Slashdot Mirror
Giant Telescopes Of The Future
mindpixel writes: "Mindjack just published my article about the the future of very large telescopes, such as the VLT and the OWL which I talked about in my /. interview. In addition, I talk about a future space-based telescope that would use the Sun's gravity to 'image large surface features,' of extrasolar planets, which telescpes like the VLT can just detect, 'such as oceans, continents or ice caps, or even the impact of civilization on such features.'"
One reason I understand for having Hubble in space is the fact that diffraction of light from the atmosphere and maybe even minute seismic vibrations from the earth would distort the picture for a large telescope. Does anyone know from close we are to the point where larger land telescopes will be made impractical be these phenomenon?
I stole this Sig
I remember seeing on either "The Planets" or "Stephen Hawking's Universe" documentaries, mention of plans (prolly drawingboard stuff) to place an array of hubble like telescopes past the asteriod belt to create a VLT in space...
I'm curious to know - because of the limited size (surface area) on earth (which cosmologically is a pinprick in space) what kind of performance increase would one get by placing those telescopes in space and would it be a better move in the long run?
-- Dan =)
'such as oceans, continents or ice caps, or even the impact of civilization on such features
You think we've got global warming problems just because our ice caps are melting? Go talk to the aliens over on Alpha Centauri, they've got so much global warming that their continents are melting!
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
After all we know that the universe is around 6,000 years old so you don't need a very big telescope, and anything that looks older is wrong so you don't need funding.
This announcement was brought to you by the State of Kansas Research Funding Department.
:-)
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
The solar foci telescope idea sounds really cool, but it's got a big limitation. It can only see in 1 direction. With a 450au orbit, its orbital period is around 9500 years. That means it will only move 0.037 degrees through it's orbit every year. And assuming it won't be carrying the fuel to make huge orbital adjustments, it will only be able to view along the plane of it's orbit. We would have to have a good dense area of sky to view before launching something like that. :)
The solar foci telescope idea sounds really cool, but it's got a big limitation. It can only see in 1 direction. With a 450au orbit, its orbital period is around 9500 years. That means it will only move 0.037 degrees through it's orbit every year. And assuming it won't be carrying the fuel to make huge orbital adjustments, it will only be able to view along the plane of it's orbit. We would have to have a good dense area of sky to view before launching something like that. :)
Money is a not a simple issue.
The plan I'm working now calls for each of the 1600 OWL primary mirror segments to be financed by different visionary individuals and corporations. I'm bugging all my billionaire friends to each sponsor a segment at about $625,000 per segemnt, it's cheap and useful immortality.
As well, 62,500 people could get together (a city perhaps) and each contribute $10 to sponsor a community segement...
This fractional financing model is easier and better than trying to convince a single entity such as a govenemnt to pay the whle $1 billion.
A very readable article, but I was surprised to see no other information on the referenced large telescopes. To save others from searching as I did, take a look at:
LL
The solar foci telescope sounds like a really interesting idea but I'm not sure it's all that practical now or in the near future. 550 astronomical units is really far out there, several orders of magnitude further then any other space mission to date. Combine that with the proposed size of the mission spacecraft, again vastly larger then anything previously done, and I don't see this happening anytime soon. Still, a very interesting idea though and a logical extension of using extra-galatic objects and looking for lensed objects behind them. Just a few years back that was 'never been done before' stuff too so who knows. In any event, I have to give credit to whomever came up with this idea, they certainly think big!
More information on the solar foci idea can be found on this page from the Texas Space Grant Consortium.
You can get books telling how to make telescopes from Willman-Bell and ask for help on the Amateur Telescope Maker's mailing list. Dan Cassaro can sell you a reasonably priced mirror grinding kit.
You can find many products for amateur astronomers at the Astronomy Mall.
Clear Skies!
-- Could you use my software consulting serv
Would it be possible to use ordinary parabolic satellite TV antennas for radio telescopy? Could they be combined to create a huge radio telescope?
If that's possible, maybe when people are not using their satellite antennas for TV they could be combined to create a world-wide radio telescope.
I'm thinking of something along the ideas of SETI@home. There, the unused computer time of many people is combined for the SETI program. Maybe unused satellite TV antenna time could be combined in a similar way.
To create a large and powerful telescope you combine several smaller telescopes. There is an enormous amount of unused TV antenna time. If ordinary satellite dishes are suitable for this purpose, you'd get an extremely powerful telescope.
Give a man a fish and he eats for one day. Teach him how to fish, and though he'll eat for a lifetime, he'll call you a miser for not giving him your fish.
Terrorists can't threaten a country's freedom and democracy. Only lawmakers and voters can do that.
So it's only a matter of time til we really do have the smell-o-scope :)
Look at the second and third generation space telescopes from the "Origins" program.
Get off my virtual lawn, you damned virtual kids!
If your interested in this have a look at quite a few other plans in the works, many not so far off (2004 and beyond) for new telescopes looking for extra-solar planets and such.
For example the Terrestrial Planet Finder (TPF) which although is currently un-funded, is targeted to launch around 2011.
More links and info.
These kinds of advancements make me happy to be alive now, and I look forward to 'seeing' the first "earth like" plannet!
If you can get an array with a long enough baseline, and high precision in positioning, you can do interferometry with space telescopes. In principle that could give you enough resolution to spot small planets around nearby stars. JPL is currently studying a space interferometry mission, to fly by 2009, which will fly a small interferometer to demonstrate the potential of this technique.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
Has already become a factor in how big telescopes can be on earth. But, it's already been "fixed", too. The new giant scopes use adaptive optics that actually compensate for atmospheric distortion in realtime.
To me, that is simply amazing. Adjusting 1600 mirrors realtime to correct tiny air currents!
BUT................. All that crap was written by you, and your loser friend. Isn't it time you made your own site where you can get first post, every time, all day.
Microsoft - Where would you like to go today, Maybe Jail?
> What is the focal length for the earth anyway?
No idea, but given that the earth is much lighter and thus much less "light bending" as the sun I guess it's much, much, much larger... (a few light years?)
Could a space-based array be designed so that once it reaches its target location, it spreads itself out, gradually increasing the distance between its elements in a coherent manner, thereby increasing the effective size of the array over time? I would assume that a space-borne array would already be designed with plenty of fuel/rocketry for compensating for massive objects passing nearby and tugging on its corners... The same principle might be handy for adjusting/balacing the spacing between elements if an asteroid hits the jackpot, or a failure is detected.
:).
Yes, but you'd be trading off angular resolution against aliasing artifacts (the less of your aperture is filled, the worse aliasing artifacts will be, even when you assume constant sources and integrate over time). IMO, you'd be better off just adding more satellites
By coincidence, I recently did the calculations for the size of a metre-band radio telescope array needed to resolve features 100 km in size at a distance of 10 light-years (enough to resolve the aurorae of earth-sized planets, show thunderstorms on gas giants, and so forth). You'd need thousands of radio telescopes in solar orbits out to a radius of about 4 AU, but you could do it. Put them in eccentric polar orbits (i.e. away from most of the junk in the ecliptic), add excellent GPS-style beacons in precisely known orbits (constantly observed from Earth) to let the satellites track themselves, and you could get a very nice radio telescope for a surprisingly modest price (cheap satellites, well-known technologies and electronics, and the benefits of mass production, since you'll be making a thousand or more of them).
Such a telescope would be able to see aurorae and civilization-induced radio junk from Earth-sized planets out to around 10 light-years, map the magnetospheres of Earth-like planets and see detailed magnetic features in gas giants out to about 100 light-years, and get very detailed pictures of the outer envelopes of stars out to about 1000 light-years. It would be a very useful project.
Would it be possible to use ordinary parabolic satellite TV antennas for radio telescopy? Could they be combined to create a huge radio telescope?
If that's possible, maybe when people are not using their satellite antennas for TV they could be combined to create a world-wide radio telescope.
You could in principle do this, but in practice there are problems.
The main problem is that the electronics in the detector used with the dish are completely unsuited to radio astronomy. To use a radio telescope as a part of the array, you need a high-fidelity sample of the radio signal being received, timestamped to atomic-clock accuracy. A satellite TV pickup doesn't have a sub-nanosecond-accurate clock, and won't give you a digitization of the raw signal. Instead, it looks for strong signals in specific, narrow bands and blindly decodes them through combined analog and digital means (i.e. it treats everything it hears as a TV signal).
A secondary problem is that your satellite dish is pointed directly at a strong source of radio noise in the frequencies it's tuned to detect (the satellite).
The idea is a great one, but because you'd need to completely replace the electronics rig with something far more expensive, a better approach might be to sell radio telescope array "kits" built from stock parts and forget about using peoples' TV dishes.
This would probably be quite practical from an engineering standpoint, as most of the parts (including timestamping radio sampling boxes) can be bought off-the-shelf. I have no idea if enough amateur astronomers would buy these for them to be marketable (they wouldn't be cheap - tens of thousands of dollars per kit).
Bruce Willis.
karma capped
I am writing about this topic, and have corresponded with a number of NASA and Space Telescope Institute scientists about the idea of using the sun's gravity to magnify distant objects. The consensus is that while this is an interesting idea to play with, it won't be happening for generations, if ever.
To start, our most distant Pioneer probe won't be at 550 AU for 180 years. Pluto, remember, is just at 39 AU. Radically increase speed and you'll have a probe there in what, 80 years?
Once there, where will you point it? You'd have to spend hundreds or thousands or years arcing the telescope into different positions to see a broad sweep of space. And we don't have that kind of fuel technology, including nuclear.
I was in love with the 550 AU idea (I've read that 763 AU might be ideal), but the reality check dampened that more than a bit.
I hope this helps.
Erik Baard