Talk:Kepler space telescope/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Poor Engineering?

The Kepler space telescope was a marvelous instrument and performed great science however it has now failed due to the loss of 2 reaction wheels it requires 3 to function. As designed Kepler only had one backup wheel. It can no longer do the job it was intended to do. My question is why didn't the engineers that designed Kepler put in duel redundant reaction wheels for each axis? The reaction wheels are the weak link they only have a limited lifespan. putting 3 backup wheels for each axis would have extended Kepler's life for many many years to come. the cost compared to the overall cost of Kepler would have been negligible. It just seams to me the engineers would have taken lessons learned from hubble (gyroscopes and reaction wheels fail). in the past NASA has embraced the dual redundant theology why not now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.224.111.151 (talk) 02:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

No, the full service lifetime for Kepler does not inherently demonstrate poor engineering.

However, at the base of what you ask is a good question. I do not have detailed knowledge of the design process which was used for Kepler. However, I can make some general comments. A large portion of engineering is making trade-offs based on various requirements. One of the huge limitations in building anything for space is the amount that it weighs. The weight of a satellite determines a large number of aspects of what and how something can be done, how much it costs, what lift capability is required, etc. It can even limit: can this be done at all with current technology? Weight, among many other limitations, usually means that such designs are not made with huge amounts of redundancy – particularly when lives are not at stake – which is not needed to reliably meet the service lifetime criteria which is a basic part of the specifications toward which the engineers are designing. The design of Kepler resulted in it being operational until 4.2 years after being launched. This exceeded the design criteria by 20%. [This percentage may be a bit off. The 3.5 year design lifetime may have been specified as the amount of time on-station, collecting data, not from launch. I would need to double check, but don't have the time at the moment.]

As to the engineers learning from Hubble: I expect that the engineers involved had access to, and learned from, the problems and failure analyses which were performed on the various issues that have occurred with Hubble.

For some things, there has come to be an expectation that items designed for space will exceed their designed lifespan. While there are cases like Spirit (rover) and Opportunity (rover) where the designed lifespan has been spectacularly exceeded, it is certainly not always the case. Of course, there are also some times where there are partial, or complete, failures. — Makyen (talk) 03:39, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

The story I heard is that there are $10⁵ reactions wheels and there are $10⁶ reaction wheels. The lower cost ones are known to be less reliable, but for a mission on a tight budget there may be no choice. This makes perfect sense, but it also seems that if they are known to be unreliable, maybe two spares would have been better than one. But this leads into all sorts of questions about where mass and dollars are best spent, how certain they were that previous reaction wheel failure modes had been addressed, and so on. LouScheffer (talk) 15:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Objectives and methods section

We should split the "objective and methods" section of this article into subsections as follow:

• 1. Kepler's field of view, the properties of observed stars and ways it observed them?
• 2. Automated data processing from observed stars to threshold crossing events.
• 3. Steps which turn good candidates from threshold crossing events to Kepler objects of interest and then in turn to Kepler candidates.
• 4. Ways Kepler candidates are confirmed through other exoplanet detection methods or validated by ruling out false positives. In addition, include ways planets are confirmed which do not go through standard Kepler pipeline process (such as circumbinary planets).

--Artman40 (talk) 09:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

NEWS - Kepler Discovery - 04/17/2014 (2pm/et/usa).

FWIW - Seems NASA will be announcing a "new discovery" made by the Kepler (spacecraft) on Thursday, April 17, 2014 at 2 p.m./et/usa - perhaps interestingly, Science (journal) has "embargoed the findings" until the time of the news conference - more =>

< ref name="NASA-20140415">Clavin, Whitney; et al. (April 15, 2014). "NASA Hosts Media Teleconference to Announce Latest Kepler Discovery". NASA. Retrieved April 15, 2014. {{cite web}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)</ref>

in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The briefing participants include Tom Barclay therefore my guess is it will be the official announcement of Earth-size planet (1.1 Earth radii) that was reported last month http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2588005/Has-Nasa-new-Earth-Astronomer-discovers-sized-planet-Goldlocks-zone-host-alien-life.html Astredita (talk) 19:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Kepler planet host-stars

Should the article have a section on studies of Kepler planet host-stars?

• Rotation Periods, Variability Properties and Ages for Kepler Exoplanet Candidate Host Stars, Lucianne M. Walkowicz, Gibor S. Basri, 9 Sep 2013
• Limits on surface gravities of Kepler planet-candidate host stars from non-detection of solar-like oscillations, T. L. Campante et al. 24 Jan 2014
• Characterizing the Cool Kepler Objects of Interest. New Effective Temperatures, Metallicities, Masses and Radii of Low-Mass Kepler Planet-Candidate Host Stars, Philip S. Muirhead, Katherine Hamren, Everett Schlawin, Bárbara Rojas-Ayala, Kevin R. Covey, James P. Lloyd], 24 Apr 2012
• Fundamental Properties of Kepler Planet-Candidate Host Stars using Asteroseismology, Daniel Huber et al. 26 Mar 2013
• Spectroscopy of Faint Kepler Mission Exoplanet Candidate Host Stars, Mark E. Everett, Steve B. Howell, David R. Silva, Paula Szkody, 2 May 2013
• Starspots and spin-orbit alignment for Kepler cool host stars, Roberto Sanchis-Ojeda, Josh N. Winn, Daniel C. Fabrycky, 8 Nov 2012 Astredita (talk) 16:42, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I have not looked at the above sources, but it appears that there should be at least mention of it. The article is not exclusive to any one specific type of research done with the data. If the data provides other benefit, then it should be mentioned, within reason. — Makyen (talk) 20:13, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Split?

This article is getting rather long. Should we split it? --Artman40 (talk) 04:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

NASA-TV (07/14/2014-2pm/et/usa) - Search for Life Beyond Earth.

NASA-TV - Monday, July 14, 2014 (2:00-3:30pm/et/usa) - panel of leading experts to discuss plans leading to the "discovery of potentially habitable worlds among the stars" => < ref name="NASA-20140710">Brown, Dwayne (July 10, 2014). "MEDIA ADVISORY M14-117 - Leading Space Experts to Discuss the Search for Life Beyond Earth". NASA. Retrieved July 10, 2014.</ref> - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

FOLLOWUP - NASA VIDEO REPLAY - Space Experts Discuss the "Search for Life in the Universe" (86:49) at => http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNjuz6MO0eU - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

NASA Kepler Q&A (10/27/2014-1pm/et/usa) on Reddit.

FWIW - NASA to answer questions about the Kepler and K2 missions on Reddit on Monday, October 27, 2014 at 10 am/pdt/usa (1 pm/edt/usa) - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

What star fields will each K2 campaign observe

C1 observes F1, C2 observes F2. Where will C3 and C4 point? Diagram and text don't seem to say. Chart seems to imply that each campaign is aimed at a different target field. Any likelyhood or benefit to re-observing a field on a later campaign ? What are the limitations of 80 day campaigns compared to the original multi-year mission ? - Rod57 (talk) 14:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Image KeplerExoplanets-NearEarthSize-HabitableZone-20150106.png

While certainly the increasing population of possibly-Earth-like planets is very exciting, the size and position of the newly added image KeplerExoplanets-NearEarthSize-HabitableZone-20150106.png here and in Exoplanet is too intrusive. This is made worse by the limited amount of information the image *does* convey – just the identifications of the planets and their relative sizes. I have no objection to including such a family portrait (although over the long run the number of planets on such an image will become untenable), but I do wonder how it will get updated, so as to stay current. IMO, it just needs to be smaller, and someplace else. Rwessel (talk) 21:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

@Rwessel: Thank you for your comments - no problem whatsoever - it's *entirely* ok with me to rv/mv/ce the edit(s) of course - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

NASA-Audio - Kepler mission - News TeleConference (12 noon/et/usa, Thursday, 7/23/2015)

NASA-Audio - Kepler mission - re new exoplanet discoveries - News TeleConference (12 noon/et/usa, Thursday, 7/23/2015) - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:20, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

References

"to discover dozens of Earth-size extrasolar planets"

Why "dozens"?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiowa Ryan (talk • contribs) 02:10, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Ecliptic Plane Input Catalog

EPIC, the Ecliptic Plane Input Catalog is the input catalog used for K2, as KIC was used for K1, so this should be covered here also -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 08:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Gravitational microlensing experiment

Update: K2 Campaign 9 will be started in April 2016 and will be dedicated to a study of gravitational microlensing events with K2 and from Earth.

• "K2 Campaign 9 microlensing experiment". Kepler & K2. NASA. Retrieved 2016-04-08.
• Searching for Far Out and Wandering Worlds JPL, April 7, 2016.

Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:53, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Criticisms

I'm surprised that no in depth discussion about the mission's failure. It was planned to have a 3.5 yr life-time and it didn't. It was supposed to obtain significantly better data, and it didn't. Whether this is because of poor management of the Discovery (aka "cheap") program, incompetence in Ball's manufacturing processes, (not to mention incompetence in design), you would expect this would have been investigated and reported. So, where is it?Abitslow (talk) 15:34, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

The mission hasn't been a failure by any objective measure. There have been _failures_ during the _mission_, but that's a far cry from the mission being a failure. The failures are discussed with appropriate weight in the article. Anastrophe (talk) 15:47, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I'm very confused by OP's comments. By any measure, Kepler has been a tremendous science asset and has produced great results. No, everything has not worked 100% as planned, but given this is the first of its kind, I'd almost consider this a pathfinder mission. Future planet hunters (TESS, PLATO, etc) will build on the experience gained with Kepler and can make refinements to produce even better science. Even with faults that could have been potentially mission ending, project engineers have found ways to keep Kepler producing useful science. — Huntster (t @ c) 16:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

April 7, 2016 incident mentioned twice

The entry into emergency mode on April 7 is now described in two places, at the end of Mission results to date and at the end of Mission status (the immediately following section. I suggest that the first mention be removed, as this appears to have been a transitory event, and so is not really relevant to the Mission results (unlike the second reaction wheel failure, which while getting primary mention in the second section, does deserve mention in the first). Rwessel (talk) 03:42, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 05:58, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Nothing about budget, actual costs?

This reads like a fanboy page. The goals, initially, and then at launch, as well as the revisions post-launch due to its noisy acquisitions and mechanical failures should, and its accomplishments, as well as its cost up to launch, then since launch, should be succinctly described. Also, the article doesn't do a good job of distinguishing between "possible" exos observed and confirmed.Abitslow (talk) 18:07, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Data communications eg for K2

In the original mission, due to the fixed high gain antenna, Kepler had to reorient to send data (once a month, eg 6 hours for 12 GB). (Not clear how much fuel that would use.) In the K2 mission each campaign is about 2.5 months, so is less data collected or is there one or more reorientations (for science data communications) within each campaign ? - Rod57 (talk) 06:46, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

K2 Emergency April 2016

Apparently (after computer glitch that probably put it in safe mode) heaters turned off, fuel froze so it couldn't control attitude, then emergency mode kicked in as scope drifted to point to sun. - Presumably emergency mode restarted the fuel/line heaters in time to kill the drift ? - Rod57 (talk) 06:49, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

K2 campaign 9 microlensing

K2 Campaign 9 microlensing experiment has been updated now data has been collected. (Field map seems to show a second pair of CCDs red - failed ?) Mentions a mid-campaign break. - Rod57 (talk) 07:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Kepler (spacecraft). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/kepler/spacecraft/index.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nasa.gov/content/ames/kepler-mission-manager-update-k2-has-been-approved/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006095334/http://www.space.com/19157-billions-earth-size-alien-planets-aas221.html to http://www.space.com/19157-billions-earth-size-alien-planets-aas221.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/kepler/news/kepler-new-data-q-and-a.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130103060601/http://www.space.com/19103-milky-way-100-billion-planets.html to http://www.space.com/19103-milky-way-100-billion-planets.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://exoplanetarchive.ipac.caltech.edu/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nature.com/news/kepler-clue-to-supernova-puzzle-1.14513
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nasa.gov/ames/kepler/nasas-kepler-discovers-first-earth-size-planet-in-the-habitable-zone-of-another-star/index.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nasa.gov/kepler/a-sunny-outlook-for-nasa-keplers-second-light/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nasa.gov/kepler/keplers-second-light-how-k2-will-work/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nasa.gov/kepler/kepler-mission-manager-update-invited-to-2014-senior-review/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.space.com/23465-planet-hunting-kepler-spacecraft-future.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nasa.gov/ames/kepler/kepler-mission-manager-update-k2-spacecraft-operation-tests-continue/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://keplerscience.arc.nasa.gov/K2/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://keplerscience.arc.nasa.gov/K2/Performance.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v480/n7378/full/nature10631.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

What star fields will each K2 campaign observe (2)

C1 observes F1, C2 observes F2. Where will C3 and C4 point? Diagram and text don't seem to say. Chart seems to imply that each campaign is aimed at a different target field. Any likelyhood or benefit to re-observing a field on a later campaign ? What are the limitations of 80 day campaigns compared to the original multi-year mission ? - Rod57 (talk) 14:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Data communications eg for K2 (2)

