Slashdot Mirror
Beyond Kepler: Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite Set For 2017 Launch
astroengine writes "NASA has selected a $200 million mission to carry out a full-sky survey for exoplanets orbiting nearby stars. The space observatory, called the Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite, is scheduled for a 2017 launch. Like the currently operational Kepler Space Telescope, TESS will be in the lookout for exoplanets that orbit in front of their host stars, resulting in a slight dip in starlight. This dip is known as a "transit" and Kepler has revolutionized our understanding about planets orbiting other stars in our galaxy by applying this effective technique. As of January 2013, Kepler has spotted 2,740 exoplanetary candidates. "TESS will carry out the first space-borne all-sky transit survey, covering 400 times as much sky as any previous mission," said TESS lead scientist George Ricker, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Kavli Institute for Astrophysics and Space Research. "It will identify thousands of new planets in the solar neighborhood, with a special focus on planets comparable in size to the Earth.""
We don't know. That's one reason to do it.
What does it mean if the survey shows that for a group of 10 stars you have a 95% probability of at least 8 having at least one planet?
What does it mean if the survey shows this for 95% of the surveyed area except for a continuous section where there is only 1 planet per 100 stars?
What new knowledge would come from trying to understand what caused this? Perhaps we discover something new about fundamental physics?
The point is that we don't know what we don't know. This may be what discovers something previously completely unsuspected and with earth-shattering possibilities... or... we could just learn that there's a lot of planets out there and nothing more. But without doing it, there's no chance of discovering the former. Observing what's around us is how we learn more and start to question things we otherwise never would have known even existed to question.
not more interesting, just different - both are incredibly valuable and interesting - and they will both have effects on each other.
then please ask your employer lockheed martin to sell 10 less f-16 to the government to help into balancing the budget.
Here is something I do know: over 5 million children in the United States will go to bed hungry tonight.
No they won't. That sound bite comes from a series of ridiculous distortions of the underlying data. In essence, 5 million children are at risk that some time during the month their parents (or other caregivers) will not provide them the meals they had planned to--and at that meal most of them will not even go hungry, they'll be fed cheaper food, and probably never even know about it.
no, $200M is not a large amount of money; we spend billions to kill and maim innocents for power and wealth; and you're fixated on this chump change?
"pursuing the sciences" has doubled human lifespan, raised the standard of living over the last four centuries, made possible global communication and the storage of mankind's accumulated knowledge. it's worth it.
We'd be at least at Alpha Centauri, possibly further out by now.
I like spending big money on space exploration as much as the next guy, but Alpha Centauri is 4.3 light-years away. If a mission to Alpha Centauri was launched in 1958 (the year NASA was created), it would have had to travel at an average speed of .078c in order to arrive this year.
It's hard to imagine that we could have come up with technology capable of that, even if we spent our entire GDP on developing space technology.
Mars, OTOH, or other locations in our own solar system, sure.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
There are a number of projects currently underway, some NASA sponsored, some not that would do things that would increase the speed of spacecraft. On the more immediate front is the fusion drive that could get us to Mars in a bit over a month. On the more cutting edge is the FTL group at NASA working on WARP drive. They took the Alcubierre drive and determined you didn't need a reaction mass the size of say Jupiter but a more manageable ton or two.
over 5 million children in the United States will go to bed hungry tonight. $200 million would solve that problem for a month.
What about the next month? Should we sacrifice another long term program to temporarily alleviate a *symptom*? If people had listened this type of argument a hundred years ago, we might not have commercial aviation or satellites today. Those may not feed people directly, but they've contributed a great deal to flattening out the world, reducing conflicts and improving education.
World hunger is not a symptom of lack of food. If you keep throwing food at the problem, it'll never go away.