages: 1–18
2 Search for Habitable Planets
and compare those characteristics with the properties of the
rest of the planets in the Solar System.
Among the planets in the Solar System we can distin-
guish two types of planets, the small, rocky ones (like the
Earth) and the giant, gaseous ones (like Jupiter).We will call
the former, terrestrial planets, and the latter, Jovian plan-
ets. This distinction will help us along the paper to describe
the characteristics we expect from habitable planets but is
possible that other types of planets (e.g., ocean or carbon
planets) may exist.
The section “Characteristics of a Habitable Planet”
presents a comparison of Earth with the other terrestrial
planets and the characteristics of a star in order to be consid-
ered as target in the search of habitable planets. The global
signatures of a habitable planet are examined in the section
“Signatures From a Habitable Planet.” The next generation
of missions that will search for habitable planets is intro-
duced in the section “The Search for Habitable Planets” as
well as the observational techniques that will be used by
those instruments. Finally, we present the exoplanetary sys-
tems that have been already detected and may be relevant
for the search of habitable planets.
2. CHARACTERISTICS OF A HABITABLE
PLANET
2.1. The Solar System: Lessons on Planetary
Habitability
Earth is, to date, the only known habitable planet. This
makes our planet the logical place to explore what makes a
planet habitable. One thing that makes Earth different from
other planets in the Solar System is the presence of liquid
water on its surface. Liquid water has been pointed out as
the best solvent for life to emerge and evolve. Water is an
abundant compound in our galaxy, it can be found in cold
dense molecular clouds and hot stellar atmospheres (see for
example, Cernicharo and Crovisier [1]). Water is liquid at
a large range of temperatures and pressures and as a sol-
vent, water has the characteristic of being strongly polar–
nonpolar with certain organic substances. This dichotomy
is essential for maintaining stable biomolecular and cellu-
lar structures [2]. (Polar groups are parts of molecules with
charges that can interact with other charged molecules, such
as water. Nonpolar groups have no charge and thus can
associate with other uncharged molecules, such as oil.) To
keep water liquid on the surface a planet needs to maintain
certain temperature and pressure range. This leads to the
second characteristic of habitable planets: an atmosphere.
Besides producing a surface pressure, it can stabilize the
surface temperature of the planet through climate feedback
like the “greenhouse effect.” This effect is caused by com-
pounds that are very efficient absorbers in the infrared but
not in the visible. The visible light of the parent star reaches
the planetary surface and is reemitted in the infrared where
part of the energy is absorbed by the atmospheric green-
house gases, increasing the temperature of the planet. Car-
bon dioxide (CO2 ), methane (CH4 ) and water (H2 O) are
the greenhouse gases that raise the surface temperature on
Earth to an average of 15
C instead of −17
C that would be
the surface temperature of our planet without atmosphere.
For a planet to have an atmosphere it has to accrete
enough volatiles during its formation (see Section 2.4) and
maintain that atmosphere. For Jovian planets this is an easy
process, according to the most accepted hypothesis of giant
planet formation. These planets are formed in the zone of
a protoplanetary disk where gas has not been evaporated by
the central star, after that the self gravity of the planet is
able to retain large amounts of gas. None of the gaseous
planets in our Solar System show signs of life, even though
some authors have proposed that there may be habitats
for living organisms on the giant planets [3]. These planets
have reducing atmospheres (with large amounts of H2 and
H-bearing compounds) what allows the formation of organic
compounds but inhibits reactions to form more complex
molecules. Also, the high-speed winds (>200 km/s), extreme
pressures and temperatures of these giants make their envi-
ronments too harsh for known organisms [4].
That leaves us with the terrestrial planets. Mercury is a
small rocky planet similar to our Moon without atmosphere
or water. Venus and Mars demonstrate the limits of plan-
etary habitability. Venus has a surface pressure of 92 bars
and a surface temperature of 482
C, too extreme to sustain
known life even though some work suggests possible habi-
tats for life [5–10]. Venus has an atmosphere but no water.
It is uncertain if it had water after its formation. If Venus
had similar water reservoir as Earth it was converted to
vapor due to the high surface temperatures of the planet. It
remains an open question whether Venus lost its water on a
“runway greenhouse” or a “moist greenhouse” [11, 12]. The
“runaway greenhouse” occurs when water vapor increases
the greenhouse effect, what in turn increases the surface
temperature, leading to more vapor water that in turn heats
the atmosphere. The other scenario is the “moist green-
house” where water is lost once the stratosphere becomes
wet but most of the water of the planet remains liquid. For
both cases the lost of water happens high in the atmosphere
where water is photolyzed and H2 escapes while oxygen
reacts with the planet crust. In any case, Venus is the best
example of what can happen when the surface temperature
of a terrestrial planet exceeds a certain limit.
Numerous space missions have explored Mars and its
geological history. About 4 billion years ago Mars had an
atmosphere thick enough to maintain liquid water on the
martian surface [13] what led to the hypothesis of life on
early Mars. But today Mars is a dry, frozen dessert that can-
not sustain life on its surface. The martian atmosphere was
lost and became too thin to warm the planetary surface.
What happened on Mars? The first billion years of the Solar
System were characterized by violent impacts; planets were
subjected to what is called the Late Heavy Bombardment
(or LHB). During this epoch the leftovers of the building
blocks of planetary formation (asteroids and comets) had
frequent collisions with the planets. For Mars the result was
supposedly catastrophic for its atmosphere. Large impactors
evaporated the martian atmosphere and the low gravity of
the planet was not able to retain the gas in the hot plumes
created by those impactors [14]. In about one billion years
Mars lost most of its atmosphere.
Plate tectonics could have replenished the Martian atmo-
sphere. In this scenario, water and CO2 react with the
planet’s crust, forming carbonates, some parts of the crust are
Search for Habitable Planets
subducted and melted when they reach the mantle. Volatile
compounds such as H2 O and CO2 are released into the atmo-
sphere trough volcanism. Plate tectonics results from the
release of the remnant heat of the core from planet forma-
tion. If the planet is small the heat will be released faster and
the planet has a short period of volcanic activity but not nec-
essarily plate tectonics. Note that the size of the planet does
not guarantee active plate tectonics; see, e.g., Venus. Water
is the lubricant that allows the plates of the crust to slide and
subduct; without water in the mantle, plate tectonics is not
possible. Planetary size is crucial for its habitability.
How large can a habitable planet be? In our Solar Sys-
tem no planets exist with masses between Earth (1 M⊕ ) and
Uranus (14.5 M⊕ ). The possible characteristics and habit-
ability of such planets has to be derived from planet for-
mation and geologic evolution models of terrestrial planets.
The proposed mass limits for a habitable planet are 1 M⊕
(Earth mass) [15, 16] to 10 M⊕ [16]. Larger planets could
accrete gaseous atmospheres and smaller ones could lose
their atmosphere after geological periods of time. Ikoma
and Genda [17] focused on the process of water production
through oxidation of atmospheric hydrogen by oxides avail-
able at the planetary surface; their results indicate that a
planet as large as 7 M⊕ does not accrete large amounts of
gas, and therefore remains habitable.
The presence of a large moon that stabilized the obliquity
of our planet [18–20] as well as the abundance of life-forming
elements such as nitrogen and carbon [21 and references
therein] could constrain habitability. Section 3, Signatures
From a Habitable Planet, discusses the characteristics of hab-
itability that can be remotely detected with the next genera-
tion of space-borne instruments, such as the presence of an
atmosphere and the abundance of liquid water.
Compared to other terrestrial planets in our Solar Sys-
tem, Earth is the perfect place to live; it has liquid water
on its surface, an atmosphere that keeps it warm, and the
right mass to maintain tectonics. Also Earth is in the habit-
able zone (HZ), at a distance from the Sun were it receives
enough energy to maintain liquid water on its surface. The
habitable zone depends on the luminosity of the primary
star, as discussed below.
2.2. The Habitable Zone
2.2.1. The Stellar Habitable Zone
As for any successful business, planetary habitability
depends on the right location. The HZ concept was
Table 1. Properties of the main-sequence stars considered for the search of habitable planets.
Spectral type Effective temperature (K)a
F 6100–7200
G 5300–6030
K 4900–5250
M 2600–3850
a b
Data from: D. A. Ostlie and B. W. Carroll, “An Introduction to Modern Stellar Astrophysics.” Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, USA, 1996. Data from: J. F.
Kasting, D. P. Whitmire, and R. T. Reynolds, Icarus 101, 108 (1993). c Runway greenhouse limit calculated for planets around stars with spectral types F0 (Teff = 7200 K),
G2 (Teff = 5700 K), and M0 (Teff = 3700 K). d Maximum greenhouse limit for for planets around stars with spectral types F0 (Teff = 7200 K), G2 (Teff = 5700 K), and
M0 (Teff = 3700 K).
3
proposed for the first time by Huang [22, 23] and has been
calculated by several authors after that [24–26]. The dif-
ferences between the HZ calculated by those authors are
the climatic constraints imposed on the limits of the HZ.
In all cases the stellar habitable zone is considered to be
the annulus around a main sequence star where a planet
with an atmosphere can support liquid water at a given
time. The width and distance of this annulus depends on
the stellar luminosity. Given that stellar luminosity evolves
during its lifetime, the concept of a continuously habitable
zone (CHZ) has been introduced as the zone that remains
habitable around a star during a given period of time [27].
The inner boundary can be defined as (1) the distance from
the star where the planet starts losing water due to hydrogen
escape (due to heating from the primary), or (2) the dis-
tance from the star where the runaway greenhouse process
starts. The outer boundaries are defined as (1) the distance
from the star where a maximum greenhouse effect fails to
keep the surface of the planet above the freezing point, or
(2) the distance from the star where CO2 starts condens-
ing [26]. Table 1 shows the calculated limits for the habitable
zones of stars with spectral types F0 (Teff = 7200 K), G2
(Teff = 5700 K), and M0 (Teff = 3700 K). Planets with eccen-
tric orbits near or within the HZ may be considered too as
potential habitable worlds. Using a 3D general circulation
model, Williams and Pollard [28] have concluded that plan-
ets with high eccentricities may have climate stability in the
long term because what matters is the average stellar flux
received by the planet during an entire orbit.
The concepts of the HZ and the CHZ are particularly
useful for the search for planets like Earth around other
stars since they indicate a specific zone for instruments to
target, when searching for habitable planets. Other possible
habitable environments, such as an extrasolar giant planet’s
moons (e.g., Europa- or Titan-like environments) located
outside the habitable zone, called the cryo-ecosphere [29],
have not been discarded, but will not be detectable for first-
generation space missions. Only global signatures can be
detectable by such instruments.
The habitable zone concept is still evolving as we learn
more about planetary formation and evolution, and improve
radiative transference and 3-D atmospheric models that
allow more accurate calculations of the a planet’s tempera-
ture profile. For example, Buccino et al. [30, 31] have stud-
ied the role of UV radiation on the emergence and survival
of surface life on planets around main sequence stars, con-
cluding that for 59% of the known planetary systems the
Habitable zone (AU)b
Luminosity (L )a Mass (M )a Inner limitc Outer limitd
2.0–6.5 1.4–1.6 1.50 3.06
0.66–1.1 0.9–1.05 0.84 1.67
0.1–0.42 0.67–0.79
0.0012–0.077 0.06–0.51 0.24 0.47
4 Search for Habitable Planets
canonical HZ does not coincide with their defined UV hab-
itable zone.
2.2.2. The Galactic Habitable Zone
Additional constraints to the stellar flux received by a planet
could be imposed by the galactic environment. Our galaxy
has four components: the central bulge, the halo, the thick
disk and the thin disk. The Sun is part of the thin disk,
with significant ongoing star formation activity, nearly purely
rotational kinematics; and stars extending about 180 pc on
either side of the midplane. The concept of the galactic hab-
itable zone (GHZ) was introduced by González, Brownlee
and Ward in 2001 [32], as being the region in the Milky Way
where an Earth-like planet can retain liquid water on its sur-
face and provide a long-term habitat for animal-like aerobic
life. The key of their imposed limits to the GHZ is the metal-
licity variations within the disk of our galaxy and its possible
effect on the size of the terrestrial planets formed around a
star. González et al. argue that bigger terrestrial planets are
more likely to form near the galactic center while smaller
ones could be expected on the outer parts of the galaxy. This
concept was used by Lineweaver, Fenner and Gibson [33] to
determine the temporal distribution of complex life in the
Milky Way. Using a model of the evolution of the metallic-
ity in the Milky Way, Lineweaver et al. calculated that the
GHZ is centered at 8 kpc from the galactic center and is
broadened with time in the thin disk (the Sun is located at
8.5 kpc from the galactic center). The other galactic compo-
nents are less likely to harbor habitable planets, according
to the analysis of González et al. and Lineweaver et al.
As both groups recognize, the concept and limits imposed
to the GHZ are incomplete; for example, the effect of
transient radiation events or the interaction with molecular
clouds are not considered. Other authors have studied some
of these aspects even though not in the general frame of the
GHZ, but on their specific effect on the life and climate of
Earth.
Pavlov et al. [34, 35] studied the effect of crossing through
interstellar and molecular clouds on Earth’s climate. Cross-
ing moderately dense interstellar clouds could expose Earth
to a higher amounts of cosmic rays that could enhance the
production of NOx (NO + NO2 . The increment of NOx
could cause loss of ozone and could trigger global extinctions
[34]. When Earth passes through giant molecular clouds, the
interstellar dust could produce a layer in the stratosphere
that could trigger global snowball glaciations [35]. Given
that life exists on Earth even though it has crossed interstel-
lar and molecular clouds, habitability does not seem to be
severely affected by these phenomena.
2.3. The Parent Star
Numerous studies about the best stars to search for habit-
able planets have been conducted in the last decade, most
of them focused on the best targets for a given planet search
mission. A suitable target for habitable planet search main-
tains stable luminosity for a certain period of time, depend-
ing on the complexity of life targeted. That period is based
on what we know about life evolution on Earth. Life devel-
oped on Earth as early as ∼0.7 billion years after the forma-
tion of the planet [36], and a communicative civilization took
∼4.5 billion years to arise. Based on these limits, search for
extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) projects consider suitable
target stars those that live in the main sequence (stellar stage
where the stars burn hydrogen on their nuclei) for at least
3 billion years [15, 37], while other searches use 2 billion
years as the stellar lifetime for their targets [38, 39]. Stellar
main sequence lifetime depends on the mass of a star. Less
massive stars live longer than more massive stars, therefore
the best target stars are smaller than twice the mass of the
Sun. This corresponds to main sequence stars with spectral
types F, G, K and M, even though habitability around the
latter spectral type is still controversial [40–42]. The main
properties of these stellar types are shown in Table 1. Given
the high noise-to-signal ratio and resolution needed to char-
acterize habitable planets, the search is restricted to nearby
stars (∼25 pc away).
Statistics of the characteristics of the exoplanets found and
their parent stars have lead to interesting properties rele-
vant to the search of habitable planets. Stellar metallicity
seems to be highly correlated with the presence of giant plan-
ets [43, 44]. Another explanation for the stellar metallicity–
planet relation is the engulfment of planets by their parent
star, but there is no definite evidence favoring this hypoth-
esis [45]. On the other hand, the stellar metallicity–planet
relation supports the core-accretion scenario for giant planet
formation [43, 44]. According to this model, giant planets
form from a rocky core that later accretes massive amounts
of gas. A lower limit for the metallicity that a star should
have to harbor habitable planets is hard to determine given
the multiple unknowns in planet formation models; Turnbull
and Tarter [15] use [Fe/H] ∼ −0.4, similar to [Fe/H] ∼ −0.5
proposed by Porto de Mello et al. [46], while Kaltenegger
[47] chooses not to include the metallicity criterion for the
target sample for the Darwin mission, arguing that the metal-
licity relation for stars and exoplanets has been established
empirically from a sample of host stars of giant planets and
may not necessarily reflect the characteristics of host stars of
Earth-like planets.
Until now there are 35 exoplanets hosted by stars in mul-
tiple systems [48], considering that have been discovered on
the order of 200 planetary systems, about 20% of the stars
with known exoplanets have a stellar companion. Most of
these binary systems are wide (separations between 250 and
6500 AU), the exceptions are six systems known with separa-
tions less than 100 AU. The extreme case is the jovian-planet
host, Cephei (separation of 18.5 AU, Hatzes et al. [49]).
Five giant exoplanets have been detected in triple stellar
systems (planets around the stars 16 Cyg B [50], HD178911
B [51], HD40979 A [48, 52], HD188753 A [53]). The fre-
quency of planets around single stars seems to be similar to
the frequency of binary systems [54] which make the latter
relevant for the search of habitable planets.
In order to understand how planets form around multiple
stellar systems and how many habitable planets have sta-
ble orbits, detailed simulations are needed. Several groups
have worked on the formation and orbital stability of terres-
trial planets in multiple stellar systems and concluded that
terrestrial planets can be formed and there are orbital con-
figurations where such planets can persist in multiple sys-
tems (e.g., Whitmire et al. [55], Quintana and Lissauer [56],
Search for Habitable Planets
Monin et al. [57], Pilat-Lohinger et al. [58], Rivera and
Haghighipour [59]).
As targets for the next generation of missions that will
search for habitable planets (Darwin, Stellar Interferom-
etry Mission (SIM), Terrestrial Planet Finder (TPF)) the
approaches to the inclusion of multiple stellar systems
varies: Porto de Mello et al. [46] removed all multiple and
binary systems from their astrobiologically interesting stars
sample; Turnbull and Tarter [15] made a throughput analy-
sis choosing only multiple stars with known separation and
making a first-approximation calculation of the stability of
planetary orbits in the HZ of the components the multiple
systems; Kaltenegger et al. [39] considered the constraints
imposed by the nulling interferometric technique that will
be used on Darwin and Terrestrial Planet Finder Interfer-
ometer (TPF-I) to choose the target stars within multiple
systems for the Darwin mission; and for the SIM mission
Monte Carlo simulations have shown that the detection effi-
ciency for planets in wide binaries is relatively unaffected
by the presence of a binary companion if the planetary
orbital period is less than half the duration of the astromet-
ric survey [60].
2.4. How Likely is it to form Habitable
Planets? Answers from Planet
Formation Models
During the first stage of stellar formation a disk builds up
around the protostar that is called the accretion disk because
it transfers matter to the central object that will become a
star. The disks seem to be a natural consequence of the
stellar formation process, and they have been detected in
molecular clouds, the place where stars are born. Planets
that grow in those accretion disks also called protoplanetary
disks. Detailed descriptions of accretion disk evolution and
planetary formation can be found [61, 62]; here we sum-
marize the process of terrestrial planet formation and the
results from numerical models that are relevant to the for-
mation and survival of habitable planets.
The accepted hypothesis of terrestrial planet formation is
that they are formed in the inner parts of the protoplan-
etary disk by the accumulation of smaller bodies on time
scales of ∼108 years [63]. Near the star, the protoplane-
tary disk is depleted of gas; as a consequence terrestrial
planets lack primordial sources of volatiles. Water should
be accreted during and after the formation of the planet if
there is a source of volatiles from distances further out in
the disk. Every Solar System body has a unique D/H ratio,
that matches that of the planet’s source of water. The dom-
inant hypothesis, that comets impacted Earth after its for-
mation [64–66] and delivered the water was questioned by
the large difference of the D/H ratio of Earth compared
to that of three comets [67–69] (supposing of course, that
those comets have typical D/H ratios and that these ratios
have not changed since Earth was formed). Morbidelli et al.
[70] explained Earth’s D/H ratio by delivery of water from
the asteroid belt in the form of planetary embryos. In this
model the Earth accreted water since its formation, in the
form of an early bombardment of asteroids and comets, a
few large “wet” planetary embryos, and continual impacts of
small bodies over long time scales. Discussion has not yet
5
been closed because other geochemical constraints must be
satisfied, besides matching Earth’s D/H ratio, which has not
been achieved yet [71].
In general, simulations show that a range of possible val-
ues for water concentrations is possible on terrestrial plan-
ets [72]. Water content of the terrestrial planets depends on
the size of the planetesimals that form the planets and the
eccentricity of the giant planets in the system. Giant planets
with significant orbital eccentricities could eject water-rich
material in the outer disk and could cause the terrestrial
planets to be dry [73–75].
Not only the water content of a terrestrial planet but also
planet formation itself may be affected by the presence of
giant planets. About 7% of the detected giant planets lie
very near their stars (<3 AU) [76]. Based on the most-
accepted hypothesis of giant planet formation, those planets
were not formed in their present orbits but migrated from
the external part of the protoplanetary disk [e.g., 76], what
has been supposed that inhibit habitable planet formation
or promote their destruction [32, 33, 77, 78]. What mod-
els indicate is that habitable planets can form and survive
during and after the migration of a giant planet on their
system under certain conditions [75, 79–82]. According to
simulations by Raymond et al. [83], habitable planets are not
only able to form and survive after giant planet migration
but may be present in one-third of the known exoplanetary
systems.
The results from models indicate that systems with more
massive giant planets tend to form fewer, more-massive ter-
restrial planets than systems with less-massive giant planets
[75, 84]. There is the possibility that stars exist with no giant
planets; in that case, terrestrial planets may occur too [85,
86]. The density profile and surface density of the proto-
planetary disk, and the mass and metallicity of the central
star affect the outcome of the simulations. The parameters
related to the physical characteristics of the protoplanetary
disk have not been well constrained by observations; as a
result simulations have been done supposing a space of these
parameters within certain limits. Higher disk surface densi-
ties produce fewer, more massive terrestrial planets. Steeper
disk-density profiles result in planets close to the star, more
massive planets, faster planet growth, and iron-richer/water-
poorer planets [74, 75, 87]. Planets around low-mass stars
(0.5 to 0.8 M ) could potentially be small and dry [86].
3. SIGNATURES FROM A HABITABLE
PLANET
In a famous paper, Sagan et al. [88] analyzed a spectrum of
the Earth taken by the Galileo probe, searching for signa-
tures of life. They concluded that the large amount of O2
and the simultaneous presence of CH4 traces are strongly
suggestive of biology, while the detection of a widespread
red-absorbing pigment with no likely mineral origin supports
the hypothesis of biophotosynthesis. Searching for signs of
life on potentially very different planets, means that we need
to gather as much contextual information as possible in
order to understand how the observed atmosphere works.
When photons from the planet can be distinguished from
stellar ones, a photometric and spectral analysis of the
6 Search for Habitable Planets

