Bye Bye TPF ?

[toymaker]

Apparently the new NASA administrator decided to favour Hubble over finding Earthlike planets:<br />http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/13/science/13nasa.html<br />"NASA is continuing to work on a mission to use the space shuttle to service the Hubble telescope, he said. As he said earlier, Dr. Griffin will reassess an agency decision not to send astronauts to repair and service the telescope. Unless deteriorating batteries and gyroscopes are replaced, the telescope could cease useful operation by 2007 or 2008.<br /><br />To pay for a Hubble rescue, he said, NASA will need to defer work on more advanced telescopes scheduled for launching in the next decade. As part of the agency's pay-as-you-go approach to staying within its budget, he said, work will be restricted on two programs designed to detect distant planets: the Space Interferometry Mission and the Terrestrial Planet Finder."<br /><br />So...Does this mean in NASA language that the program is dead ? <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" /><br />And I had such high hopes for this projects.<br /> <br /><br />According to update :<br />http://images.spaceref.com/news/2005/FY.05.Op.Plan.enclosures.pdf<br />43.0M, Space Interferometry Mission (SIM)<br />• This reduction is consistent with planned 2 year delay in the FY06 budget request. The<br />extent of this deferral and an appropriate Origins strategy is currently under review.<br />• -$26.7M, James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), funding rephasing.<br />• This reduction is consistent with plan proposed in the FY06 budget request and defers some<br />non-critical path activities to FY2006, consistent with current contractor requirements.<br />• -$26.1M, Terrestrial Planet Finder (TPF)<br />• Will hold budget to FY 2004 level. Will result in a 1 year delay. The extent of this deferral and<br />an appropriate Origins s

 

[grooble]

Finding another earth world should be the absolute and number 1 priority of the space program. <br /><br />

 

[crix]

Don't freak out. TPF is being delayed because of NASA's manned exploration priorities and the finite funding that is available. Everyone realizes how valuable TPF is and I'm sure it will get built, independent of how many new presidents we see before then.

 

[toymaker]

"But how are we going to get there? "<br />Not with space shuttle, ISS or Hubble.

 

[toymaker]

"Meanwhile, Hubble continues to work, and with the next mission, better than ever."<br />Can the Hubble detect Earthlike planets ?<br /><br />"How do you keep the present generation of scientists together until the new generation flies? "<br />Kepler will launch before 2010/at least if won't be delayed by the need of supporting ISS or Hubble/

 

[giofx]

Sorry but... why NASA have money issues with a budget that for the current FY is quite 15 billion dollars?!?<br /><br />I mean, ESA's 2005 budget is 2,7 billion, not to speak about RSA which is half a billion!<br /><br />Or NASA have the funds allocated to specific programs by the Congress?

 

[wvbraun]

Uhm, because NASA does a lot more than esa and RSA combined. Read the budget documents if you don't believe me.

 

[giofx]

Sorry but i think NASA "does a lot more" then ESA and RSA cause <i>it have</i> 15 billions dollars per year, not vice versa... and btw, NASA have the STS program thats drain much of that money, its not the Space Science Directorate that blows most of the bucks!

 

[CalliArcale]

A couple of points:<br /><br />* Yes, Congress (and the President) can influence how NASA spends their budget. Sometimes they even outright dictate how the budget will be spent, although for the most part they let NASA tell them how it ought to be spent. (NASA's got the experts, after all. We all like to joke about politicians, but most of them actually are smart enough to listen when appropriate.) Regardless of how particular decisions are made, NASA is accountable to Congress for every single one. They face annual budget reviews to go over it all.<br /><br />NASA has apparently developed a reputation for having the flashiest budget review presentations of any government agency. I think it's partly the drama of aeronautics and astronautics and mostly their very high percentage of serious nerds. <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /><br /><br />Anyhow, it is true that NASA does a great deal more than the Shuttle and ISS programs. Shuttle and ISS are merely the most prominent of their programs. Planetary science, sun science, and extrasolar science are also fairly well-known. Less well-known is their Earth science work (shared with NOAA, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration). But the big part that most folks don't know anything at all about doesn't involve space at all. It's aeronautics. It is, after all, the National <b>Aeronautics</b> and Space Administration. Even before it was drafted into service to beat the Russians to the moon, it was an aerospace research organization, and that remains one of its primary focuses.<br /><br />NASA works on new jet engine technologies, noise mitigation, airframe designs, ground support equipment for airports, fly-by-wire systems, "glass cockpit", systems for blind landings, and many other things. One cool recent introduction came out of a NASA system designed to help the Shuttle and other fly-by-wire aircraft avoid "porpoising" -- a problem inherent in many fly-by-wire systems where the pilot unconsciou <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[kdavis007]

Well I hope the Hubble-philes are happy....

