Okay, let's try to figure out this problem step by step. So, we have two Earth-like planets, Planet_1 and Planet_2. The researchers want to detect transits, which means they're looking for when the planet passes in front of its star from our point of view, causing a dip in brightness. They have limited observing time and want to prioritize the planet with the highest probability of transiting. 

Both planets were detected using the RV (Radial Velocity) method, which tells us their minimum masses. Since both are Earth-like, their masses are roughly the same. But wait, the question says "minimum masses" because RV can only detect minimum mass (since it depends on the inclination angle of the orbit, which we don't know). However, since they are Earth-like, maybe their masses are known? Hmm, the problem states that their masses are already known via RV, so we can assume their actual masses are known, but they're the same. So mass isn't the issue here.

The key factors here are the orbital periods and the host star's properties. Let's list out the given information:

- Planet_1's orbital period is three times shorter than Planet_2's. So if Planet_2's period is P, Planet_1's is P/3.
- Both planets have circular orbits, so their orbital dynamics are simpler.
- The host star of Planet_1 has a mass twice that of Planet_2's host star. Both have the same radii. So Star_1 (host of Planet_1) has mass 2M, and Star_2 (host of Planet_2) has mass M. Both stars have the same radius, R.
- We need to find which planet has a higher probability of transit.

Transit probability depends on several factors. The primary factor is the size of the planet relative to the star. A larger planet relative to the star increases the probability of a transit. Also, the orbital period and the inclination of the orbit affect the transit probability. Since the orbits are circular, the inclination is fixed (edge-on for transits), but we don't know the actual inclination. However, since the question is about the probability, we need to consider the statistical likelihood of the orbital plane being edge-on, which is 1/(π/2) or something? Wait, actually, the probability of a transit is roughly proportional to (Rp / Rstar) * (1 / sqrt(a)), where a is the semi-major axis. Wait, maybe I need to recall the formula for transit probability.

The probability of a transit (P_transit) is given by the ratio of the planet's orbital diameter to the star's diameter. Wait, but more accurately, it's the ratio of the planet's radius to the star's radius multiplied by the probability that the orbital plane is edge-on. The probability that the orbital inclination i is such that sin(i) is less than (Rp/Rstar). The probability is proportional to (Rp/Rstar) because the distribution of inclinations is such that higher impact parameters are more likely. Wait, maybe the formula is P = (Rp/Rstar) * (1 / (π/2)) ), but I might be mixing things up.

Alternatively, the probability of transit is approximately (Rp/Rstar) * (1 / (π)) ) * (1 / (1 - e²)^0.5), but since the orbits are circular (e=0), this simplifies to (Rp/Rstar) * (1/π). Wait, but since the RV method gives the minimum mass, which is M_planet * sin(i), but here the masses are the same, so the actual mass would be M_planet / sin(i). Wait, but in this problem, the masses are the same, so sin(i) is the same for both. But we don't know the actual inclination angles. However, the transit probability depends on the inclination. Since the researchers don't know the inclination, they have to consider the statistical probability. So the transit probability is the probability that the orbital plane is aligned such that the planet passes in front of the star. For a circular orbit, the probability is (Rp/Rstar) / (π * a / (a)) )? Wait, maybe not. Let me think again.

The probability of a transit is approximately the ratio of the planet's diameter to the star's diameter multiplied by the probability that the orbital plane is aligned edge-on. The probability that the orbital plane is edge-on (i=90 degrees) is given by the solid angle. The probability is (Rp/Rstar) / (π * a / (2π a)) )? Wait, maybe it's better to recall that the probability is (Rp / Rstar) * (1 / (π * (a/Rstar)^2)) ), but I'm getting confused here.

Alternatively, the transit probability can be approximated as (Rp/Rstar) * (1 / (π * a / (2π a)) )) Wait, maybe I need to look up the standard formula for transit probability.

Upon recalling, the transit probability is approximately (Rp/Rstar) * (1 / (π * (1 - e²)^0.5)) ), but since the orbits are circular (e=0), this simplifies to (Rp/Rstar) * (1/π). However, this might not be accurate. Another way to think about it is that the probability is proportional to (Rp/Rstar) divided by the distance over which the planet could transit. Wait, maybe the correct formula is P = (Rp/Rstar) * (1 / (sqrt(a² - b²)/a)) ), where b is the impact parameter. But since the orbit is circular, the maximum impact parameter is a, so the probability is (Rp/Rstar) * (1/a) * (a/(2a)) )? Wait, I'm getting tangled here.

