How to conduct a galactic survey and probe deep space in search of living Earth-like worlds?

Exo-planet hunting is in it's infancy. So far we've identified around 3000 planets including 9 rocky worlds a few of which are in their host star's habitable "goldilocks" zone, although it should be noted conditions suitable for life on those worlds is suspect, due to a constant bombardment of solar activity and other conditions that are not well suited to a long range evolutionary trajectory needed to produce anything beyond life in its most basic forms. As yet, we cannot even discern much if anything about their atmosphere or whether they even have liquid water where the so-called goldilocks zone defines simply the range within which liquid water as generally held precursor and catalyst to life (as we know it) can exist based on temperature.

Kepler can, at best, locate transiting planets when they happen to cross their host star in the line of sight to the telescope, and it's a start, but it doesn't really get us the info we need other than to begin the process of cataloguing and to a degree typing exo-planets for further analysis with other instruments that have yet to be built.

Fortunately, In the coming decades, that is about to change, for starters, when a project called "The Square Kilometer Array" comes on-line in the 2020's.

The Square Kilometre Array (SKA)

The Square Kilometre Array (SKA) project is an international collaboration to build the world’s largest radio telescope. The SKA aims to conduct groundbreaking science that will transform our understanding of the Universe and of the laws of fundamental physics. The SKA will monitor the sky in unprecedented detail and map it hundreds of times faster than any current facility.

The SKA will not be a single telescope but a collection of telescopes called an array, working together over long distances – tens to hundreds of kilometres and eventually thousands of kilometres. The SKA’s construction has been divided into two phases: Phase 1 in Australia for SKA1-Low and South Africa for SKA1-Mid; and Phase 2 for SKA2 expanding further in Australia and South Africa as well as into other African countries. Scientific operations are scheduled to begin in the early 2020s.

skatelescope.ca...

This is a great idea and an awesome project, but I don't understand why NASA couldn't do much better than that and on a budget that doesn't blow the bank.

How's that?

While sending out various types of probes to physically explore the planets and satellites within our solar system is a good idea, such missions are costly and time consuming and it doesn't allow for the exploration of deep space.

Instead, since you can't do both at the same time, NASA should consider sending into space a new type of observation platform capable of targeting objects and receiving data 24/7 by placing it in orbit not around the earth but with the earth and moon around the sun, consisting of 100's of massive radio-telescopes that unfurl when they reach their destination and once in place, working together using a method called parallax (think of the combined imaging in a set of binoculars), will produce a massive eye on the sky, not unlike the SKA but many orders of magnitude even more powerful.

What we need is an "eye" or set of eyes who's collective focal point might be as large as the distance to the moon from the earth.

In conjunction with earth-based systems like the SKA, along with super-computing power and speed, the opportunity would then present itself to conduct a proper and thorough Galactic Survey with an emphasis on trying to identify ACTUAL rocky-water worlds including a detailed atmospheric composition analysis of target worlds, to see what they're really made of.

To find such Earthlike worlds I think we need to look for similar earth-moon-sun configurations, where life on Earth may be considered to be dependant on our particular Earth-moon-sun configuration that we enjoy and which creates the conditions for liquid water occurring over 90% of its surface, our generally temperate weather with lunar tides, ocean currents and trade winds, the four seasons rooted in solstice and perihelion (maintained axial tilt), a reasonable day/night cycle (rate of rotation), etc etc.

When we get our "glasses" on, we should look for large exo-moon transits (watch the earth long enough from any angle and our moon would transit the earth) of inner rocky water-world exo-planets that are shielded by large, outer gas giants, but that are not so far in that tidal-locking will have taken place.

In other words, we should upgrade the considerations of the goldilocks requirements using our own solar system as an analogue, and further narrow the search once the Milky Way starts to open itself up to a detailed survey using such tools.

Even further, if when we consider that the geometrical configuration of our rather special earth-moon-sun system that generates life as we know it here on earth, appears to have certain sacred geometrical properties, then it's entirely possible if not probable that this is a byproduct of a type of evolutionary spiral in Galactic formation and is not mere random formation or "fluke" as held by the prevailing view of the "big whack" or double big whack (needed to account for rate of rotation) hypothesis for lunar formation - then our search for Earth-like worlds ought to take place within a band of the Milky Way's Galactic arms within which the Earth itself is located, as an analogous model of what can only be described as design perfection. It would only make sense to start in that band of the perimeter of the Galactic disc, in search of other truly earth-like worlds.

