Kepler's Streak (2009 March 9)

[fatcitymax]

What an absurd waste of money! It makes you wonder how much intelligent life there exists on earth. Certainly there isn't any at NASA's management. NASA is white-collar welfare at its worst. The agency should be shut down and its budget given to NOAA. Kepler is even more useless than the new Mars rover NASA hopes to launch.

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap090309.html

[neufer]

What an absurd waste of money! It makes you wonder how much intelligent life there exists on earth. Certainly there isn't any at NASA's management. NASA is white-collar welfare at its worst. The agency should be shut down and its budget given to NOAA. Kepler is even more useless than the new Mars rover NASA hopes to launch.

Pray tell, what do you consider is a good use of money?

[indiaaditya]

Hi Guys!

In a previous post I had been told that there is more chance of finding life on the periphery of the galaxy than its center. (I was told that there are black holes near the center).

I am very interested to know whether the Kepler's field of vision is pointing away from center of galaxy relative to our sun.

i.e whether the stars which Kepler will be looking at are closer to center of galaxy than our good old sun.

Cheers!
Aditya

[Dr. Skeptic]

What an absurd waste of money! It makes you wonder how much intelligent life there exists on earth. Certainly there isn't any at NASA's management. NASA is white-collar welfare at its worst. The agency should be shut down and its budget given to NOAA. Kepler is even more useless than the new Mars rover NASA hopes to launch.

So let's you were responsible the money allocated for these projects, how you would have spent the funds? I'd like to know why weather should take presidents over astronomy, then, open a critique of your decisions.

[neufer]

In a previous post I had been told that there is more chance of finding life on the periphery of the galaxy than its center. (I was told that there are black holes near the center). I am very interested to know whether the Kepler's field of vision is pointing away from center of galaxy relative to our sun. i.e whether the stars which Kepler will be looking at are closer to center of galaxy than our good old sun.

Hi, Aditya

One wouldn't want Kepler to look towards the Sagittarius center of galaxy
primarily because Sagittarius is on the zodiacal/ecliptic plane path of the sun.

Kepler is more or less looking down the 1,000 light years thick Orion-Cygnus spiral arm in which the sun, itself, sits...though viewed off at a slight angle (in a direction away from the zodiac/zodiacal light) so that O-C stars more than 3,000 light years away do not mess up the background field.

Google Sky shows this area to be a fairly homogeneous star field with very few non-star features.

<<Kepler is not in an Earth orbit but in an Earth-trailing solar orbit so that Earth will not occlude the stars which are to be observed continuously and the photometer will not be influenced by stray light from Earth. The photometer will point to a field in the constellations of Cygnus and Lyra, which is well out of the ecliptic plane, so that sunlight never enters the photometer as the spacecraft orbits the Sun. Cygnus is also a good choice to observe because it will never be obscured by Kuiper belt objects or the asteroid belt.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... gA1024.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kepler_orbit.png

An additional benefit of that choice is that Kepler will be pointing in the direction of the Solar System's motion around the center of the galaxy. Thus, the stars which are observed by Kepler will be roughly the same distance from the galaxy center as the Solar System, and will also be close to the galactic plane. This fact is important if position in the galaxy is related to habitability, as suggested by the Rare Earth hypothesis.>>

[Chris Peterson]

In a previous post I had been told that there is more chance of finding life on the periphery of the galaxy than its center. (I was told that there are black holes near the center).

I am very interested to know whether the Kepler's field of vision is pointing away from center of galaxy relative to our sun.

i.e whether the stars which Kepler will be looking at are closer to center of galaxy than our good old sun.

The target area is between Cygnus and Lyra, near Vega. That puts it near the galactic plane, not real close to the center but certainly pointing inwards. There's a chart here.

The goal of this mission is not about finding life, so from that standpoint direction isn't important. However, it wouldn't matter. The stars Kepler is monitoring are nearby, and the conditions in this region of the galaxy ought to be the same regardless of direction.

[Chris Peterson]

What an absurd waste of money! It makes you wonder how much intelligent life there exists on earth. Certainly there isn't any at NASA's management. NASA is white-collar welfare at its worst. The agency should be shut down and its budget given to NOAA. Kepler is even more useless than the new Mars rover NASA hopes to launch.

Our detection of enough exoplanets to be statistically meaningful has provided a great boost to the theoretical study of how star systems form. What's missing from the observational evidence, however, is the frequency of formation and position of terrestrial planets. That's what Kepler is designed to detect, and this information is key to a better understanding of stellar formation. As such, this mission is of very high scientific value.

Perhaps you have been fooled by some of the popular news reports into thinking that this is some sort of SETI mission? Nothing could be further from the case.

[neufer]

Our detection of enough exoplanets to be statistically meaningful has provided a great boost to the theoretical study of how star systems form. What's missing from the observational evidence, however, is the frequency of formation and position of terrestrial planets. That's what Kepler is designed to detect, and this information is key to a better understanding of stellar formation. As such, this mission is of very high scientific value.

