Now I know why they don't let nerds write ad copy:-)
You know why I didn't choose to use the word "blind"?
Because it still has the WFPC2 Camera. It's old and somewhat busted, but it still works. FGS works, too, if the interferometer tickles your fansy. Does NICMOS still work that well, I wonder?
...but the hubble works much better in the infrared from what I understand....
No, no, no!
[I'm banging my head on the desk right now, because of you...]
The Hubble Space Telescope, by design is a telescope designed to observe the Universe in ultra-violet (UV) waveband. Its mirror gerates the finest point image at 2800Angstrom, and the image rapidly degrades at a longer wavelength (esp. IR). It's Daniel Goldin and his stupid minions who successfully sold the idea that the HST would be a great IR telescope (to detect planets, which were the hot topic to sell to the congress for funding).
You can do most of IR observations from the ground. Even the imaging quality ain't too bad from the ground, either. The best part of doing IR in space is the gain in sensitivity (the atmosphere isn't exactly dark in IR; also it absorbs some water molecule wavebands). But then, there is Spitzer telescope for IR space astronomy today. You don't need the Hubble to do that.
On the other hand, you can't do UV astronomy from the ground. The air is opaque to UV light.
There is a simple rule of thumb about magnification. It goes like this:
If your telescope is 10inch (~ 250mm), then your maximum magnification achievable with your telescope is up to 250 times. You can increase the magnification as much as you like (by the choice of an eyepiece), but it doesn't mean a damned thing when you go beyond 250x for the 10in telescope (it's like examining a photo on a magazine with 10000x magnifying glass; i.e., it's meaningless). For a 6inch telescope (~ 150mm), the max is 150x or so.
A 3in telescope is enough to see the Great Red Spot. For the small oval, it'd take a bigger telescope, I'd guess.
Is/. news for nerds or is it news for middle school dropouts?
What are you complaining about/. editors for? The quote came from TFA. And from my experience in submitting, the editors rarely edit a submitted post (though there were times I hoped they would...).
The original quote was written by a NASA PR rep. And he/she was writing it to the general audience in the U.S, not for slashdotters.
No, they aren't closer. It's the same as the last two encounter.
What signifies about this particular encounter is that the small oval is thought to be intensified its strength recently (when its color changed from grey to red) and that just *might* cause a bit more interesting interaction between these two storms (when they pass by closely). It's a pure speculation based none other than intuition of scientists. Not based on a hydrodynamic simulation; just a wild ass guess on their part.
Of course, they wouldn't say that. That'd make this whole thing, well, boring.
From my very biased point of view, I really don't give a damn if it's called a brown dwarf or a planet.
The taxonomy of celestrial objects are not exactly scientifically done in astronomy,IMHO. But the bottom line? The key parameters for these objects are: mass, density and temperature. These three parameters would *fairly uniquely* identify the object (and more descriptive), no matter what scientific language you speak of.
Sometimes I just hope that astronomers just quit being catalogue makers and act more like physicists.
Only a small fraction of the 300mil will be spent in Chile. Most of the R&D will be done in the U.S. and U.S. engineers would be hired to design and build the telescope itself.
I can imagine they would hire locals to build a housing facility at the site, but that's a tiny portion of the building cost. On these things, the material cost is usually small compared to the labor. More than a half would usually go to the labor fee within the U.S..
(1) They are not trying to correlate the signal. (2) the point spread function doesn't matter; these mini telescopes are merely a photometers (buckets to collect photons).
I'm not sure I'd call the study of the origin and structure of the entire universe "narrow"
The key mission is to perform a weak lensing research. That's a very narrow topic in the vast field of cosmological study. That's truly a remarkable subject that you can do nifty physics.
The rest of your items -- variable stars, SN search, redshift surveys -- are merely cataloguing (i.e., astronomy, not physics) and do not always fascinate physicists among us. Yes, the proposed telescope CAN be used for these researches. But if we are to choose one mission for the next three decades, I don't think this proposal is it. I'd much prefer a multi-purpose telescope (or telescopes) that do all the sorts of physics experiments.
It can be done on the cheap (though your field of view is still limited and collective sensitivity probably does not match with one 8m class telescope.
One key reason that telescope engineers do not want to follow your suggestion is this: it's cheap and easy as far as the engineering goes. That usually means a short term project and less funding money. If you want to keep yourself employed, your project ain't gonna do it.
Quite well, actually. A dedicated set of small telescopes plus amateur astronomers all over the world help quite tremendously in that regard.
This telescope will increase the chance of detecting an asteroid with Tsunguka class (small), but those are not usually high priority in terms of national security (and even if it is, then DoD should be really funding such mission).
Basically, LSST's design is focused on trying to tackle the biggest problem in cosmology.
That's exactly the problem with this proposal. It is designed specifically to solve one key problem in the one particular topic in the field: cosmology.
Its purview is so narrow that the benefit of this telescope is limited to those who are involved in the cosmology or the institution like U. of Arizona. Would this do any good for those who study ISM, local stellar and nebular objects, etc? (yes to some, of course). And if your purpose is to win in the sensitivity regime, why not going to space (yeah, I can think of the reasons why NOT)?
In short, the proposal definitely has its strength and merit, but if we are to prioritize the need, I have to recommend that this is too a specialized project to be funded in the next three decades.
I understand this 8.4m telescope will be designed to view a wider field of view than any other 8m class telescopes (we have like five of them now). But, do we really need another large telescope that costs a few hundred millions? Or is this just another telescope engineer's way for securing a future funding resource?
For 300 Mil, we could probably build ten kick-ass instruments to utilize the existing 6m to 8m telescopes more efficiently. That's where the technology is advancing faster, too. After all, what good a telescope does when there is no good instrument to observe with?
The nation's budget is tight right now. I think we need to rethink our long term plan for the astronomical community. I personally do not feel that another 8m class telescope is what the community needs.
The NASA's guideline for the use of the ISS facility is this: the ISS can be staffed to the maximum number of astronauts that can be evacuated off the station in case of emergency.
With a Soyuz pod, the maximum number of staff is limited to three. And currently there are only two ports available on the ISS (so theoretically they could go up as high as six today).
In a fully configured mode, the ISS should hold at least three international teams (US, Europe and Japan, say). Each team has about 5 -- 6 staff scientists on board to conduct a variety of experiments. So it needs to staff about 15 or more people. There is no conceivable way to achieve that right now, because of the next generation shuttle problem (or a lack of thereof).
That is what I meant by my original post. I think others got it, though.
The European and Japanese can ship the parts for the ISS.
No they cannot. They do not have the proper means to deliver right now (both Arian and H-II are wrong for the size of the ISS payload, nor do they have experience in rendezvous maneuver with a station).
But if they want to, they should be definitely welcome to that.
the Indian and Chinese space programs will have more time to catch up to the US
No. If the NASA keeps its focus on the ISS only, then these nations would have time to play a catch-up (they are still about two decades behind NASA, mind you...but that doesn't mean it would take two decades to catch up, btw). If the NASA wants to stay on top, the next generation space vehicle is the place to put the money on.
And at this time, the NASA'd better do it right. And the congress shouldn't interject its stupidity into the new shuttle program like they did in 1960s.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm a lousy at spelling when I'm tired and hurried to write.
I'm impressed by your logical deduction. Can I subscribe your newsletter?
Now I know why they don't let nerds write ad copy :-)
You know why I didn't choose to use the word "blind"?
Because it still has the WFPC2 Camera. It's old and somewhat busted, but it still works. FGS works, too, if the interferometer tickles your fansy. Does NICMOS still work that well, I wonder?
I believe my original post was too wordy (I thought it might, but I left it to the editors to trim down).
Some editors do corrections; others don't. I don't see any serious problem with that. This is, after all, slashdot. It ain't NY times.
I'd like to point out to myself that
(1) I can't spell in a hurry,
(2) Daniel Goldin may not be the first moron to promote the use of the Hubble in IR.
...but the hubble works much better in the infrared from what I understand....
