The Billion-Dollar Telescope

dcmeserve writes "As in all science, astronomers are ever searching for better technology to aid in their task. But when it comes to telescopes, nothing beats sheer bulk of light-gathering capability. This article gives a brief overview of the top contenders for the next leap forward, including a 100-meter behemoth that is expected to run $1 billion."

Comments

Re: The Billion-Dollar Telescope

[nsebban]

In fact, it's "The Billion-Euros Telescope" which means about 20% more.

Re:Too much interference

[FTL]

> ISS should have a giant telescope mounted on it.

Negative.

• ISS shakes. It's got humans inside it who won't sit still. If you want to do deep-field astronomy you want to be able to point at an object and sit there collecting light for hours or days.
• ISS leaks air and other gasses. It is surrounded by a gas bubble. Any telescope in the area would have these gasses condensing on it's mirror.
• ISS is in a nasty orbit. The orbit is highly inclined so that Russian vehicles can reach it (thank goodness, given the recent Shuttle grounding). But the trade off is that it is much more expensive to put stuff on ISS than to put it in a more equitoral orbit (where Hubble is).
• ISS passes through the South Atlantic Magnetic Anomaly on a regular basis. This is a nasty area which causes problems for sensitive equipment. A more equitorial orbit would largely avoid this area and allow a telescope to capture faiter images before having to safe itself.
• ISS is too low. At such low altitudes you've got a lot of atomic oxygen from the upper atmosphere. Atomic oxygen is very reactive and would ruin your mirrors quickly.