Earth as seen from lunar orbit. Credit: NASA
Earth as seen from lunar orbit. Credit: NASA

Extrasolar Planets, Missions

Casting Swords into Space Observatories

1 Feb , 2012 by

[/caption]

Editor’s note – Bruce Dorminey is a science journalist and author of Distant Wanderers: The Search for Planets beyond the Solar System.

Planet hunter extraordinaire Geoff Marcy recently let his frustration surface about the current state of the search for other habitable solar systems. Despite the phenomenal planet-finding success of NASA’s Kepler mission, Marcy, an astronomer at the University of California at Berkeley, correctly pointed out that NASA budget cuts have severely hampered the hunt for extrasolar life.

A decade ago, only a few dozen extrasolar planets had been detected. Today, by some recent gravitational microlensing estimates, there are more planets than stars in the Milky Way. But without the ability to characterize these extrasolar planetary atmospheres from space, we are astrobiologically hamstrung.

NASA’s goal had been that by 2020, we would have a pretty good idea about how frequently terrestrial Earth-mass planets orbit other stars — whether those planets have atmospheres that resemble our own; and, more crucially, whether those atmospheres exhibit the telltale signs of planets harboring life.

But consider how the federal government spends our tax dollars on a daily basis. Each and every day for more than a decade, the U.S. military spent roughly $1 billion a day funding congressionally-undeclared wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In contrast, NASA’s cancelled SIM and TPF missions were both originally estimated to have cost less than $1.5 billion dollars each.

Artist concept of the now-cancelled Terrestrial Planet Finder mission. Credit: NASA

SIM, the Space Interferometry Mission, was to have focused on finding extrasolar earths in a targeted search; its follow-on mission, NASA’s TPF, the Terrestrial Planet Finder mission, was to have characterized the atmospheres of these earth twins in an attempt to remotely detect the signatures of life.

The astronomical community continues to be resourceful as it can in working around these problems. But if NASA had followed through with the SIM and TPF missions in the timeframe that it first announced, we would have a very good idea of our own earth’s galactic pecking order by now.

Instead, war-funding has taken priority. On the home front, we’ve let the attacks of 9/11 take us down a road that has resulted in our airports resembling Orwellian netherworlds. Most of us now accept that we must basically disrobe and be physically prodded before boarding an aircraft.

Kids born at the beginning of what was supposed to be a great new millennium — remember 2001: A Space Odyssey, anyone? — have instead grown up accustomed to running the gauntlet just to take their teddy bears onto the plane with them.

Contrast the country’s current poisoned national mood with the heady days of euphoria surrounding this country’s Moon shots.

Dare we attempt to again turn at least a portion of our swords back into ploughshares?

If the U.S. is going to continue to lead the world in science and technology, the country will have to quit living in a state of perpetual geopolitical paranoia and take space seriously again.

No one wants to turn a blind eye to our national defense and NASA may never return to its glory days. But something is amiss when within a generation, we’ve gone from John F. Kennedy pointedly challenging the nation to test its mettle by safely sending a man to the moon and back before the end of the decade to this current era of national teeth gnashing.

Newt Gingrich was openly ridiculed on the morning TV news shows for advocating that the U.S. use private enterprise to help us put a manned lunar colony on the moon. Mitt Romney responded that he’d fire any employee that walked into his office and suggested such a plan.

Perhaps Gingrich is not the ideal messenger for jumpstarting a long dormant manned lunar program. But our country has reached a sad nadir when a presidential candidate is publicly mocked for advocating the hard work of boldly revamping our national space policy.

, ,

By  -    
Bruce Dorminey is an award-winning science journalist who is a former Hong Kong bureau chief for Aviation Week & Space Technology magazine and a former Paris-based technology correspondent for the Financial Times newspaper. A frequent contributor to Astronomy magazine, he is the author of “Distant Wanderers: The Search for Planets Beyond the Solar System.”



Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
Stephen Thompson
Guest
Stephen Thompson
February 1, 2012 5:30 PM

I think Newt was mocked more for his plan on making the moon the 51st state.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
February 1, 2012 6:17 PM
The Enlightenment, the intellectual phenomenon that began in Europe in the 18th century, held reason as the highest human attribute. In the heady days of the first scientific revolution, where geocentrism and other key elements of medieval cosmology were cast aside in favor of scientific observation and critical analysis, it was believed that humans could and would answer all questions and solve all problems through reason. In the 19th century, this morphed into optimism over industrial progress. Dazzling new inventions and discoveries each revolutionized the way that people lived: the telegraph, telephone, microbiology, locomotion, and the automobile, among many others. The 20th century brought about a new scientific revolution, even grander than what had come before: relativity and… Read more »
Lawrence B. Crowell
Member
Lawrence B. Crowell
February 1, 2012 8:36 PM
I don’t think faith is science is what is needed. Faith is generally the opposite of a scientific attitude to begin with. I might say the confidence we had in science has suffered. This probably has a number of causes. After the US dropped atomic bombs on Japan Einstein said something to the effect that this amounted to giving a psychopathic killer with a knife a machine gun instead. We have since 1945 come up with the power to destroy things on unprecedented scales, and by the 1960s it was clear we are damaging or degrading the planet as well. Unfortunately the news on this front grows at a rate faster than any efforts we make to reverse… Read more »
mrbill
Member
February 1, 2012 6:37 PM

Two possibilities exist: Either we are alone in the Universe or we are not. Both are equally terrifying – Arthur Clarke.

Pepper2000, the SETI establishment could use a lot less Whiggish positivism for technological triumphalism and a lot more humanism.

Adam Fausey
Guest
February 1, 2012 7:01 PM
Oh, I disagree. While I see your point about remembering humanity as a factor in scientific endeavors, I totally with Pepper that a lack of respect for science is to blame for the lion’s share of the world’s problems. Postmodernist relativism, as well as reactionary conservatism, tends to put more emphasis on opinion than on empirical fact. Science may hurt some feelings and step on some toes, but at least it represents the truest path to learning about the universe in which we live, and I believe that this gaining of knowledge is the truest meaning of the word “Progress.” Granted, our objectivity will often be clouded by our own cultures, but it can be overcome through emphasis… Read more »
mrbill
Member
February 1, 2012 7:40 PM

Adam, you’re endorsing exactly the kind of whigish positivism I’ve critiqued. You probably imagine that history is some kind of moralistic story about the inevitable progress of civilization towards modernity. I pity you. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3ifRA0Kj-8

Joost Fianen
Guest
Joost Fianen
February 1, 2012 8:44 PM

Il love to think that with hard work and positive understanding we can progress our civization towards a modern (and human) future. Is there a other not terrifying alternative?

Torbjorn Larsson OM
Member
Torbjorn Larsson OM
February 2, 2012 8:07 PM
Who said that this was about SETI? The astrophysical (planets) and astrobiological (biology) fields are highly excited by this field, and if you ask the latter ETI isn’t expected to be a common phenomena but observable life should be. We (I am a part time astrobiology student) are very disappointed! – “Two possibilities exist”. The problem is on the contrary that too many possibilities exist to pin down the answer to a simplistic yes/no observation. (How?) As an example, the natural migration out of a planetary system would likely not put planets as the common habitat but Oort cloud bodies. They would be SETI silent and have exceedingly slow migratory rates to boot. Good luck with your SETI… Read more »
Steve Nerlich
Member
February 1, 2012 7:30 PM

History gives us many reasons to doubt the sincerity of statements made by presidential candidates on campaign.

At the end of the day as a citizen of a democracy, it’s all down to you rather than whoever happens to be in power at the time. Get out there and make the space program an issue, lobby the people in power and then vote for whoever supports the objectives you want.

Educate the community, create a groundswell. Don’t hold your breath waiting for your elected officials to show leadership – it’s not generally what they are good at.

bruce_dorminey
Guest
February 2, 2012 12:32 AM

Steve, thanks for your comment, but as you know, unfortunately, it’s the politicians who control the purse strings both here and in Australia. Of late, our Congress has passed many bills that the general public have vehemently opposed. Thus, politicians still wield great power. Finding one that believes in space is still worthwhile.

vagueofgodalming
Member
February 1, 2012 11:22 PM

“Perhaps Gingrich is not the ideal messenger for…”

It doesn’t really matter what goes in the rest of this sentence – it’s still equally true.

Eric E
Member
Eric E
February 2, 2012 1:45 AM

Great article, Bruce.

I understand your sentiment toward Newt, though it’s hard not to remind myself of his questionable motives and starkly anti-scientific messages.

Mitt simply made a sad attempt to discredit Newt by grossly exaggerating the cost of such a base. “Hundreds of billions of dollars.”

Cheers

Todd Reece
Guest
Todd Reece
February 2, 2012 2:05 PM
Amazing. 3000 people get killed and that event is used as a bowling pin for every excuse for the lack of funding from climate research to finding extra-solar planets hundreds of light years away. Really? Is there no common sense anymore on this board? While NASA has always been the single source of optimism in the gov’t, it’s budget was maxed in 1966 at .5% of the nations GDP and the cost of a Saturn V launch was a inflation adjusted slap of $1billion. ROI at NASA and the space program is well known. However, NASA has been rife with budget problems just like any other gov’t entity. Bloat and corruption is to be expected. What else started… Read more »
starcastle2011
Member
starcastle2011
February 2, 2012 3:08 PM
Dr. Marcy, the number of true believers (in SETI) is falling. Can you blame them? 41 years and nothing to show for the “great search”. Big science, big money demands results and SETI is currently the least results oriented project around. So let’s get real. Thousands of planets, 99.9 % of them not suitable for life. What if that one or two in the galaxy are hundreds or thousands of light years away? Where’s the chance for any meaningful contact? As a popular article stated, recently, we won’t be visiting them any time soon. How about any time ever? Let’s get real about SETI. We’ve been promised an epiphany if intelligent life is discovered. We’ve poured billions into… Read more »
Torbjorn Larsson OM
Member
Torbjorn Larsson OM
February 2, 2012 8:15 PM
Who said that this was about SETI? The astrophysical (planets) and astrobiological (biology) fields are highly excited by this field, and if you ask the latter ETI isn’t expected to be a common phenomena but observable life should be. Of course the spectroscopic observation of an oxygen atmosphere on a habitable terrestrial will be a large deal! First, it is an age old cultural question: are we alone? Second, it will be very valuable to test and constrain theories of abiogenesis. We have many pathways for these, it would be helpful to pare them down to one or at least a few by this way. The same happens within the science of planetary system formation. This is not… Read more »
Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
February 2, 2012 3:58 PM

Given the comments made by Speaker Gingrich and Mitt Romney, no space supporter should support, and definitely not vote, for Mitt Romney. God help us with a Commander-in-Chief that would fire everyone who disagrees with him.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
February 2, 2012 4:02 PM

The billion or so dollars wasted on Obama’s re-election could pay for most of either mission, and one day’s worth of war funding could pay for the other one…

Todd Reece
Guest
Todd Reece
February 2, 2012 4:06 PM
Now, I will say this. Sending probes to mine asteroids, perhaps even a specific free enterprise venture at mining various minerals off of asteroids and other Earth-enriching goals should be examined. Now that we’ve proven you can land probes and craft onto asteroids, and with the thoughts of actually landing men on one, we can perhaps envision when this might become feasible. Much like Oil sands weren’t feasible until a few years ago, this exercise will one day be fruitful. But to sit around a computer and ‘cast swords’ at the choices our nation has made, all the while ignoring the basic facts of the huge undertaking full-bore space exploration requires is illogical, unwise and not the least… Read more »
Torbjorn Larsson OM
Member
Torbjorn Larsson OM
February 2, 2012 8:36 PM
I have said it before here, but I guess it bears repeat: it is a false choice fallacy to claim resources in one area would automatically be better spent elsewhere. Most of the times we have the resources to do both and we would be best served to do both. While the wars certainly can be criticized, I have myself done that, the problem with the NASA budgets are internal and external system failures. Externally: to combine science and technology is one thing, to combine manned exploration and science exploration quite another. Manned exploration are usually separate research programs. Internally: ISS, JWST, Constellation, SLS, … The science labs are worth it, but so are TPFs. A little bit… Read more »
wpDiscuz