Slashdot Mirror


A Telescope as Big as the Earth

Roland Piquepaille writes "A week ago, seven telescopes around the world were linked together to watch a distant galaxy called 3C273 in real time and create a single world telescope. The data from these telescopes, which are located in Australia, China and Europe, was streamed around the world at a rate of 256 Mb per second. One of the Australian researchers involved in the project said that it was the first time that astronomers have been able to instantaneously connect telescopes half a world apart. He added that 'the diameter of the Earth is 12,750 km and the two most widely separated telescopes in our experiment were 12,304 km apart.'"

172 comments

  1. Unfortunately... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...all data from the Shanghai telescope was filtered and replaced with promotional material for the Peoples Republic of China. Apparently the galaxy bears a striking resemblance to Chairman Mao.

    1. Re:Unfortunately... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      ... all data from the Shanghai telescope was found to be contaminated with high levels of lead, antifreeze, and banned food additives.

    2. Re:Unfortunately... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      ...all data from the Shanghai telescope was found to be manufactured by child laborer using Google Sky. The children are paid in World of Warcraft Gold which a small division of the group help to mine from the game.

    3. Re:Unfortunately... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      ... all data from the Shanghai telescope was found to be a cleverly reverse-engineered copy of American and European data. Officials at the World Intellectual Property Organization could not be reached for comment.

    4. Re:Unfortunately... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      all data from the USA telescope was found to be drawing of god by G.W.Bush.

    5. Re:Unfortunately... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      ... all data from the USA telescope was unusable, as it was completely obscured by casino pop-ups and other advertising

    6. Re:Unfortunately... by sdsichero · · Score: 1

      Had to be returned anyway. Excessive lead content.

  2. Yes, but by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 0, Redundant

    does it run Linux?

  3. So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can we use this gigantic mirror to fight global warming. I mean, there's no chance that an asteroid will by chance hit it and fry us now is there?

    1. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm.... Thought it was a death star orbiting Earth sporting lots of shiny bling. Wrong type of telescope. Nothing to see here, carry on.

  4. FYI by Gabrill · · Score: 4, Informative

    This technique is being used.

    --
    Always going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse.
    1. Re:FYI by moderatorrater · · Score: 4, Funny

      I read up on it, but I didn't see the downsides of this technique being discussed. What's the drawback of using this technique as opposed to an actual earth-sized telescope?

    2. Re:FYI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And this is what they found.

    3. Re:FYI by Bemopolis · · Score: 4, Informative

      Total amount of signal gathered. That is to say, you gather less rain with a few buckets scattered across a field ratherthan a field-sized bucket. On the plus side, since you are monitoring simultaneously at different sites, you can compare the signals among the antennae to get the same spatial resolution of a telescope the size of the Earth. Compare to the VLA, a much smaller version of the same technique.

      --
      "I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel." -- Addison Bain
    4. Re:FYI by tygt · · Score: 1

      ie, you don't get as much light.....

    5. Re:FYI by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 3, Funny

      What's the drawback of using this technique as opposed to an actual earth-sized telescope?

      One advantage of the actual earth-sized telescope is that if you tweak the electronics a bit, then the instrument can also be used as a weapon to destroy rebellious planets.

    6. Re:FYI by Nyeerrmm · · Score: 4, Informative

      There are two reasons to make a really big telescope (whether optical, radio, or even x-ray). FIrst you pick up more photons, allowing you to pick up dimmer, more distant objects and get less noisy data. The second is that you get improved angular resolution, since the limiting factor for resolution on a good telescope is the diffraction of light, a consequence of the wave nature. Simply, the angular resolution is approximated very well by Rayleigh's Formula:

      Resolution(radians) = Wavelength/Diameter

      When you do this kind of technique, you increase the angular resolution that can be picked up to that of a full telescope over the area (if designed properly to get the middle resolutions as well). However, as others have mentioned, you don't get the full number of photons, which means you have to increase the imaging time or allow for much high SNRs. However, this is still very useful for getting high resolution images of fairly bright objects.

    7. Re:FYI by schwanerhill · · Score: 2

      Or the VLBA, a 'world-sized' very long baseline interferometer. At the VLBA, they record the data from each of the ten antennae to tapes with very accurate timestamps, then combine the data later at the NRAO facility in Socorro, New Mexico.

    8. Re:FYI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What I was thinking is if we could some how reflect all the light back and create some sort of super laser.

    9. Re:FYI by schwanerhill · · Score: 3, Informative

      In addition to the lower light-gathering power, interferometers need to sample a wide range of separations between pairs of antennae. The most-separated pair of antennae (the longest baseline is the jargon) gets very small structures, but is not sensitive to larger structures. You get helped by the rotation of the Earth, which makes any given pair of antennae (which are fixed on the Earth) change their angular separation with respect to the target the array is looking at, but that only helps so much. You really need a range of separations, which means many antennae.

      For example, the Very Large Array has 27 antennae. That's 351 pairs, which can be spaced differently. If you had a single dish telescope the size of the VLA (or the Earth), you'd get every angular scale at once, without having to synthesize a large aperture from all the baselines.

      In practice, this aperture synthesis technique works quite well, and there's no way we're going to build a steerable single dish telescope larger than the Green Bank Telescope (100m in diameter) any time in the foreseeable future.

    10. Re:FYI by maynard · · Score: 1

      How does this technique compare with traditional interferometry?

    11. Re:FYI by bob_herrick · · Score: 3, Funny

      Do not look into the telescope with your remaining planet!

    12. Re:FYI by It'sYerMam · · Score: 1

      That's no moon^H^H^H^H Earth!

      --
      im in ur .sig, writin ur memes.
    13. Re:FYI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably: e-VLBI to be more precise.

    14. Re:FYI by Shag · · Score: 1

      Or the VLBA, a 'world-sized' very long baseline interferometer. Yeah... although I wouldn't really call it "world-sized" since the maximum baseline is only 5000 miles or so. :)

      (I work up the hill from the westernmost VLBA dish.)
      --
      Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
    15. Re:FYI by RogerWilco · · Score: 1

      The big difference with how the VLBA operates and how the EVN (european VLBI network) operates, is that this was done in real time, so called e-VLBI. No tapes, no harddisk packs, but live lightpaths across the globe.

      See http://www.jive.nl/ for all the details and http://www.astron.nl/dailyimage/main.php?date=2007 0906 for some images.

      --
      RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor
  5. Central Obstruction by Liquidrage · · Score: 4, Funny

    Wow! And I thought SCT's had a large central obstruction.

    Ok. That might be the geekiest joke in the histroy of /.
    :(

    1. Re:Central Obstruction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Care to explain it, for us mere apprentice-geeks ?

    2. Re:Central Obstruction by Liquidrage · · Score: 3, Informative

      SCT's are Schmidt-Cassegrain telecopes.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schmidt-Cassegrain_te lescope

      They have a large central obstruction which houses the secondary mirror.

      Central Obstrcutions come with negative affects.
      http://www.telescope-optics.net/obstruction.htm

      So I was making a very bad and geeky joke based on the headline about this being a very large telescope with the entire Earth as its central obsutrction. Which, in a *very* round-about sense, it is.

    3. Re:Central Obstruction by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Wow! And I thought SCT's had a large central obstruction.

      You should apologize to Cleveland for that remark.

    4. Re:Central Obstruction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You explained your own joke, you must be new here.

    5. Re:Central Obstruction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, now that I understand it, it's a pretty cool joke :D :D :D

    6. Re:Central Obstruction by Ginnungagap42 · · Score: 1

      Who's geekier? The geek who makes the SCT joke or the geek who laughs at the SCT joke? *I* thought it was funny, but I'm an amateur astronomy geek myself...

    7. Re:Central Obstruction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was roaring with laughter when I read your post

    8. Re:Central Obstruction by pedestrian+crossing · · Score: 1

      Funny, but I would think that big of a CO would really mess with the contrast. I guess that would be limited by the specs of the individual telescopes?

      --
      A house divided against itself cannot stand.
  6. Were they looking in the optical range? by ttapper04 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I have seen radio telescopes linked in such a way to form a "larger" antenna. Is this similar?

    1. Re:Were they looking in the optical range? by Robotbeat · · Score: 4, Informative

      This is in the radio range, not the optical range. The summary misled me to thinking it was in the optical range, which would be an impressive achievement, indeed! The news of this story is that it was done in real-time, over a network connection, instead of by shipping data from each radio telescope site on hard-drives to a location be processed later.

    2. Re:Were they looking in the optical range? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The summary is a little misleading, but the seventh word of the article is "radio". Of course that didn't stop the grandparent from being modded up. At least look at the article people. You don't have to read the whole thing!

    3. Re:Were they looking in the optical range? by CaptainCaustic · · Score: 1
      I have seen radio telescopes linked in such a way to form a "larger" antenna. Is this similar?

      You may be thinking of an interferometer. It's virtually the same thing. Very Large Baseline Inteferometry (VLBI)has been around a long time. The deal here is that now it can be done in real time.

    4. Re:Were they looking in the optical range? by perturbed1 · · Score: 1

      I had the same reaction. Bummer... But honestly, it is good that astronomers are catching up to something which for particle physicists, is business as usual.

    5. Re:Were they looking in the optical range? by monkeyboythom · · Score: 1

      This is in the radio range, not the optical range.

      Damn. This means all we got for this was reruns of the Aploterix! and Andy show from Betelgeuse.

    6. Re:Were they looking in the optical range? by Nyeerrmm · · Score: 3, Informative

      Just to expand on this comment for other readers, any time you do this with any kind of wavelength, you have to have the positions of the telescopes known within fractions of a wavelength. Radio waves range from meters to millimeters, so precision on a worldwide scale is difficult but not impossible at this range , although doing it in real-time is still an impressive feat, as this used to be done by recording the signals to tape, taking them to a central location and processing the data then.

      However, expanding it to optical frequencies (where you can pick up different types of objects and also do so to much higher resolution) is difficult, since the wavelengths are around 500 nanometers, a level of precision that is still impossible on worldwide scales, except maybe in space, where you can depend on laser range finding over very long distances, although i don't know of any proposals trying to do this over very large scale.

  7. Cool by CaffeineAddict2001 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It would make a great plugin for google earth. Instead of zooming in on earth from space, you could zoom into space from earth.

    1. Re:Cool by Gloy · · Score: 5, Informative

      You haven't tried Google Sky, then?

