Comments on: The golden age (is ending)

By: As the $5 Billion James Webb Telescope Goes, So Goes the Future of Space Science

As the $5 Billion James Webb Telescope Goes, So Goes the Future of Space Science — Wed, 01 Dec 2010 03:04:31 +0000

[...] the fact that in the next five years most (if not all) of NASA’s 14 main telescopes will be decommissioned, failure by the Web mission could leave a gaping void in the continuity of space science, [...]

By: Edwin Hubble

Edwin Hubble — Sat, 13 Nov 2010 20:22:30 +0000

On the subject of whether several small explorers or a facility class space telescope provide more scientific return (a handful of SMEX or a JWST) we only have to look to the Hubble Space Telescope. The scientific return from Hubble has been many orders of magnitude more than we ever expected. Its reach beyond the 5000 or more scientists who have used its data is clear, the inspiration of a nation and the world. As a thought experiment consider that if we had a program of 10 SMEX programs over a 20 years span it would support perhaps a community of 500 scientists. Sounds pretty good. But consider that the community which will use and be supported by JWST will be around 8000 scientists, from senior researchers to postdocs and graduate students. The expectation is that the reach of JWST in terms of science outreach and literacy will have a similar impact to Hubble. If you review the plot with this in mind, we are still in the golden age at least through 2025.

By: The Golden Age « A Still More Glorious Dawn Awaits

The Golden Age « A Still More Glorious Dawn Awaits — Fri, 05 Nov 2010 16:41:13 +0000

[...] at Cosmic Variance, Daniel argues that the cornucopia of data that fueled the recent Golden Age in astronomy is coming to an [...]

By: AAS Public Policy Blog » The Future of Astronomy & Astrophysics in America

Mon, 01 Nov 2010 16:36:31 +0000

[...] To answer these questions I used data from the NASA Astrophysics Division and from the post by Cosmic Variance. I plotted a histogram of launch dates from 1990 to 2020. (Making histograms in Excel 2008 for [...]

By: As the $5 Billion James Webb Telescope Goes, So Goes the Future of Space Science | New Technology

Fri, 29 Oct 2010 11:20:28 +0000

By: Martin E.

Martin E. — Wed, 27 Oct 2010 15:53:06 +0000

Despite not including mission extensions, the graph does capture something important: the age of the Great Observatories is ending. For the last decade or so we’ve had three Great Observatories operating together. They are a set of well-matched telescopes covering X-ray (Chandra), UV/optical/near-IR (Hubble) and mid-IR (Spitzer). This meant that a discovery in one band could be followed up in another in about a year. This led to a terrific synergy between the 3 Observatories.
JWST was assumed to be the first of the ‘Greater Observatories’, but is has cost so much and, unlike Hubble, is not serviceable in orbit so it’s lifetime will likely be no more than 10 years. JWST covers the near-IR and mid-IR (and some of the visible). Follow-up in the UV or X-ray bands in the JWST era will take at least a decade, destroying the creative feedback.
The problem really is primarily the high cost of JWST. It costs something like 500M$/year, so a delay of 2 years (which is quite plausible) would eat up about half of the expected funding for new starts on missions. Then there would be no other big missions even begun until 2015-2018, with a flight no sooner than ~2025.
I agree that cheaper, Explorer-class, missions are the way to go, but they have a diffuse community supporting them, while flagship missions collect a dedicated arm of supporters. To read more about Explorers check out: http://arxiv.org/abs/0911.3383.

By: Brian

Brian — Tue, 26 Oct 2010 22:34:58 +0000

This is bad data, because the bars for past missions include mission extensions. If you’re going to compare past missions to future missions on a timeline, then you need to display the past missions with their intended mission lifetime at the date of launch.

By: Gary

Gary — Tue, 26 Oct 2010 03:12:15 +0000

“22. JBaloun Says: “I should not have to tell you that science, by its nature is at high risk.”
Oh, come on.”

Science, during the courses of both its amateur and professional tenures, has always been at risk–by the failure of its own powers of explainable probity.

If Science cannot defend itself on its own merit, it will always be at risk of the easier insult by popular opprobrium.

By: Shantanu

Shantanu — Mon, 25 Oct 2010 23:07:47 +0000

Dan,
You didn’t mention many important missions such as
Beppo-SAX, PAMELA,AGILE, USA (which was I think Los Alamos-centric) Gravity Probe B, GRACE, LAGEOS and the last 3 are for gravity research.
among upcoming missions, don’t see AMS. Lator in your graph.
shantan

By: réalta fuar

réalta fuar — Mon, 25 Oct 2010 11:32:28 +0000

Very misleading graph, as many have pointed out. Come back in 10 years and things likely will look pretty much like they do today. Emphasis will change (less high energy, for example) but the amount of good science from space and the ground will likely still make a decade from now appear as though the Golden Age hasn’t ended at all. Another way of looking at things is that the era of Great Observatories was expensive because it HAD to be as entirely new areas of science were opened up. EXPLOITING those opportunites shouldn’t require that level of expenditure.

By: Jolyon Bloomfield

Jolyon Bloomfield — Mon, 25 Oct 2010 05:06:49 +0000

That is a beautiful graph. Thanks for sharing it =)

By: Charon

Charon — Mon, 25 Oct 2010 04:28:08 +0000

@Alex D: “You do not mention any of the new ground telescopes…”

That’s because AO, as nice as it is, replaces only a very small part of what space does for us. Let’s see, from the ground we can observe in the optical, a few bands in the NIR, and the radio. From space, we additionally get mm, all IR, UV, x-ray, and gamma ray. We’re blind to a huge amount of the universe, from the ground.

