Kepler's Mission
The centuries-old quest for other worlds like our Earth has been rejuvenated by the intense excitement and popular interest surrounding the discovery of hundreds of planets orbiting other stars.
There is now clear evidence for substantial numbers of three types of exoplanets; gas giants, hot-super-Earths in short period orbits, and ice giants. The following websites are tracking the day-by-day increase in new discoveries and are providing information on the characteristics of the planets as well as those of the stars they orbit.
Kepler Mission Scientific Objective:
The scientific objective of the Kepler Mission is to explore the structure and diversity of planetary systems. This is achieved by surveying a large sample of stars to:
- Determine the abundance of terrestrial and larger planets in or near the habitable zone of a wide variety of stars;
- Determine the distribution of sizes and shapes of the orbits of these planets;
- Estimate how many planets there are in multiple-star systems;
- Determine the variety of orbit sizes and planet reflectivities, sizes, masses and densities of short-period giant planets;
- Identify additional members of each discovered planetary system using other techniques; and
- Determine the properties of those stars that harbor planetary systems.
The Kepler Mission also supports the objectives of future NASA Origins theme missions Space Interferometry Mission (SIM) and Terrestrial Planet Finder (TPF),
- By identifying the common stellar characteristics of host stars for future planet searches,
- By defining the volume of space needed for the search and
- By allowing SIM to target systems already known to have terrestrial planets.
More information found here
The Problem
From all accounts, NASA's Kepler spacecraft has been an unabashed success since its launch 2½ years ago. In February, mission scientists announced that they'd found an astounding 1,235 candidate planets in just the first four months' observations. This cache brims with multiple-planet systems: 115 doubles, 45 triples, and 10 with at least four.
Moreover, beyond its planet-hunting prowess, Kepler has returned paradigm-changing data on the nature of stars themselves, heralding what one researcher calls a "golden age for stellar physics." An estimated 500 astronomers are poring through the spacecraft's ultraprecise light curves, churning out roughly one new research paper per week on everything from a detailed census of stellar sizes and masses to using stars' subtle, rhythmic pulsations to probe their interiors.
But project managers have become quietly concerned that Kepler's top priority - finding true analogs of Earth circling Sunlike stars in temperate, life-friendly orbits - can't be achieved by the time the spacecraft completes its planned 3½-year-long mission just 16 months from now.
It soon became apparent that the problem lay with the targeted stars themselves. Kepler scientists had assumed that stars like the Sun would behave, well, just as the Sun does. Up-and-down churning of gas in the solar photosphere causes the Sun's brightness to vary by about 10 parts per million (10 ppm) over time scales of a few hours.
But brightness fluctuations from the stars being watched by Kepler are greater than that - averaging about 20 ppm for 12th-magnitude dwarfs. This added noise makes their light curves messier and identifying transits by small bodies all the more difficult. "They're much more variable than the Sun," Borucki admits. "It was a big surprise to us."
Where the Antiscience comes in
There is a way around this unexpected setback: the longer Kepler can stare, the better its odds of identifying small worlds. According to a comprehensive analysis just concluded by Gilliland and 16 colleagues, the spacecraft would need to amass at least 7 or 8 years of observations - double the planned mission length - to identify all the Earths passing in front of solar-type stars in the spacecraft's field of view.
Ordinarily, getting NASA managers to extend Kepler operations for a few more years would be nearly automatic. After all, even though the total mission cost is roughly $600 million, it would take no more than $17 million annually to keep it going. The spacecraft is healthy, with enough consumables aboard to last through most of this decade.
But these are turbulent times for the space agency. Substantial cost and schedule overruns by the James Webb Space Telescope threaten to gobble up an ever-greater fraction of NASA's space-science budget. Worse, within the past month Congressional budgeteers have proposed not only to cancel JWST outright but to slash more than $1.9 billion from the Obama administration's NASA budget for fiscal year 2012.
More information here
My Conclusion
Look, I know these Antiscience posts annoy a lot of people. I don't particularly enjoy ostracizing myself by continually bringing up this unpopular (and aggressively denied) subject. I do it because I love science and I feel obligated to speak about what I'm seeing.
What I'm seeing is that we are aggressively destroying science in this country and the silence is deafening. The cuts to NASA are already having terrible consequences and it's only going to get worse.
I'm supposed to believe that there isn't a prevalent Antiscience undercurrent among mainstream America? Look at what this country is doing. You can't just blame fiscal conservatism. The silence of the majority as science is systematically destroyed is doing far more damage. The majority, through their "neutralness" or worse "superficial support" on this issue is enabling this destruction. It's time people other than myself say it. Or are we going to just going to keep pretending everything is ok? Can't we at least admit the vast majority of people in this country simply don't care that this is happening?
We are all the Antiscience and it's weakening our country. We (people supposedly in support of science) need to stop regurgitating talking points and look at this problem more deeply. If we keep pursuing (as scientists) the same old tired approach of "dumbing down science" or "making science cool", in other words chasing rather than leading, then the day will come not to long from now when Scientists are explaining to University Boards why physics is a necessary subject in Universities.
Ooops, I forgot, that day has already come
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marcus Aurelius once said "A man's worth is no greater than his ambitions.".
The same could be said for a country's worth. If we as a country don't start more aggressively fostering ambitions beyond our immediate needs, we will cease to be great.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3
The Kepler Mission- Antiscience's Next Victim
Re: The Kepler Mission- Antiscience's Next Victim
Good Answers:
"Almost" Good Answers: