Slashdot Mirror
World's Largest Telescope Begins Production
JohnnyNapalm writes "The Aggie Daily News is reporting today that the first mirrors have been cast for the world's largest telescope. The result of cooperation from some of the foremost institutions in education and science in the nation, the Giant Magellan Telescope stands to operate at a resolution 10 times larger than the Hubble. The project, set to be constructed in Chile, is slated for completion in 2016."
Am I alone in feeling that we haven't even used hubble to the fullest extent of its abilities? Not sure why this is a priority right now.
and not the US Gov't, then THEY get to choose when to pull the plug.
Not some accountant.
My mom says I'm cool.
Largest ptical telescope, perhaps. Arecibo Observatory is still the biggest single telescope, though there are even larger arrays.
After all, I am strangely colored.
The only problem is, where shall we find a Giant Magellan who can operate such a big telescope for us?
in 2016?
Might as well get to work now!
My mom says I'm cool.
Will it be able to show the moon landings?
If this is going to beat it out the lenses will have to be tremendous. It was considered a feat of engineering manufacturing and shipping the VLT's lenses
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
That's true, but it's simple economics, unfortunately. To build an earthbased telescope, it is cheaper by a factor far outweighing the costs of hoisting the equivalent mass into orbit. On a side note, most ground telescopes utilize correctional algorithms to help with atmospheric distortion. Sure, stars sparkle down here, and dont up there, but NASA's purse is a bit light lately.
There is already a Magellan project, a 2 telescope optical interferometer:
http://www.ociw.edu/magellan/
There appears to be some kind of threshold for telescopes, go beyond that and you have a giant telescope. Don't ask me why they don't use the SI prefixes, megascope, gigascope, petascope, yottascope, microscope.
Photos
Unfortunately adaptive optics doesn't help with frequencies that are blocked by the opaque (at those frequencies) atmosphere.
As far as I can tell this telescope does not use adaptive optics. Why not? Because the mirror is so enormous, I guess. Isn't there a method to use materials with variable refractive properties that can be placed on top of the mirror?
They can peer into the bedroom windows of sexy coeds from THOUSANDS of miles away.
Sadly it also presumes that you actually can get something into orbit.
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
Can someone please explain how a mirror would work for this (each individual mirror is made up of smaller hex-pieces) if it's made up of many, many small pieces with holes in between? I thought you needed a large, flat unbroken surface for each mirror?
Remember "Bring 'em on"? *sigh
It's not quite that powerful. (rimshot)
"Plans are for fools! Oglethorpe, the plutonian (Aqua Teen Hunger Force)
yes, but with adaptive optics and reprocessing the difference is not as big, and the operating costs are nowhere close, and if they add enough additional capabilities (can't do ir/uv in atmosphere, but some radio could help) it might be useful. Few earth telescopes will ever rival hubble however, the enormous field of view coupled with the amazing contrast allowed by its orbit really can't be matched on earth, at least not without additional processing.
for actual scientific purposes, and not pretty pictures it should be as useful.
The first rule of USENET is you do not talk about USENET.
It does use adaptive optics. Have a peek at the tech section of the GMT site, here: http://www.gmto.org/tech_overview>
From the aforementioned link: The GMT secondary mirror is composed of seven thin adaptive shells, with each segment mapping to a single primary mirror segment. The adaptive secondary will provide diffraction-limited performance over modest fields of view and ground-layer adaptive optics over a field of ten to twenty arcminutes in diameter.
-scott
My other sig is a Glock
I'd love to see a comparison of the VLT and Hubble in the ultraviolet band, for example. ;)
Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
It all depends on how much access either U of TX or TAMU has to launch facilities. I'm guessing "not much," and hauling all the stuff up the Andes is likely cheaper/easier.
The State of Texas could set up a nice little operation, say, near Brownsville, but the states seem to be more content in wishing and hoping a federal facility gets built with federal money instead. For example, the State of Florida's launch facilities are just some old pads being borrowed/shared/leased/etc. from NASA and/or the DOD.
I guess scientists suffer from penis envy too.
"Oh yea, well my telescope is bigger then yours!"
