[dotancohen]

  > Why is it pointing at the same spot for a year?

The transit method requires observing a dip in the brightness of a star. Actually - three dips. The first dip indicates - but does not prove - the existence of a planet transiting in front of the star. The change in intensity, rate of change of intensity, and duration of the dip all give us information.

The second dip, if roughly identical to the first dip in parameters, gives us the orbital period of the star. So now we wait a second period in order to observe the expected... Third dip, which confirms the planet if it occurs with the same parameters at the expected time.

Though I think that such observations would require at least two years, and up to possibly four years, for stars with orbits of periods similar to our own. I don't believe that a single year is long enough.

[dcminter]

> Though I think that such observations would require at least two years

It is at least two years at least if I'm understanding this⁰ correctly:

Observational concept

Ultra-high precision, long (at least two years), uninterrupted photometric monitoring in the visible band of very large samples of bright (V ≤11-13) stars.

⁰ https://sci.esa.int/documents/33240/36096/1567260308850-PLAT...

[hajola]

I should have been more clear in my original post. AFAIK there are two options on the table - looking at two fields, both 2 years OR looking at one field for 3 years and then doing "step and stare" for the rest of the mission. Step and stare being that they "step" into a new field, "stare" at it for some time, and repeat.