Alternatively, the probability of a transit is (Rp/Rstar) * (1 / (π * ( (a/Rstar)^2 - (Rp)^2/(Rstar)^2 )^0.5 )) ). But this seems complicated. Maybe a better approach is to use the fact that for a circular orbit, the probability of transit is (Rp/Rstar) * (1 / (π * a)) ) * (something), but I'm not sure.

Wait, perhaps the key factors here are the star's radius and the planet's radius. Since both planets are Earth-like, their radii are similar. The star's radius is the same for both, but the mass of the star is different. Wait, but the star's radius is the same for both. Wait, the problem states "both host stars have the same radii." So R1 = R2 = R.

So for both planets, the transit probability is proportional to (Rp / R) * (1 / (something)). But what's the "something"? Since the orbital period is different, the semi-major axis might be different. Let's recall Kepler's third law. The orbital period P is related to the semi-major axis a by P² = (4π²/G(M_star)) * a³. Since the masses of the stars are different, and the periods are different, the semi-major axes will be different.

Planet_1 has a period three times shorter than Planet_2. Let's denote Planet_2's period as P. Then Planet_1's period is P/3. Using Kepler's law:

For Planet_1: (P/3)² = (4π²/(G*M1)) * a1³

For Planet_2: P² = (4π²/(G*M2)) * a2³

Given that M1 = 2*M2 (since the host star of Planet_1 is twice that of Planet_2), substituting:

For Planet_1: (P²/9) = (4π²/(G*2M2)) * a1³

For Planet_2: P² = (4π²/(G*M2)) * a2³

Divide the equation for Planet_1 by the equation for Planet_2:

(P²/9) / P² = [ (4π²/(G*2M2)) * a1³ ] / [ (4π²/(G*M2)) * a2³ ]

Simplify:

1/9 = (a1³) / (2 a2³)

So a1³ = (1/9) * 2 a2³ = (2/9) a2³

Therefore, a1 = ( (2/9) )^(1/3) * a2 ≈ (0.222)^(1/3) * a2 ≈ 0.6 a2

So Planet_1 has a much smaller semi-major axis than Planet_2.

Now, transit probability is proportional to (Rp/Rstar) * (1 / (a * sin(i)) ), but since the inclination is unknown, the probability is (Rp/Rstar) * (1/(a * π)) ), but I'm not sure. Alternatively, since the transit probability is proportional to (Rp/Rstar) * (1 / (a * sqrt(1 - e²)) ), and for circular orbits e=0, so it's (Rp/Rstar) * (1/a). But since the researchers don't know the inclination, they have to consider the average probability over all possible inclinations. The average value of 1/sin(i) over all possible inclinations (assuming uniform distribution in sin(i)) is 2/π. Wait, no. The probability distribution for the inclination angle i is such that the probability density function is (1/2) sin(i) di, since the projected velocity (and thus the distribution of inclinations) is proportional to sin(i). Therefore, the average value of 1/sin(i) would be ∫ (1/sin(i)) * (1/2) sin(i) di from 0 to π/2. Wait, but actually, the probability of transit is proportional to the probability that the orbit is edge-on, which is the probability that i ≤ arcsin(Rp/Rstar). The probability is the integral from 0 to arcsin(Rp/Rstar) of (1/2) sin(i) di. That integral is [ - (1/2) cos(i) ] from 0 to θ, where θ = arcsin(Rp/Rstar). So the probability is (1 - cos(θ))/2. Since θ is small (because Rp/Rstar is small; for Earth-like planets around solar-type stars, Rp/Rstar is about 1/10 or so), cos(θ) ≈ 1 - θ²/2. So 1 - cos(θ) ≈ θ²/2, and θ ≈ Rp/Rstar. Therefore, the probability is approximately ( (Rp/Rstar)^2 / 2 ) / 2 = (Rp/Rstar)^2 / 4. Wait, maybe this is getting too complicated.

Alternatively, for a planet with Rp << Rstar, the probability of transit is approximately (Rp/Rstar) multiplied by the probability that the orbital inclination is such that the planet's orbit brings it within Rp of the star's center. The probability that the inclination i satisfies sin(i) ≥ Rp/Rstar. Since the distribution of i is such that the probability density is (1/2) sin(i) di, the probability is ∫ from i=0 to i=arcsin(Rp/Rstar) (1/2) sin(i) di. Let's compute this integral:

Integral of (1/2) sin(i) di from 0 to θ where θ = arcsin(Rp/Rstar)

= (1/2) [ -cos(i) ] from 0 to θ

= (1/2) ( -cos(θ) + cos(0) )

= (1/2) (1 - cos(θ))

Since θ is small (Rp/Rstar is small), cos(θ) ≈ 1 - θ²/2. So:

≈ (1/2) (1 - (1 - θ²/2)) = (1/2)(θ²/2) = θ²/4

But θ = arcsin(Rp/Rstar) ≈ Rp/Rstar (since θ is small). Therefore, the probability is approximately (Rp/Rstar)^2 / 4.

But this seems very small. However, since both planets have Earth-like sizes and similar host stars, their Rp/Rstar ratios are the same. So the probability would be the same for both, which doesn't make sense because the answer options suggest different probabilities. Therefore, this approach might be incorrect.

Alternatively, perhaps the probability is proportional to (Rp/Rstar) multiplied by (1 / (a / (Rstar * sqrt(1 - e²)))). But since e=0, it's (Rp/Rstar) / (a / Rstar) ) = (Rp/Rstar) * (Rstar / a) ) = Rp / a.

But the transit probability is (Rp / a) * (1 / sin(i)) averaged over the possible inclinations. Wait, but the average of 1/sin(i) over all possible inclinations (assuming uniform distribution of i) is ∫ (1/sin(i)) * (1/2) sin(i) di from 0 to π/2. Wait, but this integral would be ∫ (1/2) di from 0 to π/2, which is (1/2)(π/2) = π/4. Wait, that can't be right. Wait, the integral is ∫ (1/sin(i)) * (1/2) sin(i) di from 0 to π/2. The sin(i) cancels out, so ∫ (1/2) di from 0 to π/2. So the result is (1/2)(π/2) = π/4. Therefore, the average 1/sin(i) is π/4. Therefore, the average transit probability would be (Rp/a) * (1/ (π/4)) ) = (4 Rp)/(π a).

Wait, that seems more plausible. So transit probability is proportional to (Rp/a) * (4/π). But since both planets have the same Rp, the probability is inversely proportional to a. Therefore, the planet with the smaller a has a higher probability. 

But earlier, we found that a1 = (2/9)^(1/3) a2 ≈ 0.6 a2. Therefore, a1 is smaller than a2. Therefore, Planet_1 has a smaller semi-major axis, so its transit probability is higher. 

So the transit probability ratio would be (a2 / a1) = (a2) / ( (2/9)^(1/3) a2 ) ) = (9/2)^(1/3) ≈ 1.65. Therefore, Planet_1's transit probability is 1.65 times higher than Planet_2's. 

Looking at the answer choices, option A says Planet_1 is preferred due to 1.65 times higher probability. So that would be the correct answer. But wait, let me check again.

Wait, the transit probability is (Rp/a) * (4/π). So the ratio P1/P2 = (Rp1/a1 * 4/π) / (Rp2/a2 * 4/π) ) = (Rp1/Rp2) * (a2/a1). Since Rp1 = Rp2, this simplifies to a2/a1. 

Earlier, we found a1 = (2/9)^(1/3) a2 ≈ 0.6 a2. Therefore, a2/a1 ≈ 1 / 0.6 ≈ 1.666..., which is approximately 1.65 times. Therefore, P1/P2 ≈ 1.65. So Planet_1 has a 1.65 times higher probability of transiting. Therefore, the correct answer is A.

But wait, the problem states that the host stars have the same radius. So R1 = R2. The transit probability is (Rp/Rstar) * (1/(π * a / (Rstar))) )? Wait, no. Wait, the formula I derived earlier was (Rp/a) * (4/π). So since a1 is smaller, Planet_1's transit probability is higher. Therefore, Planet_1 is preferred.

But let's check the options again. Option A says ~1.65 times higher probability. So the answer should be A. But let's think again if there's another factor.

Wait, another consideration: the orbital period also affects the velocity. The orbital velocity v = 2πa / P. For Planet_1, since P1 = P/3 and a1 ≈ 0.6 a2, v1 = 2πa1 / P1 ≈ 2π * 0.6a2 / (P/3) ) = 2π * 0.6a2 * 3 / P = 3.6π a2 / P. For Planet_2, v2 = 2πa2 / P. So v1 = 3.6 v2. But how does velocity affect transit probability? Transit probability is more about the size and the alignment of the orbit, not the velocity. So the velocity might not directly affect the transit probability. Therefore, the main factor is the semi-major axis.

Therefore, the conclusion remains that Planet_1 has a higher transit probability by a factor of approximately 1.65. Therefore, the correct answer is A.
</think>