Or would it go...
"Hey baby, look, _my_ telescope has a lens that's 40,000 pounds, it'll be 84 feet of girth, and when it gets heated up it takes 3 months to cool"
Price of putting the 2.5-meter Hubble Space Telescope in orbit, and installing its corrective glasses:
:)
Somewhere on the order of $2-4 Billion.
Price of building both 10-meter Keck Telescopes on Mauna Kea:
About $200 Million.
Soooo... for the cost of one orbiting telescope (and that wasn't even counting the later servicing missions), you could build 20-40 terrestrial telescopes, each with four times the diameter.
Oh, and as a data point... expected price of building the 30-meter Telescope:
About $1 Billion.
Launching stuff is way more expensive than getting it places on boats or trucks.
Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
Most of the Mauna Kea Observatories - basically all the ones on the ridges - are either visible-optimized with infrared capabilities, infrared-optimized with visible light capabilities, or dedicated infrared.
Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
However, put that same sophisticated, adaptive telescope in space, and I'd be willing to bet you'd see yet further improvement. Besides which, even a composite telescope is going to be limited in size, due to the fact that you can't correct all of the errors - the machinary won't be capable of altering the positions of the mirrors accurately enough, or measuring their positions for computational correction.
In space, you should be able to build much larger composite mirrors, as you should be able to place things much more accurately. If the mirrors are made in space, then that would be even better, as there wouldn't be so many flaws that would need correcting.
Instead of building one super-giant telescope, they might be better building two or three slightly smaller giant telescopes, then hooking them up as an interferometry array. The reason being that you'll get diminishing returns on how much light you can get in anyway, an array allows you to obtain greater accuracy and you can use the array as multiple single telescopes if there is nothing requiring the extra detail.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
For something a little closer to completion than 2016, check out the Southern African Large Telescope. Scheduled to open in November, and will be the biggest optical telescope in the southern hemisphere.
Regards,
-Jeremy
The technology to cut back the interference is one which is from the military used for guiding the first part of a nuclear warhead. They use a laser which reflects back through the atmosphere, measure the distortion and then calculate back the atmospheric turbulence. With some adaptation this can be used to als calculate the lightwaves from the laser back to its nice straight line, and with that the other lightwaves coming from anywhere else.
Bigger issue is actually light polution: To have a good working telescope, you want as little backgroundlight as possible. Those places get harder and harder to find.
The resolution enhancement has been done for ages by now by radiotelescopes which have been setup in arrays to act together as one big telescope (like in Drente, Holland).
My wife's sketchblog Blob[p]: Gastrono-me
I had the wonderful experience of being an undergraduate in astrophysics at UC Santa Cruz, where a grant in adaptive optics was paving the way for ground-based telescopes. By shining a laser straight where the telescope is pointed, aberrations and distortions from the atmosphere can be measured and exactly countered by the telescope, effectively cancelling atmospheric effects to a remarkable degree. Check out http://cfao.ucolick.org./ The main telescope was outside of San Jose, CA, which might seem a strange location for a telescope due to its proximity to a large city. But since all of the streetlamps in San Jose are sodium (whose spectral properties are well known and simple), those features can be subtracted from any measured spectra and in conjunction with adaptive optics, the telescope outside northern california's largest city produces world-class astronomy. This telescope being built should be pretty neat. I wonder how they will deal with gravitational aberrations. Plus scientists won't ever need to face the threat of government letting their instrument "deorbit" while still producing good data.
now it's a production box, I hope they've disabled error messages, or they could expose secure information.
While i dont like multi-face mirrors optically (like in good-loooking, not good optical properties :D ), those are really impressive.
Its also interesting just how long those mirrors need to cool down... in our modern, fast-paced world a mirror cooling for more than half a year or so seems like something from another age...
HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
Now I can finally spy on my neighbors across the street!
This telescope may have a better resolution than Hubble but it's on Earth. Will the atmospheric distortion (or whatever is the technical term) cancel out that benefit?
Oh, and, um, by the way, I think you might mean mirrors, not lenses. Refractors don't really scale all that well. :(
Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
NASA's purse a bit LIGHT? I can't think of many non-military organisations which have bigger budgets. Compared to the results they produce, NASA get astronomical amounts of money, no pun intended. Where does it all go?
