5 ms·

"Using a meter-class telescope one can produce images of the exoplanet with a surface resolution measured in tens of kilometers and to identify signs of habitab

"Using a meter-class telescope one can produce images of the exoplanet with a surface resolution measured in tens of kilometers and to identify signs of habitability." Here's gmaps satellite view at ~10km/px EDIT: fixed permalink https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4220797,-93.7912673,6877284m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4220797,-93.7912673,6877284m... also: https://imgur.com/a/JwHmaIY https://imgur.com/a/JwHmaIY Wow.

bartread 4y ago
That link just opens a standard map of the whole globe in a flat projection - I think you might need to use the sharing link generator to share what you intended.
- simias 4y ago
  I think that's what they wanted? Although it's still a strange way to communicate that given that it'll change wildly based on screen resolution. A screenshot would probably be a better idea.
- rchard2scout 4y ago
  I'm not sure if it's possible to easily share the correct settings in an URL, but: In the Layers menu, set it to Satellite, Globe view, and turn off Labels. Then, zoom until the earth is ca. 1275 pixels wide
- abhaynayar 4y ago
  I think the link intended to show 10 km/pixel, to give an idea of what it would look like. It shows a scale of length 1000 km to me, if it is 10 km/pixel then there should be a 100 pixels within that length, which seems okay as a sanity check. But yeah, it depends on the screen resolution as well.
- pmayrgundter 4y ago
  Thanks, fixed!
pmayrgundter 4y ago
Weird, fix didn't work either :( Just use the imgur :)
phkahler 4y ago
Didn't they say the spacecraft will have to move around to get each pixel? That means the planet would turn between pixels and you wouldn't get a coherent image. It would also take a very long time to cover 10's of thousands of pixels. May need to send many imagers and combine the results...
- jackmott 4y ago
  These are all easily solved problems we are familiar with compared to getting spaceships there accurately. But yes usually these plans call for a swarm of these ships
- WithinReason 4y ago
  I wonder if you could use just 1 spacecraft and actually exploit the rotation of the planet to "scan" the planet surface in 1 dimension. The movement of your telescope would provide the other dimension, so in a slow fly-through you could get a 2D image of the planet surface. So e.g. imaging a 12000 km (Earth-size) planet at 10 km/pixel would take 1200 planet rotations, each providing a row of pixels, taking about 3 years assuming it's rotating at the speed of Earth. You would just have to know ahead of time the orientation of the planet's axis of rotation so you approach the "focal region" from the right angle.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  Main thing is that you don't get an image, but a single line of pixels. Such a line taken of Earth is likely to have nothing in it but ocean and clouds. If you sent a swarm, each would get its own line of pixels, as many lines as spacecraft.
  - nomel 4y ago
    This is how scanners (the paper/photo kind) work, a single row of pixels, and you can make a wicked camera from one: https://www.engadget.com/2014-12-30-scanner-camera.html https://www.engadget.com/2014-12-30-scanner-camera.html
    - 4y ago
p1mrx 4y ago
When you can resolve territorial borders and labels, that's a pretty strong sign of intelligent life.
- gwbas1c 4y ago
  Jokes aside, if they have artificial lighting, it should be visible.
  - Simon_O_Rourke 4y ago
    Holy smokes, when I saw the resolution I got excited. When I read this, I went wow!! And the reason we as a society aren't doing this already is what? This thing should be consuming a percent of two of US GDP until it's done.
    - sneak 4y ago
      I think this mistakenly assumes that tax money is spent on the things that are a priority to the society that pays the taxes. This is not how tax money is allocated at all.
    - gorkish 4y ago
      > And the reason we as a society aren't doing this already is what? Because you have to park it 900AU away from the sun (Voyager 1 is at 147AU after 40 years and not in a solar orbit) and it has to have a special kind of coronagraph that flies as a separate spacecraft from the telescope (hasn't been invented yet) and your telescope is limited to looking at objects directly opposite the star from the orbit of the spacecraft. At 900AU it would take decades to slew such a telescope to view a new object in the sky. At the current time this is basically a science fiction project that promises that if we put a very special spacecraft in a very specific place then it is within our technological capability to image an exoplanet. That doesn't mean it's even a remotely practical idea. It's interesting to talk about but useless to get all worked up about why it's not getting funded.
      - fennecfoxen 4y ago
codethief 4y ago
I think you might want to switch to satellite view. There are definitely human-made structures that you can recognize at 10km/px.
vpribish 4y ago
and here's that at night, seems like a similar resolution: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/79800/city-lights-of-the-united-states-2012 https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/79800/city-lights-o...

