Kepler Withholds Data While NASA Struggles To Be Relevant

If Kepler follows Hubble's example, this isn't really news. Generally, the data are eventually made public from HST, however, it is usually proprietary—available only to the principal investigator (PI) and astronomers designated by the PI—for one year after being taken. After that, anyone can use it. The exclusions are DET, or Director's Exclusionary Time.

Given the amount of time, energy and yes, money for a PI to shepherd a research proposal into time on one of the space-based telescopes, that policy makes a lot of sense. After all, in the case of the Kepler data, the planets aren't going anywhere, and we certainly are not going to them anytime soon, either.

The NYTimes article explained the rationale for delaying the data release. Fundamentally, it's because launch delays caused the first round of data to land mostly after the last April-Sept observing season, during which most of those candidates would have been subject to detailed scrutiny and vetting. This means a nasty choice between (a) withholding the data release until after the current observing season and (b) putting out a bunch of unvetted candidates and open the competition to everybody at the beginning of the current season.

The latter option sounds good to outsiders, but remember that proprietary data periods are to give a head-start on discoveries to the people who devoted one or two decades of their careers to getting the facility up and running. If you want anybody to contemplate that much commitment to a project ever again, you need to make it worth something this time also.

A little breathing space allows the Kepler team to do a thorough vetting job, vs. rushing preliminary wild-a** guesses out the door to get the first paper on something. That "roller derby" model for science doesn't really benefit us. The delay means the Kepler team gets to enjoy a delicious meal for all their trouble, instead of french fries on the run. The partial delay was approved by a committee of scientific peers, who intimately understand both edges of this sword.

That said, I don't understand why NASA is silent on the data that WAS released, in a paper that's effectively published. I assure you the scientific community (including the Kepler team's competitors) hasn't overlooked this; so the only people left in the dark are taxpayers. This is a time when NASA has a strong interest in tooting their horn for a great instrument and great results. I don't see why that's ambiguous.

I don't blame NASA, after all this is a compromise anyway. If I were NASA I would do the same thing. I would want to claim the discovery of the first earth sized planet outside our solar system, not somebody from another country that paid nothing at all.

Kudos to Keith for debunking the idea that the information is being held back so the public isn't confused by ambiguous and incomplete information. The reward system is the only reason for a proprietary data period.

I don't understand why the people who designed Kepler can't be amply rewarded with prestige, tenure, money, or whatever else they hoped to be rewarded with simply for the act of designing a working instrument and getting information about its detections to the rest of the scientific community. Of course it would be wonderful to be the first to discover an earth-sized planet in a star's habitable zone, but why not consider the people who designed Kepler to be the co-discoverers?

Alternatively, couldn't Kepler have been designed by people who understood from the start that their mission was to get information to scientific community, not to make the ultimate discoveries themselves? Again, couldn't the designers be amply rewarded so as to not cause a conflict of interest between getting sufficient reward and keeping the public rapidly informed?

Spacester presents an interesting point.

Most all of us geeks and space junkies would surely agree that discovering another habitable planet in our universe would be among the highest motives for space exploration.

But our tax dollars are paying for it. Competitive bids were made, contracts awarded, other agreements made, to bring about Kepler. NASA would be even less relevant if someone from another country made the first verifiable, "official" discovery. What's more is that since NASA is a government Agency, NASA is therefore a US symbol. A foreign discovery could be a US pride risk. Since we made the investment AND have national pride on the line, it seems somewhat fair to take first dibs.

Before the current circumstances, perhaps one better approach that NASA could have taken would have been to publicize- much like Google does- all the free and open data and tools available to the world public. Additionally, perhaps NASA could have hosted a friendly competition for the aspiring discoverers. In this manner the agency would maximize open & transparent handling, appeal to the highest exploration motives, allow the Kepler team a fair shot, and still receive credit for the contribution, regardless of who makes the first discovery.

The members of the Kepler team are not in this for money, and most are not interested in fame per se. The one thing that powers all of them is the thrill of discovery -- being the first one to see it. The only things that matter are (a) analyzing the data themselves and (b) writing a good paper about it. So the only thing of value to them now is time.

There are mercenaries in this business, who will take money for a good satellite, or whose passion is the instrument itself. But the person you need for a Principal Investigator is someone who's passionate about the science harvest. That person cares more about good data in and good science out than about money.

The review team who selected the Kepler mission and the one that just approved the extension are full of scientists who understand this. Trust them, and trust the process. You'll get your planets, and no injustice is done by the delay.

Space science missions are developed by starting out with a competitive scientific bid in response to a call for proposals. This may be a small team led by a specific PI (principal investigator; in the case of PI-led missions) or several teams (in the case of observatory-class missions). Only after the science component is won does the bidding begin for actual engineering and construction. So in essence, the Kepler team went through a competition years ago.

