Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Is the Canadian Arctic the Future of Astronomy?

Posted by samzenpus on from the planets-and-poutine dept.

sciencehabit writes "Frigid temperatures, dry air, and endless nights should, in theory, make the polar regions top spots for ground-based optical astronomy. So far, Antarctica has been getting all the action, with a handful of optical telescopes peering into the sky from the icy continent. But a new study indicates that the Canadian high Arctic is also a good spot for ground-based optical astronomy. In fact, the great white north offers some practical advantages over the Antarctic."

19 of 106 comments (clear)

  1. Firstly... by smi.james.th · · Score: 4, Interesting

    To begin with, it'd probably be easier to get there.

    Disclaimer: I've never so much as been to Canada so I don't know what it's like in the polar region there, but I'd imagine that the lack of a huge southwards plane / boat voyage would be an immediate bonus over Antarctica.

    Probably be easier to get internet and other communication up there as well.

    --
    One thing I know, and that is that I am ignorant...
    1. Re:Firstly... by kahless62003 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Secondly... the annoying light pollution you get from the aurora borealis.

    2. Re:Firstly... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 5, Informative

      Its possible to put a telescope at the south spin pole because of the base there, and that is a long way from the south magnetic pole, which attracts the aurora. The northern spin pole is in ice over water and the northern magnetic pole is IIRC in Canada, so maybe this means a telescope in Canada would see more of the aurora.

      --
      http://michaelsmith.id.au
    3. Re:Firstly... by Mashiki · · Score: 4, Informative

      To be perfectly honest? The difference between the antarctic and arctic is...land travel. So it is easier. In the summer, you can get around by short carrier craft jumps and ship hopping. In the winter, you can drive trucks from point to point. It gets cold there, I've had friends stationed in Resolute, AKA the asshole of Canada. As for communication? Hah no. Emergencies are handled by sat phones. Major outpost cities are done by uplinks via satellite too. There's too much of an issue with the frost/freeze cycle in the spring to drop down landlines.

      And well, if it becomes big enough, and important enough. The government may, eventually, possibly decide to drop in a rail link. But don't hold your breath, otherwise they'll simply sub in plane drops like we do for other remote cities. But that's it. If you live in the middle of nowhere Canada, you're on your own. I've been there.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    4. Re:Firstly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      I dont' have the exact location, but the approximate site is on western Ellesmere Island, near 80degN, 86deg 25'W, just west of Eureka. I've been to Eureka, which is mainly a weather station on the north side of Slidre Fiord, right on the coastline (if you move east along the shore in Google Maps you'll see it). It has a nice airstrip up the hill that Hercules and other large military aircraft can land at. In the fall (usually September) the base gets resupplied by an icebreaker, so theoretically it is possible to steam all the way up there with a big instrument and offload it, and then move it by road. The PEARL station is a 15km drive to the west from there. It's quite pleasant at Eureka in the summertime (up to 15C). In the winter, well, I wouldn't want to be there, but 24 hours of darkness and bitter cold is probably good for astronomy, and it is much more accessible than the Antarctic pole. Although it wouldn't get continual coverage all the way to the horizon, at 80 degrees north you could still track a target 24 hours a day over most of the northern sky in winter.

      People are right that building on permafrost is a challenge, but one that is probably a lot easier than building on ice. Likewise, yes, communication would have to be by satellite, but that's true in Antarctica too. On the whole this is indeed a much more accessible location.

    5. Re:Firstly... by Eunuchswear · · Score: 4, Funny

      If you're using Mercator you're not really into maps.

      http://xkcd.com/977/

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
  2. fiber by spectrokid · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Telescopes generate huges amount of data. Fiber to the south pole must not be cheap.

    --

    10 ?"Hello World" life was simple then

    1. Re:fiber by Prof.Phreak · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Never underestimate a ship packed with hard-drives... or something. Oftentimes FedEx-ing data is cheaper AND faster.

      --

      "If anything can go wrong, it will." - Murphy

  3. If you use one pole you need to use the other by MichaelSmith · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Or use a site at the equator. Its useless arguing between north and south poles. Each can only see half the sky.

