Terrestrial Planet Finder is Dead.

[toymaker]

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1092<br />NASA has cancelled de facto the project<br /><br />Meanwhile Space Shuttle and ISS will get more money.<br />Way to go...<br />

 

[n_kitson]

Oh my word! This sucks!<br /><br />In my opinion this was THE most interesting unmanned mission. My only hope is that ESA will press ahead with Darwin, and that NASA will share their expertise with ESA on Darwin.

 

[toymaker]

To me its a disaster. The goddamn Shuttle and ISS are simply Nemezis of space exploration.

 

[kane007]

At least the Europeans - ESA - still have Darwin II scheduled for launch in 2015.<br />Plus the NASA budget request puts $98.5 million for the continued formulation of the Space Interferometer Mission - PlanetQuest - scheduled for launch in 2011.

 

[toymaker]

Darwin will not be launched probably:<br />Because of its cost, Darwin will most likely be an international endeavour. Collaboration<br />has begun with NASA’s equivalent Terrestrial Planet Finder (TPF). A Letter of<br />Agreement has been signed between ESA and NASA for 2003-2006. The NASA TPF<br />Science Working Group and the ESA Terrestrial Exoplanets Science Advisory Team<br />are mandated to define and agree on a common set of detailed scientific objectives by<br />2006. These objectives will in turn serve as a basis to define the exact design of the<br />mission in 2007. Darwin itself is projected for a launch not earlier than 2015.<br /><br />http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/doc.cfm?fobjectid=35808

 

[spacefire]

Great. Let's head back to the moon for more flag Bushing and put a few more astronauts in danger on the Space Shuttle. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[spayss]

"To me its a disaster. The goddamn Shuttle and ISS are simply Nemezis of space exploration."<br /><br />True. It's mind boggling the shuttle wasn't put out of its misery after the Columbia disaster. How many billions wasted since? 20 billion? 30 billion? For what 'maybe' another so-so needed mission or so to complete an ISS nobody knows what to do with.<br /><br /><br />

 

[realtalk]

The Europa orbiter is dead too.. This sucks..<br /><br />http://www.space.com/news/060207_europa_budget.html

 

[erioladastra]

Well keep in mind that Kepler is still go and that does much of the same thing - with actually a great deal of side astronomy as a bonus. NASA is still doing a number of other astronomy projects including keeping HST going well past its 15 year program life. Just remember, it is Bush and congress that drives the priorities.

 

[spayss]

Speak of the devil. I just got home from the library with a new book by Paul Gilster called:<br /><br />"Centauri Dreams"<br /><br />Sure enough, in the book enthusiasm about Terrestrial Planet Finder. <br /><br />What a bummer.

 

[spayss]

I sure that isn't some endorsement for the 10s of billions wasted on the Shuttle. <br /><br />'slow down, failure is good'

 

[scottb50]

Well, I'd throw in a hundred bucks if it would keep exploration going. Now where are the other Billion enthusiasts. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mlorrey]

Actually, given how many newspapers have been sold on the basis of Hubble photos on the front page, someone should bludgeon the newspapers of the world to pitch in....

 

[j05h]

I actually argee with newsartist on this. When there is actual infrastructure in cislunar space (LunOX, L1 depots, cometary water), deploying vast astronomical instruments becomes easy. Hubble's images have been nothing short of life changing for me and many others, but we shouldn't discount Earth-side astronomy in the meantime. OWL and other projects are extremely promising. A delay in finding Earth-like worlds for a decade, traded for actually being able to set up that infrastructure? Yes, I'd take the trade.<br /><br />That said, the recent cuts to promising science missions is disheartening. It only costs $44million to send an astronaut to ISS via Russia. Instead they are spending $4+ billion/ year on aging Shuttles. A logical solution would be to stand-down, install the Kibo and Columbus racks in Ariane ATVs, fly on Soyuz for now and declare Core Complete. There would be enough money sooner to dedicate to deep-space hardware, which is what NASA is good at.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[yurkin]

The purpose of Nasa should be ensure that the US is a space faring nation, by establishing permanent off world colonies. Anything not directly related to this goal is just a bonus. <br />But it sure is a shame about Europa Orbiter, I still hope its only a delay since Europa is such an important planet to explore.<br />

 

[thalion]

I don't think TPF will be down for long. Call me optimistic, but I think the discoveries of Kepler and SIM (or their ESA equivalents) will make a future for TPF (or again, an ESA analog) almost certain.<br /><br />I'm more worried about a prospective Europa mission. It's my favorite moon. <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" /> In any event, in terms of possible *extant* life Europa (literally) blows Mars out of the water--and isn't NASA supposed to "follow the water"? Oh well; I'm guessing that without sexy valleys and volcanoes--not including the higher cost to get there--Europa will be a tough sell for the public.<br /><br />/end soapbox.

