A Plethora of Planets: Number of Known Exoplanets Soaring

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


"We are really in the age of discovery of new worlds." That was Lisa Kaltenegger of the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy in Heidelberg, Germany, and the Harvard–Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, during a September 12 press conference in which European researchers announced the discovery of about 50 planets new to science.

There are now 685 exoplanets, or worlds orbiting distant stars, catalogued in the online Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia. And the catalogue is growing at an ever-increasing rate. During the planetary conference last week in Wyoming where Kaltenegger and her colleagues rolled out their new findings, the number of known planets jumped by more than 10 percent.

The graph below breaks down the 685 known planets by their year of discovery. The graph is cumulative; it shows the number of known planets up to and including any given year. The slope of the graph shows how quickly the pace of discovery has been ramping up: in 2009, 82 planets were found. Last year the number was 110. And in just the first three quarters of 2011, 163 of the known planets have been discovered.


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.


A trend line computed by Microsoft Excel (red line in lower graph) shows that the growth is not quite exponential, but it's close.

A number of factors can help explain the field's takeoff. One is technological innovation—instruments such as the NASA Kepler spacecraft and the HARPS spectrograph on a European Southern Observatory telescope in Chile have brought dramatic improvements to astronomers' extrasolar vision. Another is manpower—exoplanet research is now a popular field attracting large numbers of young researchers. And a third is a simple snowball effect—early exoplanet discoveries proved that it was possible to detect faraway worlds and prompted other researchers to get in the game.

Some sharp-eyed readers may notice that the graphs stretch back to 1989, whereas the exoplanet community generally refers to 51 Pegasi b, discovered in 1995, as the first exoplanet. The disparity comes from how one chooses to define a planet: Is a planet-size object orbiting a pulsar a planet? Is a giant world roughly a dozen times the mass of Jupiter a planet or a brown dwarf? The catalogue's guidelines are fairly inclusive, as its curator explains here, meaning that some objects in the Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia will not meet every researcher's conditions for planethood.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe