Giant scope in planning stages.

[qso1]

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Thirty_Meter_Telescope_Passes_Conceptual_Design_Review.html<br /><br />I'd mentioned in previous posts that if there were delays or problems in getting TPF developed and launched, that ground based instruments might be able to image planets around other stars.<br /><br />This may be one of the first that will be able to do so. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[vulture2]

Ground-based telescopes can be designed to do a great deal, but several fundamental discoveries were made by much smaller space-based instruments. If we launched more often and allowed spacecraft designs to evolve rather than jumping directly from Hubble to Webb, we would save money and time and have more scopes in orbit. If we planned to maintain a production capability, it would be easier to replace defective instruments than to repair them, and in most cases the instruments that are replaced could still function in a limited capacity.<br /><br />Space-based telescopes are paid for largely by the NASA budget, which is not going to increase significantly. We should be aware that almost every dollar we spend on going back to the moon (with 60's technology) will be obtained by cutting other NASA projects, notably science.

 

[qso1]

vulture2:<br />We should be aware that almost every dollar we spend on going back to the moon (with 60's technology) will be obtained by cutting other NASA projects, notably science.<br /><br />Me:<br />This is one reason I'm sort of banking on ground based, at least for imaging of extrasolar planets, if ground based can actually even do that. I know when NASA proposes a project, it always gets watered down by budget cuts and this time around, space science took a big hit as you mentioned. People really ought to look at the rationale for cutting NASAs budget. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

stevehw33:<br />Interesting. There was a report in NewScientist.com, that a distant brown dwarf was reported to have had a planet directly imaged by the ESA, possibly the first ever. It was 5-10 times the size of Jupiter, but it might show what's possible.<br /><br />Me:<br />This is one of those reports where they appear to be jumping at the chance to finally be able to say an extrasolar planet has been imaged. The planet in question may be a brown dwarf star. I'm waiting for the day they image and confirm something that has a surface temp less than 1,000 F. The premature planet announcement has happened once before where Hubble observations are concerned. Taurus Molecular Cloud or TMC-1 in 1998 IIRC. There was a Hubble image showing a point of light at the end of a long gas trail. This point was reported to be 150 billion miles from its host star which was also in the image. I had my doubts which mainly consisted of wondering how such feeble light could be detected reflected off a planet 50 times further from its host than Pluto is from the sun. Even with Hubble this seemed like a stretch. A year or so later the claim was retracted as it turned out the point of light was a point of light, a star well beyond the gas trail.<br /><br />The one your referring to may yet turn out to be a planet, I'm just waiting for sufficient time for the astronomers to be sure enough not to retract or say its a brown dwarf. Imagine a brown dwarf orbiting a brown dwarf. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[doubletruncation]

<font color="yellow">Imagine a brown dwarf orbiting a brown dwarf.</font><br /><br />That in and of itself is pretty neat I think <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />! Even if it is too small to sustain deuterium fusion (and would then be considered a planet by that criterion) it is probably more related to a brown dwarf than a planet. It seems unlikely that it formed in a disk since it's so far away from the other brown dwarf, so it probably formed in much the same way that stars do - by direct gravitational collapse. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[qso1]

That was the explanation I was looking for when I started responding to the previous post, thanks.<br /><br />"Too small to sustain fusion" which is a pretty good definition I think. The best I was able to come up with was surface temp under 1,000 degrees even though I knew planets with temps as high as 2,000 are possible without sustaining fusion reactions.<br /><br />I'm looking for that first direct image of a non fusion sustaining body that we know is such. By definition, a planet. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>