bartread 4y ago

That link just opens a standard map of the whole globe in a flat projection - I think you might need to use the sharing link generator to share what you intended.

simias 4y ago
I think that's what they wanted? Although it's still a strange way to communicate that given that it'll change wildly based on screen resolution. A screenshot would probably be a better idea.
rchard2scout 4y ago
I'm not sure if it's possible to easily share the correct settings in an URL, but: In the Layers menu, set it to Satellite, Globe view, and turn off Labels. Then, zoom until the earth is ca. 1275 pixels wide
abhaynayar 4y ago
I think the link intended to show 10 km/pixel, to give an idea of what it would look like. It shows a scale of length 1000 km to me, if it is 10 km/pixel then there should be a 100 pixels within that length, which seems okay as a sanity check. But yeah, it depends on the screen resolution as well.
pmayrgundter 4y ago
Thanks, fixed!

pmayrgundter 4y ago

Weird, fix didn't work either :( Just use the imgur :)

phkahler 4y ago

Didn't they say the spacecraft will have to move around to get each pixel? That means the planet would turn between pixels and you wouldn't get a coherent image. It would also take a very long time to cover 10's of thousands of pixels. May need to send many imagers and combine the results...

jackmott 4y ago
These are all easily solved problems we are familiar with compared to getting spaceships there accurately. But yes usually these plans call for a swarm of these ships
WithinReason 4y ago
I wonder if you could use just 1 spacecraft and actually exploit the rotation of the planet to "scan" the planet surface in 1 dimension. The movement of your telescope would provide the other dimension, so in a slow fly-through you could get a 2D image of the planet surface. So e.g. imaging a 12000 km (Earth-size) planet at 10 km/pixel would take 1200 planet rotations, each providing a row of pixels, taking about 3 years assuming it's rotating at the speed of Earth. You would just have to know ahead of time the orientation of the planet's axis of rotation so you approach the "focal region" from the right angle.
ncmncm 4y ago
Main thing is that you don't get an image, but a single line of pixels. Such a line taken of Earth is likely to have nothing in it but ocean and clouds. If you sent a swarm, each would get its own line of pixels, as many lines as spacecraft.
- nomel 4y ago
  This is how scanners (the paper/photo kind) work, a single row of pixels, and you can make a wicked camera from one: https://www.engadget.com/2014-12-30-scanner-camera.html https://www.engadget.com/2014-12-30-scanner-camera.html
  - 4y ago

p1mrx 4y ago

When you can resolve territorial borders and labels, that's a pretty strong sign of intelligent life.

gwbas1c 4y ago
Jokes aside, if they have artificial lighting, it should be visible.
- Simon_O_Rourke 4y ago
  Holy smokes, when I saw the resolution I got excited. When I read this, I went wow!! And the reason we as a society aren't doing this already is what? This thing should be consuming a percent of two of US GDP until it's done.
  - sneak 4y ago
    I think this mistakenly assumes that tax money is spent on the things that are a priority to the society that pays the taxes. This is not how tax money is allocated at all.
  - gorkish 4y ago
    > And the reason we as a society aren't doing this already is what? Because you have to park it 900AU away from the sun (Voyager 1 is at 147AU after 40 years and not in a solar orbit) and it has to have a special kind of coronagraph that flies as a separate spacecraft from the telescope (hasn't been invented yet) and your telescope is limited to looking at objects directly opposite the star from the orbit of the spacecraft. At 900AU it would take decades to slew such a telescope to view a new object in the sky. At the current time this is basically a science fiction project that promises that if we put a very special spacecraft in a very specific place then it is within our technological capability to image an exoplanet. That doesn't mean it's even a remotely practical idea. It's interesting to talk about but useless to get all worked up about why it's not getting funded.
    - fennecfoxen 4y ago

codethief 4y ago

I think you might want to switch to satellite view. There are definitely human-made structures that you can recognize at 10km/px.

vpribish 4y ago

and here's that at night, seems like a similar resolution: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/79800/city-lights-of-the-united-states-2012 https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/79800/city-lights-o...