Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Prototype Telescopes Complete Key Test

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the if-this-trend-continues dept.

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."

7 of 78 comments (clear)

  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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 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.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    2. 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)

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

    Call me back when they complete the Turing test.

    It would call you by itself

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  5. 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.