No, no, no!
[I'm banging my head on the desk right now, because of you...]
The Hubble Space Telescope, by design is a telescope designed to observe the Universe in ultra-violet (UV) waveband. Its mirror gerates the finest point image at 2800Angstrom, and the image rapidly degrades at a longer wavelength (esp. IR). It's Daniel Goldin and his stupid minions who successfully sold the idea that the HST would be a great IR telescope (to detect planets, which were the hot topic to sell to the congress for funding).
You can do most of IR observations from the ground. Even the imaging quality ain't too bad from the ground, either. The best part of doing IR in space is the gain in sensitivity (the atmosphere isn't exactly dark in IR; also it absorbs some water molecule wavebands). But then, there is Spitzer telescope for IR space astronomy today. You don't need the Hubble to do that.
On the other hand, you can't do UV astronomy from the ground. The air is opaque to UV light.
Here is another link that may be worthy of checking:
Space.com article.
And the original statement from Space Telescope Science Institute (this was edited out by the editor...not that I mind being edited, btw):
STScI Anomaly Report
There is a simple rule of thumb about magnification. It goes like this:
If your telescope is 10inch (~ 250mm), then your maximum magnification achievable with your telescope is up to 250 times. You can increase the magnification as much as you like (by the choice of an eyepiece), but it doesn't mean a damned thing when you go beyond 250x for the 10in telescope (it's like examining a photo on a magazine with 10000x magnifying glass; i.e., it's meaningless). For a 6inch telescope (~ 150mm), the max is 150x or so.
A 3in telescope is enough to see the Great Red Spot. For the small oval, it'd take a bigger telescope, I'd guess.
Is /. news for nerds or is it news for middle school dropouts?
/. editors for? The quote came from TFA. And from my experience in submitting, the editors rarely edit a submitted post (though there were times I hoped they would...).
What are you complaining about
The original quote was written by a NASA PR rep. And he/she was writing it to the general audience in the U.S, not for slashdotters.
No, they aren't closer. It's the same as the last two encounter.
What signifies about this particular encounter is that the small oval is thought to be intensified its strength recently (when its color changed from grey to red) and that just *might* cause a bit more interesting interaction between these two storms (when they pass by closely). It's a pure speculation based none other than intuition of scientists. Not based on a hydrodynamic simulation; just a wild ass guess on their part.
Of course, they wouldn't say that. That'd make this whole thing, well, boring.
From my very biased point of view, I really don't give a damn if it's called a brown dwarf or a planet.
The taxonomy of celestrial objects are not exactly scientifically done in astronomy,IMHO. But the bottom line? The key parameters for these objects are: mass, density and temperature. These three parameters would *fairly uniquely* identify the object (and more descriptive), no matter what scientific language you speak of.
Sometimes I just hope that astronomers just quit being catalogue makers and act more like physicists.
Thanks, but I have a couple of cron jobs running with my own bourne shell scripts for backup. Restore is easy since I just rsync when backing up.
I dump stuff on undergrads. They've got to be good for something.
/heh, just Kidding. I just mirror my scsi disks with a big ultra-ATA device weekly and daily.
I agree with you. About a decade ago, I was taught that the main stream enrichment process for uranium / plutonium was using a tunable laser.
Though they never taught me how; we learned the diffusion process instead. Easy enough with Monte Carlo simulation.
Only a small fraction of the 300mil will be spent in Chile. Most of the R&D will be done in the U.S. and U.S. engineers would be hired to design and build the telescope itself.
I can imagine they would hire locals to build a housing facility at the site, but that's a tiny portion of the building cost. On these things, the material cost is usually small compared to the labor. More than a half would usually go to the labor fee within the U.S..
I was looking to see if anyone talked about LOFAR. And lo and behold, I found one.
30TB is a baby game compared to the LOFAR guys (ok, it's a rather "apple and orange" comparison, I must admit).
It doesn't matter.
(1) They are not trying to correlate the signal.
(2) the point spread function doesn't matter; these mini telescopes are merely a photometers (buckets to collect photons).
