View Single Post
  #4  
Old January 13th 19, 01:40 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gerald Kelleher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,551
Default Do "starshades" make sense?

On Sunday, January 13, 2019 at 1:30:58 AM UTC, RichA wrote:
It's mentioned in this speculative space telescope video. The idea is to create an eclipse using a large, calculated shade which would allow a star to be occluded and planets around it to be seen. I get occluding the star, but how would a much, much dimmer planet be seen at all, even by a large telescope?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIASPc89Sgk


Cracks me up that the programme by these youngsters is prefaced with 'Earth Rotation' in the intro where the Earth is supposed to turn once in 24 hours to the Sun (it doesn't) and 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds to the stars (it doesn't).

The Sun is in view from sunrise to sunset and the stars are in view from sunset to sunrise any day or rotation within a year. It represents a single 24 hour day/ 360 degree rotation cycle apart from the Polar day/night cycle which arises from a separate rotation as a function of orbital motion.

What is happening at the moment is that the old relativists are dying off and being replaced by celestial sphere youngsters who have only known the RA/Dec framework whereas the theorists may as well be moonies such is their voodoo so adrift of observations.

Behind it all is a small but growing voice which invites people to return to more exciting possibilities opened up by imaging including the time lapse provided by the SOHO satellite with its own sun visor.

A more natural one is the distance between observer and horizon at dawn and twilight so long as the observer knows they are looking close to the centre of the solar system where the residual light is and Sirius is seen just below the meteor in that spectacular image -

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap181123.html