A super-Earth and two sub-Neptunes transiting the nearby and quiet M dwarf TOI-270

Abstract

One of the primary goals of exoplanetary science is to detect small, temperate planets passing (transiting) in front of bright and quiet host stars. This enables the characterization of planetary sizes, orbits, bulk compositions, atmospheres and formation histories. These studies are facilitated by small and cool M dwarf host stars. Here we report the Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS)1 discovery of three small planets transiting one of the nearest and brightest M dwarf hosts observed to date, TOI-270 (TIC 259377017, with K-magnitude 8.3, and 22.5 parsecs away from Earth). The M3V-type star is transited by the super-Earth-sized planet TOI-270 b (\({1.247}_{ - 0.083}^{ + 0.089}\) R) and the sub-Neptune-sized planets TOI-270 c (2.42 ± 0.13 R) and TOI-270 d (2.13 ± 0.12 R). The planets orbit close to a mean-motion resonant chain, with periods (3.36 days, 5.66 days and 11.38 days, respectively) near ratios of small integers (5:3 and 2:1). TOI-270 is a prime target for future studies because (1) its near-resonance allows the detection of transit timing variations, enabling precise mass measurements and dynamical studies; (2) its brightness enables independent radial-velocity mass measurements; (3) the outer planets are ideal for atmospheric characterization via transmission spectroscopy; and (4) the quietness of the star enables future searches for habitable zone planets. Altogether, very few systems with small, temperate exoplanets are as suitable for such complementary and detailed characterization as TOI-270.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: The discovery data and orbits of the super-Earth and two sub-Neptunes transiting TOI-270.
Fig. 2: TOI-270 in the context of known exoplanets.
Fig. 3: Expected and apparent TTVs of the TOI-270 system.

Data availability

The TESS data analysed during the current study are available in the Mikulski Archive for Space Telescopes (MAST; http://archive.stsci.edu). The VLT NAOS-CONICA data analysed during the current study are available in the European Southern Observatory archive (http://archive.eso.org). All other datasets analysed and/or generated during the current study are available from M.N.G. on reasonable request.

Code availability

The following code used during the current study is publicly available (access information given in the respective references): python88, numpy89, scipy90, matplotlib91, tqdm (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1468033), seaborn (https://seaborn.pydata.org/index.html), allesfitter75, ellc76, aflare77, dynesty78, corner92, TESS Transit Finder, a customized version of the Tapir software package93, AstroImageJ94, ttvfast7 and REBOUND95. Any customized scripts built on these codes are available from M.N.G. on reasonable request.

Change history

  • 15 August 2019

    An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper.

References

  1. 1.

    Ricker, G. R. et al. Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS). Proc. SPIE 9143, 20 (2014).

  2. 2.

    Fulton, B. J. & Petigura, E. A. The California-Kepler survey. VII. Precise planet radii leveraging Gaia DR2 reveal the stellar mass dependence of the planet radius gap. Astron. J. 156, 264 (2018).

  3. 3.

    Van Eylen, V. et al. An asteroseismic view of the radius valley: stripped cores, not born rocky. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 479, 4786–4795 (2018).

  4. 4.

    Owen, J. E. & Wu, Y. Kepler planets: a tale of evaporation. Astrophys. J. 775, 105 (2013).

  5. 5.

    Fortney, J. J., Marley, M. S. & Barnes, J. W. Planetary radii across five orders of magnitude in mass and stellar insolation: application to transits. Astrophys. J. 659, 1661–1672 (2007).

  6. 6.

    Chen, J. & Kipping, D. Probabilistic forecasting of the masses and radii of other worlds. Astrophys. J. 834, 17 (2017).

  7. 7.

    Deck, K. M., Agol, E., Holman, M. J. & Nesvorný, D. TTVFast: an efficient and accurate code for transit timing inversion problems. Astrophys. J. 787, 132 (2014).

  8. 8.

    Mayor, M. et al. Setting new standards with HARPS. Messenger 114, 20–24 (2003).

  9. 9.

    Pepe, F. A. et al. ESPRESSO: the Echelle spectrograph for rocky exoplanets and stable spectroscopic observations. Proc. SPIE 7735, 77350F (2010).

  10. 10.

    Crossfield, I. J. M. et al. A nearby M star with three transiting super-Earths discovered by K2. Astrophys. J. 804, 10 (2015).

