New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Kepler Telescope Finds 700 New Exoplanets

Data from the damaged spacecraft reveal new worlds

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

NASA's Kepler space telescope was launched in 2009 and stopped taking data last year after a mechanical failure. Yet in its relatively short lifetime, it has offered up a wealth of discovery. In February scientists announced a new harvest that brought Kepler's tally of discovered planets to nearly 1,700. “This is the biggest haul ever,” says Jason Rowe of the nasa Ames Research Center, who co-led the research. The scientists studied more than 1,200 planetary systems and validated 715 planets. All the new worlds are members of multiplanet systems—stars with more than one orbiting satellite.

Researchers used a new method for weeding out false signals. Kepler searched for planets by measuring dips in a star's brightness, which occur when a planet passes in front of it. This technique, called the transiting method, is very accurate, but sometimes a nonplanet can fool the telescope. One of the most common reasons for a “false positive” is an eclipsing binary—a pair of orbiting stars that sometimes cross in front of each other from our perspective.

Stars with a single planet can be hard to distinguish from eclipsing binaries. But multiplanet systems are far less likely to be frauds. “It happens, but it's unlikely that you have two eclipsing binaries in the background of the same star,” says Francois Fressin of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, who was not involved in the study. It is also possible, albeit extremely unlikely, to have an eclipsing binary and a star with a planet lying right on top of each other.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Rowe and his colleagues tried to weed out false signals by examining light from the candidate planets. They looked for a particular signature known as a moving centroid: an off-center point of light that could be created only by an eclipsing binary, not by a planet.

What remained among the trove of ample discoveries: a potentially rocky world; an odd binary star system where each star has planets of its own; and cramped systems where the multiple planets are each gravitationally tugging one another around. “Of course, we have every type of planetary system in our validated set that people can think of except the perfect Earth analogue,” Rowe says. For now that remains Kepler's holy grail.

Clara Moskowitz is chief of reporters at Scientific American, where she covers astronomy, space, physics and mathematics. She has been at Scientific American for more than a decade; previously she worked at Space.com. Moskowitz has reported live from rocket launches, space shuttle liftoffs and landings, suborbital spaceflight training, mountaintop observatories, and more. She has a bachelor’s degree in astronomy and physics from Wesleyan University and a graduate degree in science communication from the University of California, Santa Cruz.

More by Clara Moskowitz
Scientific American Magazine Vol 310 Issue 5This article was published with the title “Kepler's Afterlife” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 310 No. 5 (), p. 20
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0514-20b

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe