ICEINSPACE
|
Moon Phase
CURRENT MOON
Waning Crescent 13.6%
|
|
15-06-2016, 06:08 PM
|
 |
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sale, VIC
Posts: 6,033
|
|
|
Tours of the world's largest pro telescopes - good stuff!
Many of you would have seen these. But if you haven't, you must! 
https://youtu.be/BXIA5r9r29I?list=PLFDDC58C2516AE284
Tours of the world's largest telescopes with explanations of operation, science and hurdles researchers face, presented in plain English by pro astronomers and science journalist Brady Haran.
Rant: One thing people don't realise is how very cheap all these amazing instruments are for what they do. Yet scientists have to fight tooth and nail for funding to get them built. Cost per telescope is in the 10s to 100-ish million dollar range: same as a Hollywood movie, a world tour for a famous rock band, ~100 metres (1/8 of a mile) of freeway/highway; petty cash for any first world military...
Last edited by janoskiss; 15-06-2016 at 07:16 PM.
|
15-06-2016, 06:38 PM
|
 |
Ultimate Noob
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 7,013
|
|
|
It is on my To Watch for tonight but I do agree with you about the money. For the Overwhelming Large Telescope (OWL) to have been built in its original form (100m diameter!!!!!!!!!) it would have cost maybe half of ONE full sized aircraft carrier. Yet, 100 countries and scientific organisations deemed it too expensive due to lack of funding.
|
15-06-2016, 07:47 PM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sale, VIC
Posts: 6,033
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atmos
I do agree with you about the money. For the Overwhelming Large Telescope (OWL) to have been built in its original form (100m diameter!!!!!!!!!) it would have cost maybe half of ONE full sized aircraft carrier. Yet, 100 countries and scientific organisations deemed it too expensive due to lack of funding.
|
Yeah, even though it's peanuts. Even the most expensive science projects like the LHC cost peanuts in the scheme of things. It's easy to blame politicians and the "ignorance" of the "public", but I feel that scientists should share equal blame. More scientists need to engage with the public at large and let them know why their work is important. But it's a very tough job and Neil deGrasse Tysons don't grow on trees. 
|
15-06-2016, 09:33 PM
|
 |
Easily Confused
|
|
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Syds
Posts: 33
|
|
|
It's great to try and convince the public that science needs to be done and why, but really the number of people ringing Alan Jones to cry about the lack of science funding or writing letters to their senators demanding an investment package for a new instrument on the AAT is near enough to zero as makes no difference. The people scientists need to become better at convincing are accountants, and I've heard of people getting a chance to pitch to government penny pinchers and spending their entire spiel talking about how many papers they could write.
To borrow the Hollywood movie analogy that's like telling a producer c. 2003 you need $25 million dollars to pay the lead actress in your movie, and she's got an Erdos number of 5!
But not mentioning that her name's Natalie Portman, y'know, from Star Wars...
Australia's share of the GMT is expected to have a dollar worth that puts the taxpayer in profit after about 12.5 years of operation, but it took years of lobbying before anyone thought to mention that to the paper pushers, because scientists don't think about how much they could sell their scope time for. (and admittedly ANU actually paid for half of it in the end, which might have something to do with their VC...)
|
16-06-2016, 07:26 PM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sale, VIC
Posts: 6,033
|
|
|
You serious? Natalie Portman has an Erdös number?!
|
17-06-2016, 09:14 AM
|
 |
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: ardrossan south australia
Posts: 4,918
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by janoskiss
Many of you would have seen these. But if you haven't, you must!
https://youtu.be/BXIA5r9r29I?list=PLFDDC58C2516AE284
Tours of the world's largest telescopes with explanations of operation, science and hurdles researchers face, presented in plain English by pro astronomers and science journalist Brady Haran.
Rant: One thing people don't realise is how very cheap all these amazing instruments are for what they do. Yet scientists have to fight tooth and nail for funding to get them built. Cost per telescope is in the 10s to 100-ish million dollar range: same as a Hollywood movie, a world tour for a famous rock band, ~100 metres (1/8 of a mile) of freeway/highway; petty cash for any first world military... |
I totally agree with the sentiment Steve - these scopes are great value for money. The big problem is not building them, it is finding the money to keep running them in remote locations.
minor point - I don't think that highways cost anywhere near that much - maybe for 100km?
