Kepler Has Identified 2,300 Extrasolar Planet Candidates
Planetary Candidates Observed by Kepler, III: Analysis of the First 16 Months of Data
“New transiting planet candidates are identified in sixteen months (May 2009 – September 2010) of data from the Kepler spacecraft. Nearly five thousand periodic transit-like signals are vetted against astrophysical and instrumental false positives yielding 1,091 viable new planet candidates, bringing the total count up to over 2,300. Improved vetting metrics are employed, contributing to higher catalog reliability. Most notable is the noise-weighted robust averaging of multi-quarter photo-center offsets derived from difference image analysis which identifies likely background eclipsing binaries.”
Architecture of Kepler’s Multi-transiting Systems: II. New investigations with twice as many candidates
“Having discovered 885 planet candidates in 361 multiple-planet systems, Kepler has made transits a powerful method for studying the statistics of planetary systems. The orbits of only two pairs of planets in these candidate systems are apparently unstable. This indicates that a high percentage of the candidate systems are truly planets orbiting the same star, motivating physical investigations of the population.”
Kepler is the greatest mission ever. Seriously. Immense amounts of data. Breakthrough science. Gold-Plated Important discoveries. All for the bargain bin price of $600 million.
In other words the $8.8 billion JWST will buy just under fifteen Keplers.
Everyone crying “great nations do great science… please don’t raid our JWST/Mars/Europa funds”, this is how you do great science. Pay attention. A reliable, simple design. A tightly structured, carefully scheduled fabrication and launch program. A tighly focused, no frills science mission. Zero feature creep. All for a cool $600 million. That is what NASA Space Science should look like.
Here’s another prediction. In 2020 when you rank the top 5 NASA space science programs of the 2010s in terms of impact and how it changed our perception of the universe, Kepler will be number 1 by a lot, James Web Space Telescope will be number 5 and the MSL won’t be on the list. The esteemed scientists crowing “no, not my money! My science is important!” should think long and hard about why that is.
And dont forget:
VERY serious threats of cancellation under Alan Stern and
A company that demands less in profit than some of the other “Defense contractors” to do the same caliber of work for less.
Look at Deep Impact for another prime example under the exact same people & organization.
I am a huge fan of Kepler and and on more than one occasion have rendered service to the science team. But JWST will blow it out of the water. JWST is the number one priority in space of the astronomical community, and this was not arrived at lightly. You are welcome to complain about the cost, but this doesn’t not imply a corollary that the science that it will do is unexceptional.
Right on, Tod.
If the politicians cancel a program over money, well, that’s part of their job. But when politicians or anyone else seek to alter people’s perception of the worth or success of a science program because of money, I insist that that’s just plain wrong.
You wouldn’t ask a plumber to rate the work of an accountant, so people shouldn’t be affected by the lawyers’ opinions about the worth of a science program.
Steve
“In 2020 when you rank the top 5 NASA space science programs of the 2010s …”
Jonathan,
I’m just curious, what criteria are you basing your predictions on? Although Kepler is generating considerable interest now, relative to other missions, by 2020 it will be old news, even if it is still finding new planets, because it will still be doing the same thing as it had been for years. I’d think that at the level of the common man one new Kepler planet is the same as any other. And to the science people it’s just more data of the same type. I think Kepler is doing great stuff, but after a relatively short time it becomes like watching a good movie too many times; the glamour wears off.
Given budget cuts and other delaying factors, JWST may well be experiencing its biggest novelties in 2020. And I think MSL may end up surprising you. The unique thing about Mars, to me, is that every time we put down another rover it seems we get surprises and more data than was expected.
Also, we have to be careful not to evaluate a program in terms of its building and cost history, but rather with respect to how well it performs its assigned task(s) once in place, and two of the three missions you discussed are not yet in place and operating.
All of that said, I wouldn’t be surprised if your rating turns out to be right on, but for the wrong reasons.
Steve
Pretty impressive job that Kepler is doing!
With the various overruns and problems that the science missions have been having in the news so much lately, it’s nice to see some of the missions that are quietly doing great science.
An unfortunate pattern seems to be developing with science missions, particularly those missions in pursuit of more esoteric knowledge. The opinions that more and more bloggers and media people are expressing seem to correlate directly with program cost and cost overruns.
