The 2025 TESS transit of TOI-790.01 was about 4.5 hours later than a clock fitted to four earlier events
We tested a clock with a constant period for planet candidate TOI-790.01. We fitted four earlier TESS transits and compared the result with the 2025 event. We fitted SPOC flux at the native 120 s sampling from six sectors. The model had a common symmetric transit shape, free center times, and separate local trends. The fifth mid-time is BJD TDB 2460747.60030, with a conditional error of 2.7 min. It is 267.8 min later than the early clock. Its conditional difference error is 7.1 min with 120 min residual blocks and a white-noise floor. The first four events already fail a constant period. Their scatter therefore limits the physical use of this forecast. 14 model changes move the fifth time by at most 1.9 min. A separate noise check refits 60 block draws. This work adds a later time to known timing changes. It does not confirm a planet, measure a mass, or identify a unique cause. The package preserves source FITS files, provenance, code, full results, figures, and offline repeat instructions.
TESS · TOI-790.01 · transit timing · public astronomical data · planet candidate
References
3- usesdoi:10.48550/arXiv.2606.17218
We compare our four early times with its Table 4. We add a later Sector 90 time to its known timing changes.
- usesTESS Sector 96 shows a second transit of TOI-790.03, 726.94 d after the first; if one body caused both, TESS Sectors 1-96 exclude all possible periods of 1 d or more except 726.94 d and 363.47 d sci:sha256:a5131355b9615ad61701e5d9153c945a9c7131afa9f7fc74727e0c5924dba0c6
We use its target context, sector inventory, and ExoFOP extract to select public source products. Its fitting code and reduced flux do not enter our native-data fits.
- usesdoi:10.1086/683602
We use batman to calculate exposure-averaged transit curves.
Cited by
1 publicationPublic catalog entries on Sciscape.
- usesThree later TESS events support the 41-day signal of TOI-790.02 under local trend fits
We adapt its MIT local fitting and covariance methods. We reuse six original FITS files, its saved ExoFOP subset, and small comparison results. We compare its .01 result with the later .02 data.