    2. Re:Cool by CaffeineAddict2001 · · Score: 1

      No =) I should have guessed that google had already done it though.

    3. Re:Cool by ls+-la · · Score: 1

      I actually had a program like that about 10 years ago. Universe explorer? Something along those lines. Anyway, you could put in a date and look at the sky for whenever you wanted, you could find the next solar or lunar eclipse, etc. It was cool while I was hooked on astronomy.

    4. Re:Cool by Torvaun · · Score: 1

      Never used it, no time to now. Is it anything like Celestia?

      --
      I see your informative link, and raise you a pithy comment.
    5. Re:Cool by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1

      I actually had a program like that about 10 years ago. Universe explorer? Something along those lines. Anyway, you could put in a date and look at the sky for whenever you wanted, you could find the next solar or lunar eclipse, etc. It was cool while I was hooked on astronomy.

      And now there's Stellarium available for free to do this.

      --
      "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
    6. Re:Cool by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Google Sky is okay, but Celestia is much more interesting, as it also tracks hubble and ISS' orbits around the earrth, as well as the moon during it's phases, and it's in 3-d.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  8. All at once by Blitz22 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I for one, welcome our giant eyed, galactic..... I soviet Russia, the world telescopes .... Scientist can finally peer deep into goat..... be gentle.

    --
    If I went around claiming I was an emperor...they'd put me away!
  9. Real time? by Odiumjunkie · · Score: 2, Insightful

    > A week ago, seven telescopes around the world were linked together to watch a distant galaxy called 3C273 in real time and create a
    > single world telescope.

    Not to be overly pedantic, but the data were streamed from all over the world to a location in Europe, then processed, and then streamed to China for viewing.

    Even though they weren't going over the public net, that's still almost certainly >1000ms latency. Harldy "real time".

    Although, I suppose that's acceptable on top of the two and a half years it took for the photons to get to us.

    1. Re:Real time? by FiveLights · · Score: 2, Funny

      There's a galaxy only two and a half light years from here? It's suddenly feeling awfully crowded...

    2. Re:Real time? by Odiumjunkie · · Score: 1

      Hrm.

      I just wiki'd 3C 273 and took the distance from that, but I see now that's a quasar, not a galaxy.

      Perhaps TFA made a mistake? It seems unlikely that there would be both a galaxy and a quasar with that name.

    3. Re:Real time? by ls+-la · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not to be overly pedantic, but light from another galaxy takes more than 2.5 years to get here. Light from the closest (known) star takes 4.22 years to get here. The article didn't say how far away the galaxy was, but 2.5 *billion* years would be a better guess, and that's on the low side.

    4. Re:Real time? by caerwyn · · Score: 2, Funny

      You missed the "G" in front of the ly for that object. 2.44 Gly is a bit further away than 2.44 ly.

      A quaser that close to the earth would be a less than pleasant galactic neighbor.

      --
      The ringing of the division bell has begun... -PF
    5. Re:Real time? by Odiumjunkie · · Score: 2

      ooh, there's the problem - it's 2.44 Gly, not 2.44 ly

      damn my unscientific mind

    6. Re:Real time? by ls+-la · · Score: 1

      Hrm.

      I just wiki'd 3C 273 and took the distance from that, but I see now that's a quasar, not a igalaxy.

      Perhaps TFA made a mistake? It seems unlikely that there would be both a galaxy and a quasar with that name. Quasars are at the center of galaxies. There are a few possibilities for what is actually happening; most likely the scientists are studying the quasar, mentioned it was the center of a galaxy, and the nontechnical reporter made a small mistake.
    7. Re:Real time? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Don't be stupid. Jeez, by your definition, NOTHING is real time.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    8. Re:Real time? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correct, this is actually NRT (Near Realtime) at least in terms of collection to being placed on net. As others have posted light propogation obviously introduces long delays from the objects being observed.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_real_time

    9. Re:Real time? by Poromenos1 · · Score: 1

      Man, from now on I'll refer to the meter as "decifemtolightyear". If my calculations are correct, I'm patenting it!

      --
      Send email from the afterlife! Write your e-will at Dead Man's Switch.
    10. Re:Real time? by Poromenos1 · · Score: 1

      I know that's 94.something cm, it'll do. Nobody correct me!

      --
      Send email from the afterlife! Write your e-will at Dead Man's Switch.
    11. Re:Real time? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In astronomy you shouldn't feel too bad about being off by 9 orders of magnitude.

    12. Re:Real time? by Xhris · · Score: 1

      Not to be overly pedantic, but the data were streamed from all over the world to a location in Europe, then processed, and then streamed to China for viewing.

      Even though they weren't going over the public net, that's still almost certainly >1000ms latency. Harldy "real time".


      Yes, you are being overly pedantic. ANY digital system is going to have some sort of delay due to wire lengths etc - we are just moving to longer wires. The time to send the data from Aus to the Netherlands is 170 msec (measured RTT 340 msec). The data processor runs with the clock running roughly 1 seconds slow. Why is this any less "realtime" than say a 10msec delay. The displaying to China is not really relevant - that was just to show some people at a conference it really was happening.

  10. OK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think I would rather have one high altitude large aperture 'scope looking at an object all night rather than two at the opposite sides of the world. The ones on the opposite sides of the world won't be able to look for long before one of them disappears over the horizon. Not only that but they are looking through the maximum amount of atmosphere.