In the original mission, due to the fixed high gain antenna, Kepler had to reorient to send data (once a month, eg 6 hours for 12 GB). (Not clear how much fuel that would use.) In the K2 mission each campaign is about 2.5 months, so is less data collected or is there one or more reorientations (for science data communications) within each campaign ? - Rod57 (talk) 06:46, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

K2 Emergency April 2016

Apparently (after computer glitch that probably put it in safe mode) heaters turned off, fuel froze so it couldn't control attitude, then emergency mode kicked in as scope drifted to point to sun. - Presumably emergency mode restarted the fuel/line heaters in time to kill the drift. - Rod57 (talk) 06:49, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

K2 campaign 9 microlensing

K2 Campaign 9 microlensing experiment has been updated now data has been collected. (Field map seems to show a second pair of CCDs red - failed ?) Mentions a mid-campaign break. - Rod57 (talk) 07:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Kepler (spacecraft). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081204114533/http://www.itwire.com/content/view/8299/1066/ to http://www.itwire.com/content/view/8299/1066/
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6CJwnNLH8?url=http://astro.phys.au.dk/KASC/ to http://astro.phys.au.dk/KASC/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110205191952/http://www.planetary.org/news/2011/0203_Kepler_Discoveries_Suggest_a_Galaxy.html to http://www.planetary.org/news/2011/0203_Kepler_Discoveries_Suggest_a_Galaxy.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110309132609/http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2011/03/08/exclusive-most-earth-like-exoplanet-gets-major-demotion%e2%80%94it-isnt-habitable/ to http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2011/03/08/exclusive-most-earth-like-exoplanet-gets-major-demotion%e2%80%94it-isnt-habitable/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110925020810/http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/09/super-earth-found-in-habitable-z.html to http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/09/super-earth-found-in-habitable-z.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150705131007/http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/kepler/news/kepler20130404.html to http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/kepler/news/kepler20130404.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721124511/http://www.planethunters.org/planetometer to http://www.planethunters.org/planetometer
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120111063437/http://exoplanet.eu/star.php?st=KOI-196 to http://exoplanet.eu/star.php?st=KOI-196
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120101111049/http://exoplanet.eu/star.php?st=KOI-135 to http://exoplanet.eu/star.php?st=KOI-135
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120101104353/http://exoplanet.eu/star.php?st=KOI-204 to http://exoplanet.eu/star.php?st=KOI-204
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120119195842/http://exoplanet.eu/star.php?st=KOI-254 to http://exoplanet.eu/star.php?st=KOI-254
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120616124736/http://exoplanet.eu/star.php?st=KOI-730 to http://exoplanet.eu/star.php?st=KOI-730

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:33, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kepler (spacecraft). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716073742/http://aas.org/node/651 to http://aas.org/node/651
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.skyandtelescope.com/news/home/122602884.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kepler (spacecraft). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090315053534/http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/06mar_keplerlaunch.htm?friend to https://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/06mar_keplerlaunch.htm?friend

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Cost breakdown

$600 million included first 3 years of operations, so design, build and launch cost about $530 million. About $70 million to operate the primary 3.5 year mission. + About $80 million for 2012-2016. How does the $18-$20 million/yr breakdown ? - Rod57 (talk) 20:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

How to split the article

Could split out the main mission results Mission results to date and Data releases as they seem related to observations up to 2013. Perhaps put in Kepler mission results ? - Rod57 (talk) 14:50, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

summary scientific statements

I can think of two widely reported summary statements derived from the - and perhaps define the - success of the Kepler mission.

• A google search for: [ kepler "every star" planets -five ] will list a long list by various publications from NASA, Space.com, ScienceDaily, Sky and Telescope, etc etc, support some kind of statement about what proportion of stars have planets. I think the most agreed on sentence could be something like "Thanks to the Kepler mission, scientists now have evidence for and estimate that every star has at least one planet." (Note I'm putting this in quotes as an example of what to put in, not that that specific language comes from any particular source. If people want to use various sentences from various sources that's fine too but it might get cumbersome.
• Now do the search for [kepler "one in five stars" ] you will see NASA's announcement of estimating one in five stars have Earth-like planets in the habitable zone of a star. Note some others have echoed this as well but don't just rely on NASA saying so and there are some specific papers about this.Smkolins (talk) 12:15, 13 June 2018 (UTC)