Let's pretend that sometime in the future, a research project costing many billions of dollars has yielded a small probe which is capable of interstellar travel. The probe has enough energy to travel for around 1000 parsecs within a year, and it has to come back so that you can collect its data. Not really important how it can do that.
You're the NASA director. What itinerary would you choose for the probe, what sensors would you plant aboard?
Where would you go first
Where would you go first
Einstein would roll over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, but the dice are loaded. (Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang)
Depends how far we are, technologically, and whether or not we've made it to any nearby stars yet.
That being said, if this is a first interstellar mission, the absolute obvious would be Alpha Centauri first!
Such a mission would need three main probes- for a Kent A and a Kent B, as well as a Kent C (Proxima); each with miniprobes that would be suitable for studying each stellar system (and the capability of deciding on-the-fly as to how the miniprobes are launched, depending on how many worlds are in each system). As for equipment, I think the Mars Global Surveyor is an excellent blueprint to follow, as long as they also include magnetospheric and plasma-wave detectors, along with the bank of cameras and other detectors.
Beyond Alpha Centauri, I'd say:
Tau Ceti
Eta Carinii
Sirius
Vega
Orion Nebula
Betelgeuse
Alcor
Mizar
And that's just off the top of my head!
Virtually every star is going to be an interesting stellar system-- I don't think we'd encounter much dullness out there.
And that's considering staying within the normal bounds of physics.
For all the stars we see, we're still very much in the dark as to what's out there, or even what to expect.
(Some of the system models for the a Centauri system don't follow what is already known-- Namely, the primary stars can't support large gas planets, although the two stars play the same role as such for each other, and Proixima has been inconclusive in terms of results as to whether there are any large-body planets, but it could, in theory, be the only star in the trinary system that is capable of supporting a gas giant of at least Uranus/Neptune-class. One thing we could see, if we made it there, is the presense of asteroidal clusters between the primary stars, and an asteroid belt between A/B and Proxima. (Note: Clusters, not belt!)
d.m.f.
That being said, if this is a first interstellar mission, the absolute obvious would be Alpha Centauri first!
Such a mission would need three main probes- for a Kent A and a Kent B, as well as a Kent C (Proxima); each with miniprobes that would be suitable for studying each stellar system (and the capability of deciding on-the-fly as to how the miniprobes are launched, depending on how many worlds are in each system). As for equipment, I think the Mars Global Surveyor is an excellent blueprint to follow, as long as they also include magnetospheric and plasma-wave detectors, along with the bank of cameras and other detectors.
Beyond Alpha Centauri, I'd say:
Tau Ceti
Eta Carinii
Sirius
Vega
Orion Nebula
Betelgeuse
Alcor
Mizar
And that's just off the top of my head!
Virtually every star is going to be an interesting stellar system-- I don't think we'd encounter much dullness out there.
And that's considering staying within the normal bounds of physics.
For all the stars we see, we're still very much in the dark as to what's out there, or even what to expect.
(Some of the system models for the a Centauri system don't follow what is already known-- Namely, the primary stars can't support large gas planets, although the two stars play the same role as such for each other, and Proixima has been inconclusive in terms of results as to whether there are any large-body planets, but it could, in theory, be the only star in the trinary system that is capable of supporting a gas giant of at least Uranus/Neptune-class. One thing we could see, if we made it there, is the presense of asteroidal clusters between the primary stars, and an asteroid belt between A/B and Proxima. (Note: Clusters, not belt!)
d.m.f.
There IS such a thing as a stupid question, but it's not the question first asked. It's the question repeated when the answer has already been given. -d.m.f.
On current data, I'd be inclined to launch something at Gliese 876 - it's the nearest known planetary system, which makes it more of a tempting target than a system without planets.
For an interstellar mission you'd basically want to put as many sensors as you can aboard - it would be preferable not to have to run a follow-up mission, so follow the design strategy of Huygens - prepare for every possible scenario.