    This stunt is a technical accomplishment but maybe not that important in and of itself. What would get me excited would be a couple of orbiting 'scopes.

    1. Re:OK by evanbd · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's a radio telescope; the atmosphere is almost irrelevant. This gives a very large effective size for diffraction purposes, meaning the resulting images can be much more finely resolved.

    2. Re:OK by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 1

      Well, these are radio scopes, so the atmosphere isn't a problem. And the new "Lucky" imaging technique (Reported just a few days ago) solves a lot of the distortion problem. Now, 2 scopes at a large diameter have the same resolving power as a single scope with a diameter equal to the distance between the 2. So it really is like having a telescope the size of the earth. The only thing they don't have is light-gathering capacity, and the arrays used are large enough that that isn't really a problem.

      --
      Not a sentence!
    3. Re:OK by drerwk · · Score: 1

      By having the scopes at the opposite ends of the Earth and sharing phase accurate data between them they have an aperture size equivalent to their separation. Which is larger than any single scope you could launch. You could launch two scopes and do the same thing, but the dish size you get on the ground is rather larger than what we can launch.

    4. Re:OK by PhilTR · · Score: 1

      This is fantastic news. I only wonder why it hasn't been done sooner. In fact, I wonder why two Hubble-like telescopes were not orbited on opposite sides of the earth to focus periodically on the same object. This would provide unprecedented detail of objects as well as accuracy of their distance from the earth.

    5. Re:OK by DrWho520 · · Score: 1

      Actually, you could do exactly the same thing with one Hubble at two different times if the event/object you are looking at is long lived compared to the Hubble orbital period. Of course, the article is talking about a conglomeration of radio telescopes, not optical. You can also measure distance to an object using a ground based radio telescope at two different times in the Earth's orbit.

      --
      The cancel button is your friend. Do not hesitate to use it.
  11. quite nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And so is the lucky camera.

    News story a few days ago:

    http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/070905_tw_ lucky_camera.html

  12. Heh by Scott+Lockwood · · Score: 4, Funny

    Imagine a Beowolf Cluster of these!

    --
    But this is slashdot. A slashdoter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber!
    1. Re:Heh by Belacgod · · Score: 1

      It would be defeated by a Grendel's Mother Cluster.

    2. Re:Heh by ntropic · · Score: 1

      Actually, this is by itself a sort of Beowulf Cluster of telescopes.

    3. Re:Heh by battery111 · · Score: 1

      But does it run Linux?

  13. Now imaging... by f00dif00 · · Score: 1

    Coordinating scopes on the moon, mars, and earth - that would be quite a "light bucket", no?

    1. Re:Now imaging... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no.

    2. Re:Now imaging... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      synching would be the biggest issue. it takes more than a second to just get to the moon. mars is more than 10 minutes. additionally, the viewing direction is pretty much limited to the cone around axis of solar system.

    3. Re:Now imaging... by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      Yeah but they'd probably only come into alignment for a couple of days every few years.

  14. To the Roland P Complainers, Remember one thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It could be worse. The article could have been written by twitter. At least Roland Piquepaille doesn't tie the article into Microsoft even though the story has nothing to do with Microsoft.

    1. Re:To the Roland P Complainers, Remember one thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Let's hear no BITCHING about our friend Roland, what's good for *IDG* is good for Mr. Piquepaille!

      Everyone gets their panties in a bunch over Roland's blog but it's OK for IDG Drones (ComputerWorld, ITWorld, NetworkWorld...) to *SHILL* for their corporate mothership on Slashdot? Hmmm...

      Lucas123
      coondoggie
      inkslinger77
      narramissic
      jcatcw

  15. Any chance we can see the results? by securityfolk · · Score: 0

    I don't see a link to any videos or images - are there any? After all, you can false color radio frequencies into a visual range image. Will any videos be released, or would the content be too slow and boring to broadcast?

    1. Re:Any chance we can see the results? by ls+-la · · Score: 2, Informative

      To give you an idea how boring the videos would be, the jets coming out the top and bottom are 200,000 light-years long. That means the galaxy hasn't so much as wobbled for over 200,000 years.

    2. Re:Any chance we can see the results? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it can't be any worse than watching golf on tv.

    3. Re:Any chance we can see the results? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it will wobble over that amount of time. And spin. And undergo precession. And travel an immense distance relative to its neighbouring nebulae. It's all down to this pesky thing called gravitational attraction and its counterforce (at this scale), centripetal acceleration.

  16. Lightspeed Broken! by ec_hack · · Score: 4, Funny

    One of the Australian researchers involved in the project said that it was the first time that astronomers have been able to instantaneously connect telescopes half a world apart.

    This is the real story - FTL communications!

    1. Re:Lightspeed Broken! by RogerWilco · · Score: 1

      No, just before they used tapes (VLBA), or harddisk packs (EVN), so instantantious is in comparison with shipping the data with UPS and having to wait a week for it to arrive.

      See http://www.jive.nl/ [www.jive.nl] for all the details and http://www.astron.nl/dailyimage/main.php?date=2007 0906 [astron.nl] for some images.

      --
      RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor
    2. Re:Lightspeed Broken! by definate · · Score: 1

      In Australia the speed of light is measured in kilometres so the American (READ: Imperial) speed of light hasn't been broken, just the Australian speed of light.