Hey, I’m as excited about LSST and the E-ELT as anyone. But they do not provide a substitute for space observatories.

By: Ken C

Ken C — Sun, 24 Oct 2010 14:18:39 +0000

The closure of the Great Observatories program and the decline in space-based observatories simply marks a shift from one era of science objectives to another. The ground-based efforts in the optical, infrared, sub-mm, and radio mark the move to exploring the high-redshift universe and testing our present cosmological models. Building, for example, a 10 m telescope or radio interferometer in space is unrealistic, so cheaper, bigger projects are being built on Earth (e.g. TMT and SKA) that can achieve the same, AND MORE, space-based science objectives.

The real damage to the space program is in high-energy astrophysics (X-ray and gamma-ray), the regime in which ground-based observing is not possible. NASA’s essential axe to the neck of the International X-ray Observatory and no plan for a successor to Fermi leaves a huge gap for ESA and JAXA to fill. Astro-H is a nice stop-gap, but a long-term replacement plan for XMM and Chandra are needed (specifically IXO and WFXT).

Just my two cents.

By: Chris T

Chris T — Sat, 23 Oct 2010 20:01:38 +0000

The graph above is a bit misleading as to the end dates. The end dates listed are simply when the observatories are currently budgeted to. Later reviews may extend the lives of quite a few of the craft.

By: joe dubovy

joe dubovy — Sat, 23 Oct 2010 19:39:05 +0000

shift from space based optical data collection to ground based due to wise determination that microwave data collection from ground far more productive, cost-effective, and
reliable.

By: ObsessiveMathsFreak

ObsessiveMathsFreak — Sat, 23 Oct 2010 17:20:27 +0000

This is really just reflective of the general decline of science and indeed intellectualism in general.

The decline began in the 1970s in theoretical physics. The Standard Model was the high mark for this most central of all scientifically subjects. As fundamental progress stalled, so too did progress in related fields, and eventually so too will all serious science and progress. The lack of space telescope missions is merely a symptom of this.

Realistically I feel the space exploration peak technologies was the launch of the Voyager probes in the late 70s. Progress has been made since then of course, but the hard fact is that Western countries lost interest in funding space exploration, telescope and the like long ago.

We have left the promise and optimism of the scientific method behind and are entering an age of ideology and ignorance. People see little need for space telescopes in the modern age.

By: Brian Too

Brian Too — Sat, 23 Oct 2010 01:22:39 +0000

6. Alex D,

Agreed. Just imagine, we are going to build telescopes with a primary mirror diameter of 30 metres! A hundred feet across on a precision instrument!! And adaptive optics, against all odds, actually works.

Huge money is being poured into ground telescopes and there is every reason to believe they will be successful. One can only guess at what all that observing instrumentation will find.

By: Brian137

Brian137 — Sat, 23 Oct 2010 00:15:27 +0000

I think the Universe is actually smirking.

Things do seem to have a sense of humor.

Sigh, I was stuck between SOFIA and SMEX. What to do? Two flames, one bank account. Then the immortal words of the great musical gurus rang in my mind’s ear – “You gotta love the one you’re with.” That’s It!!! Enjoy what is.

Ugh Ohh, now I want LISA.

By: JBaloun

JBaloun — Fri, 22 Oct 2010 19:29:14 +0000

Comments continued (written before I read (20) above. Both SMEX and SOFIA serve different needs in astrophysics and bring different capabilities. Maybe it depends on who is taking science money from whom.):
If a PI does not have or cannot afford 1SMEX of science, on SOFIA they can participate in 0.5, 0.25, or maybe even 0.1SMEX of equivalent science cost, just like ground based observatories. Also if the proposed observation does not need 1SMEX of continuous observation time the PI can return to SOFIA every few months over 5 or 10 years to tailor the observation hours to the science, again like ground based science. If a SOFIA flight ends up a total failure you have only lost a few hours of operation and maybe the development cost, not the cost of the development and launch of a SMEX. If a PI becomes aware of an opportunity, SOFIA can respond in a matter of days, not the year(s) it takes to pull together a quick SMEX.

@Gary I should not have to tell you that science, by its nature is at high risk. Often higher than that in which private investors are interested. A space science mission can risk total failure due to failure of a simple mechanism or the scientific discovery may prove the theory wrong. However the return can be significantly greater than the cost. For example, the solar observation missions may shed light on the true nature of Earth’s climate change which can save the planet many billions of dollars either saved or not spent. Is it reasonable to expect a scientist to dedicate their life to expanding the boundary of science *and* that they be competent business professionals to solicit and win over private investors. These are two different careers. Can one person be expected to do both? If we had to wait for private investment, would technology have advanced as far?

By: Mr. D

Mr. D — Fri, 22 Oct 2010 19:18:57 +0000

@ 19: And I am not assuming that SOFIA will only return the science equivalent of a single SMEX. What I question is whether the science return of the whole program is equivalent to that of more numerous, focused, smaller missions. And yes, my order of magnitude statement about the total cost might be wrong, just adjust the expected science return from that.