Slashdot Mirror


Prototype Telescopes Complete Key Test

Matthew Sparkes writes "Two prototype antennas for the world's largest array of millimeter-wave telescopes have passed a key test, working to track and image Saturn for more than an hour. Ultimately, ALMA (Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array) is expected to resolve details 10 times finer than the Hubble Space Telescope when it is completed in 2012."

11 of 78 comments (clear)

  1. Text by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Two prototype antennas for the world's largest array of millimetre-wave telescopes have passed a key test, working together to track and image Saturn for more than an hour on 2 March. Ultimately, ALMA (Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array) is expected to resolve details 10 times finer than the Hubble Space Telescope when it is completed in 2012.
    ALMA will use up to 64 antennas and will be located in the Atacama desert, 5 kilometres above sea level in the Chilean Andes. Designed to look through dust clouds to reveal star formation, image embryonic planets and probe the early universe, it will be the world's most sensitive telescope at wavelengths of 0.3 to 9.6 millimetres - a regime obscured at lower altitudes by atmospheric moisture.
    But making all of the 12-metre dishes function like a single giant telescope will be a challenge. Fibre-optic cables will link each dish to every other dish in the array, and to a giant special-purpose electronic computer called a correlator.
    "It collects the amplitude and phase information from each of the antennas, and knowing their distances from each other, it lines everything up to produce a coherent picture of the source," says Jeff Mangum, an ALMA project scientist at the National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO) in Charlottesville, Virginia, US.
    'Fringes of the universe'
    The 2 March test actually linked two prototype antennas at another observatory, the Very Large Array site in New Mexico, US, with each other and with a small-scale prototype of the correlator. But the test, called 'first fringes', bodes well for ALMA's future, Mangum told New Scientist: "It verifies that ALMA can make measurements not just as single telescopes, but as a collection of antennas, which is the primary mode of operation."
    Millimetre waves are at the upper end of the radio spectrum, just below infrared radiation. They can reveal important organic molecules, but are obscured by atmospheric moisture.
    Small arrays at lower elevations have probed the sky since the 1980s, but atmospheric moisture made observations difficult at wavelengths shorter than 3 millimetres. A 1990 report urged building a large array at high elevation, and the NRAO, the European Southern Observatory, and the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan later picked the Atacama site. The altitude puts the array above most of our atmosphere's water, allowing observations down to 0.3 millimetres.
    Although plans call for up to 64 antennas, present funding can pay for only 50 or so dishes. The dishes will be movable, allowing baselines from 150 metres to 18 kilometres, with the longest baseline and the shortest wavelength giving resolution as fine as 0.005 arcsecond, a factor of 10 better than Hubble.
    Because millimeter waves can penetrate dust that blocks visible light, ALMA's large collecting area "will make it much easier to detect very faint objects at the fringes of the universe", says Mangum.

  2. Hubble censored? Data encrypted? by Firethorn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I have no problems believing that the control data is encrypted for the hubble. For one thing, you don't want others taking it over.

    As for the data, I'd imagine that it'd be compressed, encoded, and multiplexed to the point that you'd need special equipment that no normal HAM operator* would have, much less the settings needed to sort it all out and make sense of it.

    For public key stuff - that's more computationally intense than private key military encryption methods. Remember, we're talking about systems where a 386 would be considered 'high end'.

    *I'm not saying that you're a 'normal' Ham operator, Crawler, but we're talking the space industry here.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  3. Apples and oranges by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Ultimately, ALMA (Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array) is expected to resolve details 10 times finer than the Hubble Space Telescope when it is completed in 2012.
    Except that one is a radio telescope and one is an optical telescope.
    --
    No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
  4. the use of space-telescopes? by N3wsByt3 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm actually beginning to wonder if space-telescopes still have their use (in regard to costs/benefits). I mean, thanks to interferometry one can get the resolution (equal or better) with earth based telescopes for a fraction of the price of space-telescopes like hubble and consorts. And thanks to adaptive optics there is hardly any atmospheric blurring which smears out the pictures anymore, neither. And, since the mirrors can be bigger then those send into space, the light-gathering power is way superior for earth-based telescopes.

    The only advantages left are for specific wavelengths (like near-infrared), because the atmosphere absorbs most of that, but even that is more and more debatable, now that new instruments and detectors are becomming so sensitive that they can detect and use it on Earth too. I'm wondering, with the multi-billion costs of space-telescopes, if it's really worth the money? With the same amount of money, one could make a huge interferometer-telescope with a diameter of the Earth (though it would need to consist out of many 10-meter telescopes for light-gathering purposes). I'm all for space-exploration, but what still justifies the expense of a space-telescope, if earth-bound ones can do as well for a fraction of the price?

    --
    --- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
    1. Re:the use of space-telescopes? by Falladir · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The people who design and build these telescopes don't have unlimited budgets. If they use up their grant money sending a telescope into space, they can't hire as many graduate students, for instance. While saving money isn't the primary concern for the principal investigator, it's certainly a priority.

      The reason WMAP was a space telescope was, as you said, so that it wouldn't have to look through the water-vapor in the atmosphere. ACT and ALMA will be earth-based because it's impractical to send telescopes as big as those into space.

      In summation, don't worry: astronomy funds are not being wasted!

    2. Re:the use of space-telescopes? by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm actually beginning to wonder if space-telescopes still have their use

      It is hard to separate hype from reality. Hubble is used as the benchmark in many claims because of its popularity. But as you partially pointed out, there are some rough-spots in Earth-based techniques:

      * Spectrum coverage: some important frequencies are blocked by the atmosphere.
      * Ecology: Earth scopes are accused of messing up mountain peaks and views and "sacred lands".
      * Guide-stars: Some earth-bound techniques require bright guide-stars near a scene to compensate for atmospheric distortion. This limits their use in dim portions of the sky.
      * Southern hemisphere: It is hard to see all portions of the sky well from any given point on Earth.
      * Newness: Many of the hi-res earth-scope techniques are new and complicated. Without a reference point, such as Hubble images, they may be collecting unintended artifacts of the technology.

      But it is an interesting issue to consider.

    3. Re:the use of space-telescopes? by Gil-galad55 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Land-based telescopes are gaining much ground, especially when it comes to data volume. The dataset for the LSST (Large Synoptic Survey Telescope) will most likely be measured in exabytes when all is said and done, and it simply isn't possible to send that volume of data home via telemetry. However, space-based telescopes most definitely have their place.

      Two exciting ones are Planck, which will make extremely precise measurements of the CMB (Cosmic Microwave Background) and--if we're lucky--LISA, a gravity wave telescope that will open a completely new part of the universe to us. The science prospects for LISA are staggering, and it is simply impossible to build an interferometer with a 5 million km arm length on the ground!

      --

      To follow knowledge like a sinking star, / Beyond the utmost bound of human thought. ("Ulysses", Tennyson)

  5. Re:Ow, cool. by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Funny

    Call me back when they complete the Turing test.

    It would call you by itself

  6. Re:Hubble censored? Data encrypted? by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ---I have no problems believing that the control data is encrypted for the hubble. For one thing, you don't want others taking it over.

    No, of course you dont want some random joe to take Hubble over. However, they could implement in which "packets" are signed. The data would be separate from the authenticated signature. Along with that, they would want to implement a proper timecode to prevent replay attacks.

    But controlling is aside the issue.

    And I do hate to mince words but "normal HAM operator"... There isnt such a thing as a normal ham operator these days. Many hams specialize in one or two distinct fields of RF study. I like examining digital commms and remote communications (EME and meteor scatter).Along with my interests, I have bought that A/D board recommended by GnuRadio (normal HAM operator). All I needed was a RF front end and just to downsample to the range of the AD board (0-20 MHz).

    I asked for help from some people at NASA and they said the connection was encrypted, and it does seem to be the case.

    It doesnt really matter what Im required to build for receiving gear. It's all multi-purpose for us hams. And I do like the idea of splitting the transmitters from the receivers (well, you do have 2 antenna then per kit).

    ---I'm not saying that you're a 'normal' Ham operator, Crawler, but we're talking the space industry here.

    Too true. No offense taken. Still, I can decode the majority of transmissions (the old freq shift Symbol cards are really neat under a scope) and can transmit on quite a few bands. I dont know if you've ever been in a Ham's shack, but the amount of gear they can have (and I too) is pretty immense. I just focus on the digital side a bit more :-) .

    --
  7. More embargo than censorship. by jpellino · · Score: 3, Informative

    Hubble releases public images, but much of the research is just that - research - done by labs who are trying to maintain the integrity and proprietary nature of their work. Hubble data is supposed to go to the researcher first and the public second. IIRC it's a default six month delay unless overridden by the lab collecting the data. It's not censorship so much as embargo, and it's really no different from what any researcher does in order to not be scooped on the research they're doing.

    --
    "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
    1. Re:More embargo than censorship. by Greg+Lindahl · · Score: 5, Informative

      The astronomy community does exactly what you're asking for, you're just not listening:

      * The data is made available to everyone after a short time delay

      * The software to reduce the data is given away for free

      * Our papers are generally available for free at http://lanl.arxiv.org/

      The point of the short delay is that the person who made the effort to write the proposal to get the telescope time deserves a reward: a short time to write the first paper about the results.

      If you look at other branches of science, they aren't nearly as good. But you're flaming your friends.