      Just so you know, breaking the speed of light in Australia is no big deal, we do it all the time.

      (Disclaimer: I am Australian, mate.)

      --
      This is my footer. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  17. A source of hope by athloi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We have problems on earth, but most of them will never be solved. Poverty will always exist. Stupidity will always exist. So will criminality, alcoholism, drug addiction, and failure. We can either spend our time obsessing over the negative, or we can choose to explore space and find a new future. I'm glad that we continue to probe space, to consider sending up ships, and most all, that we keep space exploration alive in our minds as a source of hope.

    1. Re:A source of hope by Saeger · · Score: 1

      True - Humans alone aren't smart enough to solve all our age-old earthly problems, but the true source of hope isn't in exploring outer space in tincans; we'd just take our problems with us. No, the true hope is in developing and merging with friendly A.I. before we destroy ourselves with increasingly powerful technology. The end of most of our problems will coincide with the intelligence to shed our scarcity-based evolutionary baggage and begin exploring innerspace.

      The Singularity is nearing.

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
    2. Re:A source of hope by arkanoid.dk · · Score: 1

      Excellent! Let's take all those habits with us and "civilize" the rest of the galaxy - I've always wanted to see a drunk, drugged martian crime overlord :-)

      --
      Arkanoid
      gethostbyintuition()... why not?
    3. Re:A source of hope by kaizokuace · · Score: 1

      I think star trek type replicators will solve all those problems. Poverty ends with instant abundance, stupidity will end when all idiots will kill themselves using the machine, criminals wont need to steal anything (and will die of boredom or something), alcoholism will end with synthahol or whatever they drank on the enterprise, drug addiction doesn't have to be considered a problem and failure will end when all the idiots die from the machine.

      --
      Balderdash!
  18. What About C? by riffzifnab · · Score: 1

    One of the Australian researchers involved in the project said that it was the first time that astronomers have been able to instantaneously connect telescopes half a world apart. So how did they break the speed of light? Bha. In my day we respected the laws of physics.
    (get off my porch)
  19. VLBI has been doing this since the late 1960's by mbone · · Score: 1

    This is known as VLBI, and it's been done since the 1960's. During the mission of the Japanese VSOP satellite, we had telescopes bigger than the Earth.

    What is new here is the real time data transport, not the observations.

  20. This seems impressive but... by moosejaw99 · · Score: 1, Funny

    I wonder what the Storm botnet could do?

  21. Curiousity Question by StickyWidget · · Score: 2, Interesting
    "He added that 'the diameter of the Earth is 12,750 km and the two most widely separated telescopes in our experiment were 12,304 km apart.'"

    So, when measuring the distance between each of the telescopes, did he do it through the planet (diameter), or did he measure the distance across the surface of the planet (circumference)? Cause that kind makes a huge difference, and really screws up any valid comparison between the two distances.

    ~Sticky
    /You know, kind of like comparing English furlongs and Australian wallabies. Just way too different.

    1. Re:Curiousity Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed, that was the first thing I thought when I read the comparison. The more appropriate measure would be half the Earth's circumference, and the more appropriate title would be "A Telescope as Wide as the Earth".

    2. Re:Curiousity Question by IcyHando'Death · · Score: 2, Informative
      So, as the crow flies or as the Horta tunnels? The summary leaves this detail out but TFA is explicit:

      The diameter of the Earth is 12 750 km and the two most widely separated telescopes in our experiment were 12 304 km apart, in a straight line," Dr Tzioumis said.
    3. Re:Curiousity Question by StickyWidget · · Score: 1
      Ah. I left it to the summary, and all I did was embarrass myself. Thanks for the clarification!

      I wonder how well his comments about "The more widely separated the telescopes, the more finely detailed the observations can be" scale. It would stand to reason then that an array of these telescopes launched into orbit around the sun could conceivably be used with great results as well. The problem would be communication, but so long as the need wasn't real-time from the array, it wouldn't be an issue. The data could be buffered at each of the earth side client sites, then streamed in a similar fashion. He doesn't mention numbers of telescopes being important, but I'm guessing those would have to scale as well.

      ~Sticky

    4. Re:Curiousity Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      /You know, kind of like comparing English furlongs and Australian wallabies. Just way too different.

      There are about 200 to 400 wallabies to the furlong.

      Depending on the size of the wallaby, of course.

      Just FYI.

    5. Re:Curiousity Question by Xhris · · Score: 1

      Given I was the one that actually did the calculation (or to be precise looked through the schedule file to find the distance pre-computed), I can assure you that the distance is "direct" distance, not some sort of distance over the surface. No astronomer would ever consider thinking about surface distances as that makes no sense at all.

  22. No, it runs Windows ME. by PalmKiller · · Score: 4, Funny

    Just seconds after the feeds started the galaxy imagery was somehow lost and replaced with the standard BSOD screen.

  23. Wrong it is not 4.22 years. by arthurpaliden · · Score: 5, Funny

    Actually light from the closest know star takes about 8 minutes to get to the earth.

    1. Re:Wrong it is not 4.22 years. by Jarjarthejedi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the best way to reply to a pedantic post...by being more pedantic.

