In Search Of the Vulcans

jonerik writes: "No, not those Vulcans. The BBC has this article on the Southwest Research Institute's (SwRI) search for the Vulcanoids, a belt of perhaps a few hundred small asteroids (perhaps between one and 25 kilometers in diameter) theorized to exist inside of Mercury's orbit around the sun. Because of their closeness to the sun and small size, the asteroids - if they exist - would be hard to observe from the ground. To that end, a NASA F/A-18 is being used to conduct a search 'of the twilight sky near the Sun that is far darker and clearer than can be obtained from the ground,' says Dr. Dan Durda of SwRI. According to the article, 'The camera used in the latest search...is trained on the region of space close to the Sun after the star has dipped below the Earth's horizon. The camera grabs twilight images at a rate of 60 frames a second.' The researchers hope to have a better idea of whether or not the Vulcanoids exist in another month or two."

Comments

Why do this now?

[Twintop]

I'm all for space exploration to discover and learn just about anything and everything we can about our solar system, galaxy, and universe. BUT, there has to be a priority list in my mind, and for me this doesn't seem as important as some other things, such as trying to send more craft (or even people) back to the moon or to Mars. Not to go off on a tangent or anything, but it's been nearly 30 years since man was last on the Moon. This was because NASA wanted to make a reusable spacecraft, and they have: the spaceshuttle. Isn't about time to work on something that can launch from the space shuttle and goto the moon, or are they waiting for the ISS to be completed first, which ironically would tack the numbe rof years since we were last on the moon upto about 40-50ish. Anyway, back to the topic at hand. To me atleast these asteroids circling around Mercury are like a bunch of little moons, agreed? If they were to say it'd take 6 months to a year or more, I'd be totally against it because of the cost. But a month or two for what information might come from these observations could be worth it. Who knows, have we ever really looked right next to the sun for an extended period of time?

Re:Why do this now?

[EvilBastard]

Why do this now ?

Because they are there.

* Maybe they'll be stable enough to mount a nice in close power station without having to worry about Mercury's gravity well

* Maybe observing their orbits could point to some more information on the GU theory

* Maybe they could lead to some more theory on planetary formation with formation of planets close to stellar bodies

* Maybe the knowledge gained from this can lead to new designs on high-altitude fast turnaround observation of objects coming at us from the sun (Like, the last two near-miss asteroids)

* Maybe they are completly unremarkable chunks of stone, worth two or three papers and then forgotten about.

It's a ground based observation at objects too close to the sun for most observations, done on the cheap with minimal new hardware designs. I'd be very suprised if the total budget for this was much over 3 or 4 million total

The things you want NASA to do ? Guess what - they are already doing them. It's just they like doing a wide variety of different things, because you never know when you'll find something interesting in an unexplored area of science.

Why mount of an f-18, was Re:Hey

[chongo]

The f-18 is able to chase/extend the time it spends in twilight. At middle North America latitudes (say 40 Deg. North) the twilight shadow moves over the ground at about 1275 km/hr (~793 MPH), well within reach of an f-18. A scope on the f-18 can stay within the twilight shadow for an extensive period of time.

As for the concern about stable cameras, NASA has been flying mounted scopes for some time. The guidance and anti-vibration systems are good enough to conduct real astronomy. In fact, craft such as SOFIA are pushing the technology even further. Yes, scopes on aircraft is outstanding practice.

One might, however, ask if the glare of the twilight combined with observing low to the horizon will impact their ability to find Vulcans. Compared to the Eclipse method, the f-18 observing conditions are poor (low in the horizon, reduced image brightness, glare from the Sun that just set, dust, etc.). On the other hand the number of minutes to observe during totality (see my other posting on this topic) are limited. A single f-18 run can rack up more minutes than ground based eclipse imagery can in a decade.

Better would be to fly cameras on an f-18 or Concord or SR71 in the Moon's shadow during a total eclipse. You can get the best of both worlds.

Better still would be to observe from space with a special telescope that can take images near the sun.

NOTE: Scopes like the Hubble cannot look too close to the Sun for obvious reasons. That is why you have and will never see a Hubble image of Mercury, let alone Vulcan asteroids.

Craft such as SOHO were not designed to look for Vulcans because they, if they exist, are too dim.

Vulcan asteroids, if they exist, are very dim. Bright Vulcans would have been spotted long ago during some eclipse or if nothing else during the extensive Vulcan search in the late 1800's.

Each method as its +/-'s as well as cost tradeoff. I wish this new Vulcan program all the best in the hopes that they can do what others have failed to do so far.