Perhaps you have been fooled by some of the popular news reports into thinking that this is some sort of SETI mission? Nothing could be further from the case.

Do you have a problem with SETI yourself, Chris?

Certainly one of Kepler's primary goals is to better define one of the Drake equation terms:
n_e is the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets

The Drake equation states that:

N = R* x f_p x n_e x f_ℓ x f_i x f_c x L

where:

N is the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which communication might be possible;

and

R* is the average rate of star formation in our galaxy
f_p is the fraction of those stars that have planets
n_e is the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets
f_ℓ is the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point
f_i is the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life
f_c is the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space
L is the length of time such civilizations release detectable signals into space.

[Chris Peterson]

Do you have a problem with SETI yourself, Chris?

No, I don't. I consider it a valid area of study. But I do understand why many people might consider it a waste of money.

Certainly one of Kepler's primary goals is to better define one of the Drake equation terms...

Is that articulated anywhere in the mission goals? Yes, that understanding might follow from the mission results, but it seems inaccurate to me to say that this is a mission goal, or at least a primary goal. The reason for needing observational evidence on the frequency of terrestrial planets in other star systems has little to do at this point about finding life, and a lot to do with understanding how stellar systems form.

[neufer]

Do you have a problem with SETI yourself, Chris?

No, I don't. I consider it a valid area of study. But I do understand why many people might consider it a waste of money.

Thank goodness Kepler could support himself financially by finding a practical use for Astronomy...Astrology.

Certainly one of Kepler's primary goals is to better define one of the Drake equation terms...

Is that articulated anywhere in the mission goals? Yes, that understanding might follow from the mission results, but it seems inaccurate to me to say that this is a mission goal, or at least a primary goal. The reason for needing observational evidence on the frequency of terrestrial planets in other star systems has little to do at this point about finding life, and a lot to do with understanding how stellar systems form.

We are probably a long way off from either finding extraterrestrial life or communicating with "little green men" but surely the final goal here is:

1) to find extraterrestrial life or

2) to find "little green men" or (in loo of either)

3) to establish the preciousness & uniqueness of mother earth, itself.

We sent men to the moon so as not to feel intimidated by the Russians and ended up
taking a picture of earth which reminded us why we needed to get along with them.

[Chris Peterson]

We are probably a long way off from either finding extraterrestrial life or communicating with "little green men" but surely the final goal here is:

1) to find extraterrestrial life or

2) to find "little green men" or (in loo of either)

3) to establish the preciseness & uniqueness of mother earth, itself.

I don't think there is a final goal. Scientifically, I'd say the closest thing to a single goal would be understanding the Universe, which has little to do with whether or not extraterrestrial life exists. Your third goal is a part of this (of course, the Earth may not be particularly unique at all). I don't really see your first two goals as being primary goals of NASA or other space exploration entities, although the first has been an element of several Mars missions and will undoubtedly be part of some future missions looking elsewhere within or outside the Solar System. Finding intelligent extraterrestrial life strikes me as being very far down the list of any scientific goals for the foreseeable future.

[life]

To get into the thread about whether it is a waste of money we would have to get into politics, which would probably mean we would not get to talk astronomy again until the moderator stopped it, so let's not. But my question/comment is - not only does it seem difficult at best, but am I reading it right - the only time a detection will be made is when a planet lines up in front of its star? Assuming the planet is lined up perfectly in plane with the star and the spacecraft, that would for planet earth have immediately reduced the chance to 1:365, no more than that, because earth probably moves much more than it's own diameter along its path in a day, and as there is no reason to believe that such alignment is present, the chance of encounting one must be almost infinitely small? It will be something about the area of the "footprint"/shadow of the planet divided into/by the surface area of the theoretical sphere defined by/at the distance between the star and the planet, here we will wind up with truly astronomical odds, right? or even worse, because the spacecraft will be out in a farther away (theoretical, as relating to the star) sphere, and constantly changing -where I would think the parallax would reduce the odds even further?

[fatcitymax]

Pray tell, what do you consider is a good use of money?

How about a cure for insidious diseases such as cancer, diabetes, or ALS? Or how about halting global warming?

[Chris Peterson]

But my question/comment is - not only does it seem difficult at best, but am I reading it right - the only time a detection will be made is when a planet lines up in front of its star? Assuming the planet is lined up perfectly in plane with the star and the spacecraft, that would for planet earth have immediately reduced the chance to 1:365, no more than that, because earth probably moves much more than it's own diameter along its path in a day, and as there is no reason to believe that such alignment is present, the chance of encounting one must be almost infinitely small?

In the case of the Earth, it would appear to a distant observer to transit the Sun for about 12 hours each year. So for any similar system seen edge on, there would be about a 1/700 chance of observing a transit at any particular time. It's true that this will only work for systems with orbital planes aligned with our viewpoint, but statistically that should be better than one in a thousand.