      --
      There are two kinds of fool One says 'This is old therefore good' Another says 'This is new therefore better'- Dean Ing
    2. Re:Wrong it is not 4.22 years. by MollyB · · Score: 4, Funny

      From the photons' POV it takes no time at all. (ducks)

    3. Re:Wrong it is not 4.22 years. by oni · · Score: 1

      The trip from the Sun to Earth takes only 8 minutes, but it takes more than 10 million years for the photons to get from the core of the sun where they are created, out to the surface.

    4. Re:Wrong it is not 4.22 years. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FFS there is no photon POV ok? It's not too difficult really. Try it yourself. Put c into the SR transformation equations and see what you get.

    5. Re:Wrong it is not 4.22 years. by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Does it even make sense to talk about the trip of a single photon from the core to the surface? Once it's absorbed and reemitted, isn't it a different photon? I mean, we wouldn't have any way of identifying it as the "same" photon as before.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    6. Re:Wrong it is not 4.22 years. by JohnFluxx · · Score: 1

      Okay:

      time from photon's POV = time_from_our_view * sqrt( 1- v^2 / c^2)
      Putting in v=c:
      time from photon's POV = time_from_our_view * sqrt( 1- 1) = 0 seconds

      There you go.

    7. Re:Wrong it is not 4.22 years. by iNetRunner · · Score: 1

      NASA gives a value between 10,000 and 170,000 years. (And calls the 10 million estimate as erroneous.)

      --
      Store with salt
  24. Did they see anything? by 192939495969798999 · · Score: 1

    Apparently, they must not have seen anything good, because there are no pics in the article... I don't know why they'd run an article about some awesome new telescope -- without the most important feature of any telescope -- a picture of what it can see.

    --
    stuff |
  25. Re:All at once: you missed the new one by Gary+W.+Longsine · · Score: 1

    According to NASA...

    --
    If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
  26. Apologies to Steven Wright... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

    I have a map of the United States... Actual size. It says, "Scale: 1 mile = 1 mile." I spent last summer folding it. I also have a full-size map of the world. I hardly ever unroll it. People ask me where I live, and I say, "E6".
    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  27. After the Big Bang... by geoffrobinson · · Score: 1

    the universe will apparently head towards the Big Blue (screen of death). It is inevitable.

    --
    Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
  28. It's the Internet, stupid! by bromoseltzer · · Score: 1

    The news here is using the Internet for a real-time transmission of a substantial bandwidth of RF to a central correlation receiver. Non-real-time "whole earth telescopes" have been running since the 1970s. It's called Very Long Baseline Interferometry.

    --
    Fiat Lux.
  29. Speaking of big telescope... by Shikaku · · Score: 1
  30. Galaxy or Quasar? by kalirion · · Score: 1

    3C 273 is a Quasar, not a galaxy (According to wikipedia at least). Are they talking about the galaxy containing/near the Quasar, or what?

    1. Re:Galaxy or Quasar? by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      Quasars I believe are actually galaxies that have very active black holes in the center.
      So that means it is a galaxy. Just a very interesting type is all.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    2. Re:Galaxy or Quasar? by Xolotl · · Score: 2, Informative
      Follow the link to the wikipedia article on quasars.

      "Quasar" is short for "Quasi-stellar object" which is what they were called when they were first discovered. At the time, they were unresolved sources a bit like, but clearly not, stars. Since then it has been discovered that quasars are one form of active galaxy, where accretion onto the black hole in the nucleus of the galaxy releases a lot of energy. So in this sense "galaxy" is accurate. If someone wants to specifically talk about the rest of the galaxy outside the nucleus they use the words "host galaxy".

      These sorts of long-baseline radio observations are aimed at mapping the jets released from the nucleus, which are the source of the radio emission. Longer baselines means getting to see closer to the source of the jets (the black hole).

  31. Really? by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Because as I recall, Beowulf killed Grendel's mother. During the whole story of Beowulf, he is never defeated, though he does die of his wounds after defeating the dragon.

    --
    ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    1. Re:Really? by powerpants · · Score: 4, Funny

      Dammit, how about a spoiler alert! Not everyone's a speed reader.

    2. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not in the King James version

    3. Re:Really? by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 4, Funny

      Jesus, if you haven't read it after 1250 years, you're going to have to live with the spoilers!

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    4. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I make the joke and you get the funny mod. There's no justice in these tubes.

  32. USA was left out... by JLennox · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...because their 52kb/s upload from Comcast just didn't cut it.

    1. Re:USA was left out... by hansamurai · · Score: 2, Funny

      And the fact that they would get throttled in favor of Comcast's own Earth-sized telescope.

    2. Re:USA was left out... by Phu5ion · · Score: 1

      Damn it. You beat me to "Why was the US left out" joke.

      --
      Slashdot is kind of like Playboy; we aren't here to read the articles.
    3. Re:USA was left out... by RogerWilco · · Score: 1

      If I'm correct, it is because the VLBA still uses tapes, and most of it's telescopes aren't connected at all.
      A major part of this effort has been getting the Gbit/s quality links to the telescopes, that are often in a desert in the middle of nowhere, as you want to avoid radio-interference from human sources, so you prefer places that have no human inhabitants within 200-300 km of your location.

      --
      RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor
  33. Why "ohnoitsroland"? by cygonik · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Is there something I'm missing about Roland that I should know?

