Slashdot Mirror
Distant Planet Imaging Project Gets More Funding
It doesn't come easy writes "NASA's Institute for Advanced Concepts has chosen a proposal by the University of Colorado (UC) at Boulder to image distant planets around other stars for a second round of funding. Known as the New Worlds Observer, the UC project is for an orbiting, soccer-field sized "starshade" shaped like a daisy that would funnel light from distant planets between its petals to a second spacecraft trailing 50,000 miles behind. If the concept proves feasible, it could 'identify planetary features like oceans, continents, polar caps and cloud banks, and even detect biomarkers like methane, water, oxygen and ozone [...]'"
How will the religious establishment react to such discoveries? Suppose a distant planet with many of the features of earth (oceans, deserts, mountains, etc.) is found. But let's not go so far as to say that plant life (or something like it) is found.
How would the religious establishment react? Such discoveries would, in effect, refute many of the religious claims.
We have already seen pseudo Christians going to extreme lengths to ban the teaching of evolution in places like Kansas and Tennessee. Would they take a similar route were discoveries that didn't mesh to well with their teachings to be found?
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
and even detect biomarkers like methane, water, oxygen and ozone
I hope I live to see the day when this thing detects a faint glow on the planet's continents that are facing away from the planet's sun at that moment. *shudder*
Technoli
During the recent comet impactor mission, the accuracy needed to strike the probe onto the comet seemed to be at the limit of our abilities.
Can we really move a pinhole shaped opening directly in front of the target at 50,000km?
Heh kind of reminds me of the book titled "Blind Lake" (sorry can't remember the author) Basically they had a super telescope getting more and more detail, hooking it up super computers for further analysis of the data, and more and more data starts pouring in from the computers in greater and greater detail...even after the original telescopes stop working!
I (without RTFA) would suppose that the sensor would be in very nearly the same sun-orbiting track as the pinhole assembly to maintain the correct focal length. Thus, to turn the camera by 90 degrees in the plane of the orbit, you just have to wait for 1/4th or 3/4th (depending which way you wanted to turn) of the orbital period to transpire (3 or 9 months in an Earth-trailing orbit). If you want to turn it more than a few degrees (or even a few arc-minutess) out of plane, things would get complicated and expensive, but if you can get the orbital plane of the camera more-or-less aligned with the plane of the galaxy, it shouldn't be that great of a limitation.
However, there's one little problem --- how the hell do you turn it?
This is listed as a "problem" by the folks developing it.
Actually, however, there's a much bigger problem. Presuming that you have the sensor facing away from the sun (if you don't, then you face even bigger issues), then the 50k km spacing leads to the two objects being in separate orbits. The sensor will travel around the sun at a slightly faster rate than the shield, which means you have to adjust orbits on a pretty frequent basis. This becomes less and less of a problem the further away from the sun you are (and being further away has its own advantages too), but it's still an issue no matter what.
Keeping the entire thing in alignment is a huge problem -- even if you ignore needing to turn it (which you certainly will; it may be a pinhole camera, but the longer the exposure time the better the picture -- if you can pivot the entire thing continuously that is).
Don't get me wrong. I am a big fan of NASA. Some of my code controls the MGS camera (at least it did).
.5 trillion before GWB is out of office. Likewise, we still have not captured OBL or even slowed down Al Qaida. In fact, Iraq has made it much easier for them (simply read the parts of the letter that GWB was willing to share). So all in all, we can not cut the military.
The problem is that we are going to have to make budgetary choices again. Poppa Bush and Clinton did that to balance the budget that Reagan ran up. Now, GWB has made Reagan look positively responsible. No doubt that the next admin will have to raise taxes, but they will also have to cut spending. And since we have only made ourselves more dependent on Middle east oil and Chinese products, we will have to cut huge. problem is, where?
The Iraqi Invasion has meant that the Army is unable to recruit. We will have to offer larger and larger incentives to get good recruits (ppl do not like being cannon fodder). This invasion will costs more than
Shortly after GWB is gone, his senior drug plan really kicks in. It is one of the worst plans going and yet, I doubt that the dems will have the spine to stop it.
Currently, we have NOLA issues which is going to cost 10's of billions.
The highway bill that was passed will almost certainly have to be recended and the next admin will almost certainly try to roll back much of the energy bill that GWB has passed.
Finally, we will have no choice, but to undertake a crash program in moving to Nukes. Big mistake, though. Something like that, is better being done slowly. This should be done, but it should be done at a measured pace. The problem is that we have expensive labor. Therefor, we require energy to automate the manufacturing. In addition, since we have one of the lowest population densities, we require more energy just to get around. Finally, we will need to clean up our act. We can not remain the number one polluters and not suffer from it. All of this means that we MUST get off oil. And GWB is trying hard to keep us on it.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
If we think nothing can go faster than speed of light (information itself and gravity waves seem to respect this until proven otherwise someday) we can believe they have ships (if they do exist and have ships) that cannot go over speed of light. It makes me think of the technology we can see in the books by Alastair Reynolds. Those books are written by a scientist and nothing in those books goes faster than speed of light. Ships are called "Light Huggers" and they take years to get close to speed of light, and years to slow down.
So we might first see the light from their exhausts for a few years before any ship really comes close to us, if someday an alien ship would have to come by and if it doesn't go faster than light.