Slashdot Mirror


Construction Begins On $1 Billion Telescope That Will Take Pictures 10 Times Sharper Than Hubble's (qz.com)

The $1 billion Giant Magellan Telescope in Chile is officially under construction with a scheduled date of operation in 2024. The telescope "will have an array of seven enormous mirrors totaling 80 feet in diameter, giving it 10 times the precision of the Hubble telescope," reports Quartz. "Among its advances is technology to help it correct for the distorting effect of Earth's atmosphere by using software to make hundreds of adjustments per second to its array of secondary mirrors." From the report: The project's architects, a consortium of universities and institutions in the U.S., Korea, and Australia, chose to build in Chile's Atacama desert for its clear, dry skies. Astronomers will use the Magellan Telescope to study the origins of elements and the birth of stars and galaxies, and to examine planets that have been identified as potentially harboring life. Mother Nature Network has an article highlighting nine of the largest new telescopes expected to begin operation in the next decade.

97 comments

  1. Translation for scientists by Ubi_NL · · Score: 4, Informative

    80 feet = 24 meter

    really slashdot, SI units have been published in 1960.

    --

    If an experiment works, something has gone wrong.
    1. Re:Translation for scientists by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 0

      Cannot fight with UK brexiters.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    2. Re:Translation for scientists by thegarbz · · Score: 3, Informative

      really slashdot, SI units have been published in 1960.

      Oh relax, it's not like this is a story about science being done in a country which adopted SI units.

    3. Re:Translation for scientists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      We're not bashing you, we're prodding you. GET WITH THE FUCKING TIMES, you hillbillies.

    4. Re:Translation for scientists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Translation for scientists

      80 feet = 24 meter

      Yes, I'm sure all of the "scientists" who are unable to do their own imperial->metric conversion are thanking you right now. In fact, I hope they all reply to you with a thank you post, including their real names, so that I can give their future research publications the attention it deserves.

    5. Re:Translation for scientists by Teun · · Score: 1

      There's nothing anti American about flaming an international magazine for not doing their editorial work reporting on an international project.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    6. Re:Translation for scientists by DulcetTone · · Score: 2

      "Translation for double-amputee scientists"

      fixed it for you

      --
      tone
    7. Re:Translation for scientists by thegarbz · · Score: 1, Troll

      Yet another anti American metric flame on Slashdot. Do you people ever get bored?

      Do you people ever adopt the metric system?

      Feels good to bash us, doesn't it?

      Yes especially about stupid shit like not adopting the metric system.

      And the world wonders why we're withdrawing and tending to our own affairs.

      No we don't. We actively mock you for that too. The only thing we wonder about is why you are withdrawing from the very institutions you created.

      How about, "wow, America, this new telescope will be great for science!" Nope, just grab the first negative thing you can think of.

      Well to be fair you expect us to talk about science while shunning scientific units. Its like me typeing this post while pretending to be an english major.

      Well I suppose we deserve it, with the invading of Iraq and the bombing a school bus in Yemen.

      Not for those reasons you don't. Those reasons should bring a whole different type of ridicule and are completely unrelated to the subject matter at hand.

    8. Re:Translation for scientists by lgw · · Score: 0

      The metric system is worse, so we don't adopt it.

      Oh, it was great in its time, when there were no electronic calculators and so powers of ten made things easy, but that time has passed, and we're free to return to units that make sense for everyday use.

      Of course, the best system is the Furlong-Firkin-Fortnight system, aka the FU system. But adoption of a system that brilliant will be slow, as the world just isn't smart enough to use it yet.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    9. Re:Translation for scientists by rojash · · Score: 0

      For most, 80 feet is much easier to comprehend than 24 meters.

    10. Re:Translation for scientists by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      I would expect that someone with a little bit of technical capability would be able to work in more than one system of units... Apparently not.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    11. Re:Translation for scientists by Voice+of+satan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually not. :)

      For many people living in the US maybe. But slashdot is read by an international audience. :)

    12. Re:Translation for scientists by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 0

      Wrong.
      The "Too many jobs" don't pay enough to provide even minimal requirements for life
      If you can't have an apartment within range, and cheaply enough, to fill the job, either the pay will rise or the job will be unfilled
      Capitalism 101 guy, learn something!