 

[scottb50]

I for one am. Hubble could last for decades. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[holmec]

I agree not to fret. Save the Hubble now and keep searching for planets later. Its just the finite nature of budgets. I'm sure searching for planets will not go away. <br /><br />The planets will wait for us, Hubble won't. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[Leovinus]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Finding another earth world should be the absolute and number 1 priority of the space program. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I totally disagree. Suppose, for example, we find another earth? What then do we do? I think it is pretty much obvious that given the unimaginable size of the universe that there are plenty of other earths out there. The exact location isn't really important since we can't get there anyway. <br /><br />I think a higher priority should be geared around preserving humanity. This means:<br />1) Tracking earth-crossing asteroids and comets<br />2) Finding ways to deflect them or render them harmless<br />3) Moving humanity off-world to Moon & Mars and beyond so that if one group of humans is wiped out by cosmic collisions, war, or disease that humanity will survive.<br /><br />Definitely, I'd like to receive communications or signs of intelligent life on a remote world. But I'd hardly call it a number 1 priority. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[thalion]

<<The phrase that seems to fit this best is: <br /><br />"A bird in the hand, is worth two in the bush." <br /><br />Funding for the new projects would have to survive three more administration changes. How likely is that, without program extending delays? <br /><br />Meanwhile, Hubble continues to work, and with the next mission, better than ever. How do you keep the present generation of scientists together until the new generation flies? />><br /><br />Ditto. With or without Hubble, NASA's budget is going to be tight for a long time yet, for reasons that have already been mentioned, and even launching a de-orbiting module would not be cheap. Also as mentioned, a lot can happen in the 6-10 years before these missions are scheduled to lift off; not one is a done deal. <br /><br />Lord knows I want TPF and SIM, and HST will never be those, but it's better than nothing, and it's perhaps NASA's best and most reliable PR device, and in terms of media publicity easily leaves the other Great Observatories in the dust.<br /><br />If all else fails, ESA's planned GAIA and Eddington missions could pick up the slack for SIM and TPF respectively; NASA could always consider a Cassini-esque partnership in those programs, and perhaps co-sponsor them to the benefit of both ESA and NASA.

 

[shyningnight]

Just some food for thought here...<br /><br />What do you think would happen to NASA's budget (and public support for NASA) if a terrestrial planet WAS found, within say 200 light years?<br /><br />I think you'd see more enthusiasm for spending "an extra few billion" to get us closer to that world than we've seen for decades.<br /><br />Should such a search be "a number one priority"? Maybe not..<br />But I would rather see Hubble go dark, and get OTHER instruments funded and up. Even if it means a few years without Hubble's graces.<br /><br />Just my opinion.<br />Paul F.

 

[Leovinus]

And more likely: What would happen to NASA's budget if a doomsday asteroid was found? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[alokmohan]

NASA is very competent to throw away dooms day budget.Of late the press is talking too much of doomsday mixing religion and science.This trend is unscientific.

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"What do you think would happen to NASA's budget (and public support for NASA) if a terrestrial planet WAS found, within say 200 light years? "</font><br /><br />Dunno about NASA, but the DoD would start spending big bucks on space defenses to 'protect' us from the evil alien neighbors that might be dropping by for a cup of tea. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[toymaker]

http://www.astrobio.net/news/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=962&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0<br /><br />want to close by briefly sketching two versions of a story that takes place in 2014. A scientist takes her kids camping, and in version one NASA has not flown TPF because it's tied the search for other Earths to the establishment of a lunar base, and so nothing has flown yet. In the second version, TPF flies in 2014 and very quickly discovers, let's say, two Earth-sized planets around separate, nearby stars. In version one of the story, the family is sitting around the campfire; the kids ask their mother whether there are aliens in space and she replies that nobody knows. But she also says that there might be planets like our Earth spinning around some of the stars in the sky. So the family all looks up and the conversation ends as it always has through history in ambiguity, because no one ever knows if there are other Earths beyond our solar system.<br /><br /><br />In version 2 of this story, after TPF is flown, the same question is asked by the kids. But now the scientist walks their kids away from the campfire out into an open field and points to a certain set of constellations in the sky, and she points to two stars in particular and says, "Do you see these two stars? Each of them we know has an Earth orbiting around it, much like our own Earth orbits our sun. We know that there is air and there are clouds around that particular planet, the one around that star, and so there are plans to look more closely at it to see if there are signs of life." And then she concludes, "Maybe some day when your children's children's children are alive, they will go to that distant world to touch its soil and meet whoever or whatever is there."<br /><br />No other generation before

 

[najab]

TPF IS NOT DEAD!!!<br /><br />It has been pushed back a few years. Which means that, when it gets built and launched (around 2020 instead of 2015), it will have 2018 technology instead of 2013 technology.<br /><br />In the mean time, ESA's Darwin mission is steaming along nicely.

 

[serak_the_preparer]

Good point. NASA and the US do not always have to lead.<br /><br />Perhaps this time it will be ESA taking the point, and bringing home the first results from attempts to locate other worlds like ours. Such an outcome may actually have the effect of moving the Space Interferometry Mission and Terrestrial Planet Finder up to a higher priority, helping to ensure they are funded and launched.<br /><br />Meanwhile, what may be the most successful space science mission of all time receives a much-needed lifeline.<br /><br />Could be a lot worse.

 

[toymaker]

"In the mean time, ESA's Darwin mission is steaming along nicely. "<br />I'm interested, I heard they were going to merge it with USA projects.Any website or info you could direct me to ?

 

[toymaker]

"Meanwhile, what may be the most successful space science mission of all time receives a much-needed lifeline. "<br />You mean ?

 

[nacnud]

hubble

 

[toymaker]

"hubble"<br />pfffffffffffffff....it's like "instead of building this rocket jet please keep our steam locomotive alive" <br />Hubble had its time.Now let's move on to more glorious discoveries..