Slashdot Mirror


Binocular Space Telescope in the Works

museumpeace writes "ABCNews.com's technology pages have a story about NASA's plans to orbit a binocular telescope. Similar in concept to the Arizona telescope reported in /., this new variable baseline interferometer would be able to operate in the UV which is unavailable to terrestrial intstruments. The telescope would have the resolving power of a 120 foot diameter conventional telescope."

30 comments

  1. Tinfoil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What if they use it to look at earth ?

    1. Re:Tinfoil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Then someone will finally be able to see your penis.

    2. Re:Tinfoil by NanoGator · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      "Then someone will finally be able to see your penis."

      The neat thing about the internet is that you don't need to have a big penis to tell somebody else they have a small one.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
  2. Re:dupe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's not a dupe, in fact that story was mentioned in this one.

  3. Re:dupe by edalytical · · Score: 1

    No it's not a dupe. That story was about the University of Arizona's built telescope here on earth, this story is about a NASA telescope being designed destined for space. The only similarity is they are binocular type telescopes.

    --
    Win a signed Stephen Carpenter ESP Guitar from the Deftones: http://def-tag.com/?r=0008781
  4. Finally.... by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 1

    The posts asking for what NASA is doing & wether this technique will reach space anytime soon are answered. Hubble 2.0 is very welcome ;)

    --
    It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
    Be yourself no matter what they say
    1. Re:Finally.... by eingram · · Score: 1

      I thought the JWST was supossed to be the "Hubble replacement" sometime next decade? It should also replace Spitzer, too.

      I'm not complaining! Let's get more telescopes above our atmosphere and look at the really interesting wavelengths!

  5. Wow. by francisew · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is pretty neat. Low IR interference would be great. There is so much heating/cooling from exposure/shadow cycling as satellites orbit the earth that I'd guess it have cyclic noise.

    They never really mentioned how high it would orbit.

    120 feet of rail is a lot. I wonder how prone it'll be to damage?

    The other telescope mentioned in the article seemed more interesting. Even though it's 1/4 the length, it had interferometers on board, and would probably be more useful for spectroscopic purposes.

  6. Why binocular? by DrKyle · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I can understand that getting a nice pair of binoculars gives you a sense of depth perception, but when you are looking at something 50 light years away does it really make a difference that you take measurements from 120 feet apart? I mean they could just time lapse the images and then compare them as the Earth is moving way faster, as we are moving around the sun at about 1800 kilometers per second. So really, what good is 120 feet?

    1. Re:Why binocular? by Mark+of+THE+CITY · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If you really wanted near-simultaneous binocular imaging to capture some 'fast' event, maybe you would want two cameras in solar orbit. At Earth's orbital radius (9 light minutes), for example, that would give you about 18 light minutes of separation.

      I doubt there's a burning need for this, though.

      --
      The clearance system sounds logical. It is not. It is completely arbitrary. -- John Bolton
    2. Re:Why binocular? by Doctor+Fishboy · · Score: 4, Informative
      but when you are looking at something 50 light years away does it really make a difference that you take measurements from 120 feet apart?

      It makes a big difference. The aim of the game is to increase your angular resolution, and interferometry is a way of combining two separate telescopes to get the angular resolution of one larger telescope.

      You cannot take one image, wait a few seconds to get a baseline, and then take another image. For the technique to work, you need the two images to be recorded with phase information, and for wavelengths shorter than radio waves, you cannot easily and efficiently do that.

      For a 8.4m single mirror, the 125 feet separation increases the angular resolution by a factor of 6.25. That's a very useful improvement.

      The problem is that the light from the two mirrors has to be cophased to within 1/10 of a single wavelength of UV light. Those tolerances are absolute bastards to achieve, even in outer space.

      Dr Fish

    3. Re:Why binocular? by deglr6328 · · Score: 4, Informative

      They're not really using it for "binocular vision", they're using it to do "aperture synthesis" or optical interferometry where the separation of two telescopes whose optical paths are combined (with sub wavelength (like 550nanometers for green) precision maintenance of the optical path) effectively allows it to have the resolution of one humongous telescope whose mirror is as big as the separation between the two smaller telescopes or "baseline". Radio telescopes are combined in the VLBA or very long baseline array like this, except that they are not connected to eachother as they make observations (at least not until recently) so they record the phase of the radio waves as correlated to a high precision atomic clock standard, then combine the (usually terabytes of) data from each dish later on supercomputers. None of this comes across terribly clearly in the article because the journalist who wrote it is an idiot("SPIRIT telescope since it will be detecting infrared light, which is a light form of heat." uhhhh yeah.).

      --
      - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
    4. Re:Why binocular? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks.

      No matter how it's modded, that really was informative.

