Why isn’t the Terrestrial Planet Finder / Darwin a higher priority? It’s almost meaning of life stuff. The only reason I can think of is that it might be heavier on technology than post-analysis, not producing enough long-chewtime fodder for post docs.

But for science-geek outsiders like myself, I just can’t believe it was canceled with so little protest from astronomers. The TPF is almost as good as an interstellar probe, which I won’t even see launched in my lifetime. What gives?

A TPF would also be very useful in other areas of astronomy where one needs high contrast and superb resolution. For example, I recall there was a paper a few years back on how the TPF would be very useful for studying the nuclei of active galaxies.

As an admirer of NASA but also a bewildered bystander, I wonder if it could find it’s greatest cost effective rewards by concentrating on smaller things.
Here are two:

1) Ensure all future visits to the Outer planets are designed to be capable of doing astrometry of nearby stars. The huge increases in baseline will be particularly useful in determining accurate distances to the Cepheid variables and thence calibrate distance to the rest of the Universe. Then binary star observations could be used to construct a better 3-D model of the nearlby stars. Many new minor planets and comets will be spotted, traced and understood better, too.

2) Using two of ESA’s ATVs (1st for crew/ spares 2nd to power the trip and hold position) piggybacked with ion engines to push the Hubble telescope up to a safe orbit at the L2 point on the far side of the Moon with the JWT. [It will take years but the cost will be trivial next to the cost of a 2.5 metre class telescope in or around the Moon] The servicing of the telescopes would provide a tangible raison d’être for a manned Moonbase in the public eye.

Good luck!

Some more in addition to hose added by Sean (which are also pretty high to me)

o Confirm or rule out Pioneer anomaly through a dedicated experiment
o Test of GR in every possible parameter space as outlined in Figure 18 of 0806.1531
o Look for new sources of TeV gamma rays and put them to use.
o Discover cosmic neutrinos and put them to use.
o Try to detect cosmic neutrino background.
o Try to understand the diversity and inter-connection between GRBs, pulsars, magnetars and
other incarnation of neutron stars.
o Try to find evidence for strange quark stars.

I also want to see the Terrestrial Planet Finder (or an equivalent instrument) rise to the top of the priority list. I think that if the general tax-paying public could be educated on the options in astronomy, this is what they’d want their money spent on, if they were willing to have their money spent on astronomy at all. It is great to study dark matter, gravity waves, etc, and I do understand that you can make an argument for why studying these subjects can help us answer fundamental questions, but what I want to know, and what I think the vast majority of the general public wants to know, is whether there is life elsewhere, and I see the TPF as the best hope astronomy has for answering that question.

PS: looking for asteroids that could impact Earth is probably even more important to the general public. In any case, you’re talking about the taxpayer’s money, maybe you should think about what would be important to them.

All, now, as you think about prioritization, how would it change your lists if TPF were, say, $6B and meant you could not launch LISA for another 15 years? Or anything else because it decimates teh SMEX/MIDEX mission lines? Is it better to have a a broader mix of smalelr missions or the one (and we can only afford 1 per decade) behemoth with super-ambitious science. That’s the crux, and a real challenge to tease apart the right mix of big and small missions with the right divesity of science scope and goals.

>would it change your lists if TPF were, say, $6B and meant you could not launch LISA for another 15 years?

No, because if TPF shows earth-like worlds around nearby stars it would motivate higher astronomy and space science funding like nothing else would. In fact for that reason it should be competing with mars and manned programs for funding, given that those programs are often justified as “motivators”. $6b is peanuts compared to mars/manned programs.

Imagine that TPF finds earth-size worlds around a dozen nearby stars, and at least one is shown to possibly have life based on its IR signature. Imagine the pressure that’d result to develop better TPF’s, to learn more, to launch near-interstellar probes, or even actul interstellar probes. It would motivate generations of higher funding, not just decades.

Sorry, I meant in comparison to the manned programs, which I think TPF should be set against. Many people are afraid, or claim to be, cutting back on the manned programs would reduce the public’s support of space science. I believe that TPF has the potential to cause a permanent increase in public interest and support.

Seems like it boils down to Cosmology/Physics vs planet hunting.

UV astronomy: even if SM4 goes, there’s a looming gap after STIS and COS are no longer operational. We can’t ignore a part of the spectrum that contains a whole lot of the interesting atomic line transitions. The GALEX survey has allowed us to target better as well, obviating some of the extinction problems that plague the UV. This is relevant for Galaxies Through Cosmic Time (e.g., figuring out AGN structure) and Cosmology and Fundamental Physics (e.g., mapping IGM structure).

I second the cosmic neutrino background idea. This should give us a great idea of the very early (z>>3000) universe and possibly large-scale structure. A great opportunity to connect particle physics, solid-state physics (detectors), and astronomy. Photons are great, but the time is coming to expand astronomy beyond them. (Gravity waves are important too, of course). Cosmology and Fundamental Physics.

Search for life on the outer moons of our solar system. Absolutely we need to get/keep the public interested in what we’re doing, but manned spaceflight is such a horrible way of doing that. Search for other life, very important. Planetary Systems and Star Formation.

High-redshift 21-cm observations – looking into the dark ages. Continue support for things like MWA, and the eventual SKA. Possibly a larger, darker version on the Moon (such a telescope presumably wouldn’t have nearly as many problems with Moon dust as optical/UV/IR). Direct observation of H reionization. Galaxies Through Cosmic Time, Cosmology and Fundamental Physics.

Professional astronomer.