Why not us interferometry to take a picture of Pluto?












2












$begingroup$


Interferometry is among the best ways (if not, the best way!) to have an image of a very distant object.



Recently a picture of the black hole at the center of M87 was released. It is the result of several data collected by the Event Horizon Telescope, a series of arrays all across our world, working as one like a giant Earth sized telescope. The picture is not really cutting edge and high definition however it is still very surprising and in a way detailed enough, considering the fact that M87 is 53.49 million light years away... and this is where I arrive to Pluto which is just around 6 to 7 billion kilometers from us.



If we used an interferometer, perhaps the same size as the EHT (or just a smaller one, the size of an entire continent), and point all the arrays at Pluto, then we should have a picture with a resolution that is at least higher as the Hubble Space Telescope, but likely not as high as the pictures from the New Horizons spacecraft which directly made a fly by of Pluto... right?



If so then why don't we use interferometry to take pictures of Pluto from Earth?










share|improve this question









$endgroup$

















    2












    $begingroup$


    Interferometry is among the best ways (if not, the best way!) to have an image of a very distant object.



    Recently a picture of the black hole at the center of M87 was released. It is the result of several data collected by the Event Horizon Telescope, a series of arrays all across our world, working as one like a giant Earth sized telescope. The picture is not really cutting edge and high definition however it is still very surprising and in a way detailed enough, considering the fact that M87 is 53.49 million light years away... and this is where I arrive to Pluto which is just around 6 to 7 billion kilometers from us.



    If we used an interferometer, perhaps the same size as the EHT (or just a smaller one, the size of an entire continent), and point all the arrays at Pluto, then we should have a picture with a resolution that is at least higher as the Hubble Space Telescope, but likely not as high as the pictures from the New Horizons spacecraft which directly made a fly by of Pluto... right?



    If so then why don't we use interferometry to take pictures of Pluto from Earth?










    share|improve this question









    $endgroup$















      2












      2








      2





      $begingroup$


      Interferometry is among the best ways (if not, the best way!) to have an image of a very distant object.



      Recently a picture of the black hole at the center of M87 was released. It is the result of several data collected by the Event Horizon Telescope, a series of arrays all across our world, working as one like a giant Earth sized telescope. The picture is not really cutting edge and high definition however it is still very surprising and in a way detailed enough, considering the fact that M87 is 53.49 million light years away... and this is where I arrive to Pluto which is just around 6 to 7 billion kilometers from us.



      If we used an interferometer, perhaps the same size as the EHT (or just a smaller one, the size of an entire continent), and point all the arrays at Pluto, then we should have a picture with a resolution that is at least higher as the Hubble Space Telescope, but likely not as high as the pictures from the New Horizons spacecraft which directly made a fly by of Pluto... right?



      If so then why don't we use interferometry to take pictures of Pluto from Earth?










      share|improve this question









      $endgroup$




      Interferometry is among the best ways (if not, the best way!) to have an image of a very distant object.



      Recently a picture of the black hole at the center of M87 was released. It is the result of several data collected by the Event Horizon Telescope, a series of arrays all across our world, working as one like a giant Earth sized telescope. The picture is not really cutting edge and high definition however it is still very surprising and in a way detailed enough, considering the fact that M87 is 53.49 million light years away... and this is where I arrive to Pluto which is just around 6 to 7 billion kilometers from us.



      If we used an interferometer, perhaps the same size as the EHT (or just a smaller one, the size of an entire continent), and point all the arrays at Pluto, then we should have a picture with a resolution that is at least higher as the Hubble Space Telescope, but likely not as high as the pictures from the New Horizons spacecraft which directly made a fly by of Pluto... right?



      If so then why don't we use interferometry to take pictures of Pluto from Earth?







      planet telescope interferometry






      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question











      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question










      asked 9 hours ago









      Victorbrine CassiniVictorbrine Cassini

      1262




      1262






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          5












          $begingroup$

          Radio interferometry can combine observations over very large baselines. But optical interferometry cannot. According to a list of interferometry instruments on wikipedia, the largest baseline for optical measurements is less than a kilometer. We can't take optical measurements with continent-sized instruments.



          Then if you drop down to radio where the instruments do have that capability, I think you'll find Pluto is quite dim (it's not a radio source, and there's no strong radio emissions that it can reflect to us). There's no radio signal from Pluto that can be imaged.



          From a page on optical interferometry:




          Interferometers are seen by most astronomers as very specialized
          instruments, as they are capable of a very limited range of
          observations. It is often said that an interferometer achieves the
          effect of a telescope the size of the distance between the apertures;
          this is only true in the limited sense of angular resolution. The
          combined effects of limited aperture area and atmospheric turbulence
          generally limit interferometers to observations of comparatively
          bright stars and active galactic nuclei.







          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Might want to state Pluto is "dim" because it doesn't have many radio emissions (else one might infer you meant light).
            $endgroup$
            – Magic Octopus Urn
            8 hours ago












          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          });
          });
          }, "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "514"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: false,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: null,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fastronomy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f30334%2fwhy-not-us-interferometry-to-take-a-picture-of-pluto%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          5












          $begingroup$

          Radio interferometry can combine observations over very large baselines. But optical interferometry cannot. According to a list of interferometry instruments on wikipedia, the largest baseline for optical measurements is less than a kilometer. We can't take optical measurements with continent-sized instruments.