    --
    I am not an atomic playboy.
    1. Re:Why "ohnoitsroland"? by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 1

      I have no idea. He seems to have his own army of psycho net.kook stalker types...

    2. Re:Why "ohnoitsroland"? by cygonik · · Score: 1

      ah. I shall have to build an army of zombies to overcompensate for his army of net.kooks..

      (by which I mean, thx for the info)

      --
      I am not an atomic playboy.
    3. Re:Why "ohnoitsroland"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be new here. ;

    4. Re:Why "ohnoitsroland"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd like to know that too!
      I haven't read the article yet, but from the summary it at least seems to be rather more interesting than the latest stories about OOXML/DRM/**AA/iPod/FOSS/... and all the usual boring stuff.

      So please, could someone point out what's up with this "ohnoitsroland", "boycottroland" tags ???

  34. Make it BIGGER by E++99 · · Score: 1

    So why not a telescope as big as the ORBIT of the Earth? ...as long as you're looking at something like a galaxy, that isn't going to change the shape of its features over the course of a year. Any reason why this wouldn't be possible?

    1. Re:Make it BIGGER by Nyeerrmm · · Score: 1

      It's an interesting idea, but its a difficult task because relative positions have to be maintained within fractions of wavelengths, so centimeters or millimeters for radio waves. While not technically impossible, doing this over the size of the Earth's orbit is a very difficult engineering task, requiring new tracking technologies and huge amounts of station-keeping fuel and precision.

      So at this point, possible but expensive. I could see it as a 50-year-out kind of technology, unless someone decides it really needs to be done soon, and has the influence and money to back it up.

    2. Re:Make it BIGGER by east+coast · · Score: 1

      Actually, the repositioning of the planet does change the features on a certain level. While it may not have much impact on galactic observations this stellar parallax is being observed. I know a scope monkey at The Allegheny Observatory in Pittsburgh who does this sort of thing.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    3. Re:Make it BIGGER by tor528 · · Score: 1

      We already do this - measure the position of the stars in the sky, then measure them about 183 days later. Based on how much the position of the stars change in relation to each other, you can find out how far away a star is. Kinda like when you alternate between having one eye closed then the other. Things that are close appear to move more than things that are far away.

      --
      If I think something is funny, I will probably mod it +1 Insightful. "It's funny because it's true."
  35. Wow, that's depressing by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 2, Funny

    The good news is that 94% of every human being who has ever lived is now dead.

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    1. Re:Wow, that's depressing by jcorno · · Score: 1, Funny

      The good news is that 94% of every human being who has ever lived is now dead.


      If it makes you feel any better, it's really closer to 50%, and most of those people were douchebags.
    2. Re:Wow, that's depressing by MorpheousMarty · · Score: 1

      The good news is that 94% of every human being who has ever lived is now dead. And that on a long enough time line the survival rate for everyone goes to 0! Now who wants to party?
    3. Re:Wow, that's depressing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So 6% of every human being is alive?

      I guess for most people that part isn't the brain. More likely the genitalia.

      Sadly for Slashdot readers, our 6% is in the brain. Well, for some of us anyway. Others have living feet in their living mouths.

      Or is it an average? I doubt that 6% of an Egyptian mummy is still alive, nor that 6% of President Bush is. So there must be people who are 12% alive! God, those people can think *and* fuck. Bastards!

  36. Why bother being instantaneous? by aapold · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I mean, what they observed already happened long ago. We're just observing it now, and that's fine, but theoretically they could just each independantly observe, timedcode, and then sync it all up later.

    Its not like it was a live event where you had to have it just then.

    --
    "Waste not one watt!" - CZ
    1. Re:Why bother being instantaneous? by Professor+Luke+Moody · · Score: 2, Informative

      True enough, but I seem to understand from the rest of the article that convenience is the main gain. "'We used to record data on tapes or disks at each telescope, along with time signals from atomic clocks. The tapes or disks would then be shipped to a central processing facility to be combined,' Dr Tzioumis said." So no, there's not much gain in information (that I can see) but rather it's a lot easier and faster to have all of the data sitting there, ready for you to play with. Or whatever they plan to do.

  37. What's next? One as big as Uranus? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Yeah, yeah. I know.

    But I just had to do it. :D

  38. Re:All at once: you missed the new one by LEgregius · · Score: 1

    In South Korea, only old people use world telescopes.

  39. Data rate by Anonymous+Custard · · Score: 2, Informative

    "The data from these telescopes, which are located in Australia, China and Europe, was streamed around the world at a rate of 256 Mb per second"

    This means that over 10 seconds 2560Mb of data would be streamed, according to NASA.

    1. Re:Data rate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      You know they'll be getting a call from Comcast security here pretty soon and TOSsed off their network. Goddamn bandwidth hogs stealing mah internet. They must be up ta no good. Probably pirating some nudie flix or sumting.... but whatever it is, I know it's illegal and they better cut that shit out ASAP before they get hauled of by the mafia...

    2. Re:Data rate by WhiteRider · · Score: 0

      Phew! I was worried that those guys at NASA couldn't do basic multiplication!

  40. Yeah! let's just run away! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh this world is so terrible. I'm sure there's a great new world out there just waiting for me! A place where the trees are green, the air is fresh, Paris Hilton isn't there, George Bush hasn't invaded it yet, and there's always bacon cooking in the kitchen.