  11. 11.

    Montet, B. T. et al. Stellar and planetary properties of K2 campaign 1 candidates and validation of 17 planets, including a planet receiving Earth-like insolation. Astrophys. J. 809, 25 (2015).

  12. 12.

    Dittmann, J. A. et al. A temperate rocky super-Earth transiting a nearby cool star. Nature 544, 333–336 (2017).

  13. 13.

    Lissauer, J. J. et al. Architecture and dynamics of Kepler’s candidate multiple transiting planet systems. Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 197, 8 (2011).

  14. 14.

    Batalha, N. E. et al. PandExo: a community tool for transiting exoplanet science with JWST HST. Publ. Astron. Soc. Pacif. 129, 064501 (2017).

  15. 15.

    Kempton, E. M. R. et al. A framework for prioritizing the TESS planetary candidates most amenable to atmospheric characterization. Publ. Astron. Soc. Pacif. 130, 114401 (2018).

  16. 16.

    Hansen, B. M. S. & Murray, N. Testing in situ assembly with the Kepler planet candidate sample. Astrophys. J. 775, 53 (2013).

  17. 17.

    Millholland, S., Wang, S. & Laughlin, G. Kepler multi-planet systems exhibit unexpected intra-system uniformity in mass and radius. Astrophys. J. Lett. 849, 33 (2017).

  18. 18.

    Luger, R. & Barnes, R. Extreme water loss and abiotic O2 buildup on planets throughout the habitable zones of M dwarfs. Astrobiology 15, 119–143 (2015).

  19. 19.

    Serindag, D. B. & Snellen, I. A. G. Testing the detectability of extraterrestrial O2 with the extremely large telescopes using real data with real noise. Astrophys. J. Lett. 871, 7 (2019).

  20. 20.

    Schwieterman, E. W. et al. Identifying planetary biosignature impostors: spectral features of CO and O4 resulting from abiotic O2/O3 production. Astrophys. J. 819, L13 (2016).

  21. 21.

    Takai, K. et al. Cell proliferation at 122 °C and isotopically heavy CH4 production by a hyperthermophilic methanogen under high-pressure cultivation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 105, 10949–10954 (2008).

  22. 22.

    Noack, L. et al. Water-rich planets: how habitable is a water layer deeper than on Earth? Icarus 277, 215–236 (2016).

  23. 23.

    Kane, S. R. Worlds without moons: exomoon constraints for compact planetary systems. Astrophys. J. 839, L19 (2017).

  24. 24.

    Kopparapu, R. K. et al. Habitable zones around main-sequence stars: dependence on planetary mass. Astrophys. J. Lett. 787, 29 (2014).

  25. 25.

    Günther, M. N. et al. Stellar flares from the first TESS data release: exploring a new sample of M-dwarfs. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1901.00443 (2019).

  26. 26.

    Newton, E. R., Irwin, J., Charbonneau, D., Berta-Thompson, Z. K. & Dittmann, J. A. The impact of stellar rotation on the detectability of habitable planets around M dwarfs. Astrophys. J. Lett. 821, 19 (2016).

  27. 27.

    Lammer, H. et al. Coronal mass ejection (CME) activity of low mass M stars as an important factor for the habitability of terrestrial exoplanets. II. CME-induced ion pick up of Earth-like exoplanets in close-in habitable zones. Astrobiology 7, 185–207 (2007).

  28. 28.

    Cohen, O. et al. The interaction of Venus-like, M-dwarf planets with the stellar wind of their host star. Astrophys. J. 806, 41 (2015).

  29. 29.

    Tilley, M. A., Segura, A., Meadows, V., Hawley, S. & Davenport, J. Modeling repeated M dwarf flaring at an Earth-like planet in the habitable zone: atmospheric effects for an unmagnetized planet. Astrobiology 19, 64–86 (2019).

  30. 30.

    Gillon, M. et al. Seven temperate terrestrial planets around the nearby ultracool dwarf star TRAPPIST-1. Nature 542, 456–460 (2017).

  31. 31.

    Stassun, K. G. et al. The TESS input catalog and candidate target list. Astron. J. 156, 102 (2018).

  32. 32.

    Muirhead, P. S. et al. A catalog of cool dwarf targets for the transiting exoplanet survey satellite. Astron. J. 155, 180 (2018).

