
New Plan for a Disabled Kepler - rfreytag
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/19/science/space/new-plan-for-a-disabled-kepler.html?src=un&feedurl=http%3A%2F%2Fjson8.nytimes.com%2Fpages%2Fscience%2Findex.jsonp
======
VLM
I'm pretty sure the conference and whitepapers the journalist is talking about
are at:

[http://nexsci.caltech.edu/conferences/KeplerII/agenda.shtml](http://nexsci.caltech.edu/conferences/KeplerII/agenda.shtml)

"NASA Ames Research Center, Mountain View, CA Nov. 4-8, 2013"

And specifically I think you're looking for the Sobeck and Howell talks from
the first day.

I have this site bookmarked and intend, in my infinite spare time, to watch
the videos for several papers. "Identifying Habitable Planets with Kepler"
sounds like a good one too.

~~~
mturmon
Nice find.

I also notice a few talks on corrections of statistics for
instrumental/methodological biases. For example, short period orbits are
easier to see than long period orbits, so our sampling of planets is skewed.

That topic has spurred lots of interest and comments on earlier HN articles.

------
ISL
:)!

It occurred to me the other day that, should other civilizations have found
Earth via a similar method, they must necessarily lie along the ecliptic. If
they're signalling to us in the visible, Kepler's the correct tool to see it.

~~~
deletes
Solar system ecliptic is not aligned with the galaxy [0], and even if it were,
the closest stars lie all around us and not only on a plane.

[0]:[http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=9666](http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=9666)

[http://earthsky.org/space/where-is-the-ecliptic-in-
relation-...](http://earthsky.org/space/where-is-the-ecliptic-in-relation-to-
the-milky-way)

If i remember correctly Kepler finished it's primary mission with plenty of
data, and is currently on extended time.

~~~
ISL
Correct on all points. Kepler's already done wonderful work.

In order for us/Kepler to detect an exoplanet through the brightness dip as
the planet passes between its host star and Earth, that planet's orbit (i.e.
the ecliptic about the other star) must be in the same plane as Earth.

Consequently, if someone else has discovered Earth with the same method, they
must necessarily lie in our orbital plane. If someone knows we're here (and,
say, have a lot of water, as might be discernable from spectroscopy) they
might be more apt to signal us.

For directed signalling, it's not as important that they be close as it is
that they're aware of our planet.

~~~
deletes
>>that planet's orbit (i.e. the ecliptic about the other star) must be in the
same plane as Earth.<<

(No, the plane only has to point towards us from any direction, it doesn't
have to be on the same plane as earth.)

EDIT: I didn't see it from the other perspective. :(

~~~
mnw21cam
That's what that means. The Earth has to be on the plane on which their
ecliptic sits.

However, yes, our ecliptic needn't align with theirs.

~~~
ISL
Unless you add the requirement that they be able to detect us when Earth
eclipses the Sun from their perspective.

~~~
mnw21cam
Indeed. For two-way detection, the two ecliptics must be in the same plane.

Or more accurately, the two ecliptics must be close enough to a common plane,
where the common plane passes through both planets and "close enough" means
within half a degree on Earth's side.

------
civilian
My KSP-based solution would be to send up a new stabilization module to attach
to Kepler.

------
jgalt212
reduce, reuse, recycle. I love it.