      I'd have used my nick, but my karma is "terrible" - seems I was caught telling the truth in public.

    5. Re:Why binocular? by John+Hasler · · Score: 0

      A lot. They are talking about interferometry, not mere binocular vision. Look it up.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  7. Speaking of that exposure cycle... by PedanticSpellingTrol · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Why not build a network of telescopes on the lunar surface? 14 days without solar exposure, a stable platform, no atmosphere... seems perfect.

    1. Re:Speaking of that exposure cycle... by bitingduck · · Score: 3, Informative

      This seems to come up every time there's a space telescope article. The moon's not that great a place-- it's not as stable as you think, it's dirty, you get cycled in and out of full sunlight, and you have to land everything softly in a nasty gravity well without any atmosphere to use for braking.

      I'm going to have to put in a journal entry or something with why the moon is overrated for space telescopes.

    2. Re:Speaking of that exposure cycle... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and don't forget that it has 5000 dimensions!

    3. Re:Speaking of that exposure cycle... by Awestruckin · · Score: 1

      "...you get cycled in and out of full sunlight..." Correct me if I am wrong but the moon does not spin on its axis. There is one permanantly dark side and one light. Which is why the "man on the moon" is always staring us down. :)

    4. Re:Speaking of that exposure cycle... by hplasm · · Score: 0

      Ok, you are wrong. Which is why the moon waxes and wanes- the moon has to spin on it's axis to present the 'man-in-the-moon' face to us; the lunar night/day cycle covers all of the moon.

      --
      ...and he grinned, like a fox eating shit out of a wire brush.
    5. Re:Speaking of that exposure cycle... by Awestruckin · · Score: 1

      Okay so... "In astronomy, synchronous rotation is a planetological term describing a body orbiting another, where the orbiting body takes as long to rotate on its axis as it does to make one orbit; and therefore always keeps the same hemisphere pointed at the body it is orbiting. The Moon is in synchronous rotation about the Earth. In fact, most moons in the solar system have synchronous rotation due to tidal locking." (wikipedia) ...this just means that one side of the moon is always facing the earth, but that doesn't mean that all sides do not receive light from the sun. I guess I just listened to too much Pink Floyd and got the wrong ideas implanted... :P So one side always appears "dark" to us viewers on Earth, but is not always actually dark.

    6. Re:Speaking of that exposure cycle... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      spin on it's axis

      "its".

    7. Re:Speaking of that exposure cycle... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's correct. It's more accurate to refer to the "near" and "far" sides of the Moon, at least from an Earth-centric point of view.

  8. re: Wow by bitingduck · · Score: 2, Informative

    from looking at the sunshades, I'd guess that they plan to put Spirit in an L2 or earth trailing orbit, most likely L2-- it's close enough for high bandwidth communication, and it actually takes slightly less energy to get there than earth trailing.

    The other mission they mentioned, SIM, won't do spectroscopy. It's a very high precision interferometer for astrometry-- it will measure positions of stars to a microarcsecond or so. I can't remember the down to earth comparison information, but it will be capable of detecting planets of a few earth masses in their stars' habitable zones around the nearest 250 or so stars. It will also remove the sin(i) ambiguity of the radial velocity measurements of the planets already known. There are also a bunch of other science programs covering stellar astrophysics, and some extragalactic stuff, too.

  9. cophasing by bitingduck · · Score: 1

    The problem is that the light from the two mirrors has to be cophased to within 1/10 of a single wavelength of UV light. Those tolerances are absolute bastards to achieve, even in outer space.

    Spirit is intended to be in the IR, which makes the pathlength control a bit easier, and without knowing details of Spirit, I'd guess that the pathlength control requirements are a lot easier than they are on SIM, which is doing precision astrometry in the visible.

  10. Foot? by turboalberta · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Why are there still foot circuling in the scientific community. Has the crash of the Mars Climate Orbiter learned us nothing?

    --
    I sometimes think that God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability. -- Oscar Wilde
  11. Earth's reputation by 10101001+10101001 · · Score: 1

    This a great way to ruin Earth's reputation, as a peeping tom. "I swear we weren't looking into your showers, aliens!"

    --
    Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
  12. Greatest era of Telescopes ever? by dtolman · · Score: 1
    This may be a low point for manned expoloration of the universe - but we are certainly at one of histories high points for telescopic exploration of the universe:

    -relatively cheap CCD's mean that even amateurs can make great discoveries
    -currently have orbiting telescopes covering a good chunk of the spectrum
    -best is yet to come:
    Kepler, SIM, James Webb Space Telescope, Terrestial Planet Finder, proposed earth based 100 meter optical telescopes, not to mention far off items like the Terrestial Planet Imager and this telescope!