[opportunity (OP)]

This topic was split off from "Which is the Closest Star to Planet Earth ?" - moderator.

I'd like to think the closest is the "most measurable".

Do we have any "outstanding" features there?

(it must be a common question)

[evan_au]

I'd like to think the closest is the "most measurable".

Please use at least one noun in a sentence, otherwise the statement is rather vacuous.
What sort of measurements do you prefer?
Does this comment even relate to the prior discussion? It might help if you quoted the part of the discussion that you are commenting on.
...all part of encouraging a healthy discussion!

[opportunity (OP)]

I'd like to think the closest is the "most measurable".

Please use at least one noun in a sentence, otherwise the statement is rather vacuous.
What sort of measurements do you prefer?
Does this comment even relate to the prior discussion? It might help if you quoted the part of the discussion that you are commenting on.
...all part of encouraging a healthy discussion!

Ok, apologies...."I'd like to think the closest "star" is the most measureable".....like it's something we have great data on.

(maybe I should have used words like "Led Zepplin" or "Elton John".....c'mon, feeling a little picked out here Evan)

We should have really great data on the closest star by now, given how far we can see into the universe. Or it's not like using simple star-binoculars? Before you jump in and tell me its not as simple as that, and that it requires formula and transferring images into a formula, ok....lots of guests may not know that.

[opportunity (OP)]

What would I measure?

Light years, clarity, definition? What are you looking for?.

It's difficult to explain to the general public how "fuzzy" stars look even to scientists. No one in the general public realises that the discovery of planets is not an actual sighting of land mass yet a "wobble" in the star. No one realises that. No one also realises that the "closest" star despite science seeing so much vastly further, "is still fuzzy". "no one realises that". The game of seeing stars requires lenses to capture light and equipment to interpret that light.

Am I wrong?

[Bored chemist]

What would I measure?

Light years, clarity, definition? What are you looking for?.

The nearest star is about 8/(60X24X365) light years away, (About 14 millionths of a light year) we have already measured that
It's opaque- it has practically no clarity to any form of radiation we know of apart from neutrinos and gravity.

It's qute well defined
sun
sʌn/Submit
noun
1.
the star round which the earth orbits.
"the sun shone from a cloudless sky"
2.
the light or warmth received from the earth's sun.
"we sat outside in the sun"
synonyms:   sunshine, sunlight, daylight, light, warmth; More
verb
1.
sit or lie in the sun.
"Buzz could see Clare sunning herself on the terrace below"
synonyms:   sunbathe, bask, bake, get a tan, tan, brown
"he's been sunning himself on the golden shores of Bali"

[Janus]

I'd like to think the closest is the "most measurable".

Please use at least one noun in a sentence, otherwise the statement is rather vacuous.
What sort of measurements do you prefer?
Does this comment even relate to the prior discussion? It might help if you quoted the part of the discussion that you are commenting on.
...all part of encouraging a healthy discussion!

Ok, apologies...."I'd like to think the closest "star" is the most measureable".....like it's something we have great data on.

(maybe I should have used words like "Led Zepplin" or "Elton John".....c'mon, feeling a little picked out here Evan)

We should have really great data on the closest star by now, given how far we can see into the universe. Or it's not like using simple star-binoculars? Before you jump in and tell me its not as simple as that, and that it requires formula and transferring images into a formula, ok....lots of guests may not know that.

The types of things we can measure about stars:
Their distance
Their apparent motion
Their radial motion
Their luminosity (from their distance and apparent magnitude)
Their spectrum (giving us both their color and elemental make up)
Their temperature ( from spectral line spreading)
The period and magnitude of any variability.
A good estimate of size and mass (from a combination of spectrum and luminosity)
Combinations of the above measurements help refine classifications  (is it a G class dwarf or G class giant?)

Some of these are more accurately measured for closer stars. (distance measured by parallax is more accurate for close stars, for instance.)  Other's not so.  You can make up for the fact that the light of a distant dim star is of low intensity by just increasing the amount of time you gather light from it. ( This is what the Hubble telescope does when observing far off parts of the universe. It gets so little light from those far off regions that it can speed weeks staring at the same spot in order to collect enough to collect usable data.)

[jeffreyH]

What may not be apparent is that the constellations are constantly changing and have done over the entire course of human history. Beware astrologers.
https://www.wired.com/2015/03/gifs-show-constellations-transforming-150000-years/

[PmbPhy]

What would you like to measure about a Star?

What would you like to measure about a Star?

That's kind of personal but I have nothing to hide. I would like to measure net worth, dress and cup size.

[opportunity (OP)]

You're close you know.....can we see a "Venus"? Just lightening the discussion, hopefully no harm done.

[opportunity (OP)]

As I was trying to say, "what's our best data on the closest star"? If stars wobble and thus presumably have planets (and I understand the logic there with that idea), and we want to make the step in "knowing" where we could head and why in the stars, if we do, well, ok, "when is it possible we could ever actually see an object revolve around a distant star "prior" to deciding to fly out there other than a star "wobbling"....and, yes, "when", and how is that decision going to be made"?

All right, easier question; "what is the star of choice today to investigate and why, "if" we could get there"?

This is just a question. I'm a newbie to this idea of possible star-exploration, not a cynic.

[Kryptid]

We actually have photographed some exoplanets already: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_directly_imaged_exoplanets

We can also measure the chemical composition of their atmospheres: http://www.iflscience.com/space/neptune-sized-exoplanet-has-clear-skies-and-water-vapor-atmosphere/

With these techniques, we should be very well-prepared if and when the time comes to choose an appropriate exoplanet to send a probe to.

[opportunity (OP)]

Thanks Kryptid. Just the answer I'm looking for.