Once we start launching these telescopes, we could continue to populate the number of them and scale up further, while adding optical capabilities as well as radio, say with the launch of multiple Hubbles that also use parallax for increased analysis of host suns.

This is the kind of thing that we should be focusing on aside from landing probes on the moons of Jupiter. Way bigger bang for the buck.

What are your thoughts?

We can't launch probes beyond the dome.

We never landed on the moon.

There are no intergalactic extraterrestrials, only interdimensional ones.

a reply to: AnkhMorpork

James Webb Space Telescope launches next year. It promises to have as big an impact on us as the Hubble did, has and does.

There are some scientists who've said their dream is to build a massive array on the far side of the Moon.

When we get our "glasses" on, we should look for large exo-moon transits (watch the earth long enough from any angle and our moon would transit the earth) of inner rocky water-world exo-planets that are shielded by large, outer gas giants, but that are not so far in that tidal-locking will have taken place.

Do you remember when it was all about planets? Nowadays it's planets, moons and moonlets. It gets the adrenaline going wondering what we might find in the next couple of decades.

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: AnkhMorpork

James Webb Space Telescope launches next year. It promises to have as big an impact on us as the Hubble did, has and does.

That's good news, but I think they should have made two of them to work together like binoculars, to get the biggest bang for the buck.

It's for examining distant galaxies to try to get a handle on galactic formation. It's an optical telescope as the successor to the Hubble.

To get down to the spectroscopic analysis of exo planet atmosphere composition is the work of radio telescopes.

Plus I don't see why they would need to place such a platform on the surface of the moon. Why not just float them out in space in orbit with the moon and earth, to create a "baseline" using parallax of breathtaking distance and "magnification" and reception.

The SKA when it's fully on-line will be able to differentiate the molecular makeup of exoplanet atmospheres.

I just wish they would put everything into deep space exploration and into conducting a true galactic survey in search of earth-like exoplanets.

originally posted by: Farlander
We can't launch probes beyond the dome.

We never landed on the moon.

There are no intergalactic extraterrestrials, only interdimensional ones.

You're being sarcastic..

a reply to: AnkhMorpork

i dont think that we can send a prob but what we can do i think is get a beam with a code inside it then send it out to a satellite booster that when it gets the beam it splits it to loads of other beams with each having a cod and then the satellite booster sends the millons of beams all over the galaxy at a very high rate so if something is out there it will uderstand the code and send it back .

a reply to: AnkhMorpork

Plus I don't see why they would need to place such a platform on the surface of the moon. Why not just float them out in space in orbit with the moon and earth, to create a "baseline" using parallax of breathtaking distance and "magnification" and reception.

The reasons for building an array on the Moon are no atmosphere and no light pollution. It'd be an almost perfect environment to *see* space more clearly than ever before.

JWST will be fine for searching for exoplanets ansd moons.

When a planet passes in front of a star, the starlight passes through the planet's atmosphere. If, for example, the planet has sodium in its atmosphere, the spectrum of the star, added to that of the planet, will have what we call an "absorption line" in the place in the spectra where would expect to see sodium (see graphic below). This is because different elements and molecules absorb light at characteristic energies; and this is how we know where in a spectrum we might expect to see the signature of sodium (or methane or water) if it is present.

originally posted by: tempestking
...the satellite buster sends the millons of beams all over the galaxy at a very high rate so if something is out there it will uderstand the code and send it back .

You meant at light speed? It would still take decades/centuries to have any type of meaningful communication even if there was a civilization capable of replying.

a reply to: Kandinsky

Maybe they need a stable platform, I'm not a space scientist, but I don't understand why they can't be positioned with precision while floating in space.

I also don't understand why a radio telescope can't be unfurled in space to make each one just massive.

originally posted by: AnkhMorpork
a reply to: Kandinsky

Maybe they need a stable platform, I'm not a space scientist, but I don't understand why they can't be positioned with precision while floating in space.

I also don't understand why a radio telescope can't be unfurled in space to make each one just massive.

While I follow you, keeping things in orbit is harder than it sounds. Rotation and alignment require finite resources when there's nothing to push off from-
A moon base would be easier to construct and maintain then an orbiting base.

Sure would be neat to see a framework of interconnected space station type things, though.

I'm going to make a little prediction/prophecy ... mark my words.


Preface: This idea of a massive and continually growing radio telescope array suspended in space, with a breathtakingly long baseline using parallax that would make the Square Kilometer Array look like a pinpoint by comparison, is well, inevitable and a no-brainer - please correct me if I'm wrong space-science buffs.
It would of course be self powered by an accompanying solar array which could get sent up first to power it for decades, and even centuries.