Since Kepler will be examining thousands of stars, with high time resolution, over months or years, there's every reason to think that many events will be recorded, assuming that the number of terrestrial planets is as high as many researchers believe. And regardless of the number of actual detections, the number of observed systems is high enough to derive a statistically meaningful estimate of the frequency of terrestrial planets around other stars.

[Chris Peterson]

Pray tell, what do you consider is a good use of money?

How about a cure for insidious diseases such as cancer, diabetes, or ALS? Or how about halting global warming?

It is faulty logic to stop spending on one area of research just because there are other worthy areas as well. Much of the technology that makes medical research possible wouldn't even exist but for the spinoffs of space science. Global warming can't be halted without a much better understanding of our planet, and part of that understanding comes from understanding planets in general. All of which is dependent on space science research as well.

[fatcitymax]

Much of the technology that makes medical research possible wouldn't even exist but for the spinoffs of space science.

Of course it would exist: "Necessity is the mother of invention." Kepler, another Mars rover, and returning the Moon are highly inefficient means of developing useful, practical technology. Better to give the funds to the biotech and health industry, for example, via SBIR grants. NASA has become little more than an inbred hobby shop for all sorts of poor science and engineering.

[Chris Peterson]

Of course it would exist: "Necessity is the mother of invention." Kepler, another Mars rover, and returning the Moon are highly inefficient means of developing useful, practical technology. Better to give the funds to the biotech and health industry, for example, via SBIR grants. NASA has become little more than an inbred hobby shop for all sorts of poor science and engineering.

Fundamental research isn't, and shouldn't be, limited to producing "useful, practical technology".

You should probably be taking your message to some other forum. We are largely a group of people inspired by the output of research sponsored by NASA and other agencies active in space science.

[fatcitymax]

Fundamental research isn't, and shouldn't be, limited to producing "useful, practical technology".

Of course you are right; however, building Kepler, a new Mars rover, and returning to the Moon require little fundamental research and will produce few spinoffs that couldn't be developed more efficiently by other means. Even worse, they will not likely result in any significant breakthroughs in scientific knowledge.

[Chris Peterson]

Fundamental research isn't, and shouldn't be, limited to producing "useful, practical technology".

Of course you are right; however, building Kepler, a new Mars rover, and returning to the Moon require little fundamental research and will produce few spinoffs that couldn't be developed more efficiently by other means. Even worse, they will not likely result in any significant breakthroughs in scientific knowledge.

Whatever technological spinoffs they might produce is uncertain, but also unimportant. Every Mars mission to date has produced huge breakthroughs in our understanding of planetary science, and there's no reason to think future ones won't as well. The Kepler mission is likely to produce a massive breakthrough in our understanding of stellar system formation, which would certainly qualify as a significant increase in scientific knowledge. There's no way we are going to develop a solid theory of stellar formation without much more observational information about the material orbiting mature stars, which is what Kepler is all about.

[fatcitymax]

Every Mars mission to date has produced huge breakthroughs..

All they've shown is that Mars is a dead rock. What a surprise.

And current knowledge of stellar formation is highly advanced.

[Chris Peterson]

Every Mars mission to date has produced huge breakthroughs..

All they've shown is that Mars is a dead rock. What a surprise.

Hardly. They've revealed in great detail the geological history of the planet, which in turn has significantly increased our knowledge about the formation of planets in our system, and of the Earth itself.

And current knowledge of stellar formation is highly advanced.

Our current knowledge of stellar formation has lots of room for improvement, and our knowledge of stellar system formation (that is, the evolution of material around stars that doesn't become part of those stars) is not highly advanced at all. There are a number of competing, and substantially different, theories that are awaiting better observational evidence of the sort Kepler is designed to provide.

[geckzilla]

We don't even know that there is a cure for cancer or what else we may discover in space. I'm all for keeping both areas funded. Heh.

[apodman]

Will you spend your life on this one tiny grain
Your sense buried deep in the tangible plain
While you close your eyes to your rightful domain
Shut up in a cell in your own tiny brain

Crawl back in your hole if you're soft in the spine
You haven't a soul when you spurn the sublime
The only two choices: advance or decay
Bog down or reach up, only you pick the way

(Saxophone solo ...)

[neufer]

Pray tell, what do you consider is a good use of money?

How about a cure for insidious diseases such as cancer, diabetes, or ALS?

Over $100 billion is spent annually on biomedical research in the U.S.
Important research has been held up not due to lack of money but rather because of politics.

Or how about halting global warming?

A lot of global warming solutions have been held up because of politics.

Of course, the more people we save with biomedical research
the more people there will be to contribute to global warming...
so are you really sure that you want to spend money on BOTH?

[apodman]

This link ...

http://asterisk.apod.com/vie ... 332#p80332

... will land you in the middle of a thread with similar arguments, including much of the same NASA bashing by fatcitymax as here. In fact, all of fatcitymax's posts do nothing but bash NASA. Criticism is one thing, but fatcitymax only produces one brand of vitriol (just check his posts).