Early and proprietary access to data is part of the payoff. That proprietary access is basically payment in kind and is worth many tens of millions of dollars. Mission development takes a minimum of a decade these days (in some cases several decades). During that time a scientist's research productivity is more or less destroyed, since all of their time is devoted to the mission. In order to continue being employed as research scientist, you need to continue producing research. In the NASA mission case, it's a tradeoff - employment for a decade with no research output, but hopefully a big payoff at the end. If that payoff isn't there, PI's wouldn't participate, or would just fizzle out and disappear.

I am a scientist who works on just such a mission as this. By all means, I would love to receive money, prestige, or tenure! Those of us working on missions like this have very little job security, pay that is a bit below industry standards, and frankly little prestige within the wider scientific community, who tend to regard us as technicians.

You can't have a big news splash early if confirmation is required like in something like Kepler. You wait and have the big news splash later. If you don't wait - either you get no news splash, or you get a splash but possible "wishy washiness" later. Lots of good arguments above too.

Hopefully the science journalists realize what's going on here and are waiting eagerly and patiently for some "second sightings" to confirm like me.

Kick some bootay Kepler!

I know that the principal investigators involved have spent a great deal of time on the Kepler mission but holding back 400 planet candidates by over half a year and another 100 planet candidates to some time in 2011 is plain old greed. Even if we take their excuse at face value why delay those 100 planets candidates even longer than the others? It only makes sense if you realize that this delay has nothing to do with missing a few months of telescope time and everything to do with greed. They want to be the first to announce an Earth like planet and therefore are rewriting their own contracts. Heck, they even tried to convince NASA to allow them exclusive access to the Kepler data until the end of the mission!

The Kepler spacecraft was paid for by the American taxpayer. The principal investigators are paid by the American taxpayer. And now we have the fun of watching the principal investigators give us a big middle finger while claiming that they are doing this for our own good. For some reason I am just a tad skeptical of that. After years spent on the Kepler mission the principal investigators likely think that they deserve this but greed is greed and this stinks of it. This greed has delayed the public release of data that was payed for by the American taxpayer.

"Oh yes, a movie about life on an extrasolar planet - discovered by a search project such as Kepler - has grossed over $2.7 billion so far ($750 million in the U.S. alone) ... does anyone at NASA pay attention to things like this?"

Sigh, here we go again. Yes Keith, we know you liked Avatar. From what I recall, the movie was popular because of its 3D special effects and storyline, not because the general public has any particularly strong interest in exobiology.

But wait, didn't NASA try to do some tie-ins with Planet 51? Also, if I recall correctly, NASA released its own 3D big-screen extravaganza this year too! If people love space so much, why isn't Hubble 3D challenging Avatar's box office records?

Scientists have been making confirmed discoveries of extrasolar planets since 1992, and have been steadily discovering more ever since. The general public barely cared back then. I'm not so sure that showing proof of a few hundred more many light years beyond where we'll ever be able to travel in our lifetimes is suddenly going to make NASA relevant to the average American.

I'd even argue that sci-fi, such as Avatar, can hurt our cause to some extent. I'll agree, it can inspire young folks to pursue STEM subjects and can influence real life engineering designs. On the other hand, some of our most exciting (exciting to us space-types, that is) recent discoveries (water ice on Mars, water on the Moon, etc.) just aren't that exciting or sexy when you've got Captain Kirk blasting off at warp speed to planets and alien civilizations current real-life technology just won't let us visit right now. Think of how many times you've heard questions like "Where's my flying car?" or "Weren't we all supposed to have jetpacks by now?"

Believe me, I agree that NASA PR has a long way to go, but it'll take nothing short of putting human-filled boots on another celestial body to generate the kind of enthusiasm that a Hollywood blockbuster like Avatar can drum up.

I don't know about you but I'm going to see IMAX Hubble! It just came to my science center :)

Anyway, completely agree ASFalcon13. I'm sure they'll get some hoopla, just wait a little. Since movies like Avatar owe a lot to discoveries NASA has made, maybe James Cameron should have pledged 1% of the revenue from the movie to NASA :)

No doubt movies like Avatar owe a lot to NASA. If not for NASA, the movie might have taken place on Mars or something like the old school space shows. Not that would make any difference to Cameron or the movie-going public though.

I'm not sure what you want them to do. Maybe NASA should make real movies... or become an investor in the right space-y movies? Put the NASA logo at the beginning of the movie? No NASA doesn't do that. That wouldn't exactly be a neutral public entity way to do things.

Releasing the news of new planets, possibly Earth-like planets should stand on its own merit. It won't stand as tall as Avatar or make $27 billion but it will be borne out in history and will stand longer as scientific discoveries are wont to do. That's relevant.

You have to think about what you'd have to do to be "relevant" to Joe Six Pack, and then think do you really want to be relevant in that way. I agree that human space flight can certainly do that and in a good way. Beyond that I don't see much working with Joe Six Pack except at the expense of reputation and legitimacy.

...it'll take nothing short of putting human-filled boots on another celestial body to generate the kind of enthusiasm...

Even doing that won't generate much sustained enthusiasm unless it gets presented to the public more engagingly.

