Kepler Full Recovery Not Possible: But It Is Still Very Useful
NASA Ends Attempts to Fully Recover Kepler Spacecraft
“Following months of analysis and testing, the Kepler Space Telescope team is ending its attempts to restore the spacecraft to full working order, and now is considering what new science research it can carry out in its current condition.
Two of Kepler’s four gyroscope-like reaction wheels, which are used to precisely point the spacecraft, have failed. The first was lost in July 2012, and the second in May. Engineers’ efforts to restore at least one of the wheels have been unsuccessful.
Kepler completed its prime mission in November 2012 and began its four-year extended mission at that time. However, the spacecraft needs three functioning wheels to continue its search for Earth-sized exoplanets, which are planets outside our solar system, orbiting stars like our Sun in what’s known as the habitable zone — the range of distances from a star where the surface temperature of a planet might be suitable for liquid water. As scientists analyze previously collected data, the Kepler team also is looking into whether the space telescope can conduct a different type of science program, including an exoplanet search, using the remaining two good reaction wheels and thrusters.”
That sucks. Even if they do find something else for it to do, it still represents a loss of potential for finding earth-like exoplanets. It will be years before we get another good space telescope like it up there (although there are some other promising telescopes being used and built for exoplanet research).
I don’t know much about astronomy. What could they do without its ability to remain precisely on point? Star research?
“All these stars are yours, except Cygnus and Lyra. Attempt no observations there”
What are all those little black rectangles in the corner?
Japanese Space Agency’s Hayabusa mission (asteroid sample return) had two Ithaco/Goodrich reaction wheel failures in 2005, 2 years after
launch. Why was the same supplier selected for Kepler mission and why did the spacecraft supplier and NASA Assurance Management sign off on that source selection when Kepler I&T was three years after the
Hayabusa failures? Principal Investigator-managed missions (read: “science team calls the shots”) used to be considered relatively cost/risk benign at <100million, but this has become an 800 million dollar mission. Could the agency have been stonewalled (until sometime near Mission Readiness Review) into agreeing to “minimal risk” of satisfying the primary scence goal, and then called it a day?
You should note that Kepler completed its mission. It was working in bonus time, much like Opportunity is now. In that light, the reaction wheels did their job for the period over which they were supposed to do their job.
An interview with Deputy Project Manager is here: http://news.sciencemag.org/…
There is a possible solution – ask the Chinese to fix it. They have money, they don’t have political roadblocks and they can do things pretty fast.
There are no political roadblocks here. What’s broken (reaction wheels) can’t be fixed. And if it could, it would still cost more than a new telescope.
Putting aside the details for a minute, I’m really pleased to see yet another good concept change. In the beginning it was: Use it till it dies then pretend it doesn’t exist. Then we had a shift in thinking and it was: Let’s see if we can repair it (e.g. Hubble). And now it’s: since we can’t repair it, let’s see if we can repurpose it (e.g. Kepler). The shift from totally expendable to reusable thinking has now made its way into several areas of NASA. I think it should have happened long ago.