Nanosatellite Will Look for Alien Worlds

[Fumesucker]

http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/37577/?ref=rss&a=f&fb_ref=blog

Draper Laboratory and MIT have developed a satellite the size of a loaf of bread that will undertake one of the biggest tasks in astronomy: finding Earthlike planets beyond our solar system—or exoplanets—that could support life. It is scheduled to launch in 2012.

The "nanosatellite," called ExoPlanetSat, packs powerful, high-performance optics and new control and stabilization technology in a small package.

While there have been many small satellites, these are typically used to perform simple communication or observation missions. "We are doing something that has not been done before," says Séamus Tuohy, director of space systems at Draper.

ExoPlanetSat will search for planets by measuring the dimming of a star as an orbiting planet passes in front of it, a technique called transit observation. The satellite's light detector has two focal plane arrays—one for star tracking and for the transit observations. Measuring a star's dip in brightness precisely also allows the planet's size to be calculated. And by measuring the amount of time it takes the planet to complete its orbit, researchers can determine the planet's distance from its star.

[phantom power]

1. At $5000 per pound to orbit, this kind of miniaturization is a big win.

[Fumesucker]

3. I love Bob The Angry Flower..

And I think that's possibly the funniest one of all..

[Lionessa]

6. I'm guessing here, but also it would mean less due to smaller

space clutter, and hence less environmental impact, well, perhaps being smaller even makes it less likely to have an accidental impact with the natural and man-made clutter already up there.

I sure wish we had a society that could think past the $s involved, that's why we are in such dire straits across so many arenas in the first place.

[lapfog_1]

2. Maybe it will look like one of these...

[byronius]

4. The first one's iconic -- what's the second? Creepy.

[Lionessa]

5. Okay, perhaps it's ridiculously oversimplified for the reader, but

the explanation at the end of clip of measuring techniques simply isn't believable. They make it sound like precise but simple math. I have no doubt that its much more complicated an equation with considerably more factors than one (brightness interruption for one, and orbit length for the other).

And when I read stuff like that, where even though I don't know the complete, detailed equations nor all the factors required for accuracy, I know I no longer trust the author of the article to accurately relay information. NO, I don't need the entire equation spelled out for me, but very simply the author could have written it like this, "Measuring a star's dip in brightness precisely also allows the planet's size to be calculated. is critical data when calculating the planet's size."

Just sayin'.

[sudopod]

7. What's unbelievable about it? nt

[Lionessa]

8. The author's ability to reasonably present accurate terminology required

for scientific or analytical discussion. The article's author.