  33. 33.

    Jenkins, J. M. The impact of solar-like variability on the detectability of transiting terrestrial planets. Astrophys. J. 575, 493–505 (2002).

  34. 34.

    Jenkins, J. M. et al. Transiting planet search in the Kepler pipeline. In Software and Cyberinfrastructure for Astronomy Vol. 7740,77400D (SPIE, 2010).

  35. 35.

    Smith, J. C. et al. Kepler presearch data conditioning II—A Bayesian approach to systematic error correction. Publ. Astron. Soc. Pacif. 124, 1000 (2012).

  36. 36.

    Stumpe, M. C. et al. Multiscale systematic error correction via wavelet-based bandsplitting in Kepler data. Publ. Astron. Soc. Pacif. 126, 100 (2014).

  37. 37.

    Jenkins, J. M. et al. The TESS science processing operations center. In Software and Cyberinfrastructure for Astronomy IV Vol. 9913, 99133E (SPIE, 2016).

  38. 38.

    Jenkins, J. M. (ed) Kepler Data Processing Handbook KSCI-19081-002 (NASA, 2017).

  39. 39.

    Cameron, A. C. Extrasolar planets: astrophysical false positives. Nature 48–50 (2012).

  40. 40.

    Günther, M. N. et al. A new yield simulator for transiting planets and false positives: application to the next generation transit survey. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 465, 3379–3389 (2017).

  41. 41.

    Günther, M. N. et al. Unmasking the hidden NGTS-3Ab: a hot Jupiter in an unresolved binary system. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 478, 4720–4737 (2018).

  42. 42.

    Lissauer, J. J. et al. Almost all of Kepler’s multiple-planet candidates are planets. Astrophys. J. 750, 112 (2012).

  43. 43.

    Muirhead, P. S. et al. Characterizing the cool KOIs. VI. H- and K-band spectra of Kepler M dwarf planet-candidate hosts. Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 213, 5 (2014).

  44. 44.

    Gillon, M. et al. Temperate Earth-sized planets transiting a nearby ultracool dwarf star. Nature 533, 221–224 (2016).

  45. 45.

    Vanderspek, R. et al. TESS discovery of an ultra-short-period planet around the nearby M dwarf LHS 3844. Astrophys. J. Lett. 871, 24 (2019).

  46. 46.

    Quinn, S. N. et al. Near-resonance in a system of sub-Neptunes from TESS. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1901.09092 (2019).

  47. 47.

    Twicken, J. D. et al. Kepler data validation. I. Architecture, diagnostic tests, and data products for vetting transiting planet candidates. Publ. Astron. Soc. Pacif. 130, 064502 (2018).

  48. 48.

    Li, J. et al. Kepler data validation II. Transit model fitting and multiple-planet search. Publ. Astron. Soc. Pacif. 131, 024506 (2019).

  49. 49.

    Rizzuto, A. C. et al. Zodiacal Exoplanets In Time (ZEIT). VIII. A two-planet system in Praesepe from K2 campaign 16. Astron. J. 156, 195 (2018).

  50. 50.

    Winters, J. G. et al. The solar neighborhood. XXXV. Distances to 1404 m dwarf systems within 25 pc in the southern sky. Astron. J. 149, 5 (2015).

  51. 51.

    Gaia Collaboration et al. Gaia data release 2. Summary of the contents and survey properties. Astron. Astrophys. 616, A1 (2018).

  52. 52.

    Winters, J. G. et al. The solar neighborhood. XLV. The stellar multiplicity rate of M dwarfs within 25 pc. Astron. J. 157, 216 (2019).

  53. 53.

    Brown, T. M. et al. Las Cumbres observatory global telescope network. Publ. Astron. Soc. Pacif. 125, 1031 (2013).

  54. 54.

    Jehin, E. et al. TRAPPIST: Transiting Planets And Planetesimals Small Telescope. Messenger 145, 2–6 (2011).

  55. 55.

    Simcoe, R. A. et al. FIRE: A facility class near-infrared echelle spectrometer for the Magellan telescopes. Publ. Astron. Soc. Pacif. 125, 270 (2013).

  56. 56.

    Newton, E. R., Charbonneau, D., Irwin, J. & Mann, A. W. An empirical calibration to estimate cool dwarf fundamental parameters from H-band spectra. Astrophys. J. 800, 85 (2015).