    --
    http://michaelsmith.id.au
    1. Re:If you use one pole you need to use the other by GauteL · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Or use a site at the equator. Its useless arguing between north and south poles. Each can only see half the sky."

      This depends on what you're after. Having only half of a near limitless supply of information may not be a problem to you, as long as you can make the reasonable assumption that the two halves are statistically representative of the other.

      A bigger problem may be that just as they both have one very long winter night, they also one very long summer day (clearly neither are endless).

    2. Re:If you use one pole you need to use the other by necro81 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, but you can only see the night sky for about half of each day. When you take away twilight, you are down to perhaps 6-8 hours of observation time per night. With that kind of cycling, you get a lot of diurnal temperature variation, both in your equipment and in the air you are looking through. And while an equatorial site can see more of the sky over the course of a year, it can't see all of it equally well. To see the celestial poles, you would need to point your scope more or less at the horizon, which means looking through a whole lot of atmosphere. There aren't all that many high and dry places near the equator, and while interior Antarctica is a relatively stable air mass, the tropics are raging atmospheric torrents by comparison.

      In contrast, telescopes at the south pole can have days or weeks of continuous observation with very stable temperatures. And while it is true that the south pole has whole months where no observation is possible, the long stretch of continuous observation makes up for it. If it wasn't worthwhile, astronomers and the NSF wouldn't have gone through all the headaches and difficulty to do it.

      It doesn't need to be an either/or situation. There are lots of good places to put scopes, and lots of good reasons for each site. There's a large untapped potential of semi-equitorial sites in the Southern Sahara, Ethiopia, Sri Lanka, and the Arabian Peninsula. But in some ways Antarctica is logistically and politically easier.

  4. In Canada, wouldn't there a glaring lack of... by Mister+Liberty · · Score: 4, Insightful

    southern sky?

    --
    bjd

  5. Advantages and drawbacks by Framboise · · Score: 3, Interesting

    For optical astronomy (that is in visible, near-infrared light) the long winter nights are good for observing objects continuously 24/24 as long as non-cloudy sky permits.
    Of course the converse occurs in summer when darkness doesn't exist for months.
    Polar auroras are also a nuisance.

  6. Re:alaska anyone? by mister_playboy · · Score: 3, Informative

    Do you have a globe? Alaska isn't close enough to the pole for the desired purpose.

    --
    Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will
  7. Re:melting permafrost by Rei · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Yeah, Antarctic buildings generally slowly sink/get buried; it's a big challenge. Bedrock is best.

    I'm surprised that Iceland isn't more utilized. It's a first-world nation, the north/northeast has lots of areas that are borderline desert, it's pretty far north (Fairbanks-ish, further north than Yellowknife), the whole country is well connected by an excellent road system (except for parts of Vestfirðir), there's a very low population density (and thus low light pollution outside the capitol region), a huge amount of aluminum production (it's one of the main exports), and electrical power is abundant and cheap. Sounds like a good site for building large high-latitude telescopes, IMHO.

    --
    There's only one thing I hate about Halloween, which is...
  8. No way! by Troyusrex · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is a silly suggestion. The future of astronomy is not in Canada but in space...

  9. Aurora location by dtmos · · Score: 5, Informative

    Aurora occur in rings centered on the magnetic poles, not at the magnetic poles themselves. As activity intensifies, the radius of these rings increases, in parallel with lines of geomagnetic latitude, but even in periods of very low solar activity their radius never goes to near zero -- meaning, there are few aurora near the magnetic poles themselves.

  10. Scientists can finally smash the stereotypes by antifoidulus · · Score: 3, Funny

    In addition to the scientific benefits, scientists can also finally put to rest the stereotype that nerds are weaklings. Since they will have nothing else to do during downtime, they can prove how manly they are through engaging in polar bear combat and then blogging about how to prepare and eat polar bear steaks. Nothing manlier.

    --
    Monstar L
  11. Re:alaska anyone? by Existential+Wombat · · Score: 3, Funny

    Actually, globes are not provided, for fear of upsetting those who believe the Earth is flat.