planet is feasible within the available signal-to-noise ratio

and sensitivity. At that point, the physical and chemical
properties of the planet and its atmosphere can be stud-
ied. The spectroscopy of extrasolar planetary atmospheres
is a young science that has produced their very first results
only recently. Some atoms (Na, H) were detected with the
Hubble Space Telescope (HST) in the upper atmosphere of
the hot Jupiter HD 209458 b in absorption during a transit
[89–91]. Using the Spitzer Space Telescope, several groups
were able to detect the infrared emission from the closest,
transiting hot Jupiters by measuring the variation with the
phase of the total infrared emission over a whole orbit com-
ing from both the star and the planet [92–94]. In 2007 the
first molecule (H2 O) was identified with Spitzer and HST in
the atmosphere of the best target for such observations, the
closest transiting hot Jupiter (HD 189733 b) [95, 96].
The Earth/Sun intensity ratio is about 10−7 in the thermal Figure 2. Mid-IR synthetic spectra of Solar System terrestrial planets
infrared (∼10 m), and about 10−10 in the visible (∼0.5 m). generated by the Virtual Planetary Laboratory (VPL) (data by and
The interferometric systems suggested for Darwin and the courtesy of V. S. Meadows (Caltech)).
TPF-I mission operate in the mid-IR (6–20 m), the coron-
agraph suggested for Terrestrial Planet Finder Coronagraph
Possible differences between terrestrial planets can be
(TPF-C) in the visible–near IR (0.5–1 m). In the IR it is
illustrated with the spectrum of a planet like Earth. Figure 1
the thermal emission emitted by the planet that is detected
shows the modeled visible–near IR reflected spectrum of a
and analyzed while in the visible the reflected stellar flux
planet that represents the average spectrum of Earth (disk-
is measured. The spectrum of the planet can contain signa-
averaged gibbous Earth) where the presence of water and
tures of atmospheric species that indicate habitability, such
O2 are clear, those features that are not present on the spec-
as CO2 and H2 O, or result from biological activity (O2 , O3 ,
tra of Venus and Mars. Venus is completely dominated by
CH4 and N2 O) (Figs. 1 and 2). Both spectral regions contain
CO2 , while Mars shows some light directly reflected from its
atmospheric bio-indicators: CO2 , H2 O, O3 , CH4 and N2 O in
the thermal infrared, and H2 O, O3 , O2 , CH4 and CO2 in the surface composed mainly by iron oxides [97].
visible to near-infrared. The presence or absence of these Figure 2 shows the mid-IR spectra of two planets like
spectral features will indicate similarities or differences of Earth, (a) one completely covered by oceans without any
the detected planet and Earth. clouds and (b) a planet covered 100% by cirrus clouds,
Venus and Mars. On the modeled Earths the most promi-
nent features are the water bands (at 5–7 m and 18 m),
the 9.7- m ozone band and the 15- m CO2 band. The effec-
tive temperature of a planet can be deduced from the black
body that can be fitted to the IR spectra, what can give
some first indication of the surface temperature. The same
CO2 band is present on Venus and Mars and it is indica-
tive of the presence of an atmosphere and it can be used to
derive the temperature profile of the sampled atmospheric
column. The emission feature at the center of the 15- m
CO2 band on Earth indicates a hot stratosphere.
Tinetti et al. [98, 99] have modeled the changes in the
Earth’s high-resolution disk-average spectrum depending on
the surface, atmospheric and illumination conditions. Their
results show that the Earth averaged spectrum depends
largely on the cloud coverage, solar illumination and viewing
angle as well as a secondary effect on the fraction of ocean
and land on the hemisphere observed.

