4 ms·

It's gonna be super useful to train on Uranus data to help with understanding exoplanets, since many will be like Uranus.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
qayxc 3y ago
Just curious: how would that help exactly? So far we can get two relevant data points for exoplanets: mass or if we're lucky size and maybe spectra. That's one Uranus size, one Uranus mass and the atmospheric spectrum of Uranus. Since neither of those is variable (at least on human timescales) I don't see how a training dataset with one entry would help. Finding Uranus analogues would also be particularly challenging since we cannot expect to ever confirm one using telescopes, given that a Uranus orbit takes ~84 years and you need to observe at least 3 full orbits to confirm a planet. Any Uranus-sized object orbiting significantly closer to its host star (i.e. able to be confirmed within a human lifetime) would likely differ from Uranus as it would either receive substantially more energy from its host star or have a completely different host star altogether (e.g. a red dwarf), which may have an impact on its composition.
- spartanatreyu 3y ago
  > Finding Uranus analogues would also be particularly challenging since we cannot expect to ever confirm one using telescopes, given that a Uranus orbit takes ~84 years and you need to observe at least 3 full orbits to confirm a planet. Only if you use the transit method. We have a candidate detection for a gas giant similar to Neptune directly imaged with an orbit slightly larger than Earth's at Alpha Centauri (but it hasn't been observed for long enough to confirm and needs follow-up observations). If we're getting candidate detections now with our current capabilities, then it only gets better over time. Even in the next 1-3 decades. Cheaper and larger rockets means larger space telescopes. More time also means better sensors and better noise processing algorithms. Perhaps even interferometry in space. There's also, quantum telescopes (which are orders of magnitude more powerful than traditional mirror based telescopes) which we'll be trying to scale up as we move ahead.
  - qayxc 3y ago
    Right. I forgot about direct imaging. I'm not as optimistic about future telescopes, though. If projects like the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope or the (now cancelled) Terrestrial Planet Finder are anything to go by. Despite receiving the satellite, bus systems, and mirror for free, it still took a over decade and billions of dollars to get NGRST working. Hopefully that changes in the near future, but it seems as if rockets are not the limiting factor here.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

qayxc 3y ago

Just curious: how would that help exactly? So far we can get two relevant data points for exoplanets: mass or if we're lucky size and maybe spectra. That's one Uranus size, one Uranus mass and the atmospheric spectrum of Uranus. Since neither of those is variable (at least on human timescales) I don't see how a training dataset with one entry would help. Finding Uranus analogues would also be particularly challenging since we cannot expect to ever confirm one using telescopes, given that a Uranus orbit takes ~84 years and you need to observe at least 3 full orbits to confirm a planet. Any Uranus-sized object orbiting significantly closer to its host star (i.e. able to be confirmed within a human lifetime) would likely differ from Uranus as it would either receive substantially more energy from its host star or have a completely different host star altogether (e.g. a red dwarf), which may have an impact on its composition.

spartanatreyu 3y ago
> Finding Uranus analogues would also be particularly challenging since we cannot expect to ever confirm one using telescopes, given that a Uranus orbit takes ~84 years and you need to observe at least 3 full orbits to confirm a planet. Only if you use the transit method. We have a candidate detection for a gas giant similar to Neptune directly imaged with an orbit slightly larger than Earth's at Alpha Centauri (but it hasn't been observed for long enough to confirm and needs follow-up observations). If we're getting candidate detections now with our current capabilities, then it only gets better over time. Even in the next 1-3 decades. Cheaper and larger rockets means larger space telescopes. More time also means better sensors and better noise processing algorithms. Perhaps even interferometry in space. There's also, quantum telescopes (which are orders of magnitude more powerful than traditional mirror based telescopes) which we'll be trying to scale up as we move ahead.
- qayxc 3y ago
  Right. I forgot about direct imaging. I'm not as optimistic about future telescopes, though. If projects like the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope or the (now cancelled) Terrestrial Planet Finder are anything to go by. Despite receiving the satellite, bus systems, and mirror for free, it still took a over decade and billions of dollars to get NGRST working. Hopefully that changes in the near future, but it seems as if rockets are not the limiting factor here.