 

[cuddlyrocket]

The Terrestrial Planet Finder is a highly expensive mission that is unlikely to produce much valuable science.<br /><br />It's purpose, as its name indicates, is to detect extra-solar planets of about Earth's mass and within the habitable-zone of the relevant star. But it cannot tell you much more about the planet.<br /><br />Other than the impact of establishing the existence of such planets, the only real science comes from a statistical analysis of multiple sightings. However, techniques that are coming into use since TPF was mooted - most notably that of microlensing - are likely to be able to do all this (the microlensing technique already, in its early days, has the record for the smallest extra-solar planet detected), and at much lower cost. It makes sense to defer TPF until it can be established whether this is indeed the case.<br /><br />TPF would fall down any priority order based on merit. I personally think its a good thing if it has been deferred. Spend the money on something that has a greater chance of producing science worth the cost.

 

[toymaker]

"A delay in finding Earth-like worlds for a decade, traded for actually being able to set up that infrastructure? Yes, I'd take the trade. "<br />You will never see that infrastructure.<br /><br />"When there is actual infrastructure in cislunar space (LunOX, L1 depots, cometary water), deploying vast astronomical instruments becomes easy."<br />Care to bet that the costs of setting up such infrastructure will overrun multiple times any telescope proposed ?

 

[toymaker]

"Spend the money on something that has a greater chance of producing science worth the cost."<br />Yes sending people in deathtraps to orbit and useless tin can of a station. What a great science.<br />

 

[toymaker]

''The purpose of Nasa should be ensure that the US is a space faring nation, by establishing permanent off world colonies. ''<br />I like to read SF books also. But I don't try to pretend to live in one.

 

[themanwithoutapast]

It was clear from the outset that either the TPF or Darwin would be cancelled, no need for two similar projects in this world. And this time, surprise, not the parallel European project was cancelled, rather NASA's proposal. <br /><br />Thus, ESA will go forward with Darwin taking NASA along as one of the junior partners. That it flys by 2015 is doubtful, but that this project is moving forward is certain.

 

[toymaker]

It's one of those rare moments that I am actually glad to define myself as European.At least ESA doesn't waste so much money on amusing public in useless projects.

 

[dragon04]

This sure is disappointing. <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[j05h]

>You will never see that infrastructure. <br /><br />"never" is a very long time. For instance, I expect to see NEO water returns in my lifetime. The infrastructure is probably not going to come from NASA, but from many small companies and Energia. Don't discount Bigelow Aerospace before they've flown.<br /><br /> />Care to bet that the costs of setting up such infrastructure will overrun multiple times any telescope proposed ?<br /><br />Depends on how you run the numbers, and no, i'm not betting. If you price a 200meter-aperture, in-space telescope in 2006 dollars vs 2036 dollars, yes, it's going to be cheaper (and possible) to make such a telescope. Would you like it in glass or spin-stabilized Kapton?<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[mlorrey]

Toymaker says: <br />"It's one of those rare moments that I am actually glad to define myself as European.At least ESA doesn't waste so much money on amusing public in useless projects. "<br /><br />So, you don't count Hermes, the Millenium Dome, the Eiffel Tower, the Nuremburg Rallies, or the Roman Colloseum as such?<br /><br />This all being said to amuse myself, I will comment that given this article: <br />http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060207_habitable_zone.html<br />It appears there could be as many terrestrial worlds orbiting red dwarfs in their habitable zones as orbiting sun-like stars in their habitable zones, AND atmospheric convection would prevent the dark side ice cap effect that previous studies predicted.<br /><br />Given the much lower mass of red dwarfs, it should be much easer to detect terrestrial planets around such stars with lower power instruments.<br /><br />Furthermore, all is not dead with terrestrial planet finding projects: NASA has only killed off one of its interferometer projects. The other one is still alive.