  57. 57.

    Lenzen, R. et al. NAOS-CONICA first on sky results in a variety of observing modes. In Instrument Design and Performance for Optical/Infrared Ground-based Telescopes (eds Iye, M. & Moorwood, A. F. M.) Vol. 4841, 944–952 (SPIE, 2003).

  58. 58.

    Rousset, G. et al. NAOS, the first AO system of the VLT: on-sky performance. In Adaptive Optical System Technologies II (eds Wizinowich, P. L. & Bonaccini, D.) Vol. 4839, 140–149 (SPIE, 2003).

  59. 59.

    Morton, T. D. An efficient automated validation procedure for exoplanet transit candidates. Astrophys. J. 761, 6 (2012).

  60. 60.

    Morton, T. D. VESPA: false positive probabilities calculator. Astrophysics Source Code Library 2015ascl.soft03011M (2015).

  61. 61.

    Gaia Collaboration et al. The Gaia mission. Astron. Astrophys. 595, A1 (2016).

  62. 62.

    Skrutskie, M. F. et al. The Two Micron All Sky Survey (2MASS). Astron. J. 131, 1163–1183 (2006).

  63. 63.

    Zacharias, N. et al. The fourth US naval observatory CCD astrograph catalog (UCAC4). Astron. J. 145, 44 (2013).

  64. 64.

    Stassun, K. G. & Torres, G. Evidence for a systematic offset of −80 μas in the Gaia DR2 parallaxes. Astrophys. J. 862, 61 (2018).

  65. 65.

    Jao, W.-C. et al. Distance-dependent offsets between parallaxes for nearby stars and Gaia DR1 parallaxes. Astrophys. J. Lett. 832, 18 (2016).

  66. 66.

    Benedict, G. F. et al. The solar neighborhood. XXXVII: the mass-luminosity relation for main-sequence M dwarfs. Astron. J. 152, 141 (2016).

  67. 67.

    Boyajian, T. S. et al. Stellar diameters and temperatures. II. Main-sequence K- and M-stars. Astrophys. J. 757, 112 (2012).

  68. 68.

    Mann, A. W. et al. How to constrain your M dwarf. II. The mass−luminosity−metallicity relation from 0.075 to 0.70 solar masses. Astrophys. J. 871, 63 (2019).

  69. 69.

    Mann, A. W., Feiden, G. A., Gaidos, E., Boyajian, T. & von Braun, K. How to constrain your M dwarf: measuring effective temperature, bolometric luminosity, mass, and radius. Astrophys. J. 804, 64 (2015).

  70. 70.

    Pecaut, M. J. & Mamajek, E. E. Intrinsic colors, temperatures, and bolometric corrections of pre-main-sequence stars. Astrophys. J., Suppl. Ser. 208, 9 (2013).

  71. 71.

    Dittmann, J. A., Irwin, J. M., Charbonneau, D. & Newton, E. R. Calibration of the M Earth photometric system: optical magnitudes and photometric metallicity estimates for 1802 nearby M-dwarfs. Astrophys. J. 818, 153 (2016).

  72. 72.

    Mamajek, E. E. & Hillenbrand, L. A. Improved age estimation for solar-type dwarfs using activity-rotation diagnostics. Astrophys. J. 687, 1264–1293 (2008).

  73. 73.

    Newton, E. R. et al. The rotation and galactic kinematics of mid-M dwarfs in the solar neighborhood. Astrophys. J. 821, 93 (2016).

  74. 74.

    Newton, E. R., Mondrik, N., Irwin, J., Winters, J. G. & Charbonneau, D. New rotation period measurements for M dwarfs in the Southern Hemisphere: an abundance of slowly rotating, fully convective stars. Astron. J. 156, 217 (2018).

  75. 75.

    Günther, M. N. & Daylan, T. allesfitter: flexible star and exoplanet inference from photometry and radial velocity. Astrophysics Source Code Library 2019ascl.soft03003G (2019).

  76. 76.

    Maxted, P. F. L. ellc: a fast, flexible light curve model for detached eclipsing binary stars and transiting exoplanets. Astron. Astrophys. 591, A111 (2016).

  77. 77.