    13. Re:Translation for scientists by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      that's INNOCENT Iraqis to you chump
      Meanwhile, the nation "tending to our own affairs" is threatening multiple nations with war unless they do as they are told
      What is the color of your sky?

    14. Re:Translation for scientists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But Chile is SI units adopter.

    15. Re:Translation for scientists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. It is anti-NONSENSE_MEASURING_SYSTEM. Because Americans use this stupid fucking system means you are subject to criticism about it.

      Scientists at NASA (and around the world) use SI units. They don't measure things in miles or pounds... Reporting the actual scientific information and units in SI would properly credit the work that has been done, in a manner consistent with every other country in the world (except maybe Britain for some things)...

      Having an author write an article with American units of measure (instead of SI units) just to appease an American audience is ridiculous... It's 2018. Are you telling me some retarded hick in Alabama can't figure out what a fucking meter is?

    16. Re:Translation for scientists by rojash · · Score: 1

      Agreed, I am a HUGE advocate of world standards, metric system being the foremost, but some things are so much more understandable in Imperial, like a person's height (wtf is 163cm)

    17. Re:Translation for scientists by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      The metric system is worse, so we don't adopt it.

      +5 Funny.

    18. Re:Translation for scientists by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      We're withdrawing from the institutions we created because of decades of negative feedback from people just like you. When the only replies you get are vile abuse, that tends to give humans the idea that we should stop doing the idea that generated the vile abuse in the first place. Congratulations, your behavior modification techniques worked just like you planned! Give yourself a round of applause. Do you know how difficult it is to successfully persuade people? It ain't easy, but you pulled it off!

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    19. Re:Translation for scientists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice... Flaming the state with the most black people. Now that's dog whistle racism!

    20. Re:Translation for scientists by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      We're withdrawing from the institutions we created because of decades of negative feedback from people just like you.

      Errrr no. Actually America doesn't get much negative feedback at all for the institutions it created and the rest of the world jumped to participate in. Right now the only abuse America is getting is precisely for abandoning those institutions.

      And the rest of your comment is nonsense given the stupid premise of your post.

    21. Re:Translation for scientists by strikethree · · Score: 1

      Eh? There is a world outside of America? Amazing. I, and most Americans, were pretty sure that we were the center of the universe. Who knew? ;)

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    22. Re:Translation for scientists by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Uh...so have you been in a coma for the last 20 years? The rogue superpower? World police? Unelected global tyrant who disregards the UN? You have got to be fucking with me. Please provide citations to the positive feedback the American people have gotten. All we hear on the ground is what racist, sexist, transphobic monsters we are. And fat, don't forget fat-shaming. Please tell us where we overweight, bigoted shitheads are hailed as saviors. Did you know we rape 1 out of every 4 women who enter our university system?

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    23. Re:Translation for scientists by rojash · · Score: 1

      WE are the World!! OMG...now that stupid song is ringing in my head

    24. Re:Translation for scientists by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Rogue superpower, world police, global tyrant disregarding the UN isn't institutions that the US created. It is precisely the shit we are giving the US for doing. However your timescale is especially silly given the wide level of support the previous administration had internationally.

      All we hear on the ground is what racist, sexist, transphobic monsters we are.

      Maybe it's time to switch off Fox and Friends.

      And fat, don't forget fat-shaming.

      Why is that relevant? Fat people get shamed all over the world. You're not special in that regard.

      Please tell us where we overweight, bigoted shitheads are hailed as saviors. Did you know we rape 1 out of every 4 women who enter our university system?

      Oh I see now. You're getting America confused with Americans. Don't do that. Frankly we don't care about you enough to pick on you directly. Individually we don't care that you rape your women, go off on racist rants, or eat yourself to death. What we criticise is when this activity becomes government sponsored, and when you stick with the discussion point at hand it's worth remembering that internationally America is not a group of peoples, but rather a nation playing politically on the international stage, and remember that for the past 20 years that has worked incredibly well. Your collective has only been represented as overweight bigoted shitheads since precisely January 20th 2017.

