Talk:Terrestrial Planet Finder

Spaceflight Low‑importance

	Spaceflight portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Astronomy B‑class Low‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
B	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The Near-sighted Vision for Space Exploration

My honest opinion: This link goes to the section in my user's page. I have written a long argument that I am still in the process of editting. It was mainly a 'stream of consciousness.' People who wish to submit their thoughts can do so in the discussion area of my user page. Submit your thoughts if you are as outraged as I at the fact that NASA is putting science on the backburner.--Marsbound2024 03:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree, and will say so here, as well. This is so shameful. --James S. 07:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's put it this way, if I were worth $1.61 billion, I would give my money to NASA and live as a poor man, just for this mission. This is the first time in my life I feel like my country has failed me. --John Ballentine 05:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Factual accuracy of table

The table lists the distance of Iota Persei as being 3LY, which is incorrect (correct distance is 34LY). As the table is imported from an external site, there is no obvious way to fix the error here. Someone with greater knowledge of how Wikipedia works might like to do something about it.

The actual template is here: {{100TPF}}

I checked on the supposedly 14th-ranked Gamma Pavonis. This star is the same as Hipparcos 105858, which has rank 124, according to the reference provided. — RJH 16:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to add that I found this article from the article on 55 Cancri. In the 55 Cancri article they make the claim that the star is 63rd on the TPF top 100 list, whereas in the table displayed here 63rd is said to be GJ 75.

NASA claims

In NASA's FY2007 budget report, they claimed that the TPF missions would be deferred until the budget cut is over. As in, when they receive the funding, they will continue the project.

citation needed tag

I'm too lazy to find out how the reference templating works now, but the quote "The Terrestrial Planet Finding project (TPF) has been deferred indefinitely" is to be found at on the NASA site at http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/142458main_FY07_budget_full.pdf at the bottom of page 80. Algebraist 19:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added it. Thue | talk 17:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NASA continues to argue against TPF

I added an "external link" to a Planetary Society article dated November 2006, saying that NASA continues to argue against the Terrestrial Planet Finder and also the Europa project. I didn't change the body of the article to reflect this news... could somebody do that? The situation seems to be constantly changing.

I too don't know how the reference templating work.

John Baez 17:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

citation problem

there has been a lot of inapropriate citations on this article, including its schedule. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fbs. 13 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

wolf 562c

why does the section "Top 100 targets for earthlike planets" lack gliese 581? I mean, it alredy has the first potentially habitable Super-earth discovered. Why dont you at least put it on the 7^th star in that section.Fbs. 13 01:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia didn't make the list. Check the reference under the "Rank" heading. _Unusual ^Gazelle 19:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Terrestrial Planet Finder/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Two of the stars on the Top 100 TPF list are incorrect, based on the Hipparcos numbers that I obtained from a TPF source. These two are: Rank #9 should be 82 Eridani, instead of Epsilon Eridani; and, Rank #24 Should be 10 Tauri, instead of 10 Tucanae. I actually came across a revised TPF ranking of the stars last August (2006), and there were several changes to the list. 82 Eridani stayed at # 9, but 10 Tauri moved to #25.

Last edited at 16:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 07:50, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Terrestrial Planet Finder. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:19, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Planet Imager (PI)

There was a proposal for an array of TPF interferometers to make a larger array with much higher resolution. It was called Planet Imager. It is briefly mentioned here: https://zenodo.org/record/1263406/files/article.pdf 2601:281:8200:45E0:40D1:114A:D4A1:B689 (talk) 15:15, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is also mentioned on this archive web page:

https://web.archive.org/web/20041204111102/http://origins.jpl.nasa.gov/missions/missions.html#pi 2601:281:8200:45E0:40D1:114A:D4A1:B689 (talk) 15:37, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]