668
Real (thelemmy.club)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 93 points 2 days ago

Considering we only know it's there because it slightly dims the light from its star as it crosses during its orbit, you would be correct. At that distance, we would never see light bouncing off the actual planet. Even the star is basically a single pixel. We can estimate its size and orbit based on how quickly it crosses in front of the star and how much the light dims, and using those two numbers we can estimate its distance from Kepler 452.

[-] PancakesCantKillMe@lemmy.world 42 points 2 days ago

I thought they could also see atmospheric composition as it passes in front of the star, no? Having that info and the data you’ve just mentioned they postulate if it’s habitable or not. Obviously not seeing any detail at all about land mass shapes, but perhaps composition? I’m not a spaceologist, so I’m only musing.

[-] grue@lemmy.world 31 points 2 days ago

Yeah, but it's still just a single pixel of light from the star. It just changes color slightly when the planet passes in front of it and the atmosphere gases absorb certain characteristic wavelengths.

[-] wraekscadu@vargar.org 13 points 2 days ago

We can build a telescope to see this by the way. The lens being the gravitational warping of spacetime by the sun. We go waaaay past the orbit of Pluto (I forgot the exact distance) and send probes there. We can have quite nice pictures of planets up to pretty nice distances.

[-] rooroo@feddit.org 9 points 1 day ago

Easy trip to make; it took the voyagers only about 40 years to pass Pluto?

[-] wraekscadu@vargar.org 10 points 1 day ago

Depends on your definition of "easy". Here's the wiki article about it.

[-] FundMECFS@piefed.zip 3 points 1 day ago

FOCAL would be able to observe only objects that are right behind the Sun from its point of view, which means that for every observed object a new telescope would have to be made.[3]: 33 [5]

Ah….

[-] FundMECFS@piefed.zip 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Thinking about it this isn’t necessarily true in that moving the FOCAL relatively little could yield new things to observe (even microarcseconds). So you wouldn’t need a new FOCAL to measure each new thing. However each FOCAL would be measuring a miniscule bit of space over its lifetime. Which means for each distinct object that isn’t basically a neighbour in angular terms to a FOCAL sent you’d need a new FOCAL probably. Unless our long term energy generation/harvesting and propulsion in deep space significantly improves technology wise.

this post was submitted on 08 Apr 2026
668 points (98.7% liked)

Science Memes

19846 readers
5166 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS