Still waiting to catch the gravitational wave

 
Lisa (Astrium) The full Lisa system calls for a widely separated, three-arm laser system

European Space Agency (Esa) member states have decided to select a mission to Jupiter and its icy moons as their next great venture.

Juice, as the spacecraft is currently known, will leave Earth in 2022 on a long journey that should see it returning science from the outer Solar System in the 2030s.

The champagne corks will be popping in the planetary science community, but there'll be a sense of deflation in those disciplines that had their projects overlooked this time.

I've already considered the consequences for high-energy astronomy and the rejection of the Athena X-ray telescope concept. And so for this posting, I want to look at the other big loser in the competition - the mission that would seek to detect gravitational waves in space.

If everybody's second favourite football team is Barcelona then perhaps the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (Lisa) is everyone's second favourite space mission.

Time and again over the past few years I've been told "if my mission isn't selected, I hope Lisa wins".

Lisa Pathfinder Lisa Pathfinder will test critical technologies

Gravitational waves are an inevitable consequence of Einstein's general theory of relativity. They describe the disturbance in space-time resulting from an accelerating body. Extreme events such as exploding stars and merging black holes should send gravitational energy radiating outwards at the speed of light.

Unlike electromagnetic waves - the light seen by traditional telescopes - gravitational waves are extremely weak, and that makes them very hard to detect.

If one were to pass through your body it should simultaneously stretch your space in one direction whilst squashing it in a direction that is at right angles.

Current Earth-based observatories hunting for this disturbance bounce lasers down L-shaped tunnels that are hundreds or thousands of metres long. And their instrumentation is fantastically sensitive, aiming to find deviations that can be equivalent to one one-thousandth of the width of a proton, one of the particles that make up all atoms.

The Laser Interferometer Space Antenna mission would do something very similar in space - but with three spacecraft flying five million km apart in an equilateral triangle formation. The concept has been studied for the better part of 20 years.

Lisa got through to the final run-off in Esa's competition, and then, like Juice and Athena, was forced to modify its architecture to reduce costs when the Americans withdraw their co-operation in April 2011.

As a consequence, Lisa lost one side of its laser triangle and some sensitivity, and was renamed NGO for New Gravitational wave Observatory.

Impression of GW generation Gravitational waves are a consequence of Einstein's general theory of relativity

But everyone you speak to still says it represented marvellous science. So why did it lose out?

There're probably a few reasons, and I'll try to summarise the comments that have been made to me.

One was the price tag. Even in its remodelled format, the mission would have cost Esa more than 1,000 million euros (the Lisa/NGO team disputes the reality of this figure) and this was substantially above the ceiling of 650 million the agency had set.

Another reason was launch readiness. Esa's executive did not believe the mission could be made ready before 2025, and it wants to maintain a certain flight cadence for its science projects, ie Esa needs to be seen to be doing stuff regularly.

And there is no doubting that this remarkable proposal was hurt in the eyes of some observers by the fact that its precursor mission has yet to fly.

The Lisa Pathfinder spacecraft being built in the UK will test a number of critical technologies in orbit but it won't get into space until 2014 at the earliest.

Prof Bernie Schutz from the Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics (Albert Einstein Institute) in Potsdam and Hannover has been a key player in the Lisa/NGO project. He believes the delay in getting Pathfinder into space has been damaging.

Ligo facility Ground-based facilities are being expanded with a first detection predicted to be just a few years away

"It's not explicit in any of the documents I've seen, but I think the fact that Lisa Pathfinder has not flown yet was a big uncertainty in the minds of Esa's Space Science Advisory Committee [which ranked the missions], and it didn't take much added uncertainty to make them decide to wait," he told me.

"So, the most important thing is that when Esa runs the next competition, it does so after Lisa Pathfinder has flown. Then everyone will know that Lisa or NGO - whatever the configuration is - will be viable."

A few people have said to me in recent weeks that Lisa is such an astonishing mission that they want it to be flown in its full configuration; and that perhaps NGO being rejected this time is something of a blessing.

Juice artist impression The Juice mission to Jupiter and its moons has been chosen as the next large class venture

"I understand that; there's a small voice in my head too that has some sympathy with that position," conceded Prof Schutz. "But the most important thing is that we get this field going, because once we've pioneered it there'll be so many discoveries that it will only motivate further missions. So, whether we fly as Lisa or as NGO, it makes no difference.

"But there is another side to this. Had we been selected, we would have had two or three years of further study, and that would have been time when we could have explored the possibility of bringing in international partners, including even Nasa.

"And it wouldn't take very much resource to re-instate the third arm. Getting rid of the third arm was done basically to make sure we had adequate margin on weight and cost so that we wouldn't scare anybody.

"It was definitely our view that with more time, and just a small contribution from Nasa, we could have put the third arm back in. We could have got very close to the full Lisa had we been selected."

When gravitational wave observatories are working at the required sensitivity - both on the ground and in space - they will turn science on its head. They will give us an utterly new way to study astrophysical phenomena, one that is not depended on the light telescope.

We will be able to probe regions and epochs in the cosmos that are beyond that old fangled technology. Lisa's time will come. We just have to wait a little bit longer.

 
Jonathan Amos, Science correspondent Article written by Jonathan Amos Jonathan Amos Science correspondent

More on This Story

Comments

Jump to comments pagination
 
  • rate this
    -3

    Comment number 1.

    Personally I'm glad that this project has lost out for now, the other 2 projects would definately give us lots of new data to work with whereas although gravity waves have been predicted by relativity as yet we have no proof of their existance, yes this project would probably given us this, but its seems like it'd be a hell of a lot of money to look for something that may not be there.

  • rate this
    -34

    Comment number 2.