For example, in the grand scheme of things, the Kepler and JWST programs are both searching out and cataloging scientific data that has no immediate benefit to our quality of life and is of major interest to only a very small portion of the population. Kepler is a much less expensive program than JWST and, so far at least, hasn’t had any large cost overruns. This makes it a “good” and worthwhile program. JWST, on the other hand, was much more expensive at the outset and has experienced major cost overruns, and is therefore a “bad” program and provides no value.
People in many cases have been expressing opinions without any mention of whether a given program is performing well or poorly. Even worse, they are evaluating and comparing programs without differentiating between those which have been launched and are operational and those which have not yet completed being built. So, at minimum, it’s a case of apples and oranges.
A notable exception to this pattern was the MER rovers, which far outperformed what was expected of them, and the costs that were in addition to the original budget were for extending the operating time of Spirit and Opportunity, since they were continuing to give is more knowledge for a very reasonable cost. So the MER program is conveniently overlooked when critiquing more recent programs and those which are running longer in the building phase (bad) instead of the operational phase (good).
So now we’re at the point where even the report cards for missions are measured in terms of money instead of performance, which means that, if NASA and the aerospace companies are affected by this unfortunate trend, the major incentive is to reduce costs instead of assuring the more important performance considerations such as quality, safety and reliability. I would have liked to think that Challenger and Columbia taught us all a lesson, but apparently not.
Steve
I lost you on the MER analogy. Were the MERs overbudget by much at the time of launch? Were they delayed by much? Was 2003 the original launch window? Even though they were expensive, I think they were still considered “good” because they stayed on track. That’s even before they outlived their life-expectancy.
I might also include Pathfinder back in the 90’s as a “good”, if not “great” mission.
Okay, Columbia and Challenger, tragic accidents with hundreds of lessons learned. I would say that the lesson learned that could be applied to this discussion is that the most complex and capable answer might not be the best answer. Here we are, transitioning back to capsules and smaller HSF craft after the end of the Shuttle program. With the unmanned program, I can’t blame others for drawing the conclusion that several to many Discovery class missions are better than one big Flagship style mission. Flagships can be great, but the risks of going overbudget seem to be higher.
For us, the amateurs outside the program, bang for the buck is measured where bang can be entertainment, accessible knowledge, or even inspiration. Pathfinder provided much “bang”, sparking great new interest in robotics that is paying off now all around us. Kepler is providing “bang” by giving us hope about the most profound questions, are we alone? Is Earth unique? From our perspective, a flagship mission like Cassini may provide about the same amount of “bang”. I know this is not an accurate way to determine results of programs or how money should be spent. I acknowledge that scientists should be determining those metrics, such as how many scientific papers are written based on the results of certain missions. There must be thousands from Hubble and Spitzer (Just looked it up, in 2011, after 21 years, Hubble spawned 10,000 papers). Could that ‘$/paper’ be the proper metric that separates the “good” from the “bad” that you are seeking? In the end, will the $/paper cost of JWST be similar to Kepler?
Major,
I didn’t express myself clearly about MER. I think it was/is a great accomplishment all around. The thing that I was trying to say is that the critics who are using dollars spent building/launching as their metric for good or bad programs never seem to mention MER; I’m assuming it’s because the added money for MER was for extending the highly successful operational phase, not an overrun on the predicted build cost. Likewise for Cassini. They are both superstars in my books. But are they “worth” what they cost? I think that’s entirely subjective and it can’t be otherwise. If we accept that as being the case, then the same argument applies for any and every program, past, present and future.
I don’t see how there can be a metric, a standard, across-the-board yardstick to evaluate the “value” of programs. All we can really “measure” is 1) popularity and 2) whether the powers-that-be are willing to pay the “advertised” cost for a given program. Even though it seems like a cop-out, I think it’s entirely subjective and therefore comes down in the end to opinions.
It would be nice to think that knowledge and experience play the major part in both the decisions to do/not do each program and in how they are evaluated. All I can say to that is, SLS.
Steve
Let’s get back to what you originally said: “Kepler is a much less expensive program than JWST and, so far at least, hasn’t had any large cost overruns. This makes it a “good” and worthwhile program. JWST, on the other hand, was much more expensive at the outset and has experienced major cost overruns, and is therefore a “bad” program and provides no value.”
I think the complaints in the community are with the overruns. Whether or not a mission is big budget or not, they are both “bad” if they end up costing more than originally estimated (for launch. Extensions should never be considered as overruns). A mission can be very expensive, flagship class, but people don’t get up in arms about them till they get even more expensive than they were originally informed. JWST is still years from launch, and costing far more than they originally thought. And worse yet, is robbing other, possibly “good” missions of their funding. So yes, that makes JWST “bad”. I’m afraid SLS is going to do the same.
Major,
Agreed.
JWST is fighting up hill because of the overruns. So, no matter what good science it eventually does (assuming it does get launched and works) it will always have this shadow hanging over it, and never be the proud child that Hubble is.
As for SLS, the sooner it gets canned, the better. But I’m not holding my breath because, unlike Presidents, Congress people are there year after year after year…
Steve
Major,
Agreed.
JWST is fighting up hill because of the overruns. So, no matter what good science it eventually does (assuming it does get launched and works) it will always have this shadow hanging over it, and never be the proud child that Hubble is.
As for SLS, the sooner it gets canned, the better. But I’m not holding my breath because, unlike Presidents, Congress people are there year after year after year…
Steve
There’s also a critical difference: JWST, like the Great Observatories series, is an “observatory class” project. That means it is highly generalized/flexible in design, and provides a huge science return because almost all of it’s time is available for the larger community to define and exploit (i.e. they propose new projects, which are then observed).
Kepler is a “PI-class” mission. It is highly optimized to cary out a specific science goal (or set of goals) on behalf of the PI and science team. That is a lot simpler, and certainly much cheaper, to build and operate. Very often, in order to achieve the science goals, there are design tradeoffs that preclude much use for other programs.
A PI mission, once it has done its thing, can occasionally be retasked for a new program, and may support a small number (tens) of side-programs. But to a large extent it will have run it’s course, and is done. An observatory, on the other hand, will support many hundreds of science programs, and can continue to evolve to address new science. In the end, you get more bang for the buck, and it is spread around more.
Note that I am only pointing out that you really can’t compare the two. I personally think that JWST is now so over-budget it’s science return isn’t worth the money and delay. It would have been better spent on something with a simpler design that could have flown sooner.
cb450sc,
I agree with you (except maybe on JWST where I’m sitting on the fence). The key thing, in my mind, is that you compared them, or decided that they couldn’t fairly be compared, under the same conditions — both in their operational phases, even though JWST isn’t operational yet. You didn’t decide that one was “good” because it’s returning good science and the other was “bad” solely because it costs too much. You compared them under equal terms.
Steve
Kepler is by all accounts a fantastic mission. However, certain classes of missions are by their nature far more difficult than others. Kepler was by no means technologically easy to implement. But comparing it to planetary surface missions, particularly those that drive on the surface, autonomously navigate obstacles, and collect, handle and distribute samples to onboard instruments, is unfair. Similarly, I’d guess, for the likes of NGST with respect to large aperture optics. (I’m also not claiming the budgets for MSL and NGST didn’t involve any mismanagement or fat, but predicting the cost of cutting-edge technology is shaky at best)
Our national portfolio of science missions should include a distribution of tightly-focused, low-to-medium budget projects (a la Discovery), but also one or two of the flagship missions that truly push the bounds of technology and achieve very difficult-to-obtain science results. We could mould our science mission profile on cost alone and never visit the surface of a planet, nor collect the images of the universe that made HST world famous.
The other objection I have is to measuring a mission’s science return on how our understanding of the full universe changed as a result. It’s a great metric for an astronomer or cosmologist, but doesn’t exactly cut it for those working in planetary science. How much of the greater universe did we learn about with Voyager, Galileo, MER? But their contributions are undisputed. One could similarly argue that the only thing that matters from a practical standpoint is knowledge of Earth and our nearest neighbors. It’s all important – we just have to work around these tight economic times to decide what we do now vs. later, and it’s not going to be easy. The emotions kicked up by these arguments are understandable – we’re not just talking about hardware and mission plans and budgets, but people’s careers and dreams.