[net.space] images from Voyager...

Lynn.es@PARC-MAXC@sri-unix (12/06/82)

Very creative idea to make parallax measurements, but it needs some 
more work to be practical.  Parallax measurements now are practically 
useless beyond a few hundred light years, because the measurements get 
smaller than the noise.  The size of the measurements is proportional 
to baseline (normally the distance across the earth's orbit, by which 
photographs 6 months apart differ) and proportional to telescope focal 
length (or image scale).  The loss in focal length between our large 
telescopes (tens of meters) and Voyager (I think a meter or so) loses 
more than its present distance gains in baseline (about 12 AU instead 
of 2 that we get with the earth).  In fact the loss of radio contact 
at perhaps 50 to 100 AU will prevent us from ever getting much accuracy 
gain using Voyager.  

At least the attitude adjustment gas should not be a factor in Voyager 1, 
since its electrical camera platform maneuvering mechanism (which does not 
use the jets) is still working.  

As for sending out a probe with ion rocket, let's say we can get a light 
year away in a reasonable time.  Now we are talking gains of 30,000 in 
the baseline.  But it will take one heck of a transmitter and antenna to 
get the data back to us, say a million times more effective than what is 
on Voyager.  And the baseline improvement would barely get a marginal 
measurement on the nearest galaxy.  We would need at least another factor 
of 1000 to get good distances for the Hubble constant.

Now indirectly it would improve measurements by cepheid variable or 
other means, because they are calibrated by parallax measurements of 
nearby objects.  But this indirectness probably means only a slight 
increase in cepheid distance accuracy, and still won't help the 
intervening material problem with it.

The large space telescope may be able to get us better parallax 
measurements by reducing the noise (atmospheric disturbances of the 
incoming light) rather than increasing the measurement.  I would 
estimate the improvement to be about a factor of 10.  

/Don Lynn