Figure 1. Synthetic albedo spectra of Solar System terrestrial planets

generated by the Virtual Planetary Laboratory (VPL). The Mars and
Earth spectra are from fully spatially resolved models that have been
degraded to the disk average (Tinetti et al. [98, 99]). Also shown is a
model of a cirrus cloud-covered Earth, which exhibits enhancements in
the O3 absorption from 0.5–0.7 m and water ice bands near 1.55 m.
Reprinted with permission from [97], V. S. Meadows, “Direct Imaging
of Exoplanets: Science and Techniques” (C. Aime and F. Vakili, Eds.),
pp. 25–34. Proceedings of IAU Coll. 200, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, 2006. © 2006, Cambridge University Press.
3.1. Clouds and Non-Biological Surface
Signatures
Clouds are an important component of exoplanet spectra,
as shown in the extreme modeled cases in Figures 1 and 2,
because in the visible/NIR range, their reflection is high and
relatively flat with wavelength (Fig. 1), while in the infrared
they lower the emitted flux and hide the lower convective
region of the atmosphere that produce most of the spectral
Search for Habitable Planets 7

Figure 3. Left, signal of different surface fractions of sea and on land for present-day Earth atmosphere, for several contributions of different kind
of surfaces assuming a clear atmosphere without clouds. Right, spectra of present-day Earth (left inset) without and (right inset) with clouds for a
disk-averaged view of the ocean and landmasses. Note that the low albedo of the ocean reduces the overall flux and the different scale of the left
plot. Reprinted with permission from [100], L. Kaltenegger et al., Astrophys. J. 658, 598 (2007). © 2007, The American Astronomical Society.