We need a proper space age with proper engineers to build giant telescopes in space. None of this 'let's spend hundreds of billions on a badly-designed space shuttle then keep it on the ground because a spec of paint is out of place.'
Get some proper reliable, efficient launch systems, then get some telescope-building facilities in outer space, and build a 200m telescope, no flaws, no imperfections, and we can do some proper observing. With the money and technology available we should be able to see into the future by now, not a few low-detail pictures of nearby nebulae.
move into position to take a shot?
like surely it'd run out of thrusters after a few turns?
did it have some kinda gyroscope built into it?
stands to operate at a resolution 10 times larger than the Hubble
But since it is earth-based won't the images be blurred by the atmosphere?
I can't think of many non-military organisations which have bigger budgets
I can. 2005 Numbers:
Department of Health & Human Services: 584B
Department of Education: 56.5B
Department of Veterans Affairs: 32.5B
Department of Housing & Urban Development: 32B
Department of Homeland Security: 29B
Department of State: 27.5B
Department of Energy: 23.8B
Department of Agriculture: 21.4B
Department of Justice: 20.2B
NASA: 16.1B
Cheaper Departments include: Treasury, Transportation, Labor, Interior, Drug Administration, EPA, and Commerce. They generally run 8-15 billion each.
Source: Washington Post
I don't read AC A human right
...We could use this to 'ignite' a war with the giant magellans? Perhaps we could light a match on this end...
and set the magellanic cloud on fire?
However if it fails, I for one will welcome our new giant magellanic overlords.
The Steward Observatory Mirror Lab had an open house yesterday for observatory personnel, which I attended.
The spin-cast oven is huge. In these pictures, you only see the top portion of it, it actually fills the floor below as well. I believe this is the only large spin-cast mirror facility in the world. The idea behind spin-casting is that, by spinning the molten glass as it is slowly cooled, you automatically get a paraboloid top surface. This makes the final shaping of the mirror much easier, since the first-order shape is already there.
Actually, in the case of the GMT, it will use seven mirrors, six of which are off-axis. The off-axis mirrors will obviously have a more complicated surface than a typical on-axis paraboloid. The mirror being cast now is an off-axis mirror; it is a proof-of-concept that they can grind an eight-meter chunk of glass to an off-axis paraboloid shape with a surface RMS of 20 nanometers (!).
In a few months when the mirror has cooled and solidified, it will be removed from the oven, cleaned, ground, and eventually, polished. The stress-lap polisher is very impressive. It has a network of stress actuators above it, which can dynamically change the shape of the polisher's surface as it travels across the mirror.
It's interesting that the "Aggie Daily News" was chosen as the linked story, which makes it sound like UT Austin and Texas A&M are the major players in the GMT, along with a handful of other, unnamed institutions. In fact, the Carnegie Institute is the impetus behind the project, and the U of Arizona is providing the mirrors. I think this UA News article is much more informative.
Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
The largest dimension on the Apollo landers is 9.07 m, diagonally between the landing legs (it's a 21 foot square). The moon's closest approach to the earth is 363,104 km. Divide those two numbers, and you get the angular size in radians: 2.36e-8 radians, or 0.00487 arcsecond.
With a 27m diameter, the diffraction limit on telescope resolution is 10^8 cycles/radian. So if there were no atmosphere, it would be barely possible.
With an atmosphere, there are problems. A typical good seeing limit is 1 arcsecond (corresponding to 1864 m on the moon). The best on the planet (Dome C, in the middle of Antarctica, at a very good time) is 0.2 arcseconds (373 m on the moon).
It's possible for adaptive optics to get good enough to allow that much correction, but it's going to be difficult.
Hoewever, if you want optical evidence for the Apollo landings, just shine a bright light at the moon and look for the retroreflector arrays the astronauts left there. That experiment has been done a zillion times in the last few decades.
