Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
NASA Space Technology

NASA Selects Inexpensive Space Project Candidates 37

Posted by Soulskill from the inexpensive-is-a-relative-term dept.
coondoggie brings us a Networkworld report detailing NASA's selection of six mission proposals for further study by the Small Explorer (SMEX) Program. The goal of the program is to develop cheap, tightly focused science missions (PDF). Among the selected proposals are a satellite telescope bank for use in detecting exoplanets, and a solar coronograph which will study solar wind and coronal ejections. Networkworld provided links with more detailed information on most of the projects.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NASA Selects Inexpensive Space Project Candidates More

NASA Selects Inexpensive Space Project Candidates

Comments Filter:

  • Inexpensive space project candidate... (Score:5, Funny)

    by mrbluze ( 1034940 ) on Thursday May 29, 2008 @11:19PM (#23596133) Journal
    #1: Paper mache models of planets to hang from the ceiling in my bedroom.

  • proudly brought to you by, (Score:3, Funny)

    by Cryacin ( 657549 ) on Thursday May 29, 2008 @11:20PM (#23596135)
    The tin can, piece of string and duct tape dept.

    • Re:proudly brought to you by, (Score:5, Funny)

      by mrbluze ( 1034940 ) on Thursday May 29, 2008 @11:31PM (#23596187) Journal

      The tin can, piece of string and duct tape dept.
      NASA's Letter of Response: The first half of the project proposal is cheap and very novel, but the other half (getting the string all the way to Alpha Centauri) could be a bit of a funding issue. Nonetheless we are going ahead with your idea, because even half a project can yield valuable scientific discoveries.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Cryacin ( 657549 )

        The tin can, piece of string and duct tape dept. NASA's Letter of Response: The first half of the project proposal is cheap and very novel, but the other half (getting the string all the way to Alpha Centauri) could be a bit of a funding issue. Nonetheless we are going ahead with your idea, because even half a project can yield valuable scientific discoveries.

        Finally we will be able to quantify the exact length of half a piece of string.
  • what a savings.

  • Guarunteed Pick (Score:5, Interesting)

    by milsoRgen ( 1016505 ) on Thursday May 29, 2008 @11:30PM (#23596179) Homepage

    Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS): TESS will use a bank of six telescopes to observe the brightest 2.5 million stars and discover more than 1,000 Earth-to-Jupiter-sized planets around them.
    That will certainly be approved, the press releases alone will pay for itself.

    • Re: (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Vectronic ( 1221470 )
      "...and discover more than 1,000 Earth-to-Jupiter-sized planets around them."

      I liked that part... how the hell do they know it will be more than 1,000? And how do they know what size?

      If they are already aware that there is these planets, then wouldnt it be more accurate to say "and finally see over 1,000 planets that we already assume exist mathematically"?

      Or is it working by an average, one telescope usually tends to find 184 planets, and for some reason they never exceed Jupiters size?

      • Re:Guarunteed Pick (Score:5, Interesting)

        by RobBebop ( 947356 ) on Friday May 30, 2008 @12:42AM (#23596481) Homepage Journal
        1,000 is an impressive sounding number, but it is also realistic. HST has been working for many years and to my knowledge was only able to determine the locations of planets that were larger than Jupiter. Meanwhile, discoveries of "Earth-sized" planets remain rare despite the technology that has been developed within the decade. I believe if you search the Slashdot archives you'll find a sparse group of articles linking to a couple recent discoveries of planets that are smaller than Jupiter. These few discoveries pale in comparison to the opportunity to fund a project that promises to increase the rate at which they discover planets by approximately an order of magnitude.

        • Re:Guarunteed Pick (Score:4, Informative)

          by thue ( 121682 ) on Friday May 30, 2008 @04:02AM (#23597207) Homepage
          Meanwhile, discoveries of "Earth-sized" planets remain rare "

          Try "non-existent" :). The smallest known exoplanet is Gliese 876 d [wikipedia.org], with a mass of a least 5.88 times Earth's.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Ihlosi ( 895663 )
          HST has been working for many years and to my knowledge was only able to determine the locations of planets that were larger than Jupiter.

          HSTs primary mission isn't planet-hunting, so it was neither designed for that nor does it spend most of its time doing it.

          Meanwhile, discoveries of "Earth-sized" planets remain rare despite the technology that has been developed within the decade.

          How much of that technology has reached space in the last decade ? Off the top of my head, I can name only one planet-hunt

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by TapeCutter ( 624760 ) *
        "Then wouldnt it be more accurate to say "and finally see over 1,000 planets that we already assume exist mathematically"? Or is it working by an average, one telescope usually tends to find 184 planets, and for some reason they never exceed Jupiters size?"

        When looking for political sponsors it's best to keep the explaination dramatic, simple, and confident. If that's not enough offer them naming rights for some of the new planets, maybe a ribbon cutting cermony for the rocket, a ride in an air-force jet

      • Re:Guarunteed Pick (Score:4, Informative)

        by Ihlosi ( 895663 ) on Friday May 30, 2008 @07:48AM (#23598183)
        I liked that part... how the hell do they know it will be more than 1,000?