    You mention financial costs but what us the environmental cost? what is the carbon foot of the winning project & the loosing projects. We are stuck on earth, nearby planets are inhospitable & we do not have much time left, climate catastrophe is almost upon us & we should not be adding to it, ask the public if they want space exploration.

  • rate this
    +18

    Comment number 3.

    Double the funding and do them both!

  • rate this
    -29

    Comment number 4.

    What is the point of this? Seriously? Do these people not think that the millions upon millions of pounds that will be spent on this could be better spent on more needy causes here on Earth?
    I appreciate we are a curious species but there's a time and a place for everything and in my opinion, this is not it.

  • rate this
    +20

    Comment number 5.

    It would be nice if the money was there for both these missions and a lot more. Unfortunately our taxes are spent elsewhere and we are not given the choice.

    In Britain the art budget is double the space budget and both are dwarfed by the BBC licence.

    Over the 18 years of the Juice mission the BBC will receive £63 billion from taxpayers, now that would be a nice space budget!

  • rate this
    +8

    Comment number 6.

    To WendyRainbow:

    We want space exploration and a lot more of it than the current rate. So much tech that is researched and developed for space eventually filters down to the general public, my wife is a type 1 diabetic and has befitted enormously from the research done on this in space. Also GPS has enabled transport on Earth to move around more efficiently thus reducing the carbon footprint.

  • rate this
    -2

    Comment number 7.

    Announcement, Paris: Jupiter Icy Moon Explorer project as “Europe’s next large science mission.”
    - 8 years to reach Jupiter
    - arrival 2030
    - visit = 3 years studying Jupiter + larger moons that orbit it: in particular Europa, Ganymede & Callisto – because they are thought to have internal oceans (living organisms?).
    But why acronym "JUICE"; that just sounds so "juicy"...sloppy

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 8.

    Personally I think that the decision to go with a planetary science mission. We currently need to focus more on getting out of the Earths gravity well and setting up infrastructure which will make missions like the Lisa one cheaper and more viable overall. Also we should be looking at how much of the construction could be done off Earth

  • rate this
    +14

    Comment number 9.

    So many short sighted people, the benefits of space exploration has saved so many lives, to name a few technologies that wouldnt be with us if it wast for space tech:

    Insulin pumps, Ventricular Assist Device (enabling heart transplants),Scratch Resistant Lenses, Corrective Back Brace for people with scoliosis, cancer drugs, hiv/aids drugs, new types of insulin, metals for implants and surgery.

  • rate this
    +14

    Comment number 10.

    @staggerlee75, if we put all of our money into the most worthy causes then we'd have no money left to do things that actually make life worth living - so what would the point be? Moreover, if everyone had your attitude then we never would have discovered, for instance, NMR (whence MRI scanners). Finally, space projects invariably end up contributing more to the economy than they subtract.

  • rate this
    -15

    Comment number 11.

    It is not just the carbon footprint of getting into space (hydrogen from electricity from fossil fuel), it is that of manufacture, transport, ground support plus that of all the employment that it generates (commuting, air-con’, construction work etc.). We urgently need to ban all fossil fuel use including that used for food production, at the very least we should ban frivolous use.

  • rate this
    +9

    Comment number 12.

    @8
    Arcid

    I agree, it is the launching we need to get right. If we bring down the price to orbit per kilo then science missions become more affordable.

    Skylon looks a good idea, but funding is tiny and very doubtful if it will work unless the money comes forward.

    Britain could lead the world but Governments send taxes to win votes and not to advance mankind.

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 13.

    #12 Not just cutting down the cost per kg, but eventually moving the easier manufacturing to elsewhere. There is plenty of raw material on the moon or asteroids. Think how much cheaper scientific missions could be if all you had to launch from Earth were the instrument packages, with the frame being built on the moon or elsewhere. Long term I know, but an appealing prospect

  • rate this
    -17

    Comment number 14.

    I would have thought that the enormity of the impending climatic holocaust would be well understood here on a science blog but perhaps, just like petrol heads, star trek fans are in denial about having to give up their hobby.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 15.

    Science FAIL. Greater understanding gravity is, in my humble opinion, fundamental to improving space travel and the creation of new technologies to enable the same. Making all over missions like JUICE easier!

  • rate this
    +11

    Comment number 16.

    11 Greenoakround house
    We urgently need to ban all fossil fuel use including that used for food production

    What and go back to subsistance farming? No thanks.

    Because of oil you can type your message, so you're being a bit hypocritical, no?

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 17.

    @me

    I meant "Making all other missions" as opposed to "all over."

    @the6ftmoose

    Clearly the guy meant "Replace" rather than "Ban".

  • rate this
    +6

    Comment number 18.

    I think the visiting doomsayers need to look at where the clean technology they want the money spent on instead came from in the first place.

    Everything these people want to see become reality is reliant on the space industry, they have the numbers regarding carbon footprint at hand but ironically hate the technology we will gain to reduce that carbon footprint number from the space industry.

  • rate this
    +3

    Comment number 19.

    I am disappointed to see LISA put on hold again, but that's not to say I'm not excited about JUICE. The Jobian moons are probably our last chance of finding biology in the solar system (besides Earth), so it is a project that will surely capture the imagination of the public more so than Gravitational waves will. On the other hand, I think there is more technological gain to be had from LISA.

  • rate this
    +4

    Comment number 20.

    When asteroid\moon mining becomes viable and governments compete to provide the lowest re-entry taxes, those who have cut the costs on exploration will look rather sheepish.

    And will people shut up about carbon footprints of space travel. One rocket pales in comparison to an hours car usage. You want us to look closer to home, lead by example.

 

Page 1 of 5

This entry is now closed for comments

Features

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.