PlanetQuest

[marcel_leonard]

Do you think that in our life time that space telescope technology will become good enough to zoom in on planet surfaces light years away?<br /><br />I remeber attending a lecture were a Cornell Physicist discussed plans for giant solar telescope array [basically several radio telescopes orbiting around the sun]. I was wondering if we used several hubble-like scopes; could we increase the magnification of the images? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[thalion]

Telescopes good enough to resolve vague surface details on exoplanets are possible, but probably several decades, if not a century away; I'm guessing they would involve nothing less than kilometer-scale optical/IR interferometers.

 

[marcel_leonard]

Here is something; to think about how about a Virtual Mission to our nearest neighbor Alpha Centuri. Imagine in about two, or three decades our AI technologies being able to send virtual astronauts equipped w/ virtual cameras, then sending back pictures.<br /><br />It would probably tack about 50 years to broadcast there and another 50 for us to recieve the transmissions... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[rocketbodypart]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Certain by-products of an industrial civilization, such as atmospheric pollution, would be a possible dead give-away for an advanced intelligent civilization. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> <br /><br />But what about non-intelligent life? I would be just as interested to see some sort of living creature, human or not.

 

[astrophoto]

We cant even look at bodies in our OWN solar system and determine definitively if they harbor life or not, so a scope to check a system light-years away is a long way off technologically. More likely we will develop a method of travel to send probes to nearby star systems and analyze them locally and broadcast messages back long before we construct a massive space telescope able to do as you suggest.

 

[worthj1970]

So what is the fastest vehicle that humans could theoretically create for space travel? Since we seem to be entering the barnstorming phase of cosmic travel, could we build a probe that could reach a nearby star (and return either intact or just a signal) in our lifetime?

 

[nacnud]

Take a look at the one way interstellar probe project daedalus <br /><br />Or for many more comcepts and idea take a look around Advanced Propulsion Concepts from www.islandone.org

 

[astrophoto]

I am no math whiz, but it will take a long long time with current technology. Alpha Centauri A is a decent candidate for our first look and is a bit more than 4 lightyears away.<br /><br />So, the question becomes how fast can a probe go? I dont have the calculations for mass/fuel/acceleration/deceleration/speed/time handy, but we can make some generalizations to show the problem.<br /><br />Say we can build a probe that can travel 1/10th the speed of light on average between here and Alpha Centauri (an average of the speed to accelerate and decelerate the probe). This would put us as 40 years to get there. Once there, any signal sent back at the speed of light would take an additional 4 years to reach us and would be very costly to generate enough of a strong signal to reach back here.<br /><br />Another approach would be to send an autonomous probe there, take 40 years to get there, study the system for a decade or two, then fly BACK to Earth using some fuel it can gather from the system (if it were to carry the return fuel all the way there, it makes things that much heavier to accelerate). This would obviously take 100+ years but would be an awesome thing to do.

 

[nacnud]

Daedalus was designed with the idea that a trip to Barnards star should be achieved within a single human lifetime, roughly 50 years so at least some of the engineers that built it would still be alive when it got there. I think that it gets up to around 12% the speed of light so your spot on with your calculations <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[marcel_leonard]

You forgot the solar sail project developed by my favorite brooklyn kid...<br /><br />Carl Sagan <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[craigmac]

Although I'm far from an astrophysicist; most of the articles that I've read say that Gravity Lenz, or Red Shift is nothing more than an illusion.

 

[marcel_leonard]

Does anyone here know which method was used in locating this planet, and how could they differentiate between a red dwarf and a gas gaint at those extreme distances? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[newtonian]

marcel_leonard - Hi! I?m paulharth6, btw. How are you?<br /><br />OK, twice as far from the brown dwarf sun as Neptune is from our sun. <br /><br />And the planet is 5 times more massive than Jupiter, while the brown dwarf sun is 25 times larger than Jupiter, 42 times less massive than our sun.<br /><br />So, why would this be called a planet rather than a binary system? Simple math shows the planet is fully one fifth the mass of its sun, or brown dwarf.<br /><br />OK, who is good at math? How likely is it that this planet is gravitationally bound to the brown dwarf? I.e, how slow would it have to orbit? Comparable to Oort cloud orbital speeds for our solar system?<br /><br />I mean 42 times less massive than our sun with a planet twice as far as Neptune! Seems like it would not be strongly gravitationally bound.<br /><br />Have gravitational effects on the brown dwarf been observed to determine orbital speed?<br /><br />I understand that the dividing line between a brown dwarf and a nuclear star is .08 solar masses. The parent brown dwarf is less than one third this mass, roughly. What is the lower limit for the mass of a brown dwarf?<br /><br />Now, I know a red dwarf is faint....<br /><br />OK, what are the mass limits for a red dwarf?

 

[marcel_leonard]

Not to get technical, but my point was at these distances gravtional distortion can create the illusion of larger mass. Since planets don't give of any light the images from the recent gravity lens observations can be misleading... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[fatjoe]

Paul what I don't understand is how we so quick to jump to conclusions on our distant observations; of interstellar plantes, when we can barely account for all the celestrial bodies here in our own solar system. Why it was only in 1989 that we realized that Neptune had rings, and wasn't until 1930 that Clyde Tombaugh discovered Pluto.<br /><br />I think what is taking place is that todays campuses; desperate Physic departments are in such a rush to get thier hands on federal grants; to continue funding their respective departments, they will say almost anything to get it.<br /><br />Having send that I beleieve that real time video, and improvements in information systems technology; built into future space telescope arrays will shead more light on what are galaxy looks like. As oppossed to the still photo analysis from Hubble that we heavily depend on today...