For orbital stability, they could employ the "three body problem" of the earth moon and sun, for positioning.


So here's the prediction/prophecy

Rockets will go up with bundles of smaller rocket-propelled radio telescope and communication equipment, on a multi-launch both to and from Earth orbit, to release and fire to its destination, first 10's then 100's of radio telescopes, then maybe 1000's of smaller ones as the technology is perfected and with a bifurcation of power from the snowball effect that harnesses the law of increasing returns.

Begin with the end in mind, and build a deep space observation platform to scan and probe deep space while conducting a full galactic survey with atmospheric spectroscopy on millions and millions of planets.

The result will answer the greatest question ever posed by scientific inquiry relative to the starry skies.

a reply to: lordcomac

I'm thinking of the baseline and it's length when combining them together, and how much more depth would be achieved.

As for pushing off from, that's not entirely right, since a rocket needs all it's energy just to escape the gravitational pull of the Earth, and the Hubble worked perfectly well in it's ability to hold an alignment.

Once in orbit, you just fire rockets again on all the parts and pieces which in theory could be sent to orbit both the earth and the moon together, around the sun.

An orbit is an orbit. Once there, it only requires the very smallest adjustments from time to time as the Hubble did, but with by far less corrections required to stay perfectly still each one relative to the other and in alignment with the target.

You might have a receiver array on the moon for data capture, but it's not necessary to land and build them on the moon, but what the heck a giant one there only makes perfect sense as well.

Then you'd have earth-based (SKA), orbital, lunar-base and space-based systems all working together with unlimited data capture and processing power maybe even quantum computing to open the gate to non-linear processing.


It would be breathtaking the results, and the world would take on a whole new dimension.

And we have all the technology available and the resources to do it now.

No platform is required, but the base, the baseline, so huge.

We would see the effects of ET activity I think, unless they've learned how to leave a zero footprint, and there could be night lights with a big enough set of binoculars.

It will blow our hair back.

Watch for it, within about 20 years.

You saw it first right here at ATS!

a reply to: AnkhMorpork

There's an interview with someone who's been involved in space exploration for decades. She was NASA and worked with the ESA too. It was her dream to put an array on the far side and she was (iirc) involved in a proposal to get funding to explore the practicalities of doing it.

I'll send a link if I can find it, but it was 2-3 years ago when I heard it and can't seem to find it. Best guess is she was on the Infinite Monkey Cage.

a reply to: Kandinsky

I'm not sure we're allowed to do anything on the far side of the moon, it might be out of bounds..

I don't know why we don't have all kinds of stuff on the moon by now.

All those billionaires should get together and build a moon base, if we're allowed.

China thinks they're going there and will be the first to operate on the moon..

But I still don't understand why an orbital system wouldn't work just as well, given the Hubble.

Maybe some day we'll look up at the moon and it will look like the death star with a giant radiotelescope on its face...

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: AnkhMorpork

Best guess is she was on the Infinite Monkey Cage.

Go figure..

a reply to: AnkhMorpork

They tie them together already. It is called "very long baseline" and involves space based radio telescopes with ground based ones. The picturing of our super massive black hole is one example (they need to get the disk drives out of Antarctica before we get a picture).

There have been upgrades made to the VLA which can tie into others as well. We are on the verge of some amazing discoveries!!

Along with JWST is another one like Kepler that will only search for rocky planets. Launches next year too,

a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF

They do work that way. Thanks for your contribution.

What do you think about a very long baseline very large array of radio telescopes placed in space?

Why aren't they doing that? just curious..

a reply to: AnkhMorpork

I don't know why we don't have all kinds of stuff on the moon by now.

It's expensive for starters. What I really think is there are no votes from putting stuff on the moon. Most people don't care for scientists pissing away tax dollars to gaze at stars.

China thinks they're going there and will be the first to operate on the moon..

I hope politics and patriotic dick-swinging kick-starts an increase in funding to compete with China. It doesn't matter who gets there first, but national pride sure does oil the wheels more than scientific curiosity.

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: AnkhMorpork

I hope politics and patriotic dick-swinging kick-starts an increase in funding to compete with China.

In that case, China's probably driven to try extend operations to the Moon as a type of compensatory reaction/response.

Sorry, bad joke..

China is right and smart to set their sights on the moon. It has nothing to do with relative penis size.