        Statistics. We now know that planetary systems are fairly common.



        And how do they know what size?



        Well, the lower size limit is given by the detection sensitivity ("If we're lucky, we can find an Earth-sized rock, but not a Mars- or Mercury-sized one."). The upper limit is given by the mass at which a lump of gas and rock starts initiating nuclear fusion and doesn't count as a planet anymore.



        If they are already aware that there is these planets, then wouldnt it be more accurate to say "and finally see over 1,000 planets that we already assume exist mathematically"?



        No, we don't know anything about these planets yet, but from our current knowledge about the likelihood of planetary systems we can guess how many planets we're likely to find if we examine X million stars.

        • "Statistics", ahh of course, like I said 184 per telescope... statistics are great, aslong as you ignore all the times they are wrong.

          http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6934603.stm [bbc.co.uk]

          They call that one a "planet" and its 70% larger than Jupiter.

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by Ihlosi ( 895663 )
            They call that one a "planet" and its 70% larger than Jupiter.

            70% larger is still in the same ball park as Jupiter, at least as far as astronomers are concerned. Heck, anything below a brown dwarf is in the same ball park as Jupiter. (Astronomers also have weird definitions of "metal" and "ice" that may not quite correspond to their meanings in other fields of science).

            A planet 70% more massive than Earth would count as an Earth-sized planet, too. Sure, we may not find the gravity there too appealing,

    • But will anyone care? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by QuantumG ( 50515 ) * <qg@biodome.org> on Friday May 30, 2008 @12:36AM (#23596455) Homepage Journal
      http://www.quantumg.net/exoplanets.php [quantumg.net]

      Astronomers are using up their mainstream exoplanet currency very quickly. Already "we found another planet" is delegated to the "how about that" section of the news. Soon it won't even make that. So what happens when they find a really *interesting* planet?

      Nothing.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by susano_otter ( 123650 )

        So what happens when they find a really *interesting* planet?

        Nothing.

        There's a logical contradiction in your argument. By definition, an "interesting" planet will generate interest.

        By your logic, the Shoemaker-Levy comet would have gotten no media attention at all, on account of hundreds of years of astronomers using up their mainstream comet currency. But in fact Shoemaker-Levy got a lot of interest, from a wide range of people, precisely because it was "really interesting" in a way that most comets are no

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      This will almost certainly not be make the second cut next Spring. It is too similar to some of the big NASA missions that are on the drawing board. The most likely candidates to make it out of this phase are Coronal Physics Explorer, and Gravity and Extreme Magnetism. The others are too similar to existing missions or planned missions.

  • Mars Society? (Score:3, Informative)

    by RobBebop ( 947356 ) on Friday May 30, 2008 @12:32AM (#23596439) Homepage Journal

    Sounds a bit similar to the Mars Project Challenge that was deadlined last week.

    If you are a logged in member of MS, you can view the 28 entries that were submitted [marssociety.org] and will be considered for funding at an upcoming conference in Boulder CO.

    Personally, I think the most worthwhile projects related to Mars exploration are the ones dealing with In Situ Resource Utilization and the idea of "manufacturing products" from the stuff that is available there (which is mainly CO2 and rocks). ;)

  • What is the point? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 30, 2008 @12:41AM (#23596473)
    What is the point of spending less on the space craft when the launch still cost millions of dollars? They need to figure out a way to significantly reduce launch cost.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Jonathan McDowell ( 515872 )
      These spacecraft are also low mass, and can fly on smaller rockets like the Pegasus, so the total mission cost is a lot lower than a big James Webb Telescope 'flagship' mission.
      They are also a lot less capable, but can solve one specific science problem while Hubble, Chandra etc. are general facilities that can solve many different science problems - but not all problems, which leaves some nice 'discovery space' for the small missions. Also, SMEX missions are done in a finite number of years, and ar

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by endstar ( 1298815 )
      Typically, these missions will go into orbit on a Pegasus rocket, which costs on order $25 million (http://www.space.com/news/smalllaunch_fl_040223.html). So, the $105 million to design and build the satellite, and then to operate it when it is orbit (about 10% of the total cost) is quite a bit more than the launch.
    • That is like asking why won't they focus on cancer research.
  • You know for the cost of one big telescope we could buy a few hundred thousand Tasco refractors.

    Man the scopes, america
  • Tightly focussed? What the hell would a loosely focussed space probe look like or do?

    probe cartman? Explore the solar system (kindof) looking for alien beings [wikipedia.org] Cheap? On who's terms? Define cheap.

    With GTA 4 rumoured to have cost a mere $100 million , $4-5 billion per long duration mission seems like nothing. How many minutes in Iraq is that anyway? Worse still, smaller faster cheaper oops it broke won't cut it for the outer solar system. I'd hate to be the researcher who spends 10+ years working on a pro

  • As an engineer myself, I don't think that space budgets should be decreased. However, by lowering the costs and having more projects, I hope, it will increase support for space missions among politicians and people.

Slashdot Top Deals

news: gotcha

Close