 

[newtonian]

FatJoe - good point, (marcel - also good points - I will research that further).<br /><br />The profit incentive (federal grants, etc.), and pride, can cause problems. My own observations are that astronomers have had less fraud than other sciences - but I have limited observations.<br /><br />Many astronomers seem more humble than other scientists - perhaps because they are humbled by the evident fact that we are so tiny compared with the awesome universe.<br /><br />You all -note the latest Science News (9/4/04), page 147, concerning the three lightest (weight?) planets discovered recently.<br /><br />They note these planets "are probably too hot to support life."<br /><br />They are not seen [?, note the last one by spectograph], but observed by their gravitational effects on parent stars.<br /><br />1. Two were found by R. Paul Butler of Carnegie (Washington) and Geoffrey W. Marcy of the University of California, Berkeley. <br /><br />One orbits the red dwarf Gliese 436[30 light years from earth] with a revolution of once per 2.64 days! [Wow! That is fast!] This planet is said to be between 21 and 25 times the mass of earth.<br /><br />This was observed at the Keck observatory in Hawaii, at Mt. Mauna Kea. <br /><br />[Red dwarfs are said to be the most common star type in Milky Way.]<br /><br />2. A small planet in addition to 3 Jupiter-like planets orbiting "sunlike star 55 Cancri." 18 times the mass of earth. Orbiting every 2.81 days! That's a mighty short year!<br /><br />By (discovered, not created) Barbara E. McArthur of the University of Texas at Austin using the 9.2 Hobberly-Eberly Telescope in Texas.<br /><br />3. A planet 14+ times the mass of earth orbiting nearby star mu Arae.<br /><br />Reported by Nuno C. Santos of the University of Lisbon, Portugal. Discovered by using a spectrograph on the European Southern Observatory's 3.6m telescope in La Silla, Chile.<br /><br />Again, see the Science News, 9/4/04 for more details.<br /><br />http://www.sci</safety_wrapper

 

[redwhitearcher]

Hey a crazy sci fi thought here: If we had a super telescope capable of doing high resolution pictures of planets in our solar system we could place a giant mirror far away, zoom on it and look in the past <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[craigmac]

Theoretically you could: Actually everytime you look up at the night sky you are looking at the past positions of stars; due to the fact it takes time @ [c=3e8 m/s] for the light to reach us. So when your looking at AC you are looking at it's position 40 lyrs ago...

 

[marcel_leonard]

Never the less; at 40 LYRS that it takes light to reach us here on earth; for all we know some celestial event could have wiped out the entire trinity system of Alpha Centuri....<br /><br />My point being whatever we see when looking at AC in the night sky happened 40 years ago... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[craigmac]

Even if that were true what does it have to do w/ this topic. Eddie you really try very hard to live up to your name. Borderline schizophrenic eddie should'nt drink hard liquor.

 

[steve01]

LOL thats funny . . . . no its not . . . yes it is . . . nobody was talking to you . . . .yes they were . . . oh, go back to sleep . . . OK

 

[marcel_leonard]

I guess not Sherlock since you say so; that makes it proof positive. No wonder we haven't found intelligent life in outer space! We have crazy eddies slashing prices on toaster, and LCD TV sets; so low that he must be insane!!! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[fatjoe]

Newtonian are going the watch the PBS special Origins?<br /><br />I have always wondered about whether or not live began here on earth, or rather it was transplanted by meteorite from sone where else in soloar system , or perhaps elsewhere the galaxy?

 

[marcel_leonard]

<font color="yellow">Hey a crazy sci fi thought here: If we had a super telescope capable of doing high resolution pictures of planets in our solar system we could place a giant mirror far away, zoom on it and look in the past</font><br /><br />Spectroscopy is allowing us to make better determination on what habitable star systems, and groups my be out there. I for one would like to see a very large orbital array survey done; in combination radiowave study. I think this would go along what to helping us pin point ET signal, if there is anyone out there broadcasting... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[newtonian]

marcel_leonard - Hi again.<br /><br />Are you posting with different handles? If so, I sure don't mind - I have a sense of humor.<br /><br />Crazyeddie has been weird lately - I would suggest ignoring the off theme comments and continue with your excellent posts and questions.<br /><br />Yes, I did watch Nova Origins and I will be watching it many more times- what did you think of the program?<br /><br />For example, I knew we had found amino acids on meteorites - but 70!!!!<br /><br />That is amazing.<br /><br />The program was also balanced - indicating amino acids and the resulting peptides from shock experiments (they simulated 5,000 mph if I remember corrrectly!) are a long way from life.<br /><br />As they noted we cannot even produce life in the lab by our intelligent direction!<br /><br />On your seeing earth in the past question - if that was you:<br /><br />Yes, interesting possibility.<br /><br />To add to that - how about an alien, aka extraterristrial, world having a SETI program like we do.<br /><br />Now assume they are some 80 or so light years from us.<br /><br />And they tune in to the old radio broadcast by Orson Welles (sp?) on the War of the Worlds. And they assume, like some human listeners did, that the martian invasion was (is) real.....<br /><br />Remember, they will hear our radio waves as they were 80 years ago!<br /><br />