Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Astronomers Find the Calmest Place On Earth

Posted by Soulskill on from the i-can-see-clearly-now dept.

The Narrative Fallacy writes "Live Science reports that astronomers in search of the perfect site to take pictures of the heavens have combined data from satellites, ground stations and climate models in a study to assess the many factors that affect image quality — cloud cover, temperature, sky-brightness, water vapor, wind speeds and atmospheric turbulence. They have pinpointed the coldest, driest, calmest place on earth, known simply as Ridge A, 13,297 feet high on the Antarctic Plateau. 'It's so calm that there's almost no wind or weather there at all,' says study leader Will Saunders, of the Anglo-Australian Observatory. 'The astronomical images taken at Ridge A should be at least three times sharper than at the best sites currently used by astronomers.' Located within the Australian Antarctic Territory, the site is 89 miles from the PLATO (PLATeau Observatory) international robotic observatory. The new site would be superior to the best existing observatories on high mountain tops in Hawaii and Chile, Saunders says. 'Because the sky there is so much darker and drier, it means that a modestly-sized telescope would be as powerful as the largest telescopes anywhere else on earth.'"

7 of 231 comments (clear)

  1. For Earthbound, mebbe... by jamstar7 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    but I still think the best spot for observational astronomy has to be the far side of the Moon. You've got several thousand miles of light and EM shielding, and a good couple weeks' seeing a month when the Sun goes down. Once the 'scopes cool off, there's no warping. What's not to love?

    --
    Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    1. Re:For Earthbound, mebbe... by tomhudson · · Score: 5, Interesting

      And the antarcitc site comes with its' own problems, Since it isn't windy, any man-made smog will stay there. You're going to need to burn fuel for the generators, heating, transport, etc., and in cold temperatures you're going to get the water vapor in the exhaust crystalizing, forming ground-level fog. Since it's so calm, it'll just accumulate, then condense on the cold optics. Have fun seeing when your mirror's frosted over with an inch of rime.

    2. Re:For Earthbound, mebbe... by bennomatic · · Score: 2, Interesting
      The problem is getting the data back to Earth. I would assume that it would be an un-staffed observatory, in which case, you'd need to do one of the following:
      • send up a courier to swap out SD cards every few weeks.
      • set up a network connecting the station with a transmitter which has line-of-site to the Earth.
      • put a couple of satellites in orbit which are in line-of-sight to the far side of the moon, so that the data could be relayed back to Earth.

      The last option is probably the cheapest, but it's still a significant added expense on the set-up and maintenance of such a station.

      --
      The CB App. What's your 20?
    3. Re:For Earthbound, mebbe... by hoggoth · · Score: 2, Interesting

      > there's no women on the moon, or on that ridge in Antarctica, which is a major drawback of accepting either of those jobs.

      Don't worry, at the end of a highly paid 3 year stint, your replacement will arrive and you will be able to go home a wealthy man...

      or will you?

      --
      - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
  2. What about the Katabatic winds? by d474 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I wonder why the Katabatic winds don't blow there. I thought the entire continent was pretty much consumed by these winds. Learn something new everyday.

    --
    Authority questions you. Return the favor.
  3. Re:Australian Antarctic Territory ? by argent · · Score: 2, Interesting

    But France, New Zealand, Norway, and the United Kingdom do.

  4. aurora borealis? aka, aurora australis by circletimessquare · · Score: 2, Interesting

    (southern lights)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_(astronomy)

    wouldn't these auroras make skygazing in antarctica like trying to stargaze in the middle of new york city? (light pollution)

    i know they don't go all the time, but at that far south, wouldn't you get them pretty frequently?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_(astronomy)#Frequency_of_occurrence

    The aurora is a common occurrence in the Poles. It is occasionally seen in temperate latitudes, when a strong magnetic storm temporarily expands the auroral oval. Large magnetic storms are most common during the peak of the eleven-year sunspot cycle or during the three years after that peak.[citation needed] However, within the auroral zone the likelihood of an aurora occurring depends mostly on the slant of IMF lines (the slant is known as Bz), being greater with southward slants.
    Geomagnetic storms that ignite auroras actually happen more often during the months around the equinoxes. It is not well understood why geomagnetic storms are tied to Earth's seasons while polar activity is not. But it is known that during spring and autumn, the interplanetary magnetic field and that of Earth link up. At the magnetopause, Earth's magnetic field points north. When Bz becomes large and negative (i.e., the IMF tilts south), it can partially cancel Earth's magnetic field at the point of contact. South-pointing Bz's open a door through which energy from the solar wind can reach Earth's inner magnetosphere.

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it