    Davenport, J. R. A. et al. Kepler flares. II. The temporal morphology of white-light flares on GJ 1243. Astrophys. J. 797, 122 (2014).

  78. 78.

    Speagle, J. S. dynesty: a dynamic nested sampling package for estimating Bayesian posteriors and evidences. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1904.02180 (2019).

  79. 79.

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D. & Goodman, J. emcee: the MCMC hammer. Publ. Astron. Soc. Pacif. 125, 306 (2013).

  80. 80.

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Agol, E., Ambikasaran, S. & Angus, R. celerite: scalable 1D Gaussian processes in C++, Python, and Julia. Astrophysics Source Code Library 2017ascl.soft09008F (2017).

  81. 81.

    Kass, R. E. & Raftery, A. E. Bayes factors. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 90, 773–795 (1995).

  82. 82.

    Seager, S. & Mallén-Ornelas, G. A unique solution of planet and star parameters from an extrasolar planet transit light curve. Astrophys. J. 585, 1038–1055 (2003).

  83. 83.

    Eastman, J. EXOFASTv2: generalized publication-quality exoplanet modeling code. Astrophysics Source Code Library 2017ascl.soft10003E (2017).

  84. 84.

    Hippke, M. & Heller, R. Optimized transit detection algorithm to search for periodic transits of small planets. Astron. Astrophys. 623, A39 (2019).

  85. 85.

    Kovács, G., Zucker, S. & Mazeh, T. A box-fitting algorithm in the search for periodic transits. Astron. Astrophys. 391, 369–377 (2002).

  86. 86.

    Mandel, K. & Agol, E. Analytic light curves for planetary transit searches. Astrophys. J. Lett. 580, L171 (2002).

  87. 87.

    Kreidberg, L. batman: BAsic transit model cAlculatioN in Python. Publ. Astron. Soc. Pacif. 127, 1161 (2015).

  88. 88.

    van Rossum, G. Python tutorial. Technical Report CS-R9526 (Centrum voor Wiskunde en Informatica (CWI), 1995).

  89. 89.

    van der Walt, S., Colbert, S. C. & Varoquaux, G. The numpy array: a structure for efficient numerical computation. Comput. Sci. Eng. 13, 22–30 (2011).

  90. 90.

    Jones, E. et al. SciPy: Open source scientific tools for Python (2001); http://www.scipy.org/.

  91. 91.

    Hunter, J. D. Matplotlib: a 2D graphics environment. Comput. Sci. Eng. 9, 90–95 (2007).

  92. 92.

    Foreman-Mackey, D. corner.py: scatterplot matrices in Python. J. Open Source Softw. 24, https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00024 (2016).

  93. 93.

    Jensen, E. Tapir: a web interface for transit/eclipse observability. Astrophysics Source Code Library 2013ascl.soft06007J (2013).

  94. 94.

    Collins, K. A., Kielkopf, J. F., Stassun, K. G. & Hessman, F. V. AstroImageJ: image processing and photometric extraction for ultra-precise astronomical light curves. Astron. J. 153, 77 (2017).

  95. 95.

    Rein, H. & Liu, S.-F. REBOUND: an open-source multi-purpose N-body code for collisional dynamics. Astron. Astrophys. 537, A128 (2012).

  96. 96.

