Upsilon Andromedae e?

I'm somewhat surprised this one hasn't been posted here yet...

Always Pulkovo observers once in 2004 inferred again the existence of a substellar object at 61 Cygni A. Period 6.9 years (I think), 14 Jupiter masses and e=0.4.

I don't know if trustworthy but thanks for the information

Lazarus wrote:I'm somewhat surprised this one hasn't been posted here yet...

Maybe this is the proposed planet "outtathere."

(quick explanation: Ups And's planets got the unofficial names of Dinky, Twopiter, and Fourpiter, with a proposed ejected planet "outtathere" to explain d's eccentricity)

Sirius_Alpha wrote:(quick explanation: Ups And's planets got the unofficial names of Dinky, Twopiter, and Fourpiter, with a proposed ejected planet "outtathere" to explain d's eccentricity)

Don't know about anyone else here, but I never liked those names...

Eh, I thought they were cute but unnecessary.

I would have such cool names for those planets, but let's not turn offtopic

Can't help but wonder if the delay in the astrometric analysis of Upsilon Andromedae is due to trying to characterise the fourth planet...

That would make sense. Perhaps d isn't actually inclined 30° to the rest of the system after all.

Why "Dinky"???

Because despite being a huge Jupiter-class planet, it is less massive than the other two. Of course the names for "c" and "d" will turn out to be even sillier if 1/sin(i) is significantly larger than 1...

Indeed. Perhaps b and c should be called "twoseineyepiter" and "fourseineyepiter", respectively. Dinky may retain its name ; ).

(I've split the relevant discussion about Ups And e to a new thread)

Excuse me, I'm not sure: has it been discovered and awaiting for publication or is it only putative?

About name, no please. Dinky as official name would be ludicrous. Funny nickname, uhm, so so...though I don't get the sense.

Classical mythology fits well with relevant planetary systems

The planet hasn't been ruled out, but it hasn't been confirmed either. It's very unconstrained. According to the abstract, only a lower limit on the orbital period could be placed.

They also mention the need for further monitoring to ensure the signature is indeed planetary in nature.

But it should not be included in discoveries yet. Am I too rigid?

Nah you're right. Not a discovery yet.