Last edited by Shiraz; 17-06-2016 at 04:22 PM.
|
17-06-2016, 11:50 PM
|
 |
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 3,784
|
|
|
I wish that a lot more Hubble's had been made and sent into orbit.
There are just so many galaxies & other objects were we don't have magnificent pictures of.
When they say that these large telescopes can have more resolution than Hubble I think
they are only talking about a tiny point in the picture not a large full frame.
cheers
Allan
|
18-06-2016, 12:30 AM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sale, VIC
Posts: 6,033
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by alpal
I wish that a lot more Hubble's had been made and sent into orbit.
|
An army of Hubbles orbiting Earth: now there is an idea; I love it!
|
18-06-2016, 01:07 AM
|
 |
Supernova Searcher
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Cambroon Queensland Australia
Posts: 9,326
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by janoskiss
An army of Hubbles orbiting Earth: now there is an idea; I love it!
|
A while ago the airforce gave NASA two similar mirrors to the HST
One is already in a program to be built into a telescope,but it will be a different wavelength than hubble.
Possible launch in the 2020's
Cheers 
|
18-06-2016, 05:20 AM
|
 |
Dark sky rules !
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: 33S 150E (AU holiday)
Posts: 1,181
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atmos
It is on my To Watch for tonight but I do agree with you about the money. For the Overwhelming Large Telescope (OWL) to have been built in its original form (100m diameter!!!!!!!!!) it would have cost maybe half of ONE full sized aircraft carrier. Yet, 100 countries and scientific organisations deemed it too expensive due to lack of funding.
|
Well, for (slightly) less the 39m E-ELT is already under construction and is ready in 2024. Cost: $1.2bn while OWL would cost $1.5bn.
Maybe construction of OWL was too complex ?
|
18-06-2016, 08:02 AM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 3,784
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by janoskiss
An army of Hubbles orbiting Earth: now there is an idea; I love it!
|
And yet the only Hubble we have is going to crash into the sea sometime soon -
what a pity.
|
18-06-2016, 03:18 PM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sale, VIC
Posts: 6,033
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by skysurfer
Well, for (slightly) less the 39m E-ELT is already under construction and is ready in 2024. Cost: $1.2bn while OWL would cost $1.5bn.
Maybe construction of OWL was too complex ?
|
It was going to cost a lot more and the design had too many engineering hurdles. E-ELT deep sky video folks explain:
https://youtu.be/450jt8LlcnY
|
19-06-2016, 12:53 PM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 3,784
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by janoskiss
It was going to cost a lot more and the design had too many engineering hurdles. E-ELT deep sky video folks explain:
https://youtu.be/450jt8LlcnY |
Great video - thanks.
|
21-06-2016, 12:53 PM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sale, VIC
Posts: 6,033
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by alpal
|
That's a great vid also, essential viewing for Southern observers; it really helps to know what one's looking at to really appreciate it.
It will be a sad day when Hubble is decommissioned. Even while it's still working it's a very old and dated instrument and a replacement really should have been under way long ago. The James Webb will be great but it's going to be tuned for infra-red. Having no means of observing in the UV is like being partially blind. In an ideal world we'd have a coordinated program to cover the entire spectrum from radio to x-rays.
|
21-06-2016, 05:23 PM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 3,784
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by janoskiss
That's a great vid also, essential viewing for Southern observers; it really helps to know what one's looking at to really appreciate it.
It will be a sad day when Hubble is decommissioned. Even while it's still working it's a very old and dated instrument and a replacement really should have been under way long ago. The James Webb will be great but it's going to be tuned for infra-red. Having no means of observing in the UV is like being partially blind. In an ideal world we'd have a coordinated program to cover the entire spectrum from radio to x-rays.
|
It will be a very sad day for all the world when the Hubble plunges into the Pacific Ocean.
Maybe the Russians can launch a mission to save it by
replacing the worn out parts which they could get from NASA?
|
| Thread Tools |
|
|
| Rate This Thread |
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT +10. The time is now 10:55 PM.
|
|