For an interstellar mission you'd basically want to put as many sensors as you can aboard - it would be preferable not to have to run a follow-up mission, so follow the design strategy of Huygens - prepare for every possible scenario.
Well I'd set the probe to make a stop for some observations at the heliopause. Would be nice to use it's jumping abilities to figure out the Pioneer anomalies too.
Then, I wouldn't really set it for planet-less stars (except maybe Vega or some of the more powerful novas... Betelgeuse is OK, Antares would be a good stop). Planetary systems are a definite thumbs up, there are a lot of them within 1000 parsecs so I guess you could plot a course.
Would be interesting to study exotic stars... the pulsar in the Crab Nebula should be a definitive stop, the object dubbed Cygnus-X1 should be another.
Another thing to do if you have a couple of thousand parsecs worth of fuel is to really jump off the galactic plane and maybe get a nice ultra-high-resolution pan of the Milky Way
Then, I wouldn't really set it for planet-less stars (except maybe Vega or some of the more powerful novas... Betelgeuse is OK, Antares would be a good stop). Planetary systems are a definite thumbs up, there are a lot of them within 1000 parsecs so I guess you could plot a course.
Would be interesting to study exotic stars... the pulsar in the Crab Nebula should be a definitive stop, the object dubbed Cygnus-X1 should be another.
Another thing to do if you have a couple of thousand parsecs worth of fuel is to really jump off the galactic plane and maybe get a nice ultra-high-resolution pan of the Milky Way
Einstein would roll over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, but the dice are loaded. (Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang)
A problem here is assuming "planetless" stars- Our present technology can't detect low-mass and smaller rocky planets (ie: Earth-like), which clouds our knowledge. Evidence supports that most stars do support companions of one kind or another, but at our present level, we really only detect the more anomolous ones and those with clear Jovian-mass companbions-- Especially if their orbits provide very detectable wobbles (ie: close-orbit planets).
It's a good bet that before 2030, we will be capable of observing small-body planets around at least some of the nearby stars.
d.m.f.
It's a good bet that before 2030, we will be capable of observing small-body planets around at least some of the nearby stars.
d.m.f.
There IS such a thing as a stupid question, but it's not the question first asked. It's the question repeated when the answer has already been given. -d.m.f.
d.m.falk wrote:(Some of the system models for the a Centauri system don't follow what is already known-- Namely, the primary stars can't support large gas planets, although the two stars play the same role as such for each other, and Proixima has been inconclusive in terms of results as to whether there are any large-body planets, but it could, in theory, be the only star in the trinary system that is capable of supporting a gas giant of at least Uranus/Neptune-class. One thing we could see, if we made it there, is the presense of asteroidal clusters between the primary stars, and an asteroid belt between A/B and Proxima. (Note: Clusters, not belt!)
d.m.f.
I think the new discovery in the HD 188753 system throws out the "alpha Centauri can't support large gas giants" argument...
chaos syndrome wrote:d.m.falk wrote:(Some of the system models for the a Centauri system don't follow what is already known-- Namely, the primary stars can't support large gas planets, although the two stars play the same role as such for each other, and Proixima has been inconclusive in terms of results as to whether there are any large-body planets, but it could, in theory, be the only star in the trinary system that is capable of supporting a gas giant of at least Uranus/Neptune-class. One thing we could see, if we made it there, is the presense of asteroidal clusters between the primary stars, and an asteroid belt between A/B and Proxima. (Note: Clusters, not belt!)
d.m.f.
I think the new discovery in the HD 188753 system throws out the "alpha Centauri can't support large gas giants" argument...
