Could Telescopes Ever Capture Detailed Images of Exoplanet Surfaces?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the feasibility of capturing detailed images of exoplanet surfaces using telescopes located within our solar system. Participants explore the technological limitations, the physics of light collection, and the potential methods for achieving higher resolution imaging of distant planets.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question the physical possibility of collecting enough light from distant exoplanets to achieve detailed imaging, suggesting that a telescope with a significantly large collection area would be necessary.
  • One participant proposes using the Sun as a gravitational lens, while others challenge this idea by pointing out the limitations of gravitational lenses and the need for an occulter.
  • A participant discusses the diffraction limit of telescopes, stating that to resolve features on an exoplanet, an impractically large telescope aperture would be required.
  • Contrast ratios are highlighted as a significant challenge, with analogies drawn to detecting a faint object next to a much brighter one, complicating the imaging process.
  • Some participants suggest that while current technology limits resolution, advancements in interferometry could allow for better imaging, with references to existing interferometers and the potential for larger ones.
  • There is a discussion about the feasibility of using small telescopes in an interferometer setup, with some affirming that it is possible to combine readings from telescopes spaced far apart.
  • One participant expresses skepticism about the political and financial challenges of building advanced telescopes, despite the engineering possibilities.
  • Another participant mentions that while sending probes to exoplanets may not be feasible soon, there is speculation about the potential for future technology to make such missions possible.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the feasibility of capturing detailed images of exoplanets, with no consensus reached. Some agree on the challenges posed by light collection and diffraction, while others propose alternative methods and express optimism about future technological advancements.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the unresolved nature of the technological capabilities required for high-resolution imaging, the dependence on definitions of "detailed images," and the challenges posed by diffraction and contrast ratios in astronomical observations.

hiddenvariabl
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
I keep seeing reports about how all the planets similar to Earth in other nearby planetary systems are now being discovered. Since we won't have the technology to send probes or go there ourselves for some time, all we can do is look at them. My question is: Could we ever get better resolution images of those planets with a telescope located in our solar system? In other words can we ever make telescopes that can zoom in on the surface of another planet in another planetary system or is it just physically impossible for us to collect that much light from something so far away? Wouldn't we need a telescope with a really big collection area to do so?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org


Let's start with the easy questions - where are you going to find millions of square miles of glass for your lense?
 


Vanadium 50 said:
Let's start with the easy questions - where are you going to find millions of square miles of glass for your lense?

How about using the sun as gravitational lense? If we can't do that we could work with interferometers.
 


hiddenvariabl said:
I keep seeing reports about how all the planets similar to Earth in other nearby planetary systems are now being discovered. Since we won't have the technology to send probes or go there ourselves for some time, all we can do is look at them. My question is: Could we ever get better resolution images of those planets with a telescope located in our solar system? In other words can we ever make telescopes that can zoom in on the surface of another planet in another planetary system or is it just physically impossible for us to collect that much light from something so far away? Wouldn't we need a telescope with a really big collection area to do so?

Having a big collection area in order to be able to see fainter and fainter objects is always helpful, but it's not the primary reason why you'd need a REALLY big telescope. Due to diffraction, the fundamental physical limit on your angular resolution (the minimum angular separation of two points that you can resolve as being distinct from each other) is determined by your telescope aperture size. In fact, your diffraction limit scales inversely with telescope diameter (and it scales linearly with wavelength). At a wavelength of 550 nm, in order to have an angular resolution corresponding to a physical object size of 1 Earth radius at the distance to Alpha Centauri (the closest star at ~4.3 ly), you'd need a telescope aperture of >4200 m in diameter. That's more than 100 times larger in diameter than the largest optical telescope that's currently even being proposed to be built (I believe that TMT is supposed to be 30 m and E-ELT is supposed 40 m). And that's just to get an angular resolution such that the smallest feature you can see in your image is about 6400 km at the distance of the closest star (which is an angular resolution of about 1.5x10-10 radians or 32 microarcseconds. To see features of 10 km in size at that (unrealistically close) distance you'd need a telescope aperture of almost 3 million metres (3000 km or almost half an Earth radius). Since the diffraction limit size scales linearly with wavelength, the situation would be even worse in the infrared (where the contrast ratio of the planet's emission to the emission from its parent star is much more favourable).

Contrast ratios are another important point. A good analogy is that directly (visually) detecting a planet is like "looking for a firefly next to a searchlight." Its tiny emission is going to get drowned out in the much much larger emission from its parent star, which is at least 10,000 times brighter, but probably a few factors of 10 more. On those few occasions in which direct imaging of planets was achieved, the light from the parent star was blocked out using an occultation disk. But even then, there was all kinds of messy spillover light that (again due to diffraction and imperfections in the optics) looked like speckles. Guess what? Any planets that might have been there would have looked very much like these speckles. Very fancy image processing techniques had to be employed in order to even see which features were real objects and which were due to optical artefacts in the image. It was also necessary to observe the same system on multiple occasions that were widely separated in time (in order to try and discern the orbital motion of the planets). So, astronomers have enough trouble as it is identifying whether or not a planet is present in an image let alone resolving it into a disc, let alone resolving surface features on that disc.
 


DrStupid said:
How about using the sun as gravitational lense?

You mean apart from the fact that the sun is in your way? Your next problem is that a gravitational lens doesn't have a true focal point. The one after that is that the image, such as it is, is out way past Pluto.
 


Agreed, you would need a big chunk of glass. Our largest telescopes strain to view the nearest stars as anything more than a point source.
 


Vanadium 50 said:
You mean apart from the fact that the sun is in your way?

This problem can simply be solved by an occulter.

Vanadium 50 said:
Your next problem is that a gravitational lens doesn't have a true focal point.

This problem can be solved numerically: http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0304162v1

Vanadium 50 said:
The one after that is that the image, such as it is, is out way past Pluto.

This problem can be solved with swing by and a lot of time.
 


hiddenvariabl said:
Could we ever get better resolution images of those planets with a telescope located in our solar system?

Yes

http://www.oamp.fr/lise/publis/labeyrieAA96.pdf

In other words can we ever make telescopes that can zoom in on the surface of another planet in another planetary system or is it just physically impossible for us to collect that much light from something so far away?

The problem isn't light collection. The problem is that since light is a wave, you have to have a big telescope to keep the light from spreading.
 
Last edited by a moderator:


cepheid said:
That's more than 100 times larger in diameter than the largest optical telescope that's currently even being proposed to be built

But it's only ten times larger than the largest interferometers that are now in operation. CHARA has a baseline of 300m and COAST has a baseline of 100m.

There's no engineering reason I can think of that we can't build a 10km space interferometer.

The problems are political and financial, which unfortunately trumps engineering.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrestrial_Planet_Finder
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Interferometry_Mission

The question is not can we image extrasolar planets. The real question is do we think it's important enough to try.
 
  • #10


I am unfamiliar with the details of an interferometer. Is it possible to have 2 relatively small telescopes set 10km apart as an interfermoeter?
 
  • #11


Drakkith said:
I am unfamiliar with the details of an interferometer. Is it possible to have 2 relatively small telescopes set 10km apart as an interfermoeter?

Yes.

Also with radio waves it's possible to have two telescopes on the different parts of the Earth and then "electronically" combine the readings to give you a telescope that is effectively the size of the planet.
 
  • #12


twofish-quant said:
Yes.

Also with radio waves it's possible to have two telescopes on the different parts of the Earth and then "electronically" combine the readings to give you a telescope that is effectively the size of the planet.

Any idea how difficult it would be to set up a small interferometer as an amatuer?
 
  • #13


hiddenvariabl said:
Since we won't have the technology to send probes or go there ourselves for some time, all we can do is look at them.

Actually, we might be pretty close to having the technology to send a probe, although we'd be long dead before our distant descendants got any information from it. The Kepler system is out of reach, but a nearby star might make an interesting goal. (In reality, of course, only the most dedicated of visionaries would be willing to fund such a project.)
 
  • #14


Drakkith said:
Any idea how difficult it would be to set up a small interferometer as an amatuer?

Not at all easy. Radio dishes have to be pretty large ... and you need some very heavy-duty computing power.

(I don't think you can do optical interferometry, because the interference patterns would be much smaller than the sensor elements of a CCD. Two optical telescopes, even if many miles apart, will generate identical images.)
 
  • #15


NYNY said:
Not at all easy. Radio dishes have to be pretty large ... and you need some very heavy-duty computing power.

(I don't think you can do optical interferometry, because the interference patterns would be much smaller than the sensor elements of a CCD. Two optical telescopes, even if many miles apart, will generate identical images.)

Yep, we can do optical interferometry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_interferometer
 
  • #16


Drakkith said:
Yep, we can do optical interferometry.

Well, yes ... but "we" doesn't include amateurs. Optical inteferometers require you to merge the light (not the images) from the two telescopes, with mind-boggling precision. It's quite amazing, really, that the professionals -- multi-million-dollar budgets notwithstanding -- can do it at all.
 
  • #17


NYNY said:
Well, yes ... but "we" doesn't include amateurs. Optical inteferometers require you to merge the light (not the images) from the two telescopes, with mind-boggling precision. It's quite amazing, really, that the professionals -- multi-million-dollar budgets notwithstanding -- can do it at all.

Ah ok I see what you meant. Well, never say never, but you're probably right.
 
  • #18


DrStupid said:
we could work with interferometers.

e.g. something like this: http://www.spacedog.eu/astronomy/historic-astronomy/first-ligth-for-virtual-360-000km-telescope.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #19


DrStupid said:
e.g. something like this: http://www.spacedog.eu/astronomy/historic-astronomy/first-ligth-for-virtual-360-000km-telescope.html

That...is...awesome...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #20


NYNY said:
Not at all easy. Radio dishes have to be pretty large ... and you need some very heavy-duty computing power.

There are a lot of people doing amateur radio interferometer.

http://www.radio-astronomy.org/node/185

And speckle interferometry with a webcam...

http://www.jdso.org/volume4/number3/caloi.pdf

Also anything in which the bottleneck is computing power is going to be quickly amateurized.

(I don't think you can do optical interferometry, because the interference patterns would be much smaller than the sensor elements of a CCD. Two optical telescopes, even if many miles apart, will generate identical images.)

I'm not convinced it can't be done. There are people doing amateur holography
 

Similar threads

Undergrad What Factors Create the Windiest Exoplanets?
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
High School The search for habitable exoplanets in Alpha Centauri
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Graduate The Habitable Exoplanet Hunting Project
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
High School Nobel Prize for first exoplanet discovery
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Undergrad Will NASA Reveal Oxygen in TRAPPIST-1 Exoplanet Atmospheres?
  • · Replies 67 ·
3
Replies
67
Views
15K
Undergrad Phase Contrast Telescope - Part II
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
Graduate Continuous Field Image: Hubble Deep Field & Exoplanets
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Undergrad New rocky exoplanet discovered is the closest to Earth
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
High School Feasibility of Sending a Radio Signal Detectable from a Neighboring Star
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
Stargazing H.E.S.S. gamma ray telescope got an image of the moon
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K