←back to thread

342 points divbzero | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.206s | source
Show context
GMoromisato ◴[] No.44401068[source]
In case anyone is wondering, we are (sadly) very far from getting an image of this planet (or any extra-solar planet) that is more than 1 pixel across.

At 110 light-years distance you would need a telescope ~450 kilometers across to image this planet at 100x100 pixel resolution--about the size of a small icon. That is a physical limit based on the wavelength of light.

The best we could do is build a space-based optical interferometer with two nodes 450 kilometers apart, but synchronized to 1 wavelength. That's a really tough engineering challenge.

replies(17): >>44401110 #>>44401184 #>>44401253 #>>44401265 #>>44401398 #>>44402344 #>>44402398 #>>44402585 #>>44402661 #>>44402689 #>>44402874 #>>44403215 #>>44403439 #>>44403929 #>>44403949 #>>44404611 #>>44408076 #
GolfPopper ◴[] No.44401398[source]
We can do better than that! Using the Sun as a gravitation lens[1], and a probe at a focal point of 542 AU, we could get 25km scale surface resolution on a planet 98 ly away. [2] This would be an immense and time-consuming endeavor, but does seem to be within humanity's current technological capabilities.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_gravitational_lens

2. https://www.nasa.gov/general/direct-multipixel-imaging-and-s...

replies(9): >>44401440 #>>44401445 #>>44401520 #>>44401969 #>>44402006 #>>44402168 #>>44402383 #>>44404832 #>>44406627 #
JumpCrisscross ◴[] No.44401445[source]
Do we have a recent cost estimate?
replies(3): >>44401602 #>>44402072 #>>44403288 #
twothreeone ◴[] No.44401602[source]
"We used to look up at the sky and wonder at our place in the stars. Now we just look down, and worry about our place in the dirt."
replies(1): >>44401675 #
sho_hn ◴[] No.44401675[source]
It's cynical to assume OP was gunning for "it's too expensive". They might just want to know the size of the challenge to get it done.
replies(2): >>44401845 #>>44407493 #
twothreeone ◴[] No.44401845[source]
And it's ironic to scold others for missing a point while missing their point. All good though.
replies(1): >>44402014 #
1. amanaplanacanal ◴[] No.44402014[source]
I missed it too. What was your point?