Navigating Exoplanetary Systems in Augmented Reality: Preliminary Insights on ExoAR

Among publicly available software, NASA’s Eyes on Exoplanets [21] (see Figure 1(a)) represents one of the most widely recognized and scientifically grounded tools. Leveraging data from NASA’s Exoplanet Archive, it provides three-dimensional visualizations of known exoplanetary systems through a standard two-dimensional desktop interface. However, its interactive capabilities remain limited, as users cannot freely navigate or engage with models in a spatially immersive manner. Viewing complex three-dimensional planetary architectures on a flat screen often hinders spatial comprehension and makes it difficult to intuitively interpret orbital mechanics, planetary scales, or relative separations. This lack of embodied interaction may limit both its educational effectiveness and its value for scientific exploration.

Other notable tools, such as Universe Sandbox 2 VR [2] and Microsoft’s Galaxy Explorer AR [17], have attempted to harness the immersive capabilities of extended reality technologies for astronomical visualization. Universe Sandbox 2 VR (see Figure 1(b)) offers dynamic simulations of celestial events in a fully immersive environment, but its focus remains on Solar System phenomena and its visualizations often prioritize interactivity and user experimentation over scientific precision. Similarly, Microsoft’s Galaxy Explorer AR (see Figure 1(d)) presents holographic representations of planets and stars, yet also concentrates on Solar System content and contains simplifications in orbital dynamics and scaling accuracy. Neither platform incorporates scientifically validated exoplanet data in a form that enables detailed spatial analysis or exploratory learning. As such, both fall short of meeting the growing need for immersive, data-accurate exoplanet system visualization.

Within academia, more advanced astronomy visualization frameworks have emerged, offering tools for exploring large-scale cosmic datasets. For example, software like Gaia Sky [27] and OpenSpace [5] (see Figure 1(b)) support interactive 3D visualizations of astrophysical data, including exoplanets in some cases, but remain largely tied to screen-based environments. A more recent system by Broman et al. [7] demonstrated high-fidelity exoplanet renderings enriched with contextual scientific information, yet their application similarly relies on conventional desktop displays and lacks immersive or embodied interaction capabilities. As Lan et al. [14] emphasizes in their comprehensive survey though, most astronomy visualization tools continue to be confined to traditional screens, limiting users’ ability to engage meaningfully with spatially complex content.

More and more, however, XR technologies are being recognized for their potential to enhance astronomy education and spatial reasoning. Prior studies have demonstrated that immersive environments can support deeper conceptual understanding by reducing perceptual distortion and enabling embodied interaction with abstract phenomena. For instance, Antoniou et al. [1] reported that students using an AR-based astronomy application showed improved motivation and spatial understanding compared to those using traditional resources. Kersting et al. [10] similarly found that VR-based visualizations helped learners intuitively grasp cosmic distances and object scale. Broader reviews further support these results, suggesting that XR can improve learning outcomes in spatially demanding domains such as astronomy and geoscience [23, 25].

Despite this promise, relatively few XR applications have focused specifically on exoplanetary systems. The Exoplanets–A project by Peralta et al. [24] introduced a mobile AR application that allowed users to view simplified exoplanet orbits in educational contexts, while PlanetariumVR offers guided tours of selected exoplanet systems but limits user agency and scientific detail [9]. These efforts mark initial steps toward immersive exoplanet learning, yet no platform to date has successfully integrated validated exoplanet data with freeform, interactive XR exploration.

This range of prior works highlights several gaps that ExoAR seeks to help address. Such existing tools either lack immersive interactivity, restrict user navigation, or rely on inaccurate data or artistic interpretations. Meanwhile, academic research into XR-supported astronomy education remains limited on how well it aids understanding complex exoplanetary systems and rarely incorporates rigorous evaluation. By combining scientifically accurate archival data with immersive exploration and an intuitive AR interface, ExoAR seeks to fill this void and contribute new insights into how immersive technologies can support conceptual learning and spatial reasoning in exoplanet science and education.

ExoAR’s visualizations are constructed using carefully curated data sourced directly from NASA’s Exoplanet Archive. This authoritative database is comprehensive, containing data for over 5,800 confirmed exoplanets and their host stars, each with over 350 associated parameters. Given its extensive scale, significant pre-processing was necessary to maintain efficient real-time performance. To ensure scientific integrity for the visualizations, ExoAR reduced this dataset to eighty-four key parameters deemed most crucial for effective and accurate visualization. These included those related to planetary radii, masses, orbital periods, eccentricities, semi-major axes, equilibrium temperatures, stellar radii, spectral types, and effective temperatures. Uncertainty values for these critical parameters were retained as well, so the data’s scientific precision could be presented transparently to users when viewing it in a system’s information menu (see Figure 4). Subsequent dataset filtering involved splitting planetary and stellar data into separate datasets and systematically combining redundant entries when necessary by keeping the most recent value of any that differed between duplicates.

Using astrophysical formulae, ExoAR translates this refined exoplanet dataset into science-driven exoplanetary system visualizations through the following key features, each designed to balance scientific rigor with user interactivity and understanding. These include dynamic 3D data visualizations of celestial bodies, independent controls for adjusting core spatial and temporal scales, and hands-on menus for accessing all systems and viewing their underlying data.

Each participant took part in a one-hour, one-on-one session that began with a brief demographic and self-assessment questionnaire covering age, academic background, and their self-rated level of knowledge in physics, astrophysics, and exoplanetary systems (see Figure 5). Participants then received a five-minute orientation to the HoloLens and its hand-gesture controls, covering essential interactions such as how to press AR buttons or grab and move AR objects. Next, they spent fifteen minutes in ExoAR, starting with a five-minute guided walkthrough of its core features to ensure all participants had experience with and knew how to use all of them. These introductory tasks started with participants using the main menu to scale planetary and stellar sizes, adjust orbital and temporal scales, and insert Earth and Jupiter reference planets into the current system. They then used the System Information Menu to view the system’s data, and lastly, used the System Search Menu to switch to a different system. Once complete, participants had the remaining ten minutes to freely use ExoAR as they wished. Participants then repeated the same sequence with NASA’s Eyes on Exoplanets, with five minutes of structured introductory tasks and ten minutes of unstructured use, to establish a non-immersive baseline.

Upon completing the fifteen-minute sessions for both tools, participants filled out a structured survey comparing the two tools’ effectiveness at conveying exoplanetary concepts. Through its questions, participants indicated which tool they felt better conveyed exoplanet system concepts and described where ExoAR excelled or fell short for this. Next, they explained which tool was their overall preference for learning about exoplanets before reflecting on whether ExoAR affected their learning experience and if they learned anything new while using it. Lastly, they offered feedback on their favorite ExoAR features, aspects in need of improvement, and suggestions for future additions.

In total, eight University of Calgary undergraduate students volunteered to participate in the pilot study, all aged 20 to 30 years old ($\overline{x}=23.5$, $\tilde{x}=22.5$). They were assigned identifiers P1–P8 in ascending order of their self-reported domain knowledge, determined by combining weighted ratings of their current knowledge in physics, astrophysics, and exoplanetary systems (see Figure 5). Distributed across the mechanical engineering, physics, and astrophysics fields, these participants’ differences in astronomy and exoplanet knowledge allowed us to capture feedback from various levels of domain familiarity. No participant had previous experience with ExoAR, NASA’s Eyes on Exoplanets, or the Microsoft HoloLens, guaranteeing fresh impressions of the AR hardware and both tools.

Initial qualitative feedback on ExoAR revealed promising insights into ExoAR’s usability and educational potential. Most notably, when asked to compare ExoAR’s immersive approach to NASA’s Eyes on Exoplanets for visualizing planetary systems and learning about exoplanetary concepts, every participant preferred ExoAR. Upon analyzing their other feedback, three dominant themes emerged to help explain this unanimous preference.

First, nearly all participants (P1–P5, P7) appreciated how ExoAR’s immersive 3D experience made it easier to navigate the system visualizations and view their elements from different perspectives. This was for all three methods of viewpoint navigation: physically walking around, adjusting distance scales, or by using a pinch-and-drag gesture on its host star to move the system where desired. For example, P3 voiced that “standing in it and walking around” or “being able to move around and drag a system closer or further is much more intuitive”. Second, four participants (P1, P3, P6, P7) reported that ExoAR’s 3D immersion was a more intuitive experience for grasping the relative sizes, distances, and orbits between celestial bodies. P1 explained that being immersed gave them “a better physical sense of the systems”, while P6 shared they found it comparatively easier for “understanding the speed of some of the orbits, how wide planets are, and the distance between some of the planets”. Even P7, an astrophysics student, stated this “really helps for scale, especially if someone is unfamiliar with the massive scales of space”. Third, many participants (P1, P4, P6, P7) also reported that ExoAR’s immersion and hands-on approach made learning about exoplanets a more engaging and enjoyable experience. For instance, ExoAR was said to be “a video game with the side effect of learning” (P1), that it made for “a cooler and more memorable experience” (P7), with AR having a “large impact” (P4) that made the experience “far more interesting” (P4).

