09:35:46	 From Jack Lissauer : What are the correlations between uncertainties for the mass and radius of the star TRAPPIST-1?  
09:36:43	 From Eric Agol : The correlations are due to the uncertain parameters of the star.  The stellar density is well measured, so the uncertainty ellipses roughly follow isodensity contours (although this is convolved with the uncertainties in the mass-ratios and radius-ratios of each of the planets).
09:53:09	 From Eric Agol to All panelists : I logged out and then back in - were there any other questions I missed RE: TRAPPIST-1?
09:53:49	 From Lauren Weiss to All panelists : Eric: yes, I just took a screenshot — I will email it to you
10:13:05	 From Rafael Luque to All panelists : It is more challenging to detect small planets around young, typically active, stars than bigger ones. How this observational bias may affect your final result?
10:13:34	 From Daniel Huber - Coordinator : @Diana: Cloutier & Menou used the K2 sample, which observed many more M dwarfs than Kepler
10:14:01	 From Elisabeth Newton : @Travis is this the paper you were referring to about the timescales for photo evaporative mass loss? “Unveiling the Planet Population at Birth” https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020arXiv200711006R/abstract
10:14:13	 From Carey Lisse to All panelists : Can you do a similar study on just high mass OBA stars with little XUV to see if they have mostly sub-neptunes? They won’t get older than 1 Gyr though ;(
10:14:31	 From Diana Valencia to All panelists : Yes, just wondering if Travis’ works confirms that trend.
10:15:00	 From Shubham Kanodia to All panelists : @Diana and Travis: The Cloutier and Menou sample was dominated by  K stars. Since, their cut was < 4700 K
10:18:36	 From Travis Berger : @ Elisabeth Newton: Yes, that is the paper that I was referring to!
10:18:51	 From Carey Lisse to All panelists : Thank you - and I agree we probably need more high mass star planet statistics. FYI there is also a subclass of A-stars, the Ap stars, with copious XUV emission that would be good for testing the photoevap mechanism.
10:19:59	 From JackLissauer : Travis, will GAIA EDR2 enable significant improvements in estimates of stellar parameters for Kepler targets?  (Sorry for the technical glitch - my computer booted me out of the meeting audio just after Jim called on me.)
10:20:37	 From Julián David Alvarado Gómez : Q for Travis: Don’t you think is a bit dangerous to try to reduce the discrimination to a time-scale issue given that some processes affecting the planetary mass loss continue for the entire evolution of the system? For instance, while stars are more active at early stages, the high-energy emission is just part of the story with another part being the stellar wind and associated outflows. These certainly can have a cumulative effect on the exoplanet atmospheres even larger than the mechanisms you considered.
10:32:19	 From lynne hillenbrand to All panelists : Q:   What is the origin of the [OI] and [SI] emission?
10:33:02	 From Travis Berger : @ Jack Lissauer: I do not think there will be *large* improvements with Gaia EDR2/3, especially compared to the improvements of Gaia DR1 to DR2. However, that does not rule out the utility of more parallaxes and more precise parallaxes as well as better calibrations for brighter apparent magnitude stars. I do not expect these changes to affect our ultimate conclusions for the Kepler field, but they may prove useful for individual systems that may not have had parallaxes as of Gaia DR2.
10:33:27	 From lynne hillenbrand to All panelists : specifically the forbidden lines - which are collisional
10:34:04	 From Carey Lisse to All panelists : Hi Boris- great talk, as usual. For what its worth, there is a solar system structure that is dominated by S and O atoms - the jovian Io flux torus. The Xuv emission from the torus can be explained by excited S & O. Should an Io-like highly volcanic source based model explain your observations rather than evaporating giant planet atmosphere?
10:38:47	 From Jim Fuller - Coordinator : For Boris: The EUV evaporation rate is most sensitive to the planet radius. Based on the abundances you see for your gaseous planet, can you get any constraint on the radius or mass of the planet?
10:38:54	 From Boris Gaensicke to Carey Lisse, All Panelists : Hi Carey, this sounds really interesting, and I wasn't aware of this fact. Maybe we can talk about it at some point? 
10:41:18	 From Boris Gaensicke : @Jim, we don't have a good estimate of the radius from the photo-evaporation model. The reason being that we cannot measure very well the mass loss rate of the planet, as we don't know what fraction ends up on the white dwarf.
10:44:15	 From Carey Lisse to All panelists : Boris, certainly. You may want to check out Kharchenko et al. 2006 and papers referencing it in the meantime. The S+O is derived from uv dissociated SOx thrown out of Io’s geysers into near-Jovian space.
10:49:18	 From Jamie Tayar : Can the chaotic disruption happen at the same time/distance/planets as the magnetic unipolar thing?  
10:51:55	 From Jamie Tayar : thanks!
10:55:37	 From lynne hillenbrand : Another question on the ages:  given the methods involved and reliance of posterior distributions, how confident are you in the <1 Gyr ages?   And to you plan to “check” them using activity / rotation diagnostics which are valid at <1 Gyr?
10:55:44	 From Victor Silva Aguirre - Coordinator : What are good stellar ages and masses in this context? To what precision?
11:02:28	 From lynne hillenbrand : Just a comment:   many of us are very excited and optimistic about finally getting good ages when we have been grad students and postdocs…..but grow more skeptical over time about how well it can ever be done!
11:05:55	 From Samuel Grunblatt : @Dimitri: If a planet could temporarily survive being inside/incredibly near an AGB star, could its orbit evolve similarly via this proposed chaotic tide method or would other forces likely overpower this? Could a planet potentially survive inside an AGB star?
11:08:57	 From Samuel Grunblatt : Thanks!
11:14:28	 From Adam Jermyn : @Tim: How does the overshoot distance compare with the scale height or the turn-around-distance (going at the convective velocity at the base)?
11:19:57	 From Jamie Tayar : Which models are you using for fast versus slow spindown? 
11:20:45	 From lynne hillenbrand to All panelists : does the *current* location of the planets make sense given the context of R vs P for the older stars you are showing?
11:21:17	 From Maria Pia Di Mauro : to Katja: have you checked for any correlation with other magnetic activity indexes?
11:25:52	 From Eric Agol : Or even more oxidized than Mars…
11:27:12	 From Theron Carmichael : Thank you, Victor!
11:27:49	 From Zach Claytor to All panelists : Thank you Victor, and thanks to all the organizers and participants! Great talks and great discussion!