←back to thread

342 points divbzero | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0s | 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 #
behnamoh ◴[] No.44401253[source]
Yet another reminder that space is huge and no matter how big we can imagine, due to the realities of physics, there is a good chance that we might never be able to reach the far stars and galaxies.
replies(3): >>44401498 #>>44402038 #>>44402435 #
UltraSane ◴[] No.44402038[source]
Biological humans won't reach the stars but our immortal robotic offspring can.
replies(1): >>44402453 #
1. runarberg ◴[] No.44402453[source]
Unlikely. There are both economical and moral reasons to never build a self replicating robotic fleet of probes. I think a sufficiently advanced civilization will always prefer telescopes over probes for anything more distant then the nearest couple of solar systems.

Just to ring the point home, we are technically (but not yet economically) capable of creating small telescopes which use our sun as a gravitational lens, which would be able to take photographs of exoplanets. In the far future we could potentially build very large telescopes which can do the same and see very distant objects with a fine resolution. That would be a much better investment then to send out self replicating robotic probes.

replies(1): >>44404125 #
2. UltraSane ◴[] No.44404125[source]
"There are both economical and moral reasons to never build a self replicating robotic fleet of probes."

Such as?

" I think a sufficiently advanced civilization will always prefer telescopes over probes for anything more distant then the nearest couple of solar systems."

What part of "immortal" don't you understand? traveling at 1% of c doesn't feel slow if you just turn off or slow down your brain during the trip.

replies(1): >>44404802 #
3. runarberg ◴[] No.44404802[source]
I would expect that the probe makers would want some benefits from the fleet of probes they sent, the only benefit I can think of to be had are information about far away objects, which is of scientific value. The probe’s makers will therefor have to keep contact with an ever expanding fleet of probes and sift through an exponentially increasing amount of information for millions of years. This just does not seem practical when you can just build a telescope. Now time may not pass that slowly from the perspective of the probe, but for the civilization on the homeworld, this method is painfully slow. They could have built thousands or millions of telescopes during that time to gather the same information (albeit of lower quality). Which is why you would probably want to probe your nearest neighboring solar systems, but nothing farther.

As for the moral reasons to not send out a fleet of self replicating probes. These are an extreme pollution hazard. An ever expanding fleet of robots traveling across the galaxy over millions of years, growing in numbers exponentially, exploiting resources in foreign worlds, with nothing to stop them if something happens to their makers. Over millions of years these things would be everywhere, and—in the best case—be a huge nuisance, but at worse they would be a risk to the public safety of the worlds they travel to. With these risks I believe a sufficiently advanced civilization would just build telescopes for their exploration needs.

replies(1): >>44406507 #
4. UltraSane ◴[] No.44406507{3}[source]
You don't understand. The "probes" WOULD BE the creators. Biological life is far too fragile to survive interstellar travel but AI running on much more durable hardware makes it downright easy.

And they wouldn't have to be inherently self-replicating.

When you can live millions of years your idea of what is "slow" changes pretty drastically.