    25. Re:Translation for scientists by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Worked incredibly well? You mean in Iraq? In Libya? In Yemen? In Syria? You joking? Where has it worked incredibly well unless you're privileged, white, and benefit from war and murder? The world has been loudly demanding an end to American bullying and domination. Now you're getting what you asked for, and you're complaining about that as well. Typical. It's a rigged game. The only winning move is not to play.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    26. Re:Translation for scientists by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Worked incredibly well? You mean in Iraq? In Libya? In Yemen? In Syria? You joking?

      No but I am speaking overarchingly while you are looking for specific things that went poorly.

      The world has been loudly demanding an end to American bullying and domination.

      Yes it has. Incidentally America does more in the world than just fuck up a few middle eastern nations. And incidentally the things America has stepped away from aren't the ones anyone has complained about.

      Now you should start reading the thread again from the top. You'll reliase we've gone full 180degrees and I am defending your country while you are attacking yourself. This has been quite interesting.

    27. Re:Translation for scientists by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      I'm presenting your own left-wing arguments to you and watching in utter astonishment while you knock them down and tell us all that America was actually a force for good the entire time you were protesting and hurling vile abuse against it. So the whole time you weren't serious. Typical.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    28. Re:Translation for scientists by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      and tell us all that America was actually a force for good

      If you generalise our discussion to this statement then your problem is reading comprehension and not the actions of your country.

      So the whole time you weren't serious. Typical.

      Nope, I am very serious. However if you keep changing the scope of discussions then I really can't help you.

  2. Actually, it will be the 10 billion telescope, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    will be ready in 2034 and will only take 5x sharper images.

    1. Re:Actually, it will be the 10 billion telescope, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      will be ready in 2034 and will only take 5x sharper images.

      ... and will not be put into orbit until 2084, by the Russian-China Space Alliance

    2. Re:Actually, it will be the 10 billion telescope, by Mr.+Dollar+Ton · · Score: 1

      Come on, it will be put in space by SpaceX. They'll drive it up the HypeLoop on a Tesla Model 4's with the Space Launcher mode.

    3. Re: Actually, it will be the 10 billion telescope, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Iâ(TM)m thinking a ground based telescope isnâ(TM)t likely to be put into orbit by anyone.

  3. Re:South of the wall? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    Stop the American refugees from fleeing south to freedom you mean.

  4. Total diameter?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WTF does "total diameter" have to do with anything? 7 mirrors, each having a diameter of 80/7 ft, would have the same area as a single 30 ft diameter mirror.

    1. Re:Total diameter?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There will be one mirror in the center and 6 around it, forming something quite round, so total diameter is quite close to the collecting-area-equivalent diameter. 80/7? Too much programming led to only one meaning of the word "array" in your head. Take a break.

    2. Re:Total diameter?? by Mr.+Dollar+Ton · · Score: 5, Informative

      Total diameter has much to do with the angular resolution, that is, how small a thing you can see.

      The area has to do with how much light you gather.

      The quality of the image has to do with the quality of the optics - physical and adaptive.

      A modern telescope is a complex machine and employs a bunch of tricks to get those pretty pictures on APOD.

    3. Re:Total diameter?? by Teun · · Score: 1

      Yes they could have worded it better like 'effective or equivalent diameter'.
      Each of the seven mirrors has a diameter of 8.4 m, together that amounts to equivalent to a 24.5 m. mirror but with the added advantage you can now adjust the segments to counteract atmospheric turbulence.
      The biggest advantage is it is easier to manufacture a smaller mirror to the required accuracy.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
  5. Finally... by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

    they implemented an unsharp-mask algo

    --
    Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
  6. birds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just wait until a bird takes a dump on glass.

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

      Those mighty space birds!

  7. Will be small compared to ESO's ELT by ffkom · · Score: 5, Informative

    For comparison, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    For details on the ELT, see https://www.eso.org/public/uni...

    Will be interesting to see which one will actually start taking pictures of higher quality, first.

    1. Re:Will be small compared to ESO's ELT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The iPhone Aleben Quadruple camera.

    2. Re:Will be small compared to ESO's ELT by theM_xl · · Score: 2

      Not just that, but even if they start building tomorrow the relevant space telescope to compare it with would presumably be the James Webb rather than the 28 year old Hubble... Admittedly, with the delays on that thing it may not be launched for another 20 years.

  8. Quartz, not Slashdot by evanh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's a quote from what would have been converted from Metric by the editor at Quartz magazine.

