Hostname: page-component-788cddb947-rnj55 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-10-09T10:20:46.041Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Space interferometry beyond exoplanetology: Can interdisciplinary collaboration contribute to the future of this technique?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 November 2011

Pavel Gabor*
Affiliation:
Vatican Observatory, Vatican City email: p.gabor@jesuit.cz
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Although a formation-flying space interferometer designed for exoplanet spectroscopy is feasible in principle, the novelty and cost of such an instrument is likely to remain daunting unless the scientific benefits of this technology are demonstrated by intermediary, precursor missions. Such instruments would represent intermediary steps in the real-life testing of the technology, and therefore, by the very reason of being intermediary, they may not have the resolving or collecting power needed for the study of the objects where biomarkers could be hoped to be detected, i.e., exo-Earths in the habitable zone of their stars. This paper examines the potential applications of such intermediary instruments. The direct line of thought focuses on exoplanetology (gas giants, protoplanetary discs, Neptunes, super-Earths, etc.); what we would like to stimulate is an exercise in lateral thinking, looking at what might an intermediary interferometric mission contribute to other fields of astrophysical research (galaxies, supernova precursors, planetary nebulae, molecular clouds, etc.). The paper raises the question of collaboration with astrophysicists studying areas other than exoplanets and its potential gains for the future of space interferometry.

Type
Contributed Papers
Copyright
Copyright © International Astronomical Union 2011

References

Coudé Du Foresto, V. & Dots, Blue 2010, in Du Foresto, V. Coudé, Gelino, D. M., & Ribas, I. (eds.), ASP Conf. Ser., 430, 15Google Scholar
Léger, A., Mariotti, J.-M., Mennesson, B., Ollivier, M., Puget, J.-L., Rouan, D., & Schneider, J. 1996, Icarus, 123, 249Google Scholar
Liseau, R. 2010 in Du Foresto, V. Coudé, Gelino, D. M., & Ribas, I. (eds.), ASP Conf. Ser., 430, 219Google Scholar
Martin, S. R. & Booth, A. J. 2010, A&A, 520, A96Google Scholar
Peters, R. D., Lay, O. P., & Lawson, P. R. 2010, PASP, 122, 85Google Scholar
Schneider, J. 2009, ArXiv, 0906.0068CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traub, W. A., Lawson, P. R., Unwin, S. C., Muterspaugh, M. W., Soummer, R., Danchi, W. C., Hinz, P., Gaudi, B. S., Torres, G., Deming, D., Lazio, J., & Dressler, A. 2010, in Du Foresto, V. Coudé, Gelino, D. M., & Ribas, I. (eds.), ASP Conf. Ser., 430, 21Google Scholar
Uchiyama, Y., Urry, C. M., Cheung, C. C., Jester, S., Van Duyne, J., Coppi, P., Sambruna, R. M., Takahashi, T., Tavecchio, F., & Maraschi, L. 2006, ApJ, 648, 910CrossRefGoogle Scholar