          Then if you drop down to radio where the instruments do have that capability, I think you'll find Pluto is quite dim (it's not a radio source, and there's no strong radio emissions that it can reflect to us). There's no radio signal from Pluto that can be imaged.



          From a page on optical interferometry:




          Interferometers are seen by most astronomers as very specialized
          instruments, as they are capable of a very limited range of
          observations. It is often said that an interferometer achieves the
          effect of a telescope the size of the distance between the apertures;
          this is only true in the limited sense of angular resolution. The
          combined effects of limited aperture area and atmospheric turbulence
          generally limit interferometers to observations of comparatively
          bright stars and active galactic nuclei.







          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Might want to state Pluto is "dim" because it doesn't have many radio emissions (else one might infer you meant light).
            $endgroup$
            – Magic Octopus Urn
            8 hours ago
















          5












          $begingroup$

          Radio interferometry can combine observations over very large baselines. But optical interferometry cannot. According to a list of interferometry instruments on wikipedia, the largest baseline for optical measurements is less than a kilometer. We can't take optical measurements with continent-sized instruments.



          Then if you drop down to radio where the instruments do have that capability, I think you'll find Pluto is quite dim (it's not a radio source, and there's no strong radio emissions that it can reflect to us). There's no radio signal from Pluto that can be imaged.



          From a page on optical interferometry:




          Interferometers are seen by most astronomers as very specialized
          instruments, as they are capable of a very limited range of
          observations. It is often said that an interferometer achieves the
          effect of a telescope the size of the distance between the apertures;
          this is only true in the limited sense of angular resolution. The
          combined effects of limited aperture area and atmospheric turbulence
          generally limit interferometers to observations of comparatively
          bright stars and active galactic nuclei.







          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Might want to state Pluto is "dim" because it doesn't have many radio emissions (else one might infer you meant light).
            $endgroup$
            – Magic Octopus Urn
            8 hours ago














          5












          5








          5





          $begingroup$

          Radio interferometry can combine observations over very large baselines. But optical interferometry cannot. According to a list of interferometry instruments on wikipedia, the largest baseline for optical measurements is less than a kilometer. We can't take optical measurements with continent-sized instruments.



          Then if you drop down to radio where the instruments do have that capability, I think you'll find Pluto is quite dim (it's not a radio source, and there's no strong radio emissions that it can reflect to us). There's no radio signal from Pluto that can be imaged.



          From a page on optical interferometry:




          Interferometers are seen by most astronomers as very specialized
          instruments, as they are capable of a very limited range of
          observations. It is often said that an interferometer achieves the
          effect of a telescope the size of the distance between the apertures;
          this is only true in the limited sense of angular resolution. The
          combined effects of limited aperture area and atmospheric turbulence
          generally limit interferometers to observations of comparatively
          bright stars and active galactic nuclei.







          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          Radio interferometry can combine observations over very large baselines. But optical interferometry cannot. According to a list of interferometry instruments on wikipedia, the largest baseline for optical measurements is less than a kilometer. We can't take optical measurements with continent-sized instruments.



          Then if you drop down to radio where the instruments do have that capability, I think you'll find Pluto is quite dim (it's not a radio source, and there's no strong radio emissions that it can reflect to us). There's no radio signal from Pluto that can be imaged.



          From a page on optical interferometry:




          Interferometers are seen by most astronomers as very specialized
          instruments, as they are capable of a very limited range of
          observations. It is often said that an interferometer achieves the
          effect of a telescope the size of the distance between the apertures;
          this is only true in the limited sense of angular resolution. The
          combined effects of limited aperture area and atmospheric turbulence
          generally limit interferometers to observations of comparatively
          bright stars and active galactic nuclei.








          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited 5 hours ago

























          answered 8 hours ago









          BowlOfRedBowlOfRed

          77637




          77637












          • $begingroup$
            Might want to state Pluto is "dim" because it doesn't have many radio emissions (else one might infer you meant light).
            $endgroup$
            – Magic Octopus Urn
            8 hours ago


















          • $begingroup$
            Might want to state Pluto is "dim" because it doesn't have many radio emissions (else one might infer you meant light).
            $endgroup$
            – Magic Octopus Urn
            8 hours ago
















          $begingroup$
          Might want to state Pluto is "dim" because it doesn't have many radio emissions (else one might infer you meant light).
          $endgroup$
          – Magic Octopus Urn
          8 hours ago




          $begingroup$
          Might want to state Pluto is "dim" because it doesn't have many radio emissions (else one might infer you meant light).
          $endgroup$
          – Magic Octopus Urn
          8 hours ago


















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Astronomy Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fastronomy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f30334%2fwhy-not-us-interferometry-to-take-a-picture-of-pluto%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          Bundesstraße 106

          Verónica Boquete

          Ida-Boy-Ed-Garten