    Here's another humdinger from the same article: "Instead, it will orbit the Sun, at a distance 1.5 million kilometers from Earth, three times farther from us than Hubble."

    I suspect they're out by a factor of 1000 on Hubble's orbit there.

    1. Re: Quartz, not Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That Webb observatory is a seriously impressive project. I can not quite get my head around the physics of orbiting the L2 point to stay out of the shadow of the earth (for solar power purposes presumably) and that being stable though.

    2. Re: Quartz, not Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      The bit you're missing is the telescope orbits the Sun but stays close to Earth. On one side the orbit is slightly high (0 deg), on the other it is slightly low (180 deg), 90 degrees around the orbit it is slightly fast, and at 270 it is slightly slow. The net result is it appears to circle the L2 point and stays out of the Earth's shadow.

    3. Re:Quartz, not Slashdot by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      Here's another humdinger from the same article: "Instead, it will orbit the Sun, at a distance 1.5 million kilometers from Earth, three times farther from us than Hubble."

      No wonder it's been warmer lately!

  9. SKA by dohzer · · Score: 2

    How's that Square Milometer Array thing coming along?

    1. Re:SKA by Zocalo · · Score: 4, Informative

      As ffkom notes above the ELT is a better comparison for next-gen optical imagery; the SKA doesn't really count since it's a radio telescope and doesn't take "pictures" as such - although the data produced can be visualised as a kind of image. The SKA is coming along fine, btw, with the 64 dishes of the MeerKAT array in South Africa currently undergoing final testing (some dishes are already fully operational), the 36 dishes of the Australian ASKAP array are in operation, and 256 antennae "tiles" of the Australian Murchison Widefield Array are also complete and in operation with the completion of Phase II earlier this year; providing half of the initial proposal for 512 tiles.

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
  10. Some people still use "feet" to measure things? by johnsie · · Score: 0

    How quaint and old fashioned. Kind of like living in the stone age.

  11. feet ? by etash · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Seriously, this is the 21st century, use SI units for chrissake.

    1. Re: feet ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Who is chris?

    2. Re: feet ? by burtosis · · Score: 2

      Who is chris?

      A connoisseur of fine rice wine?

    3. Re:feet ? by rojash · · Score: 1

      meters are for chumps

    4. Re:feet ? by BennyB2k4 · · Score: 1, Informative

      'centuries' are not SI units either. Do you perhaps mean we're 63.115 gigaseconds from a somewhat arbitrary time reference?

  12. Nice ! by Voice+of+satan · · Score: 5, Informative

    The fun stuff is now the adaptive optics have perfected to a point where the astronomer pretend theoretical optical precision will be atteignable, albeit on a smaller field of view.

    Like described here: https://www.eso.org/public/aus...

    Radio telescopes are something different.Their images are in the radio part of the electromagnetic spectrum, obviously, and radio waves have a frequency which makes them able to be recorded with their phase and all. So the signal of several antennas can be recombined by computer like with a giant interferometric radio telescope.

    Makes for sharper images, like if you had really a square kilometer dish. With holes. But still gives sharp images.

    With optical waves you have to physically recombine the light to do interferometry. The frequency of visible light is order of magnitudes higher than radio waves. Thus optical interferometers are rarer and "smaller".

    1. Re:Nice ! by Voice+of+satan · · Score: 2

      My bad.

      A little bit more explanations in this article: https://www.zmescience.com/sci...

      About the same pics of Neptune.

    2. Re:Nice ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      the astronomer pretend theoretical optical precision will be atteignable

      I think you mean "claim", rather than "pretend" (which implies they are being misleading). The English "pretend" is a false friend of the French "prétendre".

    3. Re:Nice ! by Voice+of+satan · · Score: 1

      Exactly. My bad again. :)

    4. Re:Nice ! by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

      My first thought is Chile still looks through the atmosphere.

      Are you saying the new/big observatory will be able to Adaptive Optics out (or MFBD out or whatever out) the atmospheric distortion?

      Otherwise ... this article is *yawn*.

  13. Re: Actually, it will be the 10 billion telescope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Come on, you know it is already in orbit.

  14. Why didn't we just build this in the first place? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So we wasted all that money on a lesser telescope when this one would have already been out there? Holy shit!

