Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Billion-Dollar Telescope

Posted by michael on from the i-spy-with-my-little-eye dept.

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."

14 of 326 comments (clear)

  1. Big Lens... by Unnngh! · · Score: 5, Funny
    For those of you who don't know how these things are measured...

    The newer models should be capable of frying at least 2.4x10^15 ants/second, compared to Hubble's 1.8x10^13 ants.

  2. Meanwhile, Hubble is fighting for its life... by klipsch_gmx · · Score: 5, Interesting
    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.

    1. Re:Meanwhile, Hubble is fighting for its life... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:Meanwhile, Hubble is fighting for its life... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      From the policy side of this, though, it is the right decision (ACed as well, because the policy part is MY job). Money has to be spent on HST, because HST is up and functioning. If they turned off the money while the telescope was still working (and it is, and will be for the forseeable future) there would be a huge outcry... and a negative reaction from Congress.

      Which brings me to my main point. NASA is NOT a zero sum game. The Congress LIKES the HST very much. More than it likes your project, to be blunt (whatever it is, Congress likes HST better than everything else in the Office of Space Science). If NASA were to take the money away from HST, the Congress would take that money away from them, and would probably cut more from the program as well. The popularity of HST has a spill over effect into the rest of the program. It's likely that your project owes its existence to the success of HST.

      I'm sure it's frustrating to have your budget reduced continually, but attacking the successful projects at NASA is a good way to ensure those reductions in your program become permanent... Oh, and one other thing... those other projects WILL be launched. Not on schedule, perhaps, but they will be launched.

  3. Too much interference by digidave · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The bottom line with telescopes is that anything on the ground has to look through a ton of crap in the atmosphere and battle light pollution. Much smaller telescopes in space will work a lot better. ISS should have a giant telescope mounted on it. It's a shame Hubble is our only orbiting telescope.

    --
    The global economy is a great thing until you feel it locally.
    1. Re:Too much interference by FTL · · Score: 5, Informative
      > 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.
      --
      Slashdot monitor for your Mozilla sidebar or Active Desktop.
    2. Re:Too much interference by elh102 · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's a shame Hubble is our only orbiting telescope.

      There's more to the electromagnetic spectrum than visible light you know. The Hubble Space Telescope is only one of NASA's four orbiting "Grand Observatories". Here are links to info about the other telescopes.

  4. The cool thing about seeing things farther away by Naomi_the_butterfly · · Score: 5, Insightful
    When we look at nearby stars, we know that there are (almost definitely) the same kinds of phenomena around the universe. So, why look farther?
    The answer is, using these big telescopes, we can look back in time. Light travels at a set speed in a vacuum: approximately 186,000 miles per second. The universe is so large, however, that light (and other forms of energy such as x-rays and radio waves) that was generated a bit after the creation of the universe in the big bang is just reaching us! Now, we see (and so do optical telescopes) by filtering light generated by or bouncing off of objects. So, by looking out, as far as we can, we can literally look back in time to the creation of all that is. And that, my geeky friends, is why we need giant telescopes.

    Happy Stardust/Mars days :)

  5. Re:Wha?? by diablobynight · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Anonymous Cowards - Oh God, How I hate you
  6. Re: The Billion-Dollar Telescope by nsebban · · Score: 5, Informative

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

    --
    ____
    nico
    Nico-Live
  7. Meanwhile on the cheap side... by ackthpt · · Score: 4, Informative
    I was just talking with someone a few nights ago about Univerisity of California Santa Cruz, seems they're going to build a radio telescope on the cheap side, good for them. A bunch of smaller dishes over a wide area. Probably eventually hooked up to that el-cheapo Athlon studded supercomputer they built.

    Necessity may be the mother of invention, but when you've got a lean budget you innovate.

    BTW, there's this interesting other stuff in the news about Aussies seaching the heavens for likely places to host another earth.

    Obligatory filching of Galaxy Song lyrics: So remember, when you're feeling very small and insecure,
    how amazingly unlikely is your birth,
    Pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space,
    because there's bugger all down here on Earth.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  8. Re:I think that they could by number6x · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Please read the referenced article. All of the proposed telescopes are ground based. the people who build, maintain, and use these telescopes are also ground based. Their paychecks will be spent down here on Earth

    One of the biggest problems on Earth right now is ignorance and stupidity. Spending money on increasing knowledge is a way to combat that problem.

    Spending money on increasing the sum knowledge base of the entire human race is a good thing to spend money on.

  9. Re:Wouldn't $1B be better spent on a space telesco by Scott+Ransom · · Score: 4, Informative

    Not really. With the rise of adaptive optics, ground-based telescopes are increasingly able to achieve diffration-limited or near-diffraction-limited resolution in the optical and (in particular) the near-IR (which is of crucial importance for cosmology -- the current "Hot" area of astronomy).

    Once you hit that physics-limited level of resolution (which has been the true advantage of HST), the gains come from light-gathering ability. This is where ground-based telescopes clean up. The $$/area is much lower (i.e. better) for ground-based telescopes. And the upkeep costs are much smaller as well. Space is expensive.

    When you can have a telescope with near-diffraction limited resolution and 10-1000 times the light gathering ability of a space-based telescope of the same cost, astronomer's will choose that guy any day.

    Note: IAAA (I am an astronomer)

  10. Ground vs. Space summary by ChrisDolan · · Score: 4, Informative

    Several people have commented that the money may be better spent on a space telescope. Here's why that may not be true:

    Advantages of space:
    * Extremely low light pollution and air absorption. This means you can see very dim things that may not be ever visible from the ground.

    Advantages of ground:
    * Initial cost is about 100-1000 times cheaper for same-sized primary
    * Repairs and routine maintenance are possible without a $250 million shuttle launch
    * Newer technology is possible, since it's less risky. Hubble uses a lot of electronics from the early 1980s.

    Hubble cost $1.5 billion initially plus $0.25 billion per year (http://hubble.nasa.gov/faq.html) for a 2.5-meter telescope.

    Since light-collecting power goes as the square of the diameter, a 100-meter telescope has 1600 times the light collecting ability of Hubble. So, if the celestial objects of interest are not background-limited, you can get the same quality image in 1 minute that would take Hubble a whole day to acquire.