You just need a very, very accurately aligned surface. For moderate sizes, this is easiest to achieve by just making the whole mirror a solid piece. As the mirror gets larger, the stiffness needed to hold its shape to within a fraction of a wavelength of light gets more and more difficult to achieve. Above 5m (the 200 inch Hale telescope), you have to change to active supports, where you measure and compensate for gravity sag rather than just trying to be stiff enough.
There's still a tradeoff, though. The mirror needs to be stiff enough to hold its shape between support points. A thinner mirror weighs less, but requires more active supports.
Past 8m (27 ft), it's just not feasible to build or transport a single mirror, so folks cut it into pieces, effectively sending the mirror thickness to zero in some places. This further complicates the active support system, but it's possible.
The gaps between mirror segments are no different than the shadow of the spider supporting the secondary mirror; they're just places you don't get any light from. They don't pose any particular imaging problem.
You can cut the round mirrors into hexes and pack them closer; this reduces the overall size of the telescope and makes it easier to build. But after considering the posibilities, the GMT folk decided to leave the mirrors round and accept larger gaps. This actually makes a slightly better telescope. No cutting means more mirror area. Wider edge-to-edge gives a better diffraction limit on resolution. And it turns out the round edges produce a nicer point spread function.
There is already a Magellan project, a 2 telescope optical interferometer
Grandparent has a point though. This naming convention is a poor choice. What will they call the next one? "OMG The Really REALLY Big Ginormous Magellan Telescope"? And the one after that?
Marketroids (and apparently the ivory tower residents responsible for naming telescopes) need to learn from the debacle of USB Hi-Speed vs Full-Speed. Future-proof the meaning of your technology's name by assigning it based on absolute, and NOT relative, criteria. "Giant" has no real meaning. "25.6m" (the resolving power of the GMT) does have a meaning that will persist into the future.
What idiot modded this as troll? He made an fair observation. Technically it IS a silly name, how can you call something 'giant' when it is almost certain that an even bigger one will be build? A hypothetical example: Is it still a giant when we have space telescopes 100x the size of this one?
I like this visualisation of the size of this massive thing.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
1) Absorption. The atmosphere absorbs in many wavelengths of interest, including the UV and parts of the IR. There are some projects that can never be done on the ground.
2) Background emission. The atmosphere "glows" at a number of wavelengths; this acts as a source of background contamination and reduces your sensitivity.
3) Blurring. The stars twinkle. This reduces the sharpness of ground-based images by an enormous factor (for GMT in the optical, excluding AO, by a factor of about 200).
People keep mentioning "adaptive optics" as a way to overcome the blurring from the atmosphere. But the harsh truth is that AO doesn't work all that well, for situations where you actually need to get rid of the effects of the atmosphere. Sure, it sharpens up pictures of binary stars pretty well, but it leaves a bunch of uncalibrated "scruff" near the star that e.g. makes it impossible to look for planets near that star. Another limitation of AO is that it requires a bright star to guide on - although lasers are becoming available. Mind you, the laser stuff seems to have even worse issues with calibration. Finally, AO has a very limited effective field of view; you can only correct over a small patch at a time. It makes it hard to do wide-field surveys that way.
Sooo, the upshot is that you need both, and will continue to need bothy for a long time. That being said, I wish the GMT guys lots of luck.
Human genome = 3 billion base pairs = 6 GBit. Windows + Office = 20 Gbit. Which is more impressive?
[What will they call the next one? "OMG"...]
/lot/ of spectrum up there, and called everything above 50MHz VHF (Very HF). Then they realized that was still a _huge_ chunk of spectrum, so everything above 400MHz was deemed UHF (Ultra HF). Then they're like oh crap, that's still a huge swath of spectrum above *that*, so they named everything above 1GHz microwave. Whew!!
Same thing happened in radio. They called everything above 1MHz "HF" or High Frequency. Then they realized there was a
DRM 'manages access' in the same way that a prison 'manages freedom'
Heh, those photographs remind me of bee and wasp nests. :)
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
err yeah, sorry you're right but i believe those are more the exception than the rule. outside of mauna kea and a few others in extreme locations (which is most new scopes nowadays), ir is harder to get on planet.
The first rule of USENET is you do not talk about USENET.