    Zeng, L., Sasselov, D. D. & Jacobsen, S. B. Mass-radius relation for rocky planets based on PREM. Astrophys. J. 819, 127 (2016).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank B. J. Fulton and E. Petigura for providing their data to recreate the radius gap histogram in Fig. 2. Funding for the TESS mission is provided by NASA’s Science Mission directorate. We acknowledge the use of public TESS Alert data from pipelines at the TESS Science Office and at the TESS Science Processing Operations Center. This research has made use of the Exoplanet Follow-up Observation Program website, which is operated by the California Institute of Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration under the Exoplanet Exploration Program. This paper includes data collected by the TESS mission, which are publicly available from the Mikulski Archive for Space Telescopes (MAST). Resources supporting this work were provided by the NASA High-End Computing (HEC) Program through the NASA Advanced Supercomputing (NAS) Division at Ames Research Center for the production of the SPOC data products. TRAPPIST is funded by the Belgian Fund for Scientific Research (Fond National de la Recherche Scientifique, FNRS) under the grant FRFC 2.5.594.09.F, with the participation of the Swiss National Science Fundation (SNF). The research leading to these results has received funding from the ARC grant for Concerted Research Actions, financed by the Wallonia-Brussels Federation. This work uses observations collected at the European Organisation for Astronomical Research in the Southern Hemisphere under ESO programme 102.C-0503(A). This work makes use of results from the European Space Agency (ESA) space mission Gaia. Gaia data are being processed by the Gaia Data Processing and Analysis Consortium (DPAC). Funding for the DPAC is provided by national institutions, in particular the institutions participating in the Gaia MultiLateral Agreement (MLA). This publication makes use of data products from the Two Micron All Sky Survey, which is a joint project of the University of Massachusetts and the Infrared Processing and Analysis Center/California Institute of Technology, funded by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the National Science Foundation. This research has made use of NASA’s Astrophysics Data System Bibliographic Services. This research has made use of the NASA Exoplanet Archive, which is operated by the California Institute of Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration under the Exoplanet Exploration Program. M.N.G., C.X.H. and J.B. acknowledge support from MIT’s Kavli Institute as Torres postdoctoral fellows. D.D. acknowledges support for this work provided by NASA through Hubble Fellowship grant HST-HF2-51372.001-A, awarded by the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy for NASA, under contract NAS5-26555. T.D. acknowledges support from MIT’s Kavli Institute as a Kavli postdoctoral fellow. Work by B.T.M. was performed under contract with the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) funded by NASA through the Sagan Fellowship Program executed by the NASA Exoplanet Science Institute. J.G.W. is supported by a grant from the John Templeton Foundation. The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the John Templeton Foundation. S.W. thanks the Heising-Simons Foundation for their generous support. M.G. and E.J. are FNRS Senior Research Associates. K.H. acknowledges support from STFC grant ST/R000824/1. B.R.-A. acknowledges funding support from Conicyt Pai/Concurso Nacional Inserción En La Academia, Convocatoria 2015 79150050 and Fondecyt through grant 11181295. J.C.S. acknowledges funding support from Spanish public funds for research under projects ESP2017-87676-2-2 and RYC-2012-09913 (Ramón y Cajal programme) of the Spanish Ministry of Science and Education. J.A.D. is a 51 Pegasi b Postdoctoral Fellow.

Author information

M.N.G. led the project and performed and interpreted the global analyses. F.J.P., K.A.C., J.D.A., K.B., K.I.C., T.G., M.G., K.H., G.I., E.J., J.F.K., F.M., G.M., E.P., H.M.R., R.S., J.C.S., T.-G.T., A.S. and I.A.W. carried out the TFOP SG1 photometric follow-up. A.D.F., B.T.M., L.G.B., J.B., J.L.B., M.I. and S.N.Q. carried out the TFOP SG2 spectroscopic follow-up. E.M., D.R.C., I.C., S.B.H., R.A.M. and J.S. performed the TFOP SG3 direct imaging follow-up. F.J.P. worked on the dynamic stability and tides simulations. J.A.D. worked on the stellar parameters (along with A.D.F. and B.T.M.), TTV simulations and Australia National University spectral analysis. D.D. and T.D. performed the global light curve analysis and TTV analysis and D.D. additionally produced the atmospheric characterization prospects. S.R.K. worked on the dynamic stability simulations and habitability prospects. A.D.F. and B.T.M. worked on the FIRE spectra analysis, and C.H., T.D.M. and A.B. worked on the TESS light curve analysis, false positive analysis and stellar parameter analysis, respectively. J.J.L. looked at the orbital dynamics, resonances, and TTVs. A.V. did the archival image analysis and TESS light curve analysis. S.W. contributed to the global light curve analysis. J.G.W. performed the overluminous binary analysis and Hertzsprung−Russell diagram analysis. G.R.R., R.K.V., D.W.L., S.S., J.N.W. and J.M.J. are TESS architects. N.B., N.G., S.L. and B.R.-A. are members of the TESS Science office. D.A.C., G.F., E.B.T. and J.D.T. are members of the TESS Science Processing Operations Center, while M.F. is a member of the TESS Payload Operations Center.

Correspondence to Maximilian N. Günther.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information: Nature Astronomy thanks Oscar Barragán, Alexis Smith and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Text, Supplementary Figures 1–7, Supplementary Tables 1–4, Supplementary References.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark