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

Meanwhile, Hubble is fighting for its life...

[klipsch_gmx]

The lifespan of the Hubble telescope, which is almost unanimously celebrated by astronomers as an unparalleled success, has already been extended twice.

The NASA plan calls for a Hubble servicing mission in 2006, possibly followed by another one a few years later, that could keep the Hubble in space far beyond even the launch of the new James Webb Space Telescope in 2011.

But after the crash of the space shuttle Columbia in February, the shuttle program has come to a grinding halt. Without servicing by the space shuttle, the Hubble is living on borrowed time.

See more here.

Re:Meanwhile, Hubble is fighting for its life...

[Anonymous Coward]

For what it's worth, other worthwhile NASA projects are being cut in order to keep Hubble going. This is not a fiction, it is a reality today.

It's a zero-sum game. NASA has N dollars. If M of those dollars are going to keep the old Hubble afloat far past its lifetime, M dollars worth of other projects are not going to be launched.

Posted anonymously because I work on two projects whose budget just got slashed by 50% because more money has to be spent on Hubble. Again.

Re:Wha??

[diablobynight]

Theoretical physicists do to. They use all kinds of computer programs to map and model possible situations. One of the biggest linux clusters in the world is being used by theoretical phycisists to try and model a fusion reaction.