Scientific Forums



  Replying to Predict Kepler's Production ...
Unregistered User Info
Enter your Name
Code Buttons
 Guided Mode
 Normal Mode
  Close all Tags

Open Tags:   
Enter your Post
Clickable Smilies
smilie  smilie  smilie 
smilie  smilie  smilie 
smilie  smilie  smilie 
smilie  smilie  smilie 
smilie  smilie  smilie 
     
Show All

Confirm security code
Post Options  Enable emoticons?
 Enable signature?
Original Post to Quote
You may edit the post you are quoting here
Post Icons                                 
                                
  [ Use None ]

 



Last 10 Posts [ In reverse order ]
uaafanblog Posted on Jun 8 2014, 04:51 PM
  This mission was dead. Now it's alive. It has discovered over 3600 planet candidates with nearly 1000 being confirmed. Anyone else following this mission?
uaafanblog Posted on Apr 21 2013, 11:06 PM
  At least 1 in 6 stars has an "earth-sized" planet. We're at about 2400 "planet candidates" at this point in the Kepler Mission. At this point in the mission and going forward they should start seeing more of the "goldilocks" candidates.

http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/2013/pr201301.html -- Harvard Smithsonian Astrophysics

http://kepler.nasa.gov/news/nasakeplernews...News&NewsID=244 -- Kepler Jan 7th Release

http://exoplanetarchive.ipac.caltech.edu/c...t=delivery1_koi -- Full Exoplanet Catalog

Mekigal Posted on Jul 24 2012, 03:17 PM
 
QUOTE (soundhertz @ Feb 8 2012, 01:55 AM)
It's not that Vogt is conservative or liberal in his estimates; he's merely going by statistical projection, which is allowable enough scientifically. If you look from a far enough view (which doesn't have to be far at all) it is more than curious that two Goldilocks planets are next to each other - and that they most assuredly are in our galaxian view, being that it is > 80,000 light years across, let alone looking at a shot of a hundred thousand galaxies at once.

imo future data will show that extraterrestrial life is not only true, but perhaps even routine. I don't think life is the big deal we think it is. The Universe holds plenty of opportunities for everything, and life is an opportunist.

I agree with that whole heartedly. What about type one civilizations ? Think they are rare and why there has been no communications with aliens .
They come to the cross roads we are at right now . Do or die and well they die and never make it to type 1 civilizations ? I wonder if we will make it ?
uaafanblog Posted on Jul 24 2012, 11:57 AM
  Just thought I'd update for general purposes.

Kepler has been funded through 2016.

It has discovered 2,321 candidate planets.

One of it's four "reaction wheels" has failed. 3 are required for operation. So there is no more redundancy in that critical system. This event was reported this week.

There is one confirmed planet in a habitable zone and many other candidates yet to be confirmed.

Questions about what is and is not a planet are best answered by exoplanets.eu website.
soundhertz Posted on Feb 8 2012, 01:55 AM
  It's not that Vogt is conservative or liberal in his estimates; he's merely going by statistical projection, which is allowable enough scientifically. If you look from a far enough view (which doesn't have to be far at all) it is more than curious that two Goldilocks planets are next to each other - and that they most assuredly are in our galaxian view, being that it is > 80,000 light years across, let alone looking at a shot of a hundred thousand galaxies at once.

imo future data will show that extraterrestrial life is not only true, but perhaps even routine. I don't think life is the big deal we think it is. The Universe holds plenty of opportunities for everything, and life is an opportunist.
uaafanblog Posted on Feb 3 2012, 07:31 PM
  A goldilocks planet 22 light years away orbiting a triple-star system with an M-class dwarf and two orange K-dwarfs. 4.5 earth masses and 28 day orbital period.

One of the astronomers in this announcement is Steven Vogt ... my impression of him is that he is not conservative ... for whatever that is worth.

UCSC announcement
gocrew Posted on Dec 12 2011, 02:28 PM
 
QUOTE (Robittybob1 @ Dec 8 2011, 07:47 PM)
So I'll stand by what I say the larger the area blocked the more likely to be found.
Small dense ones will probably go unnoticed.

I would love to see your psychological profile.

The details of the Kepler mission are pretty easy to come by. You could learn, with a few taps and clicks on a keyboard and mouse, exactly what the Kepler telescope can do.

It is designed to find those small dense planets that other techniques cannot. Small dense planets will not go unnoticed, unless by small you mean something much smaller than Earth.

Here is the relevant section from the wikipedia article:

Performance

In terms of photometric performance, Kepler is working well, much better than any Earth-bound telescope, but still short of the design goals. The objective was a combined differential photometric precision (CDPP) of 20 parts per million (PPM) on a magnitude 12 star for a 6.5 hour integration. This estimate was developed allowing 10 ppm for stellar variability, roughly the value for the Sun. The obtained accuracy for this observation has a wide range, depending on the star and position on the focal plane, with a median of 29 ppm. Most of the additional noise appears due to a larger-than-expected variability in the stars themselves (19.5 ppm as opposed to the assumed 10.0 ppm), with the rest due to instrumental noise sources slightly larger than predicted.[31] Work to better understand, and perhaps calibrate out, instrument noise is ongoing.[32]

Since the signal from an Earth size planet is so close to the noise level (only 80 ppm), the increased noise means each individual transit is only a 2.7 σ event, instead of the intended 4 σ. This, in turn, means more transits must be observed to be sure of a detection. Recent estimates indicate a 7-8 year mission, as opposed to the 3.5 year planned, would be needed to find all transiting Earth-sized planets. The spacecraft has enough fuel for such a mission, but there is no funding for it so far.[33][B]
Robittybob1 Posted on Dec 8 2011, 07:47 PM
 
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman @ Dec 8 2011, 07:25 PM)
ACTUALLY, large planets are more likely to be spotted because of the significant "wobbles" they cause in their parent star. The more massive the planet, the more pronounced the wobbles.

It was explained on TV, one of the Kepler scientist explained in this program they were just looking for periodic dimming of the light intensity from the 600 stars they were checking.
As the planet crossed in front of the Star the light intensity dropped. If that was regular they would say it is a planet.
They did not mention wobbles in the case.
So I'll stand by what I say the larger the area blocked the more likely to be found.
Small dense ones will probably go unnoticed.
flyingbuttressman Posted on Dec 8 2011, 07:25 PM
 
QUOTE (Robittybob1 @ Dec 8 2011, 02:55 PM)
So you are more likely to pick up water worlds and gas giants due to there light blocking effects

ACTUALLY, large planets are more likely to be spotted because of the significant "wobbles" they cause in their parent star. The more massive the planet, the more pronounced the wobbles.
Robittybob1 Posted on Dec 8 2011, 06:55 PM
 
QUOTE (uaafanblog @ Dec 8 2011, 06:21 PM)
Thanks for posting the update. I came in just for that.

I want to say that I'm more disappointed with the management of this mission than any NASA mission I've followed in the last 30 years. So much so that I don't even check the website anymore unless I see something in the mainstream media (which of course always has huge speculation).

Anyway ... still progressing and starting to feel like the number for goldilocks planets is going to be on the higher end rather than the lower.

The question in the poll is a hard one to answer
"The Kepler Telescope will soon begin it's 4 year survey of 100,000 stars. How many rocky planets will it find in the habitable zone?
For rocky planets as small as the Earth are harder to find aren't they? Kepler 22b has a volume 13.8 times that of Earth. Size matters.
So you are more likely to pick up water worlds and gas giants due to there light blocking effects
Terms of use