1) Your comments describe the status-quo, but I don't understand why the people who want to make the discoveries should be the same people who design and operate Kepler.

I can imagine why the same people might be good at both tasks, but I can also easily imagine that the best data crunchers and extrasolar theoreticians aren't particularly good at designing advanced space-based instruments.

I'd really like to know: Could we get just as good results if Kepler had been designed and operated by a group of people who had, from the start, intended to release all data gathered immediately?

2) Why do MER and Cassini seem different from Hubble and Kepler in terms of sharing results with the public immediately, and allowing the public to share in the thrill of discovery? I understand that Kepler's data must be analyzed first -- no pretty pictures -- but why can't that data be shared as promptly as the Mars Exploration Rovers share theirs?

3) You also ask "what's the hurry?" Planetary science takes patience -- it'll be five more years until Dawn gets to Ceres and New Horizons gets to Pluto. Asking interested taxpayers to wait unnecessarily is borderline cruel. Also, I'm sorry to be morbid, but some people, people who would take great joy from seeing even preliminary and ambiguous data from Kepler, simply don't have the luxury of waiting. In some sense, any of us might unknowingly be in that position. I recall taking a flight very shortly before Huygens landed on Titan, and I thought to myself "If the engines fail or whatnot, on the way down I'll feel terrible for my family and friends, but I'll also wish I had seen Titan's surface!"

I've written to Congress urging funding for SIM and other space-based observatories. I just want the programs to be structured more like MER and Cassini, so that the public is along for the ride to the greatest extent possible.

This is Normal for Unmanned craft IE probe etc. They release what they want to and it doesn't matter taxpayers paid for the program there has always been a reluctance to release data to the general public LRO is an example its been sending over 160 gb a data a day A DAY! yet they have released barely a 1/3 of all the data from LROC and LOLA. I used to get frustrated by such things but not anymore.. I will just sit on my hands like the rest of the taxpayers and patiently wait.

Damn the Gravity!

Drake said: ...if you realize that this delay has nothing to do with missing a few months of telescope time and everything to do with greed.

You clearly know nothing about life in the astronomical community nor the 50-year history of scientific spacecraft. I'll bet $50 you are not a scientist of any sort, and have no working scientists even as close friends.

The fact is, this delay was approved by peer astronomers, some of whom are likely to become scientific competitors after the data ARE released. Therefore the principles explained nicely by CB450SC are being defended, supported, and carried out by the community without your help. Also read my previous posts, re: incentives for PI teams for future missions. So stop being an impatient 3-year-old. I assure you, you're not the only one in a hurry to see the results.

Go away and shout at someone else.

Wait a second. Is this data just from ONLY 43 DAYS of Kepler observation? God, if this is true that means there probably be thousands of more planet candidates over the life of the mission.

This Kepler spacecraft is off the charts amazing!

No matter how F'd up HSF is NASA has done a tremendous job with space probes/telescopes/observatories.

@spacester
NASA does know how to make some kick-ass probes and with hubble can repair them too.. I just hope the James Webb telescope doesn't need the same type of servicing, with the shuttle in moth balls. LRO is a great space craft and I cant say enough about Cassini and I cant wait to get a good close up view of Pluto via new horizon. As far as Kepler data, its mission is 3 years and within those three years there will be many exo-planets discovered so I can wait( on the edge of my seat).

Damn the Gravity!

Side note: That was not I repeat was NOT a push to keep STS alive.let Methuselah fade away.

"The fact is, this delay was approved by peer astronomers, some of whom are likely to become scientific competitors after the data ARE released."
Just because a group of 13 astronomers agreed to this doesn't make it right. Even they knew that they would be "hung out to dry" had they accepted the proposal of the data being delayed until the end of the mission which is why none of them voted for that.

"Also read my previous posts, re: incentives for PI teams for future missions."
I have read those posts and I don't agree with your opinions. This deal certainly is something the Kepler private investigators would like but it goes beyond giving them a few more months of observation time. In particular the even longer delay for 100 planet candidates was obviously done for other reasons. As such the supposed reason for the delays sound like nothing more than an excuse.

"Go away and shout at someone else."
I am not the one that got angry at another person's opinion. In my eyes the Kepler principal investigators appear greedy not only for what they got but also for what they proposed. After all it was not the principal investigators who paid for the 600 million dollar Kepler mission. When only the principal investigators win and all the American taxpayers lose I think there is good reason for criticism.

Fred, thanks for your comments. I get excited about all the missions you mentioned. Please keep in mind the Hubble was built to have the space shuttle repair/upgrade via several missions. However, James Webb is not being built for shuttle servicing at all, mainly because it's orbit is over a million miles away from earth.

Furthermore, I'm pretty sure there haven't been any space related hardware built lately with shuttle servicing in mind. In other words, aside from the Hubble and ISS, the shuttle really has limited value.

The Shuttle is dying and Constellation is dead (it died a long time ago). Better things will eventually come along, hopefully not from NASA.