I lean towards Interferometry. 8)

Realistically: robot probes.

What I personally would like: manned expiditions (where do I sign up? )

__________________
"Light thinks it travels faster than anything but it is wrong. No matter how fast light travels it finds the darkness has always got there first, and is waiting for it." — Terry Pratchett, Reaper Man

441!!!! :)

===

I had "human exploration" but the poll software allows for 5 maximum choices, so I had to edit.

(The other omitted ones were: "Solar Sail deep space probes,"
and "Quantum computer applications to astrophysics and astronomy.") :wink:

Planets. There is so much more we need to learn about if the specific conditions of our earth (% co2, N, O) are uniqe or very common. Are earth size planets common or reare? That is what we need to find out.

Hey, Chip -

I'm trying to understand what you mean by "beneficial advance in applied astronomy." Is this beneficial to increasing astronomy investigations or is this beneficial to society or either?

__________________
"As I lay beneath the Southern Cross, the stars tell more than I could" . . . David Meece

What about space telescopes based on interferometry?

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

I'll say I'm a bit confused by it too. An "advance" usually means a technological improvement of some kind. More probes and extrasolar planets don't really fit into that category. They're more like targets for more research.

__________________
...And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped. --Sir Bedevere

I see that as of now I'm the only one to go with number five.

My choice?

A new theory of physics will be the most beneficial advance in applied astronomy during the first half of this century.

Well clearly, 1k¶. It'll be used to make a better space telescope.
I'm voting against probes, especially in the first half of this century. The dang things take decades to build/launch/fly, and since nothing I like looks like it's going anywhere, it'll be the second half before things start to happen.

I'm all for interferometry in space telescopes. I even did a paper that included some research on that, now that I recall. It promises direct imaging of near-Earth sized planets, if I'm not mistaken. Dunno about the rest of you, but it's that kind of thing that turns my astronomical crank. (Well, planetary exploration really, but I already turfed that, sadly)

I voted for the interferometry.
Although I'm a layman, I just feel that computers have been evolving so quickly in the last decades that some of that is bound to benefit astronomy (more).

__________________
"The moment we want to believe something, we suddenly see all the arguments for it, and become blind to the arguments against it." -George Bernard Shaw

Yes and Yes. (As to the latter, I think society can be benefited or enriched by new insights.) :wink:

I included that one for you. :wink: Though I'm sure there are a few others who might offer overlooked insights. (Never forget the wildcard.)

Difficult call, but I lean toward robot probes. Today's scientific instruments are pretty well established, but I think to send those instruments directly towards the celestial objects we are trying to observe and beyond terrestrial noise and interference, would become a large priority within the astronomy community. I think you might see more electric-drive probes cruising throughout the solar system dropping landers on the moons of the outer planets, and maybe even nuclear-propelled probes making mad dashes toward the Kuiper Belt. I guess I'm saying that I think the most significant advances will be in increasing the specific impulse of space vehicles, with any luck, by the orders of magnitude necessary to do some serious exploring within reasonable timeframes.

You...are a genius.

what excactly is interferometry?
i could google, but i cant be bothered, as im rather busy, and i will probably get a more understandable explanation here.

__________________
Begone, braggage!
My bible!

I know how you feel. It's much easier to get the answer here.

Interferometry is the technique of using many smallish dishes positioned as an array to simulate a very large dish. You may have seen photos of these large arrays with loads of dishes all lined up. Those are interferometers. By using all of them in synchronisation, they get the resolving power of a huge dish. It's commonly used in radio astronomy because the long wavelength requires extremely large dishes to get good resolution.

A couple of months ago on the The Sky at Night, Sir Patrick was talking to the guy at Jodrell Bank about the refurbishments being made to their big fat dish and how they plan to use it in conjunction with radio telescopes all over the world to simulate a dish the size of the planet. 8)

__________________
Freedom For Fission A breath of fresh Iodine-131

I believe our planet may be unique. We should invest in signs of technology. It may come from under five kilometers of liquid silicon ocean. A dolphin-like critter with a radio transmitter?

__________________
'Sir........, I don't like these numbers.'
'Then hire somebody that can change them!'
("`-/")_.-'"``-.,,
\. . `; -._( );, `)
(v_,)' _ )`-. \ ``'`
_.- _..-/ /((.'
((,.-' ((,/

OK, Chip - in that case, I go with the robotis. I beleive this has benefits to both astronomy and other Earth applications. Controlling a self-regulating robot (or however it works) across the solar system is pretty impressive!

I like G-K's idea of a new theory of physics, but there is no guarentee this will be discovered any time soon. Sorry.

__________________
"As I lay beneath the Southern Cross, the stars tell more than I could" . . . David Meece

You only need two, actually (though obviously more is better). When set up properly, two scopes doing interferometry have the same resolving power (though not the same gathering capacity) as a single scope with the diameter of the distance between them. However, you need to know that distance to within a wavelength of whatever radiation you're monitoring, which explains why space interferometry is so cutting-edge: it's very hard to determine a spacecraft's position to that degree of accuracy.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

If you find oxygen, you have found life. It is so reactive, that it is not found free in nature. If you find chlorine or florine, you have probably found intelligent life (with a possibly terminal pollution problem).

__________________
Any day you wake up on "the right side of the dirt" is a good day.

T. Anderson