Not really, since these are two different types of trinary systems! a Centauri is built as a primary binary whose stars are a mere 11 AU at closest approach, out to ~80 AU, with a trhird distant red dwarf at 13,000 AU from the primary pair. HD 188753 has a singular primary star with twin secondary stars orbiting it. The planet observed is around the primary at a very close proximity (similar to other so-called "hot giants"), while the secondary pair orbits sufficiently further away, between 6 and 18 AU. With the secondary pair both being dwarves with a total mass around 6/10ths of our Sun (the primary being just slightly bigger than our own Sun), they wouldn't cause too much interference.
The thing is, a Kent A/B don't posess the characteristic wobble associated with large-body companions beyond themselves, which means there is sufficient evidence that the presense of gas giants in the primary pair is unlikely, and around distant Proxima, possible, but inconclusive.
HD 188573 raises a unique possibility not yet encountered, though- Twin sub-stellar companions! (And if they reworked the observations on Proxima, perhaps they might find something like that, which might be why observation has been inconsistant?)
It does seem that close-orbiting companions, while unusual, are not too uncommon, and thus the "challenge" to gas-giant formation theory.
d.m.f.
There IS such a thing as a stupid question, but it's not the question first asked. It's the question repeated when the answer has already been given. -d.m.f.
Replace the close binary in the HD 188753 system with a single star which has the combined mass, and you'll have a system which is very similar to alpha Centauri - and the binary is a close one, so this approximation is fairly good. In fact, the binary pair in the HD 188753 system gets closer to the main star than ALF Cen B does to Alf Cen A, so there is scope for analogy. Or of course there is Gamma Cephei A b to consider.
The problem wiith that is that the close binary has a wider sweep than a single star would take up, which pushes out any orbitals; plus, as you mentioned, the close binary is closer to the primary than a Kent B is to a Kent A-- Which would explain why the companion to the primary is as close as it is- It may have been pushed in towards the primary by the close binary seconday stars.
d.m.f.
d.m.f.
There IS such a thing as a stupid question, but it's not the question first asked. It's the question repeated when the answer has already been given. -d.m.f.
-
brunetto_64
- Posts: 112
- Joined: 12.05.2002
- With us: 22 years 10 months
- Location: Toronto
Do you have tried to simulate this ternary system with planets earthlike?
for example with Gravity program...
well, in this simulation, with a star (we consider for a moment two stars like one) in saturnian position,the planet jupiter comes endured expelled from the system, the Mars planet comes expelled more slowly,but Earth and Venus...they have relatively stable orbits and perhaps also Mercury has a stable orbit...
If we consider that small planets therefore difficultly these can be individuated today...
for example with Gravity program...
well, in this simulation, with a star (we consider for a moment two stars like one) in saturnian position,the planet jupiter comes endured expelled from the system, the Mars planet comes expelled more slowly,but Earth and Venus...they have relatively stable orbits and perhaps also Mercury has a stable orbit...
If we consider that small planets therefore difficultly these can be individuated today...
-
PlutonianEmpire
- Posts: 1374
- Joined: 09.09.2004
- Age: 40
- With us: 20 years 7 months
- Location: MinneSNOWta
- Contact:
Re: Where would you go first
Scytale wrote:Let's pretend that sometime in the future, a research project costing many billions of dollars has yielded a small probe which is capable of interstellar travel. The probe has enough energy to travel for around 1000 parsecs within a year, and it has to come back so that you can collect its data. Not really important how it can do that.
You're the NASA director. What itinerary would you choose for the probe, what sensors would you plant aboard?
1000 parsecs? How many lightyears is that?
Terraformed Pluto: Now with New Horizons maps! :D
Re: Where would you go first
PlutonianEmpire wrote:1000 parsecs? How many lightyears is that?Scytale wrote:Let's pretend that sometime in the future, a research project costing many billions of dollars has yielded a small probe which is capable of interstellar travel. The probe has enough energy to travel for around 1000 parsecs within a year, and it has to come back so that you can collect its data. Not really important how it can do that.
You're the NASA director. What itinerary would you choose for the probe, what sensors would you plant aboard?
Behold the fantastic unit converter that is... GOOGLE CALCULATOR