Could we turn the sun into a gigantic telescope?
Using a phenomenon known as gravitational lensing, it might be possible to use the sun as a gigantic telescope to peer deep into space.
We have some incredibly powerful telescopes that have given us spectacular views of the cosmos and allowed us to look back to the early days of the universe. These observatories, such as the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), are amazing feats of engineering that have required billions of dollars and decades of work.
But what if we could access an even better telescope that already exists? This wouldn't be a typical telescope. It wouldn't even come with a lens. But it would be by far the most powerful telescope we'd ever built.
This telescope would use the sun itself.
To give some perspective on how powerful a sun-based telescope could be, consider JWST. With a mirror that's 21.3 feet (6.5 meters) in diameter, JWST is capable of achieving a resolution of around one-tenth of an arcsecond, which is about 600 times better than the human eye. At that resolution, the telescope could see the details on a coin placed 25 miles (40 kilometers) away from it or pick up the pattern of a regulation soccer ball sitting 342 miles (550 km) away.
Related: 12 James Webb Space Telescope findings that changed our understanding of the universe
Another example is the Event Horizon Telescope, which is really a network of individual instruments scattered across the globe. By carefully coordinating its elements, the telescope has given us impressive images of the disks of gas surrounding giant black holes. To achieve that, it managed an impressive resolution of 20 microarcseconds. At that resolution, the telescope could spot an orange sitting on the surface of the moon.
But what if we wanted to go even bigger? A larger telescope would need either gigantic dishes or networks of antennae flying through the solar system, both of which would require enormous leaps in our technological capabilities.
Get the Space.com Newsletter
Breaking space news, the latest updates on rocket launches, skywatching events and more!
Thankfully, there just so happens to be a giant telescope already available, sitting right in the center of the solar system: the sun.
While the sun may not look like a traditional lens or mirror, it has a lot of mass. And in Einstein's theory of general relativity, massive objects bend space-time around them. Any light that grazes the surface of the sun gets deflected and, instead of continuing in a straight line, heads toward a focal point, together with all the other light that grazes the sun at the same time.
Astronomers already use this effect, called gravitational lensing, to study the most distant galaxies in the universe. When light from those galaxies passes near a giant cluster of galaxies, the mass of that cluster amplifies and magnifies the background image, allowing us to see much farther than we normally could.
The "solar gravitational lens" leads to an almost unbelievably high resolution. It's as if we had a telescope mirror the width of the entire sun. An instrument positioned at the correct focal point would be able to harness the gravitational warping of the sun's gravity to allow us to observe the distant universe with a jaw-dropping resolution of 10^-10 arcseconds. That's roughly a million times more powerful than the Event Horizon Telescope.
Of course, there are challenges with using the solar gravitational lens as a natural telescope. The focal point of all this light bending sits 542 times greater than the distance between Earth and the sun. It's 11 times the distance to Pluto, and three times the distance achieved by humanity's most far-flung spacecraft, Voyager 1, which launched in 1977.
So not only would we have to send a spacecraft farther than we ever have before, but it would have to have enough fuel to stay there and move around. The images created by the solar gravitational lens would be spread out over tens of kilometers of space, so the spacecraft would have to scan the entire field to build up a complete mosaic image.
Plans to take advantage of the solar lens go back to the 1970s. Most recently, astronomers have proposed developing a fleet of small, lightweight cubesats that would deploy solar sails to accelerate them to 542 AU. Once there, they would slow down and coordinate their maneuvers, building up an image and sending the data back to Earth for processing.
While it may seem outlandish, the concept isn't too far from reality. And what would we get with this kind of supertelescope? If it were aimed at Proxima b, the nearest known exoplanet, for example, it would deliver a 1-kilometer resolution. Considering that plans for successors to JWST hope to achieve imaging capabilities of exoplanets where the entire planet sits in a handful of pixels, the solar gravitational lens puts those ideas to shame; it's capable of delivering an exquisite portrait of the detailed surface features of any exoplanet within 100 light-years, let alone all the other astronomical observations it could achieve.
To say this would be better than any known telescope is an understatement. It would be better than any telescope we could possibly build in any possible future for the next few hundred years. The telescope already exists — we just have to get a camera in the right position.
Join our Space Forums to keep talking space on the latest missions, night sky and more! And if you have a news tip, correction or comment, let us know at: community@space.com.
Paul M. Sutter is an astrophysicist at SUNY Stony Brook and the Flatiron Institute in New York City. Paul received his PhD in Physics from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 2011, and spent three years at the Paris Institute of Astrophysics, followed by a research fellowship in Trieste, Italy, His research focuses on many diverse topics, from the emptiest regions of the universe to the earliest moments of the Big Bang to the hunt for the first stars. As an "Agent to the Stars," Paul has passionately engaged the public in science outreach for several years. He is the host of the popular "Ask a Spaceman!" podcast, author of "Your Place in the Universe" and "How to Die in Space" and he frequently appears on TV — including on The Weather Channel, for which he serves as Official Space Specialist.
-
George² Yes, we can theoretically use the Sun as a giant telescope. Does it make sense? Firmly no. It would be cheaper, faster, and more operable to build an optical telescope with a primary mirror diameter of a full mile, at a distance of tens of thousands, or even several million kilometers from Earth. Just reaching the focal point of the Sun is unachievable with today's technology within a lifetime and even with those of the next 30-40 years. Moving the telescope's camera to view an object in a sector in a sufficiently different direction from the original may require traveling many hundreds of billions of kilometers more.Reply -
nforystek I think I've seen this, so be careful you don't poke your eye out. It must hurt with the sun doing the poking. I would call it the ALL camera. Altitude, Longitude Latitude, like it's God mode on cell walls. Anyway, just thinking about it (how it does utilize the sun and would be like more advanced of a satellite form NASA like the Hubble, not so traffic control) all of a sudden, I received case documents with James Webb's name on them. 2017. I have no idea what that was about.Reply -
Mr Man It seems like using the earth would be a logical stepping stone. Focus is closer and more accessible with today’s technologyReply -
Unclear Engineer Wouldn't the effective focal length of the Earth be longer, not shorter, than the effective focal length of the Sun? Less mass would bend the light paths less, so the paths would converge more slowly. The difference in diameter is not the most important factor for determining effective focal length.Reply -
SpaceCaseAli
I firmly agree but maybe for different reasons...George² said:Yes, we can theoretically use the Sun as a giant telescope. Does it make sense? Firmly no. It would be cheaper, faster, and more operable to build an optical telescope with a primary mirror diameter of a full mile, at a distance of tens of thousands, or even several million kilometers from Earth. Just reaching the focal point of the Sun is unachievable with today's technology within a lifetime and even with those of the next 30-40 years. Moving the telescope's camera to view an object in a sector in a sufficiently different direction from the original may require traveling many hundreds of billions of kilometers more.
I think getting there would not be the problem. We have newer technology and better understanding and more powerful computers so we can be much more accurate about gravitational assists from large bodies like planets than we did in the 70s. Plus, I think people might think it worthwhile to wait for the satellites to get there, even if we could get there in half the time it did/does for Voyager 1.
The challenge is then to slow down to hold this constellation of satellites at the correct distance. Then you have to synchronize them and position them to hold them, flying in formation, to either micron or nanometer precision. Otherwise you get all sorts of aberrations and distortions.
Then to aim at different objects, you'd have to move the satellite constellation around the sun. Which would be enormous distances at that point. And once they're there, again get into and hold an extremely precise formation.
To get to a significant number of targets, you'd actually probably have to send a full constellation for every single target you want to observe, or maybe group of targets that are in the same proximity.
Then if you wanted to observe targets that aren't on the same plane as our planets, you'd have to find good ways of then placing the targets in orbit around the sun, at that distance, which by some is considered not even inside our solar system, on an orbital plane that is significantly altered from ours. Which that would also require a lot more fuel and careful planning of gravity assists than an orbit that's on the same orbital plane.
Then there's the issue of: look at all the issues we're having with Voyager 1 right now. And how long it takes to get messages to and from it. These would have to go farther... So, realistically, you'd probably have to send several redundant cubesats in case of systems failures, like, a minimum of two redundant cubesats for each member of the constellation.
And then by the time they get there, let's say we use a combination of solar sails and some crazy nuclear propulsion system and they get there in 20 years... Which I think people would see that as worth it... Somehow carrying enough fuel or some future propulsion system that could slow them to stay in orbit... That tech would then be already obsolete. At which point, some other mad astronomer scientist would be like "let's replace them with newer tech!"
It's an extremely novel idea, and we need more like them because maybe we could come up with actual useful ideas by piggy backing off of them... Like... What if instead of placing the cube sats that far out, at the focal length like a refractor, what if we put mirrors in at a much closer spot, in a giant formation and and then reflected those to another satellite that then reflected that to a much closer focal point, effectively making a giant SCT or RCT in space? Many of the same challenges remain, but at that point they're likely more manageable. -
billslugg "Then you have to synchronize them and position them to hold them, flying in formation, to either micron or nanometer precision. Otherwise you get all sorts of aberrations and distortions."Reply
The Sun's gravity would form a virtual image in space. Each individual craft would be responsible for one pixel, not a complete image, thus spacing accuracy would not be critical. -
SpaceCaseAli billslugg said:"Then you have to synchronize them and position them to hold them, flying in formation, to either micron or nanometer precision. Otherwise you get all sorts of aberrations and distortions."
The Sun's gravity would form a virtual image in space. Each individual craft would be responsible for one pixel, not a complete image, thus spacing accuracy would not be critical.
So, how many pixels are we talking here then? What's our pixel count? Are we talking 800\00d7600, so, 480,000 satellites flying in formation. I don't see that giving enough detail to make it useful. If we're talking about 1km/pixel (using the Proxima B example).
Maybe 1280x720? 921,600 satellites.
We're not even getting full planets in many cases, much less full stars.
Then, again as I stated before, if one satellite goes down, you now have a hole in your image, or maybe you reconfigure and you now have increasingly smaller images as they eventually fail. So, you'd really need, as I said, to likely have multiple redundant backups for each satellite. I guess, however, if you do it that way, you could send them in waves and have increasingly larger images....
You'd also probably want to power these things via nuclear. There's not enough sun that far out for solar panels. I guess that's okay... But now how much do each of these cubesats cost? How many rockets would we have to launch to put that many that far out?
Honestly, I think we'd probably need to basically make a space based cubesat factory that would source the raw materials from meteors or asteroids or whatever, because that's sooooo much rocket fuel that would be required and the environmental impact of that would be astronomical (if you'll pardon my pun).
Or maybe you'd put that factory on the moon, and build a giant solar/nuclear powered mass driver/rail-gun that would then shoot them into deep space.
That still leaves you with the issue of slowing them down once they reach their destination, which would require a lot of energy.
And while you may not have to have them in perfect formation, they'd still have to fly in a pretty good approximation of a formation.
Either way, this is not happening in our lifetime or probably even the lifetimes of our grandchildren or great grandchildren. -
George² Yes, I see you understood some of the basis for my comment. Acceleration with chemical rocket engines will not work. Apparently most 99%+ of these traveling probes won't even be able to use gravity assist to accelerate them. They would reach the focal point of the sun in about 200 years. You've already listed that they'll need to carry fuel for ramping up and down and other maneuvers, and that means a lot of fuel and oxidizer. But these probes will be long dead due to lack of electricity. Radioisotope generators don't live that long, at least the current models. At a distance of 542-547 AU, the light from the Sun will be weaker than that of some relatively nearby high-luminosity stars, so it is absolutely pointless to equip the probes with photovoltaic panels. The only way out of the situation would be resolved if we could deliver a very high speed to the probes. At least 150-200km/s to reach the focal point in a reasonable amount of time, and there must be an extremely long-lasting and powerful power source on board. We do not have ready-made solutions, but also the technological possibility to reproduce something sufficiently compact and light. The laser acceleration of probes with solar sails means that the probes are literally no bigger than a matchbox, obviously they will not be able to carry enough fuel even if slow down, let alone drift in and out, when needed to capture objects in different sky sectors. So, they can just take a series of shots, or even just 1-2 on the fly and hopefully hit the moment they're in focus.Reply
Who knows, maybe around 2080-2085 will be possible if civilization survive and make constant high technology progress. -
SpaceCaseAli
Gravity assist could happen if you're sending them in packages, basically like cluster bombs.George² said:Yes, I see you understood some of the basis for my comment. Acceleration with chemical rocket engines will not work. Apparently most 99%+ of these traveling probes won't even be able to use gravity assist to accelerate them. They would reach the focal point of the sun in about 200 years. You've already listed that they'll need to carry fuel for ramping up and down and other maneuvers, and that means a lot of fuel and oxidizer. But these probes will be long dead due to lack of electricity. Radioisotope generators don't live that long, at least the current models. At a distance of 542-547 AU, the light from the Sun will be weaker than that of some relatively nearby high-luminosity stars, so it is absolutely pointless to equip the probes with photovoltaic panels. The only way out of the situation would be resolved if we could deliver a very high speed to the probes. At least 150-200km/s to reach the focal point in a reasonable amount of time, and there must be an extremely long-lasting and powerful power source on board. We do not have ready-made solutions, but also the technological possibility to reproduce something sufficiently compact and light. The laser acceleration of probes with solar sails means that the probes are literally no bigger than a matchbox, obviously they will not be able to carry enough fuel even if slow down, let alone drift in and out, when needed to capture objects in different sky sectors. So, they can just take a series of shots, or even just 1-2 on the fly and hopefully hit the moment they're in focus.
Who knows, maybe around 2080-2085 will be possible if civilization survive and make constant high technology progress.
Or perhaps you build a cubesat factory that would build them out of raw materials and you just load up the raw materials and send it in one giant package. May require less fuel that way because you only have to stop the thing once? Maybe it starts building them on it's way, and shoots them out in the opposite direction to help slow it down when it starts approaching. 🤣
I'm being mostly silly and pedantic here, but it's so easy to poke holes in all of these scenarios. And every solution people come up with would have other issues. And every time it gets more and more complicated.
And speaking of complicated, as our electronics gets smaller and smaller, the more susceptible they are to damage from heat and radiation, etc. and we keep putting in more components, which significantly increases the rate of inevitable faults. And we're having issues with Voyager 1. -
Unclear Engineer I'm still stuck on the one-pixel-per-satellite comment.Reply
I don't see that as correct, but am not familiar with interferometry telescopes.
Still, the telescopes we are currently using to image black holes, etc. seem to be creating images that have more pixels than the number of telescopes used to make them.