Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:10, 13 June 2014

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kepler space telescope article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Spaceflight Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Astronomy High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Misplaced Pages.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

A news item involving Kepler space telescope was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 8 March 2009.

A news item involving Kepler space telescope was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 17 August 2013.

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on March 7, 2011 and March 7, 2013.

This article uses American English dialect and spelling. According to the WP:ENGVAR, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kepler space telescope article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

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%.

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 $10 reactions wheels and there are $10 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)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class spaceflight articles
• Mid-importance spaceflight articles
• WikiProject Spaceflight articles
• C-Class Astronomy articles
• High-importance Astronomy articles
• C-Class Astronomy articles of High-importance
• C-Class United States articles
• Mid-importance United States articles
• C-Class United States articles of Mid-importance
• WikiProject United States articles
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• Selected anniversaries (March 2011)
• Selected anniversaries (March 2013)