I'm not sure I'd call the study of the origin and structure of the entire universe "narrow"
The key mission is to perform a weak lensing research. That's a very narrow topic in the vast field of cosmological study. That's truly a remarkable subject that you can do nifty physics.
The rest of your items -- variable stars, SN search, redshift surveys -- are merely cataloguing (i.e., astronomy, not physics) and do not always fascinate physicists among us. Yes, the proposed telescope CAN be used for these researches. But if we are to choose one mission for the next three decades, I don't think this proposal is it. I'd much prefer a multi-purpose telescope (or telescopes) that do all the sorts of physics experiments.
Hence the word "prioritize".
I love this post (yes, AC gets "0" score).
It can be done on the cheap (though your field of view is still limited and collective sensitivity probably does not match with one 8m class telescope.
One key reason that telescope engineers do not want to follow your suggestion is this: it's cheap and easy as far as the engineering goes. That usually means a short term project and less funding money. If you want to keep yourself employed, your project ain't gonna do it.
Quite well, actually. A dedicated set of small telescopes plus amateur astronomers all over the world help quite tremendously in that regard.
This telescope will increase the chance of detecting an asteroid with Tsunguka class (small), but those are not usually high priority in terms of national security (and even if it is, then DoD should be really funding such mission).
Basically, LSST's design is focused on trying to tackle the biggest problem in cosmology.
That's exactly the problem with this proposal. It is designed specifically to solve one key problem in the one particular topic in the field: cosmology.
Its purview is so narrow that the benefit of this telescope is limited to those who are involved in the cosmology or the institution like U. of Arizona. Would this do any good for those who study ISM, local stellar and nebular objects, etc? (yes to some, of course). And if your purpose is to win in the sensitivity regime, why not going to space (yeah, I can think of the reasons why NOT)?
In short, the proposal definitely has its strength and merit, but if we are to prioritize the need, I have to recommend that this is too a specialized project to be funded in the next three decades.
I understand this 8.4m telescope will be designed to view a wider field of view than any other 8m class telescopes (we have like five of them now). But, do we really need another large telescope that costs a few hundred millions? Or is this just another telescope engineer's way for securing a future funding resource?
For 300 Mil, we could probably build ten kick-ass instruments to utilize the existing 6m to 8m telescopes more efficiently. That's where the technology is advancing faster, too. After all, what good a telescope does when there is no good instrument to observe with?
The nation's budget is tight right now. I think we need to rethink our long term plan for the astronomical community. I personally do not feel that another 8m class telescope is what the community needs.
Time to stop wasting money on outdating hardware
Not "outdated", it's called "absolutely reliable" and "radiation hardened".
The NASA's guideline for the use of the ISS facility is this: the ISS can be staffed to the maximum number of astronauts that can be evacuated off the station in case of emergency.
With a Soyuz pod, the maximum number of staff is limited to three. And currently there are only two ports available on the ISS (so theoretically they could go up as high as six today).
In a fully configured mode, the ISS should hold at least three international teams (US, Europe and Japan, say). Each team has about 5 -- 6 staff scientists on board to conduct a variety of experiments. So it needs to staff about 15 or more people. There is no conceivable way to achieve that right now, because of the next generation shuttle problem (or a lack of thereof).
That is what I meant by my original post. I think others got it, though.
The European and Japanese can ship the parts for the ISS.
No they cannot. They do not have the proper means to deliver right now (both Arian and H-II are wrong for the size of the ISS payload, nor do they have experience in rendezvous maneuver with a station).
But if they want to, they should be definitely welcome to that.
the Indian and Chinese space programs will have more time to catch up to the US
No. If the NASA keeps its focus on the ISS only, then these nations would have time to play a catch-up (they are still about two decades behind NASA, mind you...but that doesn't mean it would take two decades to catch up, btw). If the NASA wants to stay on top, the next generation space vehicle is the place to put the money on.
And at this time, the NASA'd better do it right. And the congress shouldn't interject its stupidity into the new shuttle program like they did in 1960s.