Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Distant Planet Imaging Project Gets More Funding

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the dreaming-of-zoom-lenses dept.

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 [...]'"

13 of 264 comments (clear)

  1. I just hope... by dptalia · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...we can see them building the invasion fleet in time.

    --
    Genius is one percent inspiration and 99 percent perspiration, which is why engineers sometimes smell really bad.
  2. How will the religious establishment react? by CyricZ · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by temojen · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How would the discovery of other planets with earth-like features refute religious dogma?

      If there is an all powerful deity, surely it's within the power of such deity to create more than one earth.

      Genesis specifies how this earth was created. It says nothing of the existance or non-existance of others.

      It's kind of like how physics neither requires nor rules out any deity.

    2. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by CyricZ · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Any true American should care. After all, it is their children and grandchildren who many not receive a full education due to the religious beliefs of a small group of extremists. And in the world economy of today and most likely tomorrow, they will need to have such knowledge to just get by, let alone succeed.

      Powerful religious groups can often have a profound impact upon the development and progress of a nation.

      --
      Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
    3. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by nine-times · · Score: 4, Funny
      Just posted on FARK today: Vatican astronomer ponders baptism of extra-terrestrials

      That's right. You show me some ET's, and I'll show you some Christians that want to baptize them.

    4. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by Bogtha · · Score: 5, Interesting

      How would the religious establishment react? Such discoveries would, in effect, refute many of the religious claims.

      Exactly how they've reacted for every other scientific discovery made in the past that contradicts religion - half of them will deny it, and half of them will quietly tell themselves that part of their religion is metaphorical (and always has been).

      We have already seen pseudo Christians going to extreme lengths to ban the teaching of evolution

      That's a perfect example. Half of them are denying it, and half of them are saying that Genesis is metaphorical (and always has been).

      --
      Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
    5. Re:How will the religious establishment react? by Rei · · Score: 4, Informative

      Ed Babinski wrote a good article on some of the problems presented with life on other worlds (start at "All kidding aside").

      The presence of even lifeless planets beyond earth was deeply troubling for early theologans, and the concept was widely denied for theological reasons. "Great lights" that light noone's sky. Tracts of land far greater than those on Earth, doing nothing, for noone - I.e., God creating in vain. If they did have life, they couldn't trace it back to adam, et al. Such a huge act of creation, and God didn't see if fit to put a word of it in the bible? There were all sorts of major problems, and it took a long time to get it accepted.

      --
      But this Rottweiler not only is snarling and frothing at the mouth; it also went to Harvard.
  3. And in other news by Daysaway · · Score: 5, Funny

    Google plans to unveil their new software aptly named 'Google Solar System', which sews the surface maps of the planets together for an interactive flythrough.

    --
    Colonel Cranium this is Rectal Reconnaissance, we are on a collision course sir, Abort Abort!
  4. But wait, there's more! by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 4, Funny

    > it could 'identify planetary features like oceans,
    > continents, polar caps and cloud banks, and even
    > detect biomarkers like methane

    The bad part will come with version 3.0, launched in the later part of this century, when we zoom on on their alien babes on beaches, and see if they have silly laws regulating nudity, too. Or churches.

    Quite frankly, I'd be way more scared if they had churches than if they did not.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  5. Steerable? by david.given · · Score: 5, Insightful
    This thing appears to be a giant pinhole camera; there's a pinhole, which can be considered the lens assembly, which focuses light onto the sensor, 50'000km behind.

    Very cool. However, there's one little problem --- how the hell do you turn it? If the sensor's got to be 50'000km away from the lens, then to turn it 90 degrees (why does Slashdot block Unicode?) you're going to have to move the sensor some 70'000km, which means a lot of hydrazine.

    Or do they have something more cunning up their sleeves?

    1. Re:Steerable? by Zathrus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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).

  6. Re:Yup... by SysSupport · · Score: 4, Funny
    Here ya go

    *

    _

  7. Imaging is the Hard Part by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Detection biomarkers like methane is pretty easy if you can isolate the light from the planet and can get a decent number of photons. (Either through a large collection area or long integrations.) You just look for the distinctive spectral bands for the molecules like methane or ozone. (Oxygen, alas, leaves little mark in the spectrum since it's a homonuclear diatomic molecule and light tends to ignore it.)

    Imaging the surfaces will be tougher. You'll need a damn wide apeture (long integration don't help and the resolving power goes linearly with apeture). Remember, we've only imaged a few stars so far, and most of those are larger (in angular size) than these planets. Crud, look at Cassini: we're only getting good images of moons in our own solar system now because we have a spacecraft flying close to them.