<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Raising Our Sights</title>
	<atom:link href="https://blog.speculist.com/space/raising-our-sig.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://blog.speculist.com/space/raising-our-sig.html</link>
	<description>Live to see it.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 Dec 2021 08:21:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.6.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Karl Hallowell</title>
		<link>https://blog.speculist.com/space/raising-our-sig.html#comment-8501</link>
		<dc:creator>Karl Hallowell</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Sep 2004 10:02:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://localhost/specblog/?p=58#comment-8501</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hubble isn&#039;t the correct frequency here. That telescope is specialized to visible and near UV light. Rather you&#039;d be more interested in the James Webb Space Telescope which observes in infrared. Planets near stars radiate most of their energy in that frequency.

Second, a baseline of 200AU is vast, vast overkill at this stage. The baseline of the above telescope array is 130 meters. I&#039;m not sure what the resolving power of your 200 AU interferometer (accurate distance to within a few hundred nanometers, a small fraction of the wavelength!) would be at 230 lightyears, but I suspect license plates wouldn&#039;t be that hard to resolve (and perhaps the detailed anatomy of bugs splattered on the windshield too though the bugs would have to be pretty bright at those frequencies for the telescope to see them). You might be easily resolving planets in nearby galaxies! But if you can do it, it would be cool.

A nicer feature of putting something that far out is that you don&#039;t have to worry about the Sun as a heat source. You&#039;re very close to background temperature. For a closer place to observe from, the Moon is pretty nice. The far side of the Moon during the night can get pretty cold. You would have great two week observing sessions. But these are more mundane and pretty routine speculation. ;-)

The ultimate place for observatories would be in the voids between the superclusters of galaxies. Some of these are several hundred million lightyears across.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hubble isn&#8217;t the correct frequency here. That telescope is specialized to visible and near UV light. Rather you&#8217;d be more interested in the James Webb Space Telescope which observes in infrared. Planets near stars radiate most of their energy in that frequency.</p>
<p>Second, a baseline of 200AU is vast, vast overkill at this stage. The baseline of the above telescope array is 130 meters. I&#8217;m not sure what the resolving power of your 200 AU interferometer (accurate distance to within a few hundred nanometers, a small fraction of the wavelength!) would be at 230 lightyears, but I suspect license plates wouldn&#8217;t be that hard to resolve (and perhaps the detailed anatomy of bugs splattered on the windshield too though the bugs would have to be pretty bright at those frequencies for the telescope to see them). You might be easily resolving planets in nearby galaxies! But if you can do it, it would be cool.</p>
<p>A nicer feature of putting something that far out is that you don&#8217;t have to worry about the Sun as a heat source. You&#8217;re very close to background temperature. For a closer place to observe from, the Moon is pretty nice. The far side of the Moon during the night can get pretty cold. You would have great two week observing sessions. But these are more mundane and pretty routine speculation. <img src='https://blog.speculist.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';-)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p>The ultimate place for observatories would be in the voids between the superclusters of galaxies. Some of these are several hundred million lightyears across.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Phil Bowermaster</title>
		<link>https://blog.speculist.com/space/raising-our-sig.html#comment-8500</link>
		<dc:creator>Phil Bowermaster</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Sep 2004 09:58:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://localhost/specblog/?p=58#comment-8500</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I remember about 20 years or so ago when the first brown dwarfs were imaged. At that time, it took an enormous effort to get a picture of a brown dwarf, and even then nobody was sure whether we really had one or not. But it was exciting. Brown dwarfs weren&#039;t planets, but they were small and dim. And if we could see them it was possible that maybe, someday, we might see planets.

Now the brown dwarf is just the big blob in the picture, and we&#039;re looking at a planet that orbits it. Amazing.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I remember about 20 years or so ago when the first brown dwarfs were imaged. At that time, it took an enormous effort to get a picture of a brown dwarf, and even then nobody was sure whether we really had one or not. But it was exciting. Brown dwarfs weren&#8217;t planets, but they were small and dim. And if we could see them it was possible that maybe, someday, we might see planets.</p>
<p>Now the brown dwarf is just the big blob in the picture, and we&#8217;re looking at a planet that orbits it. Amazing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
