Talk:New Worlds Mission

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Astronomy (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon New Worlds Mission is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Spaceflight (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Comments[edit]

Will the real starshade be as pixelated as the accompanying image?

Opening up Summary[edit]

Can somebody open up the summary of Possible Discoveries and see how low the lowest possible mass and how far the farthest possible orbital distance is for planets by New Worlds Imager and maybe others like collect more precise data and collect new data for the discovered planets and previous planets like it discovered years before that mission would be launched. Cosmium 22:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite understand your question. Since New Worlds Imager can only detect visible light or infrared radiation from the planets, it cannot directly measure their masses, but there has to be some minimum size for planets it can detect (which of course depends on how near the star is from us). Detections on visible light depend on the planet's orbital distance, but IR telescope can detect free-floating planets, provided they're warm enough. But in their case a star shade would be unnecessary.
What comes to possible discoveries, we cannot speculate (see Wikipedia is not a crystal ball).--JyriL talk 00:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Of course, well-justified estimations given by a reliable source could be included.--JyriL talk 00:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Starshade[edit]

The two are clearly the same idea - same person in charge. Looking at the external links and Google results for each, it looks like "starshade" is just a descriptive term and "New Worlds Imager" (or "New Worlds"?) is the proper project name, so merge into this article. Sho Uemura 18:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You have a good point. The starshade is the generic term for the specially shaped occulter that creates a shadow rather than the spot of Arago. New Worlds is the project that uses a starshade (created explicitly for this project by the same guy - as you mentioned) to search for exoplanets. I think it's important to have a "New Worlds" titled article as it's a likely future NASA mission, however having a separate "starshade" titled article seems less important to me since it's a subcomponent of the project. So it seems reasonable to merge the starshade article into the New Worlds article. Boulderinionian 05:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

A starshade is the thing that does the light suppression, the actual petal shaped structure. New Worlds Observer (by the way, not Mission) is a mission concept that uses a Starshade. They are two separate things. It's like merging the article on coronagraphs with a particular coronagraph mission. There are several missions using a Starshade in the works, so they should be kept separate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.228.195.206 (talk) 17:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

NIAC closed down...[edit]

...what happened to this project? --AndersFeder (talk) 20:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

NASA funded the New Worlds Observer project with $3 billion in Feb 2008.--AndersFeder (talk) 20:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Aiming the Aragoscope?[edit]

The Aragoscope is an intriguing idea, but how would it be aimed? If the shade and the telescope are thousands of miles apart, then turning the telescope just a little bit would require the shade to move great distances. Or would it just point at whatever happens to be in front of it? I don't know how useful a scope like that could be, especially since its orbital motion would blur long exposures.

Even if the shade and scope remain in precisely the same orbit, their relative positions would drift over time unless they have engines to keep them in place. The engines and fuel would greatly increase the launch weight, and thus would also increase the cost of the mission. It seems like maintaining a precise alignment with a distant telescope over time would be incredibly difficult even if they can't be aimed.

And even if it's somehow feasible both to move the shade and to ensure it would still line up correctly with the telescope, the orbital dynamics would change. One part would be closer to the sun and/or the earth, so it would move faster than the other.

Is our technology advanced enough to compensate for these problems? There can't be much room for error, since the alignment probably has to be precise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.4.239.249 (talk) 21:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)