  15. Re:South of the wall? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I'm from Chile so I guess I'm a "Brown American",

    Guess what??? I NEVER asked for white leftist people to call me "brown" and I ***fucking hate*** that term. Please ***STOP*** calling me BROWN.

    I didn't ask you to and you're not doing me ANY favor. I don't want to be called that. Capiche????

  16. Giant Mirrors! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    The biggest telescope mirrors (8metres) all seem to be made at the University of Arizona, at their lab underneath the footballs stadium. Here are a couple of fun videos. Fascinating engineering.

    Making the mirrors for the Giant Magellan Telescope: https://youtu.be/c-lBKuHqHk0

    17 Tonnes of Spinning Glass: https://youtu.be/BP9HNVuGb-g

    1. Re:Giant Mirrors! by ffkom · · Score: 2

      The primary mirrors of the VLT are bigger both in diameter and weight, and were made by Schott in Mainz, Germany. See https://www.eso.org/public/ger... for details.

    2. Re:Giant Mirrors! by strikethree · · Score: 1

      Fun fact. I was once wandering around the football stadium at the UofA and saw a weird, almost hidden door. It had a sign on it that said Tree Ring society. I was an avid Lord of the Rings fan at the time and misread it as Three Ring Society and I was excited to meet some people who maybe spoke Elvish. A second look dispelled my excitement. *sigh* The naivety of youth. lol

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
  17. It's not the size of your telescope, by Snufu · · Score: 5, Funny

    it's how you use... No. It's pretty much the size of your telescope.

    1. Re:It's not the size of your telescope, by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      People with short telescopes often like boasting about how wide their primary mirrors are.

    2. Re:It's not the size of your telescope, by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      it's not how long it is, but how wide it is.

        this one is wide...

  18. Re:A billion?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Think of how many children we could educate, thus ensuring they never grow up republican.

  19. This time part of the $1 Billion is paying for... by magusxxx · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...Windex, right?

    --
    Care killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.
  20. 80 foot diameter! by clickety6 · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Wow, that's like a surface area of 8650 square cubits or something...

    --
    ----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
  21. sigh by DulcetTone · · Score: 1

    it's not the DPI, people: it's the filters.

    --
    tone
  22. Ken Rockwell review by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ken Rockwell will have a review shortly after this is released. His review will state that although more mega-pixels does not equal sharper images, this is a great imaging device and you should support his website by clicking the links above to buy your gear.

  23. Say wha'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    28 years after Hubble and it's only 10x sharper? Lame.

    1. Re:Say wha'? by magusxxx · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and they took out the headphone jack as well. :P

      --
      Care killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.
  24. Re:A billion?? by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 4, Funny

    A billion for a telescope??

    But, think of how many diversity training classes you could hold, with that kind of money?

    Think of how many women and Eskimos you could teach to code?

    How many "sustainable" things you could, er, sustain with all those external funds??

    Priorities, people!!

    Boy, you try to speak up for marginalized and underrepresented populations, and what do you get ... modded to oblivion by the shills of the Telescope Industrial Complex.

  25. It's not about surface area. by raymorris · · Score: 2

    The measurement from the left edge to right edge determines the resolution - even if there are gaps. Telescopes for longer wavelengths often have gaps of several meters, I order to stretch out each dimension. Have a look at thr VLA - it's shaped like a Y, with nothing over most of the surface area.

    While the max dimension edge-to-edge determines the resolution, the surface area determines the minimum brightness of objects the telescope can see. That is, how faint/weak something can be and still be detected by the telescope.

    * Yes, the VLA operates on colors (wavelengths) beyond what the human eye can see. We call those colors radio. This makes no difference - its just another wavelength of EMR.

  26. waste of money by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    Oh cool, maybe we can turn it around and take a selfie on Earth as it burns and the food supply completely fails from climate change. Maybe we should have spent a billion dollars on renewable energy sources.

  27. Re:A billion?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and here is the next conversion problem.
    A billion is 10^12 in non english speaking countries
    one, tousand, million, milliard, billion, billiard and so on

  28. Re: South of the wall? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Exactly this. It's about intent, not skin color.
    Identity politics promotes outright lies to maintain it's FUD narrative.

  29. Waste by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A billion is a huge waste of taxpayer money just so that star gazer scientist can continue to look for new worthless discoveries in order to get more notches on their egos.