1. Satellite meeting - Designating habitable planets for follow-up study: what are the relative parameter spaces of RV and astrometry? (P2 Panel) Scientific program Radial velocities to detect habitable planets in the visible: performance and limitations (F. Pepe) Radial velocities to detect habitable planets in the nIR: performance and limitations (E. Martin) Astrometry to detect habitable planets: performance and limitations (M. Shao) Astrometry to detect habitable planets: future prospects (F. Malbet) Double blind tests (W. Traub)

2. P1 = 8.67 days M sini = 10.2 M P2 = 31.6 days M sini = 11.8 M P3 = 197 days M sini = 18.1 M HD69830 - Lovis et al., Nature, 2006 Long-term precision σ O-C ~ 0.8 m/s rms (raw) ~ 0.3 m/s rms (time-binned) F. Pepe

3. Error sources Stellar noise (p modes, activity) Contaminants (Earths atmosphere, moon, etc.) Measurement noise Photon noise Instrumental errors (from calibration to measurement) Calibration accuracy (any technique) Beat the stellar limitations with good targe selection clever observational strategy F. Pepe

4. 23/01/08 - Reunión Plan Estratégico 4 NIR is full of telluric lines => RV precision limit of 20 m/s Nearby cool stars are plentiful HZ planets have stronger RV signal Current NIR RV precision ~20 m/s New instruments & calibration methods need to be developed to reach 1 m/s (CRIRES, CARMENES, NAHUAL, PRVS, SPIROU) E. Martín

5. Impact of Star Spots on Astrometry and RV We find that for the Earth-Sun system, starspots –do not appreciably interfere with astrometric detection. –impose significant requirements on the number of measurements and duration of an observing campaign needed for radial velocity detection. Example: Spot area 10 -3, Sun @ 10pc Astrometry RV Spot bias 0.25 as 1 m/s Earth @1AU amp 0.3 as 0.09 m/s Equiv ast noise ~0.08 as 0.3 as signature Equiv RV noise ~0.45 m/s 0.09 m/s signature M. Shao Relative to a planet in a 1yr orbit, the star spot noise for RV is ~10X larger than for Astrometry. (short periods favor RV, long periods favor Astrometry)

6. F. Malbet

8. Henry 1998 Martín et al. 2004 10 pc sample E. Martín

9. Conclusions Instrumental considerations: RV is a time-tested technique, although no proof yet that it can get to a few cm/s (superEarths are better) but only minimum mass Prospects seem good (50 cm/s today) NIR RVs can help for planets in the HZs around cool stars ~10-20 m/s achieved so far but 1 m/s needed Astrometry has 2D information and it is not severely affected by inclination degeneracy Astrometry has not been tested at the as level (best performance 300 as) Expensive space mission

10. Astrophysical noise Limitation to visible RVs since only inactive stars (a few 10s within 15 pc) can be observed to the highest accuracy This is less stringent for NIR RVs ½ of the jitter and more stars (Ms) Astrometry is less affected in solar-type stars Final considerations Astrometry seems better suited to carry out a census of habitable planets for follow up Especially so for Earth analogs (i.e., solar-like stars) RVs are more cost-efficient and can find some valuable systems early on (JWST?) NIR RVs have good potential for nearby stars

11. F. Malbet