features (due to the strong gradient of temperature asso-
ciated with the convection; Fig. 2). The uppermost cirrus
clouds (between 10% and 30% of the Earth’s average 60%
overall cloud coverage; see also Fig. 3) reduce the Rayleigh
scattering slope due to the reduction of the observed atmo-
spheric column. The oxygen A-band (0.76 m) appears
enhanced on Figure 1 because the reflectivity of clouds is
by factors higher than the surface (see Fig. 3). In such an
extreme case, a planet totally covered by clouds, one could
probably detect a H2 O ice feature around 1.5 m from sus-
pended cirrus particles that can not be seen on Earth.
Clouds hide the atmospheric molecular species below
them, weakening most of the spectral lines in both the ther-
mal infrared and visible. In the thermal infrared, clouds emit
at temperatures that are generally colder than the surface,
while in the visible the clouds themselves have different
spectrally-dependent albedos that further influence the over-
all shape of the spectrum [e.g., 100]. For Venus the sulfuric
acid (H2 SO4 ) cloud deck truncates and blankets any infor-
mation from below the cloud coverage and thus prevents
sampling the whole atmosphere or the surface. Clouds also
increase the reflectivity of a planet substantially (Fig. 3).
3.2. Water
Detection of water vapor in a planetary atmosphere is the
first clue indicating that a planet may be habitable. Water
absorption can be seen in several bands in the visible and
infrared making this compound easy to identify. In the vis-
ible/NIR (0.5 to 1 m) the best regions to detect water
absorption are 0.7, 0.8 and 0.9 m. Other possibilities are
the bands at 1.1, 1.7 and 1.9 m. As for the mid-IR, water
can be detected between 5–8 m and around 17 m out to
50 m. Methane (CH4 ) and nitrous oxide (N2 O) absorb in
the wavelength from 6–7 m [2]. With extremely high reso-
lution, the absence of water can also be deduced from the
presence of highly soluble compounds like SO2 and H2 SO4 .
Venus’ spectrum, for example, has some weak absorption
bands from water [97] but its bulk atmospheric chemistry
only can be explained if the planet is dry. On frozen plan-
ets some of the water vapor in the atmosphere may still be
detected. On frozen planets some of the water vapor in the
atmosphere may still being detected. Figure 4 shows life-
less planets located in the habitable zone of the Sun with
atmospheres composed of 0.8 bars of N2 and 0.2 bars of
CO2 ; no methane or any other minor compound is present
in these atmospheres, except for water [101]. Every mod-
eled planet has a different surface temperature below the
freezing point of water. Water content is calculated follow-
ing a moist adiabat for the troposphere and keeping con-
stant the stratospheric water equal to that of the tropopause
[101]. In the visible and near-IR the best band to detect
water is around 1.4 m (Fig. 4(a)) and for the mid-IR, water
absorption between 5.5–7 m or 18 to 50 m (Fig. 4(b))
may be detectable for planets with surface temperatures as
low as 238 K for low resolutions as planned for TPF and
Darwin. Note that in the visible/near-IR the spectra of plan-
ets with different surface temperatures (here 268 K, 258 K
and 248 K) can not be distinguished from one another at
the proposed resolution of 70, as planned for TPF-C.
At extremely high resolution and signal-to-noise ratio the
specular reflection from an ocean produces a small signal of
highly polarized light that could be used to test the presence
of water in a planet [102 and references therein]. The degree
and direction of polarization depends on the physical char-
acteristics of the planetary atmosphere and surface, on the
8 Search for Habitable Planets
(a)
(b)
Figure 4. Synthetic spectra for lifeless terrestrial planets with different
surface temperatures. Planets have cloudless atmospheres composed of
0.8 bars of N2 and 0.2 bars of CO2 . Water content was calculated using
a moist adiabat for the troposphere and constant stratospheric water
content equal to that of the tropopause. Note that in the visible–near
IR the spectra of planets with surface temperatures of 268 K, 258 K
and 248 K can not be distinguished from one another at the proposed
resolution of 70, as planned for TPF-C (data from Segura et al. [101]).
illumination and viewing geometries, and on the wavelength.
Maximum degrees of polarization are presented for plan-
ets covered by oceans under clear atmospheres. Polarization
diminishes with the presence of clouds or vegetation [103].
3.3. Biosignatures
Biosignature (or biomarker) is used here to mean detectable
species, or set of species, whose presence at significant abun-
dance strongly suggests a biological origin [2]. This is for
instance the case for the couple CH4 + O2 .
Meadows [97] distinguishes sub-types of biosignatures:
atmospheric, surface and temporal. To distinguish such sub-
types, very-high spectral and/or temporal resolution of the
data as well as high signal-to-noise ratio must be achieved.
Low spectral resolution of 70 in the visible and 25 in the
infrared is envisioned for the first space missions such as
TPF-C and TPF-I/Darwin. Atmospheric biosignatures are
those that are constituents in the planetary atmosphere
that are significantly out of chemical equilibrium, or likely
byproducts of life processes. Those spectral features in the
surface reflectance that are associated with bio-pigments
(e.g., chlorophyll), or are due to the physical structure of
life, are called surface biosignatures. Temporal biosignatures
are the result of changes as a function of time of atmo-
spheric or surface characteristics, those changes are due to
seasonal variations in biomass or planet-wide life processes.
During one day the reflected spectrum of Earth can vary as
much as 50% in intensity just because of the variations of
the clouds patterns [99]. With extremely high signal-to-noise
ratio as well as temporal resolution of the spectrum, one
could potentially find such variations.
Bio-indicators are indicative of biological processes but
can also be produced abiotically in significant quantities.
Our search for signs of life is based on the assumption that
extraterrestrial life shares fundamental characteristics with
life on Earth, in that it requires liquid water as a solvent
and has a carbon-based chemistry [2, 104]. Life on the base
of a different chemistry is not considered here because the
vast possible life-forms produce signatures in their atmo-
sphere that are, so far, unknown. Therefore we assume that
extraterrestrial life is similar to life on Earth in its use of the
same input and output gases, that it exists out of thermody-
namic equilibrium and that it has analogs to bacteria, plants
and animals on Earth [105].
With arbitrarily high signal-to-noise (SNR) and spatial
and spectral resolution, it is relatively straightforward to
remotely assess that Earth is a habitable planet, with oceans,
a greenhouse atmosphere, global geochemical cycles, and
life. The interpretation of observations of other planets with
limited signal-to-noise ratio and spectral resolution as well
as absolutely no spatial resolution, as envisioned for the first
generation missions such as TPF-C and Darwin/TPF-I, will
be far more challenging.
To search for signs of life with low resolution and limited
information, we need to gather as much contextual infor-
mation as possible in order to understand what we will see.
The main properties of the planetary system can be derived
initially without spectroscopy: its orbital elements as well
as the presence of an atmosphere using the light curve of
the planet and/or a crude estimate of the planetary nature
[106] using very low-resolution information (3 or 4 chan-
nels). Then higher resolution spectra will be used to identify
the compounds of the planetary atmosphere, establish the
temperature and radius of the observed exoplanet. In that
context, we can then test if we have an abiotic explanation
of all compounds seen in the atmosphere of such a planet.
If we do not, we can work with the exciting biotic hypothe-
sis. The results of a first-generation mission will most likely
result in an amazing scope of diverse planets that will set
planet formation, evolution as well as our planet in an over-
all context.
The thermal infrared mission concepts, the Darwin and
the Terrestrial Planet Finder Interferometer (TPF-I), and
the visible wavelength mission concepts, the Terrestrial
Planet Finder Coronagraph (TPF-C), are designed to detect
terrestrial exoplanets, and to measure the color and spec-
tra of terrestrial planets, giant planets and zodiacal dust
disks around nearby stars [see, e.g., Refs. [47, 107–112]].
These missions have the explicit purpose to detect other
Earth-like worlds, analyze their characteristics, determine
Search for Habitable Planets
the composition of their atmospheres, investigate their capa-
bility to sustain life as we know it, and search for signs of life.
A resolution of about 25 is planned for Darwin/TPF-I and
about 70 for TPF-C. These missions also have the capacity
to investigate the physical properties and composition of a
broader diversity of planets, to understand the formation of
planets and interpret potential biosignatures.
The range of characteristics of planets is likely to exceed
our experience with the planets and satellites in our own
Solar System. Earth-like planets orbiting stars of different
spectral type might evolve differently [113–115]. Models of
such planets need to consider the changing atmospheric
structure, as well as the interior structure of the planet [see,
e.g., Refs. [116, 117]]. One crucial factor in interpreting
planetary spectra is the point in the evolution of the atmo-
sphere when its biomarkers become detectable. Spectra of
the Earth exploring temperature sensitivity (a hot house and
cold scenario) and different singled out stages of its evo-
lution [e.g., Refs. [100, 106, 113, 114, 118, 119]] as well as
the evolution of the expected spectra of Earth [100] produce
a variety of spectral fingerprints for our own planet. Those
spectra will be used as part of a big grid to characterize any
exoplanets found. This also influences the design require-
ments for a spectrometer [2, 100] to detect habitability.
3.3.1. Atmospheric Biosignatures
Oxygenic photosynthesis, the by-product of which is molec-
ular oxygen extracted from water, allows terrestrial plants
and photosynthetic bacteria (cyanobacteria) to use abundant
H2 O, instead of having to rely on scarce supplies of electron
donor to reduce CO2 , such as H2 and H2 S. With oxygenic
photosynthesis, the production of the biomass becomes lim-
ited only by nutriments and no longer by energy (light in this
case) nor by the abundance of electron donors. Oxygenic
photosynthesis at a planetary scale results in the storage of
large amounts of radiative energy in chemical energy, in the
form of organic matter. For this reason, oxygenic photosyn-
thesis had a tremendous impact on biogeochemical cycles
on Earth and eventually resulted in the global transforma-
tion of Earth environment. Oxygen in high abundance is a
promising biosignature.
Reduced gases and oxygen have to be produced concur-
rently to be detectable in the atmosphere, as they react
rapidly with each other. Thus, a detectable concentration of
O2 and/or O3 and of a reduced gas like CH4 can be consid-
ered to be a signature of biological activity. The spectrum of
the Earth has exhibited a strong infrared signature of ozone
for more than 2 billion years, and a strong visible signature
of O2 for a period of time between 2 and 0.8 billion years
(depending on the required depth of the band for detection
and also the actual evolution of the O2 level) [100, 114]. This
difference is due to the fact that a saturated ozone band
appears already at very low levels of O2 (0.01 present atmo-
spheric level (PAL)) while the oxygen line remains unsatu-
rated at values below 1 PAL. Note that the non-detection
of O2 or O3 on an exoplanet cannot be interpreted as the
absence of life.
N2 O is produced in abundance by life but only in trace
amounts by natural processes. Nearly all of Earth’s N2 O is
produced by the activities of anaerobic denitrifying bacteria.
9
N2 O would be hard to detect in Earth’s atmosphere with low
resolution, as its abundance is low at the surface (0.3 ppmv)
and falls off rapidly in the stratosphere. On a low-O2 early
Earth, its abundance would be even smaller because it pho-
tolyzes rapidly in the near-ultraviolet [114]. Spectral features
of N2 O would become more apparent in atmospheres with
more N2 O and/or less H2 O vapor.
As signs of life in themselves, H2 O and CO2 are secondary
in importance because although they are not indicators of its
presence, they are raw materials for life and thus necessary
for planetary habitability. In the visible reflected Earth spec-
trum, the detectable signatures of biological activity in low
resolution are water vapor and molecular oxygen (mainly the
0.76 m band); in the near-IR CO2 and CH4 are detectable
at concentrations significantly higher than on current Earth.
In the mid-IR thermal-emission spectra of Earth, the
combined detection of the 9.6- m O3 band, the 15- m
CO2 band and the 6.3- m H2 O band or its rotational band
that extends from 12 m out into the microwave region
[120], indicates habitability. The strongly saturated 9.6- m
O3 band is a very nonlinear indicator of O2 : the primary
reason for that is that the stratospheric warming decreases
with the abundance of ozone, making the O3 band deeper
[114]. The depth of the saturated O3 band is determined by
the temperature difference between the surface-clouds con-
tinuum and the ozone layer.
CH4 is not readily identified using low-resolution spec-
troscopy for present-day Earth, but the methane feature at
7.66 m in the IR is easily detectable at higher abundances
(see, e.g., Fig. 4, epoch 4, 100× abundance), provided of
course that the spectrum contains the whole band and a high
enough signal-to-noise ratio. Taken together with molecular
oxygen, abundant CH4 can indicate biological processes [see
also Refs. [88, 105, 114]]. Depending on the degree of oxi-
dation of a planet’s crust and upper mantle non-biological
mechanisms can also produce large amounts of CH4 [121].
N2 O is produced mainly by life, negligible amounts are
produced by abiotic processes [122]. There are potentially
three weak N2 O features in the thermal infrared at 7.75 m,
8.52 m and 16.89 m.
There are other molecules that could, under some
circumstances, act as excellent biosignatures, e.g., the man-
ufactured chlorofluorocarbons (CCl2 F2 and CCl3 F) in our
current atmosphere in the thermal infrared waveband,
but their abundances are too low to be spectroscopically
observed at low resolution.
3.3.2. Surface Biosignatures
Our planet is composed for a variety of surfaces (land, ocean,
ice, grass, etc.). Its reflected spectrum depends on the sur-
faces that we sample. Each surface has a characteristic albedo
that has a wavelength dependence [e.g., Refs. [98, 100]] that
could be detected in principle. Ice has a higher albedo than
liquid water, making these surfaces more and less reflective,
respectively. Other surfaces exhibit intermediate albedos that
go from 1.5 (granite, basalt) to 0.4 (sand, trees, grass) [98,
100] (Fig. 3). In principle, photometric variability may pro-
vide information about the surfaces that compose a planet if
one can find a way to distinguish this small effect from the
overall large variation of clouds to the reflected light [123].
10
We won’t be able to spatially resolve an exoplanet; therefore,
the observed spectra will be the result of a mixture of differ-
ent unknown surfaces and atmospheric features.
Vegetation modifies the reflected spectrum of present
Earth by introducing a sharp increase of the reflectivity
between 700–750 nm, the red edge. Its detection is extremely
challenging in a spatially unresolved global planetary spec-
trum, integrated over a long exposure [99, 100, 124–129].
Plankton exhibits the same red-edge as vegetation but its
detection is even harder than that for land plants because
of the low reflectivity of sea water. If it could exceed a con-
centration of 300 mg m−3 , that is, ten times higher than
the maximum concentration observed on Earth [99], it could
potentially be detectable.
Additionally, the red-edge may be shifted in planets
around stars of other spectral types that emit most of their
photons on bluer (F stars) or redder (K and M stars) sec-
tions of the electromagnetic spectrum. Kiang et al. [130]
have calculated the most likely absorption bands for plants
in Earth-like planets around other stars concluding that
planets around F2V stars might have a “blue edge” or at
least be darker in the blue. K2V plants would look very
similar to the Earth ones. The M stars could have sev-
eral different PAR bands: they might have multiple critical
absorption wavelengths in the visible, because of their noisy
spectra in this region; and the dominant photosynthetic
organisms would most likely harvest light over 0.4–1.1 m,
with potential but unlikely extensions to 1.4 and 2.5 m. In
any case, the detection and interpretation of unknown veg-
etation features will be challenging.
3.3.3. Temporal Biosignatures: Orbital Flux
The integrated infrared emission measured at a different
position in the orbit (thermal light curve) exhibits variations
due to the phase (whether the observer sees mainly the day
side or the night side) and to the season (if the planet has
a non-zero obliquity). Important phase-related orbital vari-
ations are due to a high day/night temperature contrast,
which implies a tenuous or no atmosphere and the absence
of a stable liquid ocean. Therefore, habitable planets can be
distinguished from airless or Mars-like planets by the small
amplitude of the observed variations on a potentially habit-
able planet [131, 132]. Note also that Venus-like atmosphere
would exhibit extremely low amplitudes and can only be dis-
tinguished by spectroscopy from habitable planets.
In the visible, the reflected flux is the product of the
reflectivity of the planet (albedo) and the radius of the
planet squared (a small but reflecting planet could be as
bright as a big, but dark, planet). The first generation of opti-
cal instruments will have very far from the angular resolu-
tion required to directly measure an exoplanet radius. Such
a measurement can currently only be performed when the
planet transits in front of its parent star, by an accurate pho-
tometric technique. If the same target is observed in both
visible (TPF-C) and IR (Darwin/TPF-I) ranges, the albedo
can be obtained in the visible once the radius is inferred
from the IR spectrum.
Information on the cloud and surface characteristics
(ocean, ice, rocks) can be obtained once the absolute level
of the albedo is known, which requires the knowledge
of the radius. At extremely high temporal resolution and
Search for Habitable Planets
signal-to-noise ratio additional modulations of the ampli-
tude variations of the visual reflected light over a daily
rotation of a planet could indicate surface features [101].
As shown in the same paper, clouds destroy that relation,
because of their own individual rotation pattern. The possi-
bility to obtain spectral information from both wavelengths
will allow a more detailed characterization of individual
planets and it also allows exploring a wide domain of planet
diversity. Observations in both complementary wavelength
bands can confirm the presence of atmospheric compounds.
Some important species such as CO2 and N2 O appear only
in the IR range, while only the reflected spectrum can give
information on the nature of the surface.
3.4. Evolution of a Habitable Planet: Lessons
from Earth’s Geologic History
The spectrum of the Earth has not been static throughout
the past 4.5 Ga (Ga = 109 years) ago. This is due to the vari-
ations in the molecular abundances, the temperature struc-
ture, and the surface morphology over time. Kasting and
Catling [133] and Kasting [134] established a scenario for
the Earth’s atmospheric evolution. At about 2.3 Ga ago oxy-
gen and ozone became abundant, affecting the atmospheric
absorption component of the spectrum. At about 2 Ga ago,
a green phytoplankton signal developed in the oceans and
at about 0.44 Ga ago, an extensive land plant cover fol-
lowed, generating the red chlorophyll edge in the reflec-
tion spectrum. The composition of the surface (especially in
the visible), the atmospheric composition, and temperature–
pressure profile can all have a significant influence on the
detectabilty of a signal. Note that we assume that the cloud
cover over these epochs is the same as the cloud cover
today; however, changes in this distribution could signifi-
cantly change the overall spectra in both wavelength regions.
Figures 5 and 6 show the calculated relative depth of spec-
tral features, i.e., (continuum-spectrum)/continuum, for the
visible (Fig. 5), and thermal infrared (Fig. 6), for individual
atmospheric species and for atmospheres with a present-day
cloud distribution [100]. The epochs are chosen to represent
major developmental stages of the atmosphere, and life on
Earth. Earth’s atmosphere has experienced dramatic evolu-
tion over 4.5 billion years, and other planets may exhibit
similar evolution, at similar or different rates. The climate
model to create a schematic atmospheric model of our Earth
over geological timescales is based on a combination of
results from work by Kasting and Catling [133], Kasting
[134], Pavlov et al. [135], Segura et al. [114] and Traub and
Jucks [106]. The model atmosphere evolves from a CO2 -
rich atmosphere (epoch 0 = 3 9 Ga ago) to a CO2 /CH4 -rich
atmosphere (epoch 3) to a present-day atmosphere (epoch
5 = present-day Earth). The oxygen absorption and ozone
absorption features could have been used to indicate the
presence of biological activity on Earth anytime during the
past 50% of the age of the Solar System.
3.5. How to Interpret Biomarkers and
False Positives
The knowledge of our planet’s geologic history, observa-
tion of other planets in the Solar System and simulations
Search for Habitable Planets
Figure 5. Relative depth of spectral features, i.e., (continuum-
spectrum)/continuum, is shown here, for the visible for individual
atmospheric species and for atmospheres with a present-day cloud dis-
tribution. The grey-scale denotes epochs throughout Earth’s history:
black (current-day atmospheres) to a lighter grey the further back in
time in Earth’s history. Based on data from [100].
of exoplanets have indicated possible cases of false-positive
detection of biological activity on a planet. An abiotic pro-
cess could mimic a biosignature. Therefore the characteri-
zation of a planet’s atmosphere as well as its environment
is extremely important. A hot planet that evaporates all its
surface water can produce an oxygen and ozone feature that
results from the photolysis of water and the loss of hydrogen
to space. Water and oxygen/ozone can also be detectable on
a planet in the habitable zone that is totally covered by ice.
During short periods of its geologic history, Earth has gone
through global glaciations. The so-called “Snowball Earth,”
has occurred at least three times on Earth’s history. These
episodes are thought to last tens of millions of years or less;
that is, about 0.2% of Earth’s geologic history. The build-
up of volcanic CO2 has prevented our planet from staying
frozen for longer periods. We may be able to distinguish a
planet going on a “snowball” epoch by looking at evidence
of low water contents or the presence of highly soluble gases
(see Section 3.2). For Earth, we know that it had life during
these periods but for an exoplanet it would be almost impos-
sible to distinguish between a lifeless ice-covered planet and
a habitable planet.
The existence of water-covered planets or “ocean plan-
ets” has been predicted by Kuchner [136] and Léger et al.
[137], these planets would be massive ice-covered bod-
ies (∼6–10 M⊕ ) that migrated near their stars after being
formed in the outer parts of their protoplanetary disks. It is
not expected for these planets to harbor life [138] but if they
11
Figure 6. Relative depth of spectral features, i.e., (continuum-
spectrum)/continuum, in the thermal infrared region of the spec-
trum. The grey-scale denotes epochs throughout Earth’s history: black
(current-day atmospheres) to a lighter grey the further back in time in
Earth’s history. Based on data from [100].
lie in the habitable zone of a star it is important to be able
to distinguish them from terrestrial planets. It is not clear if
these planets would be covered by a thick steam atmosphere
[136] or by clouds [137]. The density of ocean planets—that
should be lower than that for rocky planets—can be calcu-
lated from transits and radial velocity measurements [138]
and, if totally covered by clouds, they would have a highly
reflective surface in the UV and visible [137].
3.6. Signatures from Planets Around
Stars of Different Spectral Types
Using a numerical code that simulates the photochemistry
of a wide range of planetary atmospheres, Selsis [113] and
Segura et al. [114, 115] have simulated a replica of our
planet orbiting in the habitable zone around different types
of star: F-type star (more massive and hotter than the Sun)
and a K-type star (smaller and cooler than the Sun). The
models assume same background composition of the atmo-
sphere as well as the strength of biogenic sources. The
orbital distance was chosen in order to give the planet the
Earth’s surface temperature (by receiving the same inte-
grated energetic flux): 1.8 and 0.5 AU, respectively, for the
F- and the K-type star. Scaling the energetic flux allows us
to consider habitable planets irradiated by a non-Solar spec-
trum: the contribution of the UV range (150–400 nm, the
most important for the photochemistry) is higher for the
F-type star and lower for the K-type star (this is no longer
true in the extreme UV (EUV) range, below 150 nm, where
12 Search for Habitable Planets

(a) on the slope and intensity of the UV radiation [114, 115].

Table 2 summarizes the calculated mixing ratios and life-
times for each biogenic compound, and the ozone column
depth on Earth-like planets around stars of different spec-
tral types. All the simulated planets have 0.21 bars of O2 (as
on present Earth) while the amount of O3 depends on the
UV radiation received by the planet. The mixing ratios have
been calculated using a 1D photochemical model coupled
to a 1D convective/radiative model (see details in [114]).
The lifetime is the time that certain chemical compounds
would last in the atmosphere if the sources that produce it
are removed. In Table 2, three Earth-like planets around M
dwarfs with no chromospheric activity are listed. The UV
radiation emitted by these stars is so low that all the biogenic
compounds included in the model have very long lifetimes.
(b)
Figure 6 shows the calculated spectra for the Earth-like
planets around stars of different spectral types. Except for
methane on the active M-dwarf planet, the visible/near-IR
spectra of the simulated planets are similar, while the ther-
mal infrared shows more differences, this shows the varia-
tion on the temperature profile on each planet that cannot
be distinguished in the visible.

4. THE SEARCH FOR HABITABLE

Figure 7. Spectra for Earth-like planets around F, G, K and M stars
convolved with a triangular slit function and degraded to a constant
wavenumber resolution equivalent to (a) R ∼ 70, and (b) R ∼ 25. Plan-
ets are labeled using the spectral type of their parent star (data from
Segura et al. [114, 115]).
low-mass stars K-type stars may be very active). M dwarfs
are a particular case as their spectra in the UV (<200 nm)
can be as bright as that of the Sun in their respective habit-
able zones for chromospherically active M dwarfs or orders
of magnitude lower in the whole UV (<350 nm) for quies-
cent M dwarfs (see Fig. 1 of Segura et al. [115]).
Given the same surface flux of biogenic compounds, CH4 ,
N2 O, methyl chloride (CH3 Cl) on an Earth-like planet, the
calculated mixing ratio of these species varies depending
PLANETS
The present stage of exoplanet observations can be char-
acterized as one in which information is being gathered
principally by indirect means, whereby the photons that we
measure are from the star itself, or a background star, or a
mixture of the star and planet. Indirect techniques include
radial velocity, microlensing, transits and astrometry. These
indirect observations are of great value, giving us measures
of the planetary mass, orbital elements, and (for transits)
the sizes as well as indications of the constituents of the
extreme upper atmospheres (such as the detection of sodium
in the upper atmosphere of HD 209458 b [89]). Recent
detections of super Earths by Udry et al. [139], Rivera
et al. [140] and Beaulieu et al. [141] imply that Earth-mass
planets might be common [141]. Current and future space
missions such as CoRoT (Convection, Rotation, and Plan-
etary T ransits; Centre National d’Etudes Spatiales (CNES),
[143]) and Kepler (NASA, [144]) will give us statistics on the

Table 2. Mixing ratios and lifetime in years of biogenic gases calculated by a 1D photochemical model for Earth-like planets around different stars
(based on data from Segura et al. [114, 115]).

Methane Nitrous oxide Methyl chloride

Ozone
Parent star Mixing ratio Lifetime (years) Mixing ratio Lifetime (years) Mixing ratio Lifetime (years) Column depth (cm−2 )

Suna 1 6 × 10−6 4.4 3 0 × 10−7 164.8 5 0 × 10−10 0.6 8 4 × 1018

F2Vb 1 4 × 10−6 3.9 2 6 × 10−7 140.1 4 5 × 10−10 0.5 1 6 × 1019
K2Vb 5 4 × 10−6 14.8 5 9 × 10−7 324.5 1 6 × 10−9 1.8 6 6 × 1018
AD Leo (M3.5V)b 4 6 × 10−4 1074.4 1 3 × 10−6 621.6 1 4 × 10−6 1028.9 4 4 × 1018
M1 modelc (Teff = 3650 K) 5 0 × 10−4 6546.5 3 5 × 10−5 7 02 × 105 1 2 × 10−7 611.7 3 2 × 1018
M3 modelc (Teff = 3400 K) 5 0 × 10−4 2397.0 1 0 × 10−4 5 69 × 104 2 0 × 10−7 224.3 2 4 × 1018
M5 modelc (Teff = 3100 K) 5 0 × 10−4 1383.7 1 3 × 10−3 1 95 × 104 5 4 × 10−7 138.5 1 2 × 1018
a
For the planet around the Sun the Earth’s measured mixing ratios of the biogenic compounds were used to obtain the surface fluxes of each biogenic specie. The
calculated surface fluxes applied as boundary conditions for most of the simulated Earth-like planets in the table. b For these planets the surface flux of the biogenic
gases were: 9 54 × 1014 g CH4 /yr, 1 32 × 1013 g N2 O/yr, and 7 29 × 1012 g CH3 Cl/yr. c On these planets the boundary conditions for the long-lived gases were: fixed
mixing ratio for CH4 (5 0 × 10−4 ), fixed deposition velocities for H2 (2 4 × 10−4 cm/s) and CO2 (1 2 × 10−4 cm/s), and fixed surface fluxes for N2 O and CH3 Cl.
Search for Habitable Planets
number, size, period and orbital distance of planets, extend-
ing to terrestrial planets on the lower mass range end.
The next stage of exoplanetary observations, we may hope
to have direct observations, in which most of the measured
photons are reflected or emitted by the planet itself. A fun-
damental part of the problem of directly detecting the planet
with its feeble light in the glare of the strong parental stellar
flux, is the huge contrast. Direct techniques include coron-
agraphic imaging at visible wavelengths, and interferomet-
ric imaging in the thermal infrared. As discussed in Traub
et al. [145], full characterization requires the synergy of both
direct and indirect measurements. Direct detection of pho-
tons from giant exoplanets can be implemented using cur-
rent space-based telescopes such as HST and the Spitzer
Space Telescope. Such studies have led to the detection of
infrared emission from several transiting hot Jupiters [92, 93,
146], where the planetary signal is the difference between
the flux from a star-plus-planet versus the flux from the star
alone. Photons from Earth-like planets in the habitable zone
(HZ) [26] around their parent star are beyond the capabili-
ties of these telescopes and require future missions such as
Darwin and Terrestrial Planet Finder (TPF).
4.1. Techniques
The prime methods that have been used so far (from the
ground) are [147]:
(1) radial velocity method,
(2) occultations of a star by a planetary body called transit,
(3) gravitational lensing and
(4) astrometry.
4.1.1. Radial Velocity
The first method, radial velocity, measures the deflection of
the spectral lines in a stellar spectrum caused by the grav-
itational tug imposed by an orbiting body, due to result-
ing acceleration of the star and the Doppler effect. The
strength of the deflection is a function of both the mass
of the orbiting body and its distance from the star. There-
fore, the method is naturally biased towards massive planets
orbiting very close to the star.
An Earth-mass body, orbiting 1 AU away from a G2V
star (such as our Sun), will cause a deflection (amplitude)
in the radial velocity curve of 0.1 m s−1 over a period of
one year. This is significantly smaller than the amplitude
change caused by the five-minute acoustical oscillations in
the solar atmosphere (so-called p-modes), which have life-
times of roughly half a year. We also have the noise intro-
duced by the solar activity, which has amplitudes that are
similar or larger. It will be hard to detect an earth ana-
logue from the ground using this method. It will require
dedicated large telescopes with long observing runs (years).
Further, since we only measure one component (along the
line of sight) of the velocity, the mass of the planet that
we determine will be a minimum mass. Some other method
(see below) can be used in special cases to determine the
other component and therefore lead to an exact mass (only
depending on the estimate of the stellar mass).
Radial velocity recently detected two super-Earths
(5–15 M⊕ ) around an M star [139] at the edge of the
HZ. This exciting discovery shows radial velocity’s ability to
13
detect planets down to Earth’s mass and makes it a prime
candidate for first detection of worlds like our own. Tran-
sit observations and radial velocity measurements will likely
be the first to provide information on the nature of plan-
ets found in the habitable zone of their star. Photometric
measurements with a precision of 8 × 10−5 could reveal the
transit of planets as big as the Earth for a G-type star. This
would allow us to determine the orbital period and radius
of the detected planets, and to constrain the abundance of
rocky planets in our galactic neighborhood. Radial velocities
measurements can then measure or put an upper limit on
the mass of the planet.
4.1.2. Transits
The method second in importance (so far), the transit
method, has already delivered results in a number of cases
(as of September 2007, about 25 stars). This is also a method
that shows strong promise of being important in space-based
applications—see the CoRoT and Kepler missions. It mea-
sures the drop in luminosity of the star as the planet passes
between us and the star, and draws conclusions about both
star and planet from the shape of the light curve. This
method is also biased towards large planets orbiting very
close to a (small) star—a situation not found in our own
solar system. A Jupiter-sized planet passing between us and
a solar-type star will cause a drop in luminosity of about 1%,
while an Earth-sized body only causes a drop of about 104 .
Furthermore, transits last for some hours, which means that
the shorter the period (the first detected transits of an exo-
planet repeats every 3.5 days) the easier it is to detect it. The
random orientation of exoplanetary orbital planes results in
about a 1%–2% chance of a transit happening for planets
close in, while it is significantly smaller for planets orbiting in
the habitable zone of a solar-type star. Due to the low transit
probability (0.5% and 1.5% for a habitable planet around a
Sun-like G star and a 0.3 × M M-star respectively), a large
sample of stars must be monitored.
4.1.3. Microlensing
The advances that have been made through the detection of
the gravitational lensing effect caused by large, and so far,
in one case of a possible small, “rocky” planet of maybe 5.5
times the mass of our own Earth [141], are very promising.
It is a potentially powerful method for determining statis-
tics of exoplanets. The drawback is that one needs a lensed
object as well as a lensing object or system. In order to
have any significant chance of detecting planets of all types,
both sets of objects need to be large and thus very distant.
That results in difficulty in assigning types and luminosities
to both the lensed object and the lenser. The inferred plan-
etary mass depends on both of these parameters. In the last
case quoted above, we assume that the blended image of
the lensed object close to the galactic center and the lenser,
at about half this distance, are of F- and M-type, respec-
tively. We will not know this for many years as the star slowly
moves out of the line of sight of the lensed object.
4.1.4. Astrometry
The fourth method; astrometry, measures the proper motion
changes of a star as it travels across the sky, and interprets
14
deviations from its predicted motion. A number of multi-
epoch observations carried out during the last century—
mainly with long focus refractors—reported the discovery of
large planets around some nearby stars. One can mention 70
Ophiuchi, where Reuyl and Holmberg [148] found a 10 Mjup
(or 10 Jupiter-mass) body orbiting the star. None of these
objects have been confirmed today.
Finally, astrometric observations, utilizing mainly the fine
guidance sensors on the HST, have been used to determine
the deflection in the plane of the sky in a few cases. In
the case of the planet Gliese (Gl) 876 b, the deflection is
about 25 mas (milliarcseconds), which, taken together with
a well determined parallax, leads to a planetary mass of
1 89 ± 0 34 Mjup , the largest uncertainty being the assump-
tion about the stellar mass [149]. Dedicated space missions,
with the capability of determining proper motions of a few
microarcseconds, will make systematic surveys for planets of
sizes down to maybe 10 Earth masses within the foreseeable
future (see below).
4.2. Instruments for Detection of
Earth-Sized Planets
The key problem in detecting planets orbiting other stars is
the dual one of spatial resolution and dynamic range. The
star will outshine the planet (if it is of the size of the Earth)
by a factor of 1010 –1011 , in the visual, and 106 –107 in the
mid-infrared. The maximum separation between a star and
its planet in the HZ will be approximately 0.1” (for a very
limited sample of nearby stars). It is clear that, in order to
achieve these requirements from the ground, improvements
in adaptive optics will have be made at the level of two to
three orders of magnitude over that currently achievable.
Furthermore, the telescope itself would have to be at least
one order of magnitude larger in diameter. Finally, the study
of Earth-like planets would be impaired by our own atmo-
sphere and the thermal background of the environment.
Therefore, if we want to address the characterization of
habitable planets, we need to go to space. This has become
more and more apparent over the last ten years through a
large number of very ambitious studies and projects devel-
oped in Europe, the United States and Canada. As a con-
sequence, a number of projects/missions of increasing level
of complexity and scope have been and are being devel-
oped. The Canadian mission MOST (Microvariability and
Oscillations of STars) has been in orbit for several years,
CoRoT since December 2006, others (Kepler, GAIA) are
under construction or approaching launch, and the “flag-
ships” (Darwin and TPF) are being developed both scientif-
ically and technically.
MOST is designed as an asteroseismological mission that
can also search for exoplanetary transits under some circum-
stances. CoRoT (Boisnard and Auvergne [150]) is designed
with such transits as one of the primary objectives down
to Earth-size planets, and with most of the observing time
allocated to this goal. CoRoT will be followed in 2009 by
NASA’s Kepler mission. This is essentially a larger version
of the former mission with a 0.95-m Schmidt telescope. This
mission will be deployed in a so-called drift-away orbit. That
allows essentially uninterrupted observation of a dedicated
star-field for a period of no less than four years. Therefore,
Search for Habitable Planets
it becomes possible to detect Earth-sized planets orbiting
within the habitable zones (1+ year orbital period for an
early G-type star, about half a year for a late K-type object)
of their primaries.
GAIA [150] is an ambitious mission, with the goal of
charting a three-dimensional map of our galaxy. Building
on the highly successful HIPPARCOS mission, GAIA will
provide never before realized positional and radial velocity
measurements of more than one billion stars in the Milky
Way galaxy as well as stars in galaxies located in the Local
Group.
GAIA will play an important role for exoplanetary
research in two ways. First, it will provide a database of
relatively large (about 15 M⊕ or larger) planets around all
detectable stars out to a distance of several hundred par-
secs. Based on the knowledge of the exoplanets found since
1995, we can expect literally thousands of new objects. This
will allow statistical investigations several orders of magni-
tude more accurately than at present. In addition, GAIA will
detect all unknown nearby (within 25 pc) stars of all spec-
tral types. It is clear from the work on the target lists for
missions like Darwin/TPF that we have a very poor knowl-
edge about late K- type and M-dwarf stars in the intended
sample.
SIM (Space Interferometer Mission) is NASA’s version of
GAIA. Using interferometric methods, the relative distance
between objects are measured extremely accurately (a factor
of 10 better than GAIA). It can only measure a fraction of
the number of objects that GAIA will observe and will have
a limited sensitivity, as well as increased complexity and cost.
On the other hand it is possible to see the deflection in the
motion across the sky caused by Earth-sized planets, for a
handful of the very close stars [151].
4.3. Instruments for Characterization of
Habitable Planets
The direct detection of Earth-like exoplanets orbiting nearby
stars, and the characterization of such planets—particularly
concerning their evolution, their atmospheres and their abil-
ity to host life as we know it—and thereby to understand
how planets form and life emerges—is the ultimate goal.
The space missions, capable of meeting the challenges posed
by these goals are Darwin [109, 153, 154] (ESA) and the
Terrestrial Planet Finder (NASA) [145, 155].
The search for biosignatures on exoplanets is becoming
an important driver for new concepts of observatories, while
budgetary limitations tend to favor small, low-cost instru-
ments. The ability to detect the light reflected by a terrestrial
exoplanet or its infrared emission is obviously not sufficient
to provide the level of characterization that could allow us to
identify spectral features inherited from a biosphere or to
confront our theories on habitability. The scientific objec-
tives of missions like Darwin or TPF, designed specifically
for these ambitious goals, are not achievable with shrunk
versions of their instruments. Smaller coronagraphs or inter-
ferometers can probe giant planet characteristics and serve
as technical precursor missions, but will not share the origi-
nal astrobiological objectives of Darwin/TPF. If the very few
closest stars do host habitable planets, smaller instruments
Search for Habitable Planets
could perform individual spectral characterization at the rel-
evant level of accuracy. Even so, a single Earth-like planet
will be an amazing discovery; such a small sample of plan-
etary systems will clearly not be large enough to cross a
threshold in our understanding of the distribution of life in
the Universe.
Darwin [111, 155] is an infrared observatory (6–20 m)
based on nulling interferometry. This method combines the
light from several free-flying telescopes, to suppress on-axis
light from the central star while increasing the sensitivity off-
axis at the region of the potential habitable zone. Darwin
will be able to study the thermal emission of habitable plan-
ets with a resolution (/) of about 25 and a signal-to-
noise ratio between 5 and 10. NASA’s TPF program consists
of two complementary missions observing at different wave-
lengths, one in the visible (TPF-C) and one in the infrared
(TPF-I). TPF-C [156], a single coronagraph, works at visible,
to near-infrared, wavelengths (0.5–1.1 m) with a resolution
of about 70 and a signal-to-noise ratio of between 5 and 10.
TPF-I [158], is an infrared nulling interferometer similar to
Darwin.
The first information provided by these instruments will
be orbital parameters of the planet (orbital distance, eccen-
tricity, inclination of the system). This requires a minimum
of three detections per planet at different points of its orbit.
It is a necessary step to infer the stellar flux received by the
planet and to identify potentially habitable planets. Then a
low-resolution spectrum will be observed to characterize the
atmosphere and climate on the detected unknown world.
5. HABITABLE PLANETS ON THE KNOWN
EXOPLANETARY SYSTEMS
Most of the exoplanets detected have masses too large to
harbor life. The situation, as far as habitability is referred,
gets worse for the detected exoplanets given that they tend
to have large eccentricities and ∼7% of them lie at 3 AU
or less from their parent stars [43]. But when we consider
the exoplanetary findings as possible or known planetary sys-
tems, their potential for habitability gets better. Jones et al.
[159, 160] found that about 50% of studied exoplanetary
systems offered sustained habitability for terrestrial planets
that may lie on their respective habitable zones and accord-
ing to a planet formation model, one-third of the stars with
exoplanets can support a terrestrial planet in their habitable
zones [83]. Another interesting possibility is the presence of
Trojans or satellites around the giant exoplanets that may
be habitable [e.g., Ref. [161]].
Trojans are bodies that lie on the gravitational points of
equilibrium created by two larger bodies. In the Solar Sys-
tem, Trojans are the satellites trapped where the gravita-
tional forces of the Sun and a planet have equal strength.
There are five of these equilibrium points for any orbiting
body (Lagrangian points) and those that lie on the orbit
of the planet are called L4 and L5. The bodies on L4 and
L5 have the same mean semi-major axis; this is known as
a 1:1 resonance. Dynamical simulations for four systems
(HD 17051, HD 27442, HD 28185 and HD 108874) with
one exoplanet in the habitable zone, showed that three of
them could maintain Trojans on dynamical stability within
15
the habitable zone [161]. As for detection of these bodies,
Ford and Holman [162] have proposed that Earth-mass Tro-
jan planets could induce a transit timing signal that is easily
measurable using existing ground-based observatories.
Another possibility for habitable worlds in the known exo-
planetary systems are moons that may orbit giant planets
that lie in the habitable zone of their parent stars [163, 164].
In order to be habitable, a moon needs to overcome more
constraints than a regular habitable planet, such as becom-
ing tidally locked (which could result on large diurnal tem-
perature fluctuations). According to Williams et al. [163], a
moon orbiting an exoplanet in the habitable zone may be
habitable if the moon’s mass is larger than 0.12 M⊕ , it is in
an Io-like orbital resonance and posses a magnetic field (like
Jupiter’s moon Ganymede). Based on this, they suggested
that the 47 UMa and 16 Cyg B planetary systems should be
considered as possible abodes of extraterrestrial life. Scharf
[164] has proposed that the habitable zone for moons, what
he calls the temperate zone, could be extended farther from
the star than the habitable zone for planets. The reason for
this is that moons can get energy from tidal heat dissipa-
tion, in addition to their insolation energy. Despite the small
size of a moon compared to its planet, it may be possible to
detect it using the 1–4 m spectral region, where methane,
ammonia, and water strongly absorb the reflected light of a
giant planet [165]. In this window, the spectrum of an Earth-
like moon may be detected [165], but until now there is no
mission planned to cover this region of the electromagnetic
spectrum.
Among the exoplanetary systems discovered until now
(August 2007), there is one that has is particularly inter-
esting. The system of Gl 581 has 3 exoplanets: Gl 581 b,
an ∼1-Neptune-mass planet at 0.041 AU from the primary
[166]; Gl 581 c, a 5-Earth-mass planet at 0.073 AU [167]
and Gl 581 d, an 8-Earth-mass planet at 0.25 AU [167]. Two
planets of the Gl 581 system have masses low enough to be
considered as candidates for habitable planets. Udry et al.
[167] pointed out that Gl 581 c resided “at the ‘warm’ edge
of the habitable zone of the star” and Gl 581 d was “in the
‘cold’ edge of the habitable zone.” The potential habitabil-
ity of these two planets was later analyzed by other authors
[168–170] who agree on the possibility that Gl 581 d may
be a habitable planet. For Gl 581 c positions differ, Selsis
et al. [168] and Chylek and Perez [170] conclude that this
planet should no be ruled out as habitable, while von Bloh
et al. [169] state that this planet is “clearly outside the hab-
itable zone.” On Gl 581 c there is the possibility that the
photolysis of H2 O followed by the loss of H2 have left a rich
O2 atmosphere that cannot be distinguished from a photo-
synthetically produced O2 atmosphere unless other biosigna-
tures can be detected [168]. Without a doubt, as Selsis et al.
conclude, the Gl 581 planetary system should be considered
as a target for the Darwin and TPF missions in order to
determine the properties of these planets and to constrain
their potential as habitable worlds.
6. CONCLUDING REMARKS
The next decade will be one of great discoveries, the
first Earth-size planets orbiting within their habitable zone,
16
detected by missions like CoRoT and Kepler. These first-
generation space-based telescopes will test the presence of
terrestrial planets around other stars. Using Darwin and
TPF we will be able to determine which of those planets
may be habitable further in the future, collecting the plan-
ets’ own light. The modeling of habitable planets is essential
to plan and optimize those missions and to interpret their
results. We are standing on the edge of a new era of great
discoveries. Within our generation, comparative planetology
will be extended out of our Solar System and we will know
whether planets like ours are common in the universe.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank V. Meadows for allowing the use of the data
generated by the Virtual Planetary Laboratory and her and
F. Selsis for their input on biosignatures, S. Raymond for
helpful discussions on planetary formation, M. Fridlund for
helpful discussions on future missions, and we are espe-
cially thankful to J. Kasting for his comments that greatly
improved this paper.
REFERENCES
1. J. Cernicharo and J. Crovisier, Space Sci. Rev. 119, 29 (2005).
2. D. J. DesMarais, M. O. Harwit, K. W. Jucks, J. F. Kasting, D. N.
C. Lin, J. I. Lunine, J. Schneider, S. Seager, W. A. Traub, and N. J.
Woolf, Astrobiology 2, 153 (2002).
3. C. Sagan and E. E. Salpeter, Astrophys. J. Supp. S. 32, 737 (1976).
4. S. K. Atreya, “Atmosphere and Ionospheres of the Outer Planets
and their Satellites.” Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1986.
5. H. Morowitz, Nature 215, 1259 (1967).
6. C. Sagan, Nature 216, 1198 (1967).
7. J. Seckback and W. F. Libby, “Planetary Atmospheres” (C. Sagan,
T. C. Owen, and H. J. Smith, Eds.), p. 62. International Astronom-
ical Union. Symposium No. 40, Dordrecht, Reidel, 1971.
8. S. Cockell, Planet. Space Sci. 47, 1487 (1999).
9. D. Schulze-Makuch and L. N. Irwin, Astrobiology 2, 197 (2002).
10. D. Shulze-Makuch, D. H. Grinspoon, O. Abbas, L. N. Irwin, and
M. A. Bullock, Astrobiology 4, 11 (2004).
11. J. F. Kasting, J. B. Pollack, and T. P. Ackerman, Icarus 57, 335
(1984).
12. J. F. Kasting, Icarus 74, 472 (1988).
13. C. P. McKay and C. R. Stoker, Rev. Geophys. 27, 189 (1989).
14. H. J. Melosh and A. M. Vickery, Nature 338, 487 (1989).
15. M. C. Turnbull and J. C. Tarter, Astrophys. J. Supp. S. 145, 181
(2003).
16. J. Catanzarite, M. Shao, A. Tanner, S. Unwin, and J. Yu, Pub.
Astron. Soc. Pacific 118, 1319 (2006).
17. M. Ikoma and H. Genda, Astrophys. J. 684, 696 (2006).
18. J. Laskar, F. Joutel, and P. Robutel, Nature 361, 615 (1993).
19. D. M. Williams and J. F. Kasting, Icarus 129, 254 (1997).
20. D. M. Williams and D. Pollard, Int. J. Astrobiology 2, 1 (2003).
21. E. Gaidos, B. Deschenes, L. Dundon, K. Fagan, C. Mcnaughton,
L. Menviel-Hessler, N. Moskovitz, and M. Workman, Astrobiology
5, 100 (2005).
22. S. S. Huang, Am. Sci. 47, 397 (1959).
23. S. S. Huang, Sci. Am. 202, 55 (1960).
24. S. I. Rasool and C. DeBergh, Nature 226, 1037 (1970).
25. M. H. Hart, Icarus 37, 351 (1979).
26. J. F. Kasting, D. P. Whitmire, and R. T. Reynolds, Icarus 101, 108
(1993).
27. M. H. Hart, Icarus 33, 23 (1978).
28. D. M. Williams and D. Pollard, Int. J. Astrobiology 1, 61 (2002).
Search for Habitable Planets
29. G. V. Y. Peña-Cabrera and H. J. Durand-Manterola, Adv. Space
Res. 33, 114 (2004).
30. A. P. Buccino, G. A. Lemarchand, and P. J. D. Mauas, Icarus 183,
491 (2006).
31. A. P. Buccino, G. A. Lemarchand, and P. J. D. Mauas, Icarus
(2007), accepted.
32. G. González, D. Brownlee, and P. Ward, Icarus 152, 185 (2001).
33. C. H. Lineweaver, Y. Fenner, and B. K. Gibson, Science 303, 59
(2004).
34. A. A. Pavlov, A. K. Pavlov, M. J. Mills, V. M. Ostryakov, G. I.
Vasilyev, and O. B. Toon, Geophys. Res. Lett. 32, L01815 (2005).
35. A. A. Pavlov, O. B. Toon, A. K. Pavlov, J. Bally, and D. Pollard,
Geophys. Res. Lett. 32, L03705 (2005).
36. S. J. Mojzsis, G. Arrhenius, K. D. McKeegan, T. M. Harrison, A. P.
Nutman, and C. R. L. Friend, Nature 384, 55 (1996).
37. F. Forget, Earth Moon Planet. 81, 59 (1998).
38. A. Gould, E. B. Ford, and D. A. Fischer, Astrophys. J. 591, L155
(2003).
39. L. Kaltenegger, C. Eiroa, A. Stankov, and C. V. M. Fridlund,
Astron. Astrophys. (2007), submitted.
40. H. Lammer, Astrobiology 7, 27 (2007).
41. J. C. Tarter, P. R. Backus, R. L. Mancinelli, J. M. Aurnou,
D. E. Backman, G. S. Basri, A. P. Boss, A. Clarke, D. Deming,
L. R. Doyle, E. D. Feigelson, F. Freund, D. H. Grinspoon,
R. M. Haberle, S. A. Hauck, M. J. Heath, T. J. Henry, J. L.
Hollingsworth, M. M. Joshi, S. Kilston, M. C. Liu, E. Meikle,
N. Reid, L. J. Rothschild, J. Scalo, A. Segura, C. M. Tang, J. M.
Tiedje, M. C. Turnbull, L. M. Walkowicz, A. L. Weber, and R. E.
Young, Astrobiology 7, 66 (2007).
42. J. Scalo, L. Kaltenegger, A. Segura, M. Fridlund, I. Ribas, Y. N.
Kulikov, J. L. Grenfell, H. Rauer, P. Odert, M. Leitzinger, F. Selsis,
M. L. Khodachenko, C. Eiroa, J. Kasting, and H. Lammer, Astro-
biology 7, 85 (2007).
43. G. Marcy, R. P. Butler, D. Fischer, S. Vogt, J. T. Wright, C. G.
Tinney, and H. R. A. Jones, Progress of Theoretical Physics Supple-
ment 158, 24 (2005).
44. S. Udry and N. C. Santos, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 45, 397
(2007).
45. G. González, “Brown Dwarfs and Extrasolar Planets” (R. Rebolo,
E. L. Martín, and M. R. Zapatero Ozorio, Eds.), Vol. 134, p. 431.
ASP Conference Series, 1998.
46. G. Porto de Mello, E. F. del Peloso, and L. Ghezzi, Astrobio 6, 308
(2006).
47. L. Kaltenegger, Search for Extra-Terrestrial Planets: The Darwin
Mission Target Stars and Array Architectures, Ph.D. Thesis, 2004,
available at http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0504497.
48. M. Mugrauer, R. Neuhäuser, and T. Mazeh, Astron. Astrophys. 469,
755 (2007).
49. A. P. Hatzes, W. D. Cochran, M. Endl, B. McArthur, D. B.
Paulson, G. A. H. Walker, B. Campbell, and S. Yang, Astrophys. J.
599, 1383 (2003).
50. W. D. Cochran, A. P. Hatzes, R. P. Butler, and G. W. Marcy, Astro-
phys. J. 483, 457 (1997).
51. S. Zucker, D. Naef, D. W. Latham, M. Mayor, T. Mazeh, J. L.
Beuzit, G. Drukier, C. Perrier-Bellet, D. Queloz, J. P. Sivan, G.
Torres, and S. Udry, Astrophys. J. 568, 363 (2002).
52. D. A. Fischer, G. W. Marcy, R. P. Butler, S. S. Vogt, G. W. Henry,
D. Pourbaix, B. Walp, A. A. Misch, and J. T. Wright, Astrophys. J.
586, 1394 (2003).
53. M. Konacki, Nature 436, 230 (2005).
54. M. Bonavita and S. Desidera, Astron. Astrophys. 468, 721, (2007).
55. D. P. Whitmire, J. J. Matese, L. Criswell, and S. Mikkola, Icarus
132, 186 (1998).
56. E. V. Quintana and J. J. Lissauer, Icarus 185, 1 (2006).
57. J. L. Monin, C. J. Clarke, L. Prato and C. McCabe, “Protostars
and Planets V” (B. Reipurth, D. Jewitt, and K. Keil, Eds.), p. 395.
University of Arizona Press, Tucson, 2007.
Search for Habitable Planets
58. E. Pilat-Lohinger, R. Dvorak, E. Bois, B. Funk, “Extrasolar Plan-
ets: Today and Tomorrow” (J.-P. Beaulieu, A. L. des Etangs, and
C. Terquem, Eds.), Vol. 321, p. 410. ASP Conference Proceedings,
Paris, France, 2004.
59. E. Rivera and N. Haghighipour, Mon. Not. Royal Astron. Soc. 374,
599 (2007).
60. E. B. Ford, Pub. Astron. Soc. Pacific 118, 364 (2006).
61. J. C. B. Papaloizou and C. Terquem, Rep. Prog. Phys. 69, 119 (2006).
62. B. Reipurth, D. Jewitt, and K. Keil, Eds., “Protostars and Planets
V.” University of Arizona Press, Tucson, 2007.
63. J. E. Chambers, Earth Planet Sci. Lett. 223, 241 (2004).
64. C. F. Chyba, Nature 330, 632 (1987).
65. T. Owen and A. Bar-Nun, Icarus 116, 215 (1995).
66. A. H. Delsemme, “Comets and the Origin and Evolution of Life”
(P. J. Thomas, C. F. Chyba, and C. P. McKay, Eds.), p. 29. Springer-
Verlag, New York, 1997.
67. H. Balsiger, K. Altwegg, and J. Geiss, J. Geophys. Res. 100, 5827
(1995).
68. R. Meier, T. C. Owen, D. C. Jewitt, H. E. Matthews, M. Senay,
N. Biver, D. Bockelee-Morvan, J. Crovisier, and D. Gautier,
Science 279, 1707 (1998).
69. D. Bockelee-Morvan, D. Gautier, D. C. Lis, K. Young, J. Keene,
T. Phillips, T. Owen, J. Crovisier, P. F. Goldsmith, E. A. Bergin,
D. Despois, and A. Wootten, Icarus 133, 147 (1998).
70. A. Morbidelli, J. Chambers, J. I. Lunine, J. M. Petit, F. Robert,
G. B. Vasecchi, and K. E. Cyr, Meterit. Planet. Sci. 35, 1309 (2000).
71. M. J. Drake and K. Righter, Nature 416, 39 (2002).
72. S. N. Raymond, T. Quinn, and J. I. Lunine, Astrobiology 7, 66
(2007).
73. D. P. O’Brien, A. Morbidelli, and H. F. Levinson, Icarus 184, 39
(2006).
74. J. E. Chambers and P. Cassen, Meteor. Planet. Sci. 37, 1523 (2002).
75. S. N. Raymond, T. Quinn, and J. I. Lunine, Icarus 168, 1 (2004).
76. G. Marcy, R. P. Butler, D. Fischer, S. Vogt, J. T. Wright, C. G.
Tinney, and H. R. A. Jones, Prog. Theoret. Phys. Supp. 158, 24
(2005).
77. P. Ward and D. Brownlee, “Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is
Uncommon in the Universe.” Copernicus, New York, 2000.
78. C. H. Lineweaver, Icarus 151, 307 (2001).
79. A. M. Mandell and S. Sigurdsson, Astrophys. J. 599, L111 (2003).
80. R. Edgar and P. Artymowicz, Mon. Not. Royal Astron. Soc. 534,
769 (2004).
81. M. J. Fogg and R. P. Nelson, Astron Astrophys. 441, 791 (2005).
82. M. J. Fogg and R. P. Nelson, Astron Astrophys. 461, 1195 (2007).
83. S. N. Raymond, A. M. Mandell, and S. Sigurdsson, Science 313,
1413 (2006).
84. H. F. Levison and C. Agnor, Astron. J. 125, 2692 (2003).
85. J. S. Greaves, D. A. Fischer, and M. C. Wyatt, Mon. Not. Royal
Astron. Soc. 366, 283 (2006).
86. S. N. Raymond, J. Scalo, J. and V. S. Meadows, Astrophys. J.
Lett. (2007), accepted, preprint available at http://arxiv.org/abs/
0707.1711.
87. S. N. Raymond, T. Quinn and J. I. Lunine, Astrophys. J. 632, 670
(2005).
88. C. Sagan, W. R. Thompson, R. Carlson, D. Gurnett, and C. Hord,
Nature 365, 715 (1993).
89. D. Charbonneau, T. M. Brown, R. W. Noyes, and R. L. Gilliland,
Astrophys. J. 568, 377 (2006).
90. A. Vidal-Madjar, A. Lecavelier des Étangs, J. M. Désert, G. E.
Ballester, R. Ferlet, G. Hébrart, and M. Mayor, Nature 422, 143
(2004).
91. G. E. Ballester, D. K. Sing, and F. Herbert, Nature 445, 511 (2007).
92. D. Deming, S. Seager, L. J. Richardson, and J. Harrington, Nature
435, 740 (2005).
93. D. Charbonneau, L. E. Allen, S. T. Megeath, G. Torres, R. Alonso,
T. M. Brown, R. L. Gilliland, D. W. Latham, G. Mandushev, F. T.
O’Donovan, and A. Sozzetti, Astrophys. J. 626, 523 (2005).
17
94. H. A. Knutson, D. Charbonneau, L. E. Allen, J. J. Fortney,
E. Agol, N. B. Cowan, A. P. Showman , C. S. Cooper, and S. T.
Megeath, Nature 447, 183 (2007).
95. T. Barman, Astrophys. J. 661, L191 (2007).
96. G. Tinetti, A. Vidal-Madjar, M. C. Liang, J. P. Beaulieu, Y. Yung,
S. Carey, R. J. Barber, J. Tennyson, I. Ribas, N. Allard, G. E.
Ballester, D. K. Sing, and F. Selsis, Nature 448, 169 (2007).
97. V. S. Meadows, “Direct Imaging of Exoplanets: Science and Tech-
niques” (C. Aime and F. Vakili, Eds.), pp. 25–34. Proceedings of
IAU Coll. 200, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2006.
98. G. Tinetti, V. S. Meadows, D. Crisp, W. Fong, E. Fishbein,
M. Turnbull, and J.-P. Bibring, Astrobiology 6, 34 (2006).
99. G. Tinetti, V. S. Meadows, D. Crisp, N. Y. Kiang, B. H. Kahn,
E. Bosc, E. Fishbein, T. Velusamy, and M. Turnbull1, Astrobiology
6, 881 (2006).
100. L. Kaltenegger, W. A. Traub, and K. Jucks, Astrophys. J. 658, 598
(2007).
101. A. Segura, V. S. Meadows, J. F. Kasting, D. Crisp, and M. Cohen,
Astronon. Astrophys. 472, 665 (2007).
102. P. McCullough, “Astrophysics Enabled by the Return to the
Moon” (M. Livio, Ed.), Cambridge University Press, Camdrige,
2007, eprint available at http://arXiv/abs/astro-ph/0703328.
103. D. M. Stam, Astron. Astrophys. submitted, eprint available at
http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.3905v1 [astro-ph].
104. T. Owen, “Strategies for the Search for Life in the Universe,”
p. 177. Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1980.
105. J. E. Lovelock and I. R. Kaplan, Proc. Royal. Soc. Lond. B. 189,
167 (1975).
106. W. A. Traub and K. Jucks, AGU Monograph Series 130, 369
(2002).
107. A. Leger, M. Pirre, and F. J. Marceau, Astron. Astrophys. 277, 309
(1993).
108. C. A. Beichman, N. J. Woolf, and C. A. Lindensmith, “The Terres-
trial Planet Finder (TPF).: A NASA Origins Program to Search for
Habitable Planets/The TPF Science Working Group.” Washington
DC, NASA JPL, JPL publication 99–3, 1999.
109. C. A. Beichman, M. Fridlund, W. A. Traub, K. R. Stapelfeldt,
A. Quirrenbach, and S. Seager, “Protostars and Planets V”
(B. Reipurth, D. Jewitt, and K. Keil, Eds.), p. 915. University of
Arizona Press, Tucson, 2006.
110. M. Fridlund, “DARWIN: The Infrared Space Interferometer,”
Vol. 12, p. 47. ESA-SCI, Leiden, 2000.
111. L. Kaltenegger and M. Fridlund, Adv. Space Res. 36, 1114
(2005).
112. P. J. Borde and W. A. Traub, Astrophys. J. 638, 488 (2006).
113. F. Selsis, “Darwin and Astronomy: The Infrared Space Interfer-
ometer,” Vol. 451, p. 133. ESA SP, 2000.
114. A. Segura, K. Krelove, J. F. Kasting, D. Sommerlatt, V. Meadows,
D. Crisp, M. Cohen, and E. Mlawer, Astrobiology 3, 689 (2003).
115. A. Segura, J. F. Kasting, V. Meadows, M. Cohen, J. Scalo, D. Crisp,
D., R. A. H. Butler, and G. Tinetti, Astrobiology 5, 706 (2005).
116. D. Valencia, R. J. O’Connell, and D. Sasselov, Icarus 181, 545
(2006).
117. C. Sotin, O. Grasset, and A. Moquet, Icarus (2007), in press.
118. T. L. Schindler and J. F. Kasting, Icarus 145, 262 (2000).
119. A. A. Pavlov, J. F. Kasting, L. L. Brown, K. A. Rages, and
R. Freedman, J. Geophys. Res. 105, 981 (2000).
120. F. Selsis, D. Despois, and J.-P. Parisot, Astron. Astrophys. 388, 985
(2002).
121. J. C. G. Walker, “Evolution of the Atmosphere.” Macmillan,
New York and Collier Macmillan, London, 1977.
122. D. Nna-Mvondo, R. Navarro-González, F. Raulin, and P. Coll, Ori-
gins Life Evol. Bios. 35, 401 (2005).
123. E. Ford, S. Seager, and E. L. Turner, Nature 412, 885 (2001).
124. J. Paillet, Spectral Characterization of Terrestrial Exoplanets,
Ph.D. Thesis, 2006.
18
125. L. Arnold, S. Gillet, O. Lardiere, P. Riaud, and J. Schneider,
Astron. Astrophys. 392, 231 (2002).
126. P. Montañés-Rodríguez, E. Pallé, P. R. Goode, and F. J. Martín-
Torres, Astrophys. J. 651, 544 (2006).
127. P. Montañés-Rodríguez, E. Pallé, P. R. Goode, J. Hickey, and S. E.
Koonin, Astrophys. J. 629, 1175 (2005).
128. S. Seager and E. B. Ford, “Astrophysics of Life” (M. Livio, I. N.
Reid, and W. B. Sparks, Eds.), Vol. 16, p. 67. Space Telescope
Science Institute Symposium Series, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK, 2002.
129. S. Hamdani, L. Arnold, C. Foellmi, J. Berthier, D. Briot,
P. François, P. Riaud, and J. Schneider, “Direct Imaging of Exo-
planets: Science and Techniques” (C. Aime and F. Vakili, Eds.),
pp. 83–88. Proceedings of IAU Coll. 200, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, 2006.
130. N. Y. Kiang, A. Segura, G. Tinetti, Govindjee, R. E. Blankenship,
M. Cohen, J. Siefert, D. Crisp, and V. S. Meadows, Astrobiology 7,
252 (2007).
131. F. Selsis, Proc. ESA-SP539, ESA Netherlands, 2003.
132. E. Gaidos and D. M. Williams, New Astronomy 10, 67 (2004).
133. J. F. Kasting and D. Catling, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 41, 429
(2003).
134. J. F. Kasting, Sci. Am. July 80 (2004).
135. A. A. Pavlov, M. T. Hurtgen, J. F. Kasting, and M. A. Arthur,
Geology 31, 87 (2003).
136. M. J. Kuchner, Astrophys. J. 596, L105 (2003).
137. A. Léger, F. Selsis, C. Sotin, T. Guillot, D. Despois, D. Mawet,
M. Ollivier, A. Labèque, C. Valette, F. Brachet, B. Chazelas, and
H. Lammer, Icarus 169, 499 (2004).
138. F. Selsis, B. Chazelas, P. Bordé, M. Ollivier, F. Brachet,
M. Decaudin, F. Bouchy, D. Ehrenreich, J.-M. Grießmeier,
H. Lammer, C. Sotin, O. Grasset, C. Moutou, P. Barge, M. Deleuil,
D. Mawet, D. Despois, J. F. Kasting, and A. Léger, Icarus
(2007), accepted, version 2 available at http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-
ph/0701608.
139. S. Udry, X. Bonfils, X. Delfosse, T. Forveille, M. Mayor, C. Perrier,
F. Bouchy, C. Lovis, F. Pepe, D. Queloz, and J.-L Bertaux, Astron.
Astrophys. 469, L43 (2007).
140. E. Rivera, J. J. Lissauer, R. P. Butler, G. W. Marcy, S. S. Vogt,
D. A. Fischer, T. M. Brown, G. Laughlin, and G. W. Henry, Astro-
phys. J. 634, 625 (2005).
141. J.-P. Beaulieu, D. P. Bennett, P. Fouqué, A. Williams, M. Dominik,
U. G. Jorgensen, D. Kubas, A. Cassan, C. Coutures, J. Greenhill,
K. Hill, J. Menzies, P. D. Sackett, M. Albrow, S. Brillant, J. A. R.
Caldwell, J. J. Calitz, K. H. Cook, E. Corrales, M. Desort,
S. Dieters, D. Dominis, J. Donatowicz, M. Hoffman, S. Kane,
J.-B. Marquette, R. Martin, P. Meintjes, K. Pollard, K. Sahu,
C. Vinter, J. Wambsganss, K. Woller, K. Horne, I. Steele, D. M.
Bramich, M. Burgdorf, C. Snodgrass, M. Bode, A. Udalski, M. K.
Szymañski, M. Kubiak, T. Wiêckowski, G. Pietrzyñski, I. Soszyñski,
O. Szewczyk, Ł. Wyrzykowski, B. Paczyñski, F. Abe, I. A. Bond,
T. R. Britton, A. C. Gilmore, J. B. Hearnshaw, Y. Itow, K. Kamiya,
P. M. Kilmartin, A. V. Korpela, K. Masuda, Y. Matsubara,
M. Motomura, Y. Muraki, S. Nakamura, C. Okada, K. Ohnishi,
N. J. Rattenbury, T. Sako, S. Sato, M. Sasaki, T. Sekiguchi, D. J.
Sullivan, P. J. Tristram, P. S. M. Yock, and T. Yoshioka, Nature 439,
437 (2006).
142. A. Gould, A. Udalski, D. An, D. P. Bennett, A.-Y. Zhou, S. Dong,
N. J. Rattenbury, B. S. Gaudi, P. C. M. Yock, I. A. Bond, G. W.
Christie, K. Horne, J. Anderson, K. Z. Stanek, D. L. DePoy,
C. Han, J. McCormick, B.-G. Park, R. W. Pogge, S. D. Poindexter,
I. Soszyñski, M. K. Szymañski, M. Kubiak, G. Pietrzyñski,
O. Szewczyk, Ł. Wyrzykowski, K. Ulaczyk, B. Paczyñski, D. M.
Bramich, C. Snodgrass, I. A. Steele, M. J. Burgdorf, M. F. Bode,
C. S. Botzler, S. Mao, and S. C. Swaving, Astrophys. J. 644, L37
(2006).
Search for Habitable Planets
143. D. Rouan, A. Baglin, E. Copet, J. Schneider, P. Barge, M. Deleuil,
A. Vuillemin, and A. Leger, Earth. Moon. Plan. 81, 79 (2000).
144. W. J. Borucki, D. G. Koch, E. W. Dunham, and J. M. Jenkins,
“Planets Beyond the Solar System and the Next Generation of
Space Missions” (D. Soderblom, Ed.), Vol. 119, p. 153. ASP Con-
ference Series, 1997.
145. W. A. Traub, S. T. Ridgway, C. A. Beichman, K. J. Johnston,
J. Kasting, and M. Shao, “Direct Imaging of Exoplanets: Science
& Techniques” (C. Aime, and F. Vakili, Eds.), Vol. 200, p. 399.
Proceedings of the IAU Colloquium, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK, 2006.
146. J. Harrington, B. M. Hansen, S. H. Luszcz, S. Seager, D. Deming,
K. Menou, J. Y.-K. Cho, and L. J. Richardson, Science 314, 623
(2006).
147. M. Fridlund and L. Kaltenegger, “Extrasolar Planets: Formation,
Detection and Dynamics” (R. Dvorak Ed.), WILEY-VCH Verlag
GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim, 2007, ISBN: 978-3-527-40671-5,
in press.
148. D. Reuyl and E. Holmberg, Astrophys. J. 97, 41 (1943).
149. G. F. Benedict, B. E. McArthur, T. Forveille, X. Delfosse,
E. Nelan, R. P. Butler, W. Spiesman, G. Marcy, B. Goldman,
C. Perrier, W. H. Jefferys, and M. Mayor, Astrophys. J. 581, L115
(2002).
150. L. Boisnard and M. Auvergne, “The CoRoT Mission–Pre-Launch
Status,” ESA SP, 1306, 2007.
151. M. A. C. Perryman, Astrophys. Space Sci. 280, 1 (2002).
152. E. B. Ford and S. Tremaine, Pub. Astron. Soc. Pac. 115, 1171
(2003).
153. A. Leger, J. M. Mariotti, B. Mennesson, M. Ollivier, J. L. Puget,
D. Rouan, and J. Schneider, Icarus 123, 249 (1996).
154. A. Leger, J. M. Mariotti, B. Mennesson, M. Ollivier, J. L. Puget,
D. Rouan, and J. Schneider, Astrophys. Space Sci. 241, 135 (1996).
155. C. Beichman, “Darwin and Astronomy: The Infrared Space Inter-
ferometer,” European Space Agency, Noordwijk, The Nether-
lands, ESA SP 451, p. 239, 2000.
156. A. Leger and T. Herbst, arXiv:0707.3385 (2007).
157. H. Levine, S. Shaklan, and J. Kasting, “Terrestrial Planet Finder
Coronagraph Science and Technology Definition Team (STDT),”
Report Technical Report Jet Propulsion Laboratory: Pasadena,
CA, 2006.
158. C. A. Beichman, N. J. Woolf, and C. A. Lindensmith, Eds., “The
Terrestrial Planet Finder (TPF).: A NASA Origins Program to
Search for Habitable Planets, JPL Publications, 1999.
159. B. W. Jones, D. R. Underwood, and P. N. Sleep, Astrophys. J. 622,
1091 (2005).
160. B. W. Jones, P. N. Sleep, and D. R. Underwood, Astrophys. J. 649,
1010 (2006).
161. R. Schwarz, E. Pilat-Lohinger, R. Dvorak, B. Érdi, and Z. Sándor,
Astrobiology 5, 579 (2005).
162. E. B. Ford and M. J. Holman, Astrophys. J. 664, L51 (2007).
163. D. M. Williams, J. F. Kasting, and R. A. Wade, Nature 385, 234
(1997).
164. C. A. Scharf, Astrophys. J. 648, 1196 (2006).
165. D. M. Williams and R. F. Knacke, Astrobiology 4, 400 (2004).
166. X. Bonfils1, T. Forveille, X. Delfosse, S. Udry, M. Mayor,
C. Perrier, F. Bouchy, F. Pepe, D. Queloz, and J.-L. Bertaux,
Astron. Astrophys. 443, L15 (2005).
167. S. Udry, X. Bonfils, X. Delfosse, T. Forveille, M. Mayor, C. Perrier,
F. Bouchy, C. Lovis, F. Pepe, D. Queloz, and J.-L. Bertaux, Astron.
Astrophys. 469, L43 (2007).
168. F. Selsis, J. F. Kasting, B. Levrard, J. Paillet, I. Ribas, and
X. Delfosse, Astron. Astropys. (2007).
169. W. von Bloh, C. Bounama, M. Cuntz, and S. Franck, Astron. Astro-
phys. 2007, available at http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.3758v2 [astro-ph].
170. P. Chylek and M. R. Perez, Astron. Astrophys. (2007),
http://arxiv.org/abs/0709.1476v1 [astro-ph].