Astronomy's New Grail: The $1 Billion Telescope

The NY Times ^ | 123003 | DENNIS OVERBYE

[Calvin Locke]

Oops, price increase to $219. Go to www.telescope.com

Don't know about non-US availability.

I got the 130mm reflector just about a year ago.

[Prodigal Son]

This place sells cheap 4.5" Dobsonian mount reflectors for $100. It was so cheap I had to buy one,

You looked at Saturn with it? Like, lately? Would appreciate some feedback if you have.

[Prodigal Son]

Could I ask you the same question? Have you looked at Saturn with it? You have any feedback at all?

[Brett66]

I haven't looked at Saturn yet, I bought it for looking at Mars back in August. I could make out the polar cap and Vallis Marineras on Mars with it. I know the Cassini division could easily resolve with a 4.5" primary.

[Prodigal Son]

Well, your best view of Saturn until 2030 is tomorrow night ;-)

If you take a look at it any time soon, let me know how it went.

[PatrickHenry]

An eBay search for "telescope" produces over 2,000 items for sale. Gotta be something there for just about anyone who's looking. If not this week, then maybe the next.

[longshadow]

An eBay search for "telescope" produces over 2,000 items for sale.

yes, but unfortunately, most of them refer to a type of "marital aid"...

[PatrickHenry]

... most of them refer to a type of "marital aid".

Even better!

[MikeD]

I'm a little skeptical that a 100-meter telescope will be built any time soon.

First of all, our biggest telescope (10-meter Keck) is four times larger than Palomar (twice the diameter = four times the area).

Second, the larger aperture is only useful if you can get diffraction limited images. Adaptive/active optics is fine, but only over a limited field of view. The isothermal patch above the telescope is only so large (roughly 4-m in diameter), so you would need advanced adaptive optics and multiple guide stars to correct a 100-meter telescope.

I vote that if we do build such a large beast, build it in 1-meter segments on the moon.

MD

[Calvin Locke]

I don't think I have enough time with it to give an informed opinion.

This is my first reflector/first equatorial mount, so there is a learning curve, not only in finding objects, but finding
them AND being comfortable while viewing.

Throw in the higher magnifications, Earth's rotation, etc, and it can be frustrating.

I went cheap. The GOTO scopes are worth considering for getting a lot of objects in a short amount of time.

I don't think I was successful with Saturn because of TOD/or weather, but Jupiter is a snap. I generally see the milky
view, with some of the moons as points.

Take a gander at http://home.inreach.com/starlord/
It's a Telescope Buyers FAQ for a starting point.

[Prodigal Son]

This is my first reflector/first equatorial mount, so there is a learning curve, not only in finding objects, but finding them AND being comfortable while viewing.

Aye, I imagine an equatorial mount is a bit difficult to get used to at first.

I've had a few looks at Saturn this past week with my binos. It's frustrating. You can sense that if you could just had a little bit more oomph you could see its rings. When I settle down in this world, I'm going to buy me a nice one- a Ferrari of scopes- might even build myself a nice little dome shaped observatory to keep it in ;-)

[RightWingAtheist]

It's only a matter of time before we are convinced of the necessity to start shooting these subhumans

Well, I at least already think that we should blow'em up...no, no, must resist...must not stoop...to DU's level...

[RightWingAtheist]

What's more, astronomers, even the most right-wing among them, have been some of our most vocal anti-pollution advocates, because the more air and light pollution we have, the more difficult their job is.

[RightWingAtheist]

Here in Minnesota, we have a big controversy going on over plans to build a telescope on Mt.Graham, which is considered sacred ground to the Native American population, and the media and local leftist "social action" groups line themselves up 100% with them. Apparently, some forms of superstition and fundamentalism are more equal than others.

[BlazingArizona]

Why would greenies care about astronomy, it's totally passive, doesn't even create noise pollution. Oh yeah..... they're insane.

Greens used to be jus against technology - the applications of science. More recently, they have come out against scientific research itself. Witness the opposition to launching the long-range space probes, opposition to genetic research, and opposition to AI research and nanotechnology.

[BlazingArizona]

Here in Minnesota, we have a big controversy going on over plans to build a telescope on Mt.Graham, which is considered sacred ground to the Native American population,

Not only is Mt. Graham not in Minnesota (it's in Arizona, where the clear skies are), but it isn't even on a reservation. The "sacred to the Indians" idea popped up out of nowhere several years ago after a period of Green opposition to University of Arizona and the Vatican building observatories on it.

The Greens' previous excuse had been that endangered squirrels lived on the mountain. After it was found that pine squirrels were not actually endangered, but were flourishing on Mt. Graham, as squirrels always do around humans, the opposition dreamed up the "sacred mountain" argument. Funny - no Apache had ever paid particular attention to the mountain before that; not when the summer camp was built on it, not when the cabins were built on it, not when the state campground was built on it, and not when Swift Trail Federal Prison was built on it.

Now Kitt Peak, the telescope-studded mountain on the other side of Tucson, is on a reservation. But in actual fact, the only tribe that considers telescopes to defile a mountain is the Green tribe. Fortunately, this being Arizona, we can shoot back.

[Criminal Number 18F]

the ESA's Herschel space telescope, which is perhaps the only original project the ESA has ever thought up.

Oh, there's been no shortage of thinking up. It's the building bit that has tended to go all wobbly. Remember Sanger? (to name just one of a pantheon of coulda-shouldas)

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

[Criminal Number 18F]

if the scientists all get on the same page about.... the pols will happily write the check.

Yep. Most politicians are verbal and to some degree anti-intellectual and distrustful of scientists. Scientists' habit of enumerating all the uncertainties and qualifiers on a statement is infuriating to politicians; unlike pols, scientists care about being wrong (or maybe more, about being reckless).

The general sense of most pols is that for each and every scientis you can find an equal and opposite scientist... this comes from most of them being familiar with lawyers and the junk science pimps that the plaintiff's bar finds in the messy corners of academia.

Give them consensus and they will give you money. The initial US space program got funded partly because Sputnik rattled everybody's cage except Ike's; but you can't overestimate how important leadership was, particularly Dornberger's. He kept all the staff, including Von Braun, on the reservation as far as predictions and promises to the political guys is concerned.

This suggests that absent a Dornberger in the current space program, neither our manned nor unmanned projects will get the priority they deserve.

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

[Elliott Jackalope]

I disagree. The problems and expense of space and/or lunar telescopes are much greater than the costs of building in adaptive optics. I'm of the opinion that the Hubble represents a dead end in advanced telescopes, and that the vast majority of advanced future telescopes will be right here on planet earth, using adaptive optics and computer technology.

[CasearianDaoist]

Oh, there's been no shortage of thinking up. It's the building bit that has tended to go all wobbly. Remember Sanger? (to name just one of a pantheon of coulda-shouldas)
d.o.l.

Well I have to take exception here. Most other ESA programs are a "me too" endeavors, IMHO. They tend to show little originality, inspiration or even scientific curiosity - they seem to owe their existence to some juvenile need to try to show the world that the Europeans are still in the game, and they come off poorly for this motivation. I think Herschel-Planck shows some real originality. has actual scientific benefit and may be - wonders of wonders - motivated mostly by scientific curiosity. It is also mostly a European undertakeing. I bleieve that we are only contributing about 10% of the work

That being said, it still is woefully inadequate and will be upstaged by the Webb telescope. It is too little late. This new American telescope will be the same sort of marvel as the Hubble was. To be fair, several European nations are contributing to the JWST, but its inspiration is purely American.

As for "building up." I have to agree with you there.

(What does "d.o.1" mean?)