Skip to main content

Jason Steffen - Five way interview

Jason Steffen is associate professor of physics at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. A longtime science team member of NASA’s Kepler mission, he has contributed to the discovery and characterisation of thousands of planets that orbit distant stars. His new book is Hidden in the Heavens.

Why astronomy?

I originally wanted to be an aerospace engineer to design and build airplanes.  My undergraduate institution didn't have aerospace engineering:  I took an astronomy class my first quarter, and decided to major in physics.  My degrees are in physics rather than astronomy, but my research is all on topics related to astronomy in one way or another. 

For a period of time after graduate school I did experimental physics research on dark matter and dark energy.  I was working at a national laboratory, a big atom smasher outside of Chicago, called Fermilab.  At the same time that I was doing this work for Fermilab, I also worked for NASA on the Kepler mission to find exoplanets.  Half my salary came from one project, the other half from the other.  It was pretty intense, but I learned a lot.  Eventually, I decided that I needed to stick with one research area and chose to stick with exoplanets. 

Why this book?

For a long time I've been interested in writing a book.  I enjoy explaining the things that we've collectively learned and how we learned them.  It had been just over a decade since the original Kepler mission launched, so it was far enough in the past that we could give a decent assessment of what its significance was, but not so far in the past that everyone was retired or dead.  So, I still had access to my colleagues, as well as a copy of all of the emails that were shared among our working group.  It seemed that the time was right to tell the story of the mission.

We’ve now discovered thousands of exoplanets - are we still finding anything new and unexpected?

A lot of exoplanet science has moved on from discovering new systems (although that still happens).  Today, our advances often happen in characterizing the properties of those planets.  Measuring their masses, the composition of their atmospheres, the nature of the planetary system that they live within, the properties of the star that they orbit, etc.  We are learning a lot about how the sizes of different planets in a given system, and their orbits, relate to each other and what that implies for their histories, and the history of the solar system.

We also have instruments, like the James Webb Space Telescope, where we can see the different chemicals that are in the atmospheres of these planets.  That tells us about the conditions where they formed, and whether or not their surfaces might be conducive for life to exist.  Each day there are a dozen or so new papers that share new results, so there is still consistent progress in a number of areas.

What’s next?

 In exoplanets, there is ongoing work with the TESS mission (Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite).  That is discovering new systems on a regular basis.  There are also plans to launch the PLATO mission, which is a successor to Kepler, this time led by the European Space Agency.  Another satellite, the Nancy Grace Roman Telescope, led by NASA will be able to detect a lot of planets across our galaxy that we currently don't have the capability to see.  So, the field of exoplanets is not slowing down any time soon.

What’s exciting you at the moment?

My current research is looking at the chemical composition of the planets themselves, not their atmospheres, but their interiors.  Planets form in a disk of material that orbits the newborn star.  As that disk cools, different minerals condense and rain down to the disk midplane where they ultimately form the building blocks of planets.  My group models the condensation of those different minerals so that we can predict what the planets will be made of.

My group also developed computer software that models the internal structure of planets given their composition.  So, we can take the output of our predictions for the composition of the planets, and then turn it into real planets using this other software.  (We called the software MAGRATHEA, after the planet in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy where planets are made to order.)  Ultimately, we are trying to predict the details of what exoplanets are like, and the conditions under which they formed.

Photograph (c) Robert Royer III

These articles will always be free - but if you'd like to support my online work, consider buying a virtual coffee:
Interview by Brian Clegg - See all Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly email free here

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Antigravity Enigma - Andrew May ****

Antigravity - the ability to overcome the pull of gravity - has been a fantasy for thousands of years and subject to more scientific (if impractical) fictional representation since H. G. Wells came up with cavorite in The First Men in the Moon . But is it plausible scientifically?  Andrew May does a good job of pulling together three ways of looking at our love affair with antigravity (and the related concept of cancelling inertia) - in science fiction, in physics and in pseudoscience and crankery. As May points out, science fiction is an important starting point as the concept was deployed there well before we had a good enough understanding of gravity to make any sensible scientific stabs at the idea (even though, for instance, Michael Faraday did unsuccessfully experiment with a possible interaction between gravity and electromagnetism). We then get onto the science itself, noting the potential impact on any ideas of antigravity that come from the move from a Newtonian view of a...

The World as We Know It - Peter Dear ***

History professor Peter Dear gives us a detailed and reasoned coverage of the development of science as a concept from its origins as natural philosophy, covering the years from the eighteenth to the twentieth century. inclusive If that sounds a little dry, frankly, it is. But if you don't mind a very academic approach, it is certainly interesting. Obviously a major theme running through is the move from largely gentleman natural philosophers (with both implications of that word 'gentleman') to professional academic scientists. What started with clubs for relatively well off men with an interest, when universities did not stray far beyond what was included in mathematics (astronomy, for instance), would become a very different beast. The main scientific subjects that Dear covers are physics and biology - we get, for instance, a lot on the gradual move away from a purely mechanical views of physics - the reason Newton's 'action at a distance' gravity caused such ...

It's On You - Nick Chater and George Loewenstein *****

Going on the cover you might think this was a political polemic - and admittedly there's an element of that - but the reason it's so good is quite different. It shows how behavioural economics and social psychology have led us astray by putting the focus way too much on individuals. A particular target is the concept of nudges which (as described in Brainjacking ) have been hugely over-rated. But overall the key problem ties to another psychological concept: framing. Huge kudos to both Nick Chater and George Loewenstein - a behavioural scientist and an economics and psychology professor - for having the guts to take on the flaws in their own earlier work and that of colleagues, because they make clear just how limited and potentially dangerous is the belief that individuals changing their behaviour can solve large-scale problems. The main thesis of the book is that there are two ways to approach the major problems we face - an 'i-frame' where we focus on the individual ...