Supporting these themes, four participants (P1, P3, P4, P7) specifically praised ExoAR’s independent size, distance, and time scaling controls, which they found contributed to a better experience than when using Eyes on Exoplanets. P1 said “I found NASA’s hard to navigate without the scalability”, but they felt this feature of ExoAR “made the experience better as it allowed for exploration outside of the arrangement” that Eyes on Exoplanets keeps a user’s view to. Echoing this, P3 thought that “Eyes on Exoplanets lacks any physical scale”, but in ExoAR they could “easily scale planets and pan them, which is a large benefit”. In addition, participants P1, P2, P3, and P6 pointed out they valued the ability to use Earth and Jupiter as a familiar size and distance reference. This was explained well by P6, who shared “being able to compare to Jupiter and Earth gave me a frame of reference I didn’t have” with Eyes on Exoplanets, which helped them and others to anchor their sense of scale between otherwise confusing sizes and distances.

Despite this mostly positive feedback, participants also identified several areas for improvement. Five participants (P1, P3, P5–P7) experienced issues stemming from the limitations of the HoloLens hardware, namely its restricted field-of-view, relatively lower graphical fidelity, and occasional input lag. The main menu’s placement below eye level was also problematic to some (P2, P3, P4), who complained that due to its position “one must look down often” (P2) and it can sometimes be “difficult to find” (P4). Two participants (P6, P8) noted that NASA’s software felt more polished and feature-rich, an expected gap for ExoAR as a prototype. Despite these critiques, when asked to consider their overall experience for tasks shared across both tools and choose one tool to continue using for further learning, all but one chose ExoAR, each pointing to one or more of the aforementioned themes as their primary reason. P8 was the sole exception, who noted that despite preferring ExoAR’s immersion for analyzing planetary data in 3D, due to its current technical limitations they would rather use Eye on Exoplanets until ExoAR became more polished and its feature set more closely matched that of NASA’s tool.

The findings of this formative pilot suggest ExoAR’s approach to using AR for the scientific visualization of exoplanetary systems shows promise for enhancing user engagement and data comprehension. Overall, participants reported that ExoAR’s immersive approach allowed them to be more engaged with the system visualizations, had an easier time viewing them from different perspectives, and that being immersed within a system felt more intuitive for understanding relative celestial object sizes, distances between orbits, and orbital speeds compared to Eyes on Exoplanets. Such insights suggest that the immersive 3D experience, physical spatial navigation, and hands-on interactions commonly supported by AR and other XR technologies may help address some challenges traditionally difficult to overcome when using non-immersive visualization techniques. ExoAR’s independent scaling feature also emerged as particularly beneficial, with participants reporting that the ability to adjust planetary, stellar, and orbital scales separately made it noticeably easier to understand interplanetary relationships, orbital mechanics, and comparative planetary sizes. The ability to insert Earth and Jupiter as reference planets in a system was also said to aid understanding. It it important to note, however, that these features do not require AR or immersive technologies, suggesting they may be a useful addition for non-immersive system visualizations as well.

Room for improvement was also identified by participant feedback. Most commonly noted was participants citing usability concerns stemming from the HoloLens’ hardware constraints. While external to ExoAR’s software, these limitations negatively impacted user perception and highlight the need to either explore other XR hardware or optimize the visualizations’ complexity for the HoloLens’ limitations to maintain smooth, immersive interactions and minimize cognitive distractions. Furthermore, feedback on interface usability was mixed. While most found the design intuitive, others noted that the main menu’s placement disrupted immersion and increased cognitive load. Thus, future iterations should refine the main menu’s placement and design, and also explore gaze- or gesture-based interaction modalities to improve usability and maintain user engagement.

These useful preliminary insights highlight the importance of iterative design processes informed by user-centered evaluation, particularly when integrating novel visualization technologies into educational and research contexts. The feedback gathered in this pilot study will directly inform our planned improvements, which will focus on both technological and usability enhancements. Future research will benefit from systematically evaluating ExoAR’s impact more rigorously and across more varied demographics to assess how differences in prior exoplanet knowledge, familiarity with AR technologies, and past education may influence the tool’s effectiveness for learning and data analysis.

While useful for guiding ExoAR’s future development and evaluation, as a formative pilot study, we acknowledge limitations of its findings. First, due to the pilot’s small, qualitatively evaluated sample, it findings cannot be generalized beyond initial user experiences. Although varying somewhat, the sample was still relatively homogenous in age, educational background, and prior exoplanet knowledge, which limits its generalizability to others like planetary researchers or older users. Short exposure to both XR and traditional systems also made it difficult to assess if learning curves or long-term use had any impact on opinions. Additionally, novelty effects from participants’ overall lack of AR experience may have inflated perceived benefits. Despite such these limitations, these early findings still suggest ExoAR holds promise for effectively conveying complex astronomical concepts to at least some users, justifying its further development and future larger-scale evaluation.