|If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.|
||Thread Tools||Display Modes|
Do "starshades" make sense?
On Tuesday, January 15, 2019 at 4:45:20 AM UTC, RichA wrote:
On Monday, 14 January 2019 00:11:54 UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 16:15:54 -0800 (PST), RichA
On Sunday, 13 January 2019 18:36:05 UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
On Saturday, January 12, 2019 at 6:30:58 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:
I get occluding the star, but how would a much, much dimmer planet be seen at
all, even by a large telescope?
Of course, the fact that the telescope is *in space* means that occluding the star
can work just about perfectly. So, since occluding can work just about perfectly,
if the star is fairly nearby, a planet might not be dimmer than, say, one of the
galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field photograph.
Mars would be about 2.4E-11 dimmer to us, at the distance of Alpha Centauri I think.
Which would mean around mag 28, which is several times brighter than
the dimmest star Hubble can detect. But the proposed planet hunting
telescope has a larger mirror than the HST. So detecting a Mars-like
planet at over a parsec sounds completely feasible.
They want to combine the starshield with that other plan for the diffractive telescope using a 100 meter diffraction disk. 100-1000 times the resolution of the Hubble.
I must activate the starshield in my car this evening but I really know it is just a sun visor that helps diminish glare for safe driving.
I like it here because contributors seem completely immune to anything in front of them while outside the newsgroup those who become partially familiar with productive perspectives are inclined to screw things up. In this respect Copernicus didn't fear Church censure he just was wary of the many drones which circle less productive convictions but are distracted long enough to make a balls of new ones.
The starshield idea is fine, however, when the hapless refuse to accept the principles for the planets nearest to our own star and to our slower moving planet then people continue to make a mockery of themselves given the SOHO imaging which effectively shields out the glare of the Sun and permits a reasonably clear view of the inner solar system.
The planet Mars is seen to move forward against the moving stellar background with the Sun at the centre around February 1996 so it would be another year before Mars started to process a direct/retrograde loop in February 1997 -
This supports actual timelapse of the same observation -
Then Venus comes careering into view in June 1996 as it passes in front of the Sun and overtakes our planet. It is not a matter of if but when the wider community starts to enjoy what the theorists and celestial sphere enthusiasts cannot but I have no objections to the latter as they have their own thing going.
|Thread||Thread Starter||Forum||Replies||Last Post|
|the "magical" Space forums that make MY "unfeasible" and "non||gaetanomarano||Policy||3||August 27th 08 12:04 PM|
|Perverse sense of "funny"||Reaper G||Amateur Astronomy||0||December 26th 07 01:54 AM|
|CalTech & "common sense" in the news :-)||Chuck Taylor||Amateur Astronomy||2||February 3rd 06 06:09 AM|