Slashdot Mirror
6.7 Meter Telescope To Capture 30 Terabytes Per Night
Lumenary7204 writes "The Register has a story about the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope, a project to build a 6.7 meter effective-diameter ground-based telescope that will be used to map some of the faintest objects in the night sky. Jeff Kantor, the LSST Project Data Manager, indicates that the telescope should be in operation by 2016, will generate around 30 terabytes of data per night, and will 'open a movie-like window on objects that change or move on rapid timescales: exploding supernovae, potentially hazardous near-Earth asteroids, and distant Kuiper Belt Objects.' The end result will be a 150 petabyte database containing one of the most detailed surveys of the universe ever undertaken by a ground-based telescope. The telescope's 8.4 meter mirror blank was recently unveiled at the University of Arizona's Mirror Lab in Tucson."
It not being in space might have something to do with the amount of data it would have to transmit and the speed limitations... Besides, you can't replace Hubble, its impossible to exactly replicate that many technical difficulties...
What, like storing the year as two digits, that sort of thing?
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
No, removing any data that could prove the possibility of Extraterrestrial life :P
30 Terabytes, consisting mainly of #000000.
This project was presented at the MySQL Users Conference 2008 in a dedicated talk and a keynote.
The storage will be organized in clusters based on MySQL databases.
Astronomy, Petabytes, and MySQL
The Science and Fiction of Petascale Analytics
30 TB per night sounds like a lot, but 1.5 TB drives are about AUD 350 each, retail. By 2016, I'd expect vendors to have released at least a 10 TB hard drive at that price point, and I wouldn't be surprised if we're using 30 to 50 TB drives.
So it all boils down to about $1000 per night of operation, or about $350K per year. Not exactly expensive for a science project. A single mars mission costs about $300M, but this telescope would generate more discoveries. That's not even considering that storage costs would continue to drop over the lifetime of the telescope, so the eventual total cost may be less than $100K per year. That's the salary of just one person!
The basic problem is that a 6.4 meter aperture can't fit in a launch vehicle, Ares V is only to be 5.5 meters.
Hubble was built at the diameter it was (2.4 meter) because thats about the maximum you could build of a stiff mirror that held its shape well enough through launch to remain optically sound on orbit. When you require 10-nm level precision, it takes a hefty structure to keep things that stiff.
In order to go bigger, the methods they're using for James Webb manage to double the aperture while halving the weight. The way they do this is using active controls and sensors to correct errors rather than rely on avoiding all errors. But looking at James Webb, you'll notice it focuses on IR which is very hard to observe from Earth, while no optical band concept is out there. This is because the new, big Earth-bound scopes use adaptive optics to eliminate seeing errors (the variations in the atmosphere that Hubble avoids), and get potentially better images than Hubble since larger mirrors can be used.
Of course, if the money shows up, there are other advantages to having a space-based observatory, particularly access time and not having to worry about the effectiveness of the adaptive elements, so I'm sure we'll see a proper Hubble replacement eventually, but it's certainly not as critical for scientific progress as some might think.