Slashdot Mirror
Antarctic Telescope?
angkor pastes "'A novel Antarctic telescope with 16-m diameter mirrors would far outperform the Hubble Space Telescope, and could be built at a tiny fraction of its cost, says a scientist from the Anglo-Australian Observatory in Sydney, Australia.'"
Even though the Hubble Space Telescope was expensive initially, you must admit that it has been cheap and easy to repair. This new telescope would be located all the way down in Antarctica. Has anyone priced flights to Antarctica lately? When there's a problem, it's not like you could just hop on the next Space Shuttle and slap another lens in. And plus it's COLD down there! It'd probably need some kind of heater or something. Think of the electric bills!
It's ridiculous how these "scientists" really don't think these things through. I expect more from people with fancy "college degrees" and smartypants names like "Will."
"A telescope there would perform as well as a much larger one anywhere else on Earth. It's nearly as good as being in space", said Dr. Will Saunders of the Anglo-Australian Observatory.
:)
Nearly as good, nearly. I am still a huge fan of Hubble... so forgive me.
As someone who survives on research money for a living, I am sad to see what direction funding is going. Previously, those who had tbe best ideas would get the money.
Now, he who gets the press, gets the money.
This whole article is basically a press release by this guy. I'll summarize the article for you...
"Give me money because I _think_ I can build some cool stuff."
that's neato, we can even get it powered by penguins! in more ways than one!
Would this telescope be as beneficial as the Hubble considering the Hubble isn't attached to any surface and can freely move in space... This Antartic version would have limited viewing capabilities, so which would you rather have?
The best way to predict the future is to invent it. -Alan Kay
See more about this site (and the AASTINO, the Little Telescope That Could) at Wednesday's Story
Cue The Sun...
The new telescope would be utilizing the technology of today as opposed to over 10 years ago. Now I think its safe to say that deep space observational technology doesn't grow at the pace of say microchips, but I don't think its much of a suprise that new terrestrial based technology can outperform hubble. I think the real question we should be asking is: antarctic telescope vs NEW orbital telescope. Also, why haven't scientists thought of going to the poles earlier ?
If the dollar is an "I owe you nothing", then the Euro is a "Who owes you nothing." - Doug Casey
Not only are you limited to the southern sky, but you can't use it for months at a time (during the S. hemisphere summer). Compare that to Hubble which gets a look at the entire sky as it orbits the earth, and can operate 24/7.
The scientist is even quoted as saying so ... FTFA:
"... It's nearly as good as being in space."
Nearly as good, perhaps, but while you may have minimized light pollution by using the Antartic you still have the atmosphere diffusing incoming light. It's like a being a photojournalist with a sheet of fine tissue paper over your lens.
Built it on top of K2 or some other super-high peak if you want to keep it on earth, and only image things that are relatively perpindicular to minimize atmospheric distortion.
Isn't "no light" what you want for looking through a telescope?
A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
It was meant for doing Infrared astronomy, using an experimental IR sensor. (some pics on that link)
The thought was that due to the fact that it's so dry an cold down there, you could do IR astronomy similarly to an IR telescope in space. Results were pretty good too.
All observations were done over the Antarctic Winter, while the airport was colosed, since the sky was colder and there was less water vapor in the sky... and as you know, the less water vapor, the better the IR imaging capability, and the colder, the less background noise.
This function will be taken up by the new SOFIA platform, which we're also working on as well right now. I believe there have been /. articles about it, but in case you forgot, it's a 2.5m telescope in the back of a modified 747... also meant for IR astronomy.(at 40,000 feet up, you're above most of the water vapor in the air) SOFIA can be reconfigured after each landing.
Does Antartica get that much snow - I always thought it was more of a desert. It doesn't snow much, but what's there doesn't melt.
A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
Perhaps in theory a big telescope in Antartica is a good idea, but I've read some stories over the years that they get a fair amount of snow yearly that would maybe interfere with an exposed, outdoor telescope.
I'm an ex-astronomer, so I'll comment on this.
...
The optical arangement is unlike any I've seen before or heard of. I don't have the expertise or the information to comment on whether it will really work. I'll just comment that making optically flat mirrors was very hard (much harder than the normal curved mirrors) last time I heard, but there might be new technology to help here.
There are basically three competing locations: space, Antarctica, somewhere else on Earth. There is an order of magnitude or more in accessibility and cost between each option.
Space:
Pro:
Access to the full range of wavelengths - no atmospheric absorption or emission. (Particularly useful in UV and IR.)
No atmospheric bluring - diffraction limited resolution at all wavelengths
Can observe almost any part of the sky at any time.
Con:
Hugely expensive
Very inaccessible - service missions are either impossible or cost hundreds of millions or more
Size limitations on launch - either the telescope is smallish (Hubble) or needs even more expense to 'unfold' in orbit (new generation space telescope).
Very hostile environment: cold on one side, hot on another, radiation belts,
Antarctica:
Pro:
Access to wavelengths difficult or impossible to access elsewhere on Earth (mostly mid to far IR. The ozone hole presumably helps out in UV also.)
Best seeing on the planet: very little atmospheric blur much of the time.
Con:
Can only ever view half the sky
Unusable during summer
Very expensive
Poor accesibility: Only during summer, only at great expense.
Hostile environment: extreme cold. Possible build up of ice by sublimation deposition.
Anywhere else:
Pro:
Cheapest
Daily access, can drive a truck up to the telescope
Can have astronomers on site, e.g. debugging new detectors
Can see the northern hemisphere
Con:
Poor seeing
Many interesting wavelengths inaccessible or hard to observe
Unusable during the day
We need all three - space for what we can't do on Earth, Antarctica for what we can't do elsewhere (except space, which costs more). Whether the telescope described (very briefly...) in the article is sensible I couldn't say, nor could I say whether it makes sense to use Dome C rather than the more accessible, and manned, south pole base.
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
The article from a few days ago about seeing at Dome C explains this: they get very, very little snowfall there. However, they do get blown ice crystals, but not very many at the proposed location. The linked article makes great reading.
The site at Paranal have 4 8.5 meter telescopes and interferometry can can equate their imaging to the distance they stand apart.
They can point the telescope at polar bears once in a while, if that would be OK.
I'm surprised that you care so much about Antarctica. I'm all for responsibly maintaining the Earth, but I can't find a good reason to object to building one measley telescope. Especially if it will have such a great impact on astronomy.
Do you object solely on the principle that it was decreed to be a nature preserve, or is there a deeper conviction? Do you believe that a telescope would have a negative effect on the Antarctic environment?
You are missing something. The Antarctic treaty encourages scientific research activities in Antarctica. There is not a single word in that treaty that even momentarily suggests that it would be an awful thing if the research was not expressly about Antarctica itself.
The later Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty, established in 1991, goes into more detail about Antarctica's status as a nature preserve, "dedicated to peace and science." It specifically bans mining and similar activities, and makes clear that all activities in Antarctica must be compatible with scientific research and environmental research in particular.
But it definitely does not ban non-scientific activities, like tourism, as long as their environmental impact is addresses correctly. And it certainly doesn't ban astronomy (an awful, polluting activity, astronomy! Shudder!).
Check out the Apostrophe open-source CMS: http://www.apostrophenow.com/
A couple of people have mentioned that you can't work in the ultraviolet part of the spectrum without going to space. True, and critically important to some science. Also, from Antarctica, you can only see the southern sky, not the north, so this is another limitation.
These are not good reasons not to build this proposed telescope, just ways in which Hubble is still uniquely qualified.
Professor of Astronomy, Author of Spider Star & Star Dragon (Tor)