[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 416 KB, 850x850, HR_8799_Orbiting_Exoplanets.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14652417 No.14652417 [Reply] [Original]

What would it take to be able to directly image exoplanets?

>> No.14652439

>>14652417
A big fucking telescope way out in space.

>> No.14652441

>>14652417
A telescope larger than ur mum.

>> No.14652442

>>14652439
how big?

>> No.14652449

>>14652442
Real big. You trying to just get the minimum? A hot jupiter orbiting a small star? There's an enormous difference between detecting a gas giant and a small terrestrial planet like earth.

>> No.14652455

>>14652442
Solar Gravitational Lens

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

>> No.14652457

>>14652449
not the op, but let's say what does it take to be able to make out continents on a planet

>> No.14652465 [DELETED] 

With some quick math and google, the angular diameter of the closest possible earth-sized exoplanet (on the star called Proxima Centauri) would be 0.07% of that of Pluto, and even to see Pluto you would need a telescope costing thousands of dollars. The apparent magnitude of an exoplanet would be something stupidly small.

>> No.14652466

>>14652457
I couldn't tell you, but it would be massive on a scale that's hard to imagine. There are a lot of variables. How far away is the planet?

>> No.14652491

>>14652466
I was thinking close by, like 10 to 100 light years. Actually, the video referenced gives some examples for comparison. Apparently, you need a 90 000km wide telescope to get a decently good image of an exoplanet 100 ly far away. that is pretty fucking big.

>> No.14652499

>>14652491
>a 90 000km wide telescope
just imagine how hard the chuds would be seething.

>> No.14652522
File: 24 KB, 386x384, Eris_and_dysnomia2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14652522

It actually doesn't feel so far fetched. This is a picture of planet Eris 14 billion kilometers away taken by Hubble. The smaller dot is its moon Dysnomia.

When looking at the sky, an earth sized exoplanet orbiting the closest star other than sun would be something like 1/150 the diameter of Dysnomia.

>> No.14652539

>>14652522
>When looking at the sky, an earth sized exoplanet orbiting the closest star other than sun would be something like 1/150 the diameter of Dysnomia.

There are a lot more variables. How bright is the star? What about the albedo of the planet?

>> No.14652542

>>14652491
I don't think there are enough smart and empowered women in the world to make a telescope that big

>> No.14653012
File: 436 KB, 2667x1500, a7f4096c6710a3fa.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14653012

>>14652539
So let's try to think about this further. By the inverse-square law we could say that the intensity of light reflected by an object is proportional to one divided by its distance squared. So if the intensity is 'X' at distance 'Y', then a new distance Z*Y gives a new intensity X*(1/Z^2). And let's assume intensity is directly related to the brightness of the object.

So now let's use Jupiter as an example and calculate its apparent magnitude if it was an exoplanet orbiting Proxima Centauri, the closest star other than the sun. Then, when we have that apparent magnitude, we can compare the brightness of the exoplanet to the brightness of other objects by using data on Wikipedia.

For the sake of argument let's say that the "solar system" of Proxima Centauri was identical to that of the sun. If Jupiter was an exoplanet orbiting Proxima Centauri, it would be about 57812 times further away. This means that its brightness would be (1/57812^2) times its normal brightness. So orbiting the sun it would appear about 3.3 billion times brighter compared to being an exoplanet in our example. By knowing the difference in brightness we can get the difference in apparent magnitude by solving (100^(1/5))^x = 3.3*10^9 where we get x = 23.8 and by using the data on Wikipedia as reference we would get a value of 21.8 for our exoplanet. Interestingly that would make it even brighter than Dysnomia which was easily imaged by Hubble. But like you said there can be some variables we might have ignored, such as light being absorbed by interstellar dust and whatever else.

>> No.14654071

>>14652499
webb 2 electric boogaloo

prescod-winestain would an hero off the starbase tower

>> No.14654101

>>14652417
sending a probe there

>> No.14654772

>>14653012
The autonomous self reproducing floating space robots will build it for us

>> No.14654845

So is a telescope like that actually feasible? It seems logical to build a huge fucking telescope and make it orbit Pluto or some shit and just have it photograph Proxima B or something