    But running away from your problems doesn't always work.

  41. Redundant array of telescopes by Wiseman1024 · · Score: 1

    This is a redundant array of telescopes

    --
    I was about to say 13256278887989457651018865901401704640, but it appears this number is private property.
  42. How many people have ever lived? by chihowa · · Score: 1

    The good news is that 94% of every human being who has ever lived is now dead. If it makes you feel any better, it's really closer to 50%, and most of those people were douchebags. That's an interesting thought. The quickest answer I could find was this Google Answers answer (a wonder, since I searched on Google!).
    --
    If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
  43. Bin Laden Apparently Mentions the Telescope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bin Laden is releasing a new screed against America, and the west in general, apparently Reps. Murtha and Pelosi are writing his speeches. Although, he'd benefit from Michael Moores cinematography.

    Looking into the workings of the Universe is against Allah's wishes. Geeks will die because of this.

  44. quoth wikipedia: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    [citation needed]

    Well, requested anyway - sounds interesting. Could you link us up?

    1. Re:quoth wikipedia: by treeves · · Score: 1
      According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun, it takes either

      50 million years (source: Lewis, Richard (1983). The Illustrated Encyclopedia of the Universe. Harmony Books, New York, 65.)

      or 17,000 years (source: Plait, Phil (1997). Bitesize Tour of the Solar System: The Long Climb from the Sun's Core. Bad Astronomy. Retrieved on 2006-03-22.)

      (or somewhere between)

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
  45. You missed one... by Darth+Eggbert · · Score: 1

    You must be new here.

    --
    Fear the power of NTie!
    1. Re:You missed one... by jsiren · · Score: 1

      An also:
      ...you insensitive clod.

      --
      Usage: km/h for speed (kilometers per hour); kph for very slow impulses (kilopond hours).
  46. Before 1923? No spoiler warning needed. by tepples · · Score: 1

    Dammit, how about a spoiler alert! Not everyone's a speed reader. If the copyright has expired, it's not a spoiler.
  47. Where are the pics? by jgoemat · · Score: 1

    All of this trouble, and all we seem to have gotten from it is a picture of the Earth (telescope pointed at a giant space mirror?) and a picture of one of the telescopes themselves (don't know how they got that one).

  48. need both amplitude and phase to enlarge aperture by peter303 · · Score: 1

    You have to crosscorrelate two sources to created an effective larger aperture. (From recently deceased Stanford Professor Ronald Bracewell's textbooks.) Radiowaves vibrate between kiloHertz to gigaHertz. Current electronics is fast enough to capture, transmit, and record both amplitude and phase of radio signals. Its not fast enough for optical teraHertz yet.

    Before signal processing was fast enough they cross-correlated the analog radio signals. This is how VBLI astronomy works.
    The do this with optical signals from fairly close telescopes (hundreds of meters) using special optical pipes. They can simulate a couple hundred meter telescope this way. One of the telescope clusters in Chile has this ability.

  49. Why realtime ? by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

    It sounds like synchronization is the keyword here. Who cares that the telescopes were synchronized ? As long as they follow the same object and timecode all their datas, the synchronization could have been made offline. Or am I missing something ?

    --
    The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
  50. Be careful where you point that thing. by xkr · · Score: 1

    You have to be very careful where you point an earth-sized telescope. For example, you are not allowed to look into a bathroom. With all those black holes and dark matter out there, that might be hard to avoid.

    --
    I will create a sig when innovation restarts in the U.S.
  51. Geekier than I thought... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That joke was a lot geekier than I expected. Honestly, with all that crap about a central obstruction and the subject being astronomy, I thought the punchline was going to say something about Uranus.

  52. I've been waiting for this VLBI by quixote9 · · Score: 1

    Only I thought we were going to have to wait till they did it with telescopes in orbit. So when are they publishing the pictures after all the data is combined? Huh? When?

  53. yet another good example... by xednieht · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Of Metcalfe's little understood, but immensely powerful, network value principle, z-squared.

    Don't mind me, or bother responding to this i'm only commenting so I can recall this from my profile.

    --

    Hope is the currency of fools
  54. what?! by Macrosoft0 · · Score: 0

    what?! they made a beowulf cluster of telescopes? oh noez!

    --
    stuff
  55. On a line by G3ckoG33k · · Score: 1

    Playing around with Google Earth I note these telescopes are on nearly a straight line! With two more, one in Somalia and one in Alaska one would have the telescopes in a near perfect cross! Please Somalia and the US, join!

  56. Group velocity fallacy again by markov_chain · · Score: 1

    Step 1: scientists get together, synchronize watches
    Step 2: scientists go home to telescopes
    Step 3: at 2pm EST scientists plug in the telescopes
    QED

    --
    Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
  57. Why bother landing telescopes on other worlds? by p3d0 · · Score: 1

    Send a few radio telescopes in different directions in Voyager-like trajectories. Every year you'd get higher and higher resolution. All the signals would reach Earth at approximately the same time, so the interferometry would need to cope with just a 15-minute difference between the signals, even though the telescopes would be multiple light-hours apart.

    As a bonus, these telescopes would also increase, year by year, the range of the parallax technique, the most accurate technique for finding stellar distances.

    --
    Patrick Doyle
    I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....