![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I have a couple questions, they all related to the future of spece
telescopes: 1. Hubble's Telescope has 0.1 arcsec resolution in visible and ultraviolet ranges. What is the next resolution level that can bring substantially new knowledge about the Universe ? Of course the higher resolution the better, but what is a thershold to gain new knowledge ? 2. As far as I know there is deep interest in using far infrared to peek into the centre of our Galaxy. What is the current limiting factor here - resolution (mirror size), or a need to cool the telescope down ? In case of cooling - is it enough to shield the telescope in space to bring the temperature its elements close to 0K, or it has to be launched far off Earth orbit (far from the Sun), or some active cooling can be used ? 3. Telescopes interferometry can be used to achieve much higher "resolution", provided that the shape of the observation object is known. My queston is - what it can be used for, in addition to measuring stellar diameters, distances between double stars, etc ? What are the limitations there ? I would also highly appreciate a pointer to good Web resources, or literature, on these topics. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() wrote in message m... I have a couple questions, they all related to the future of spece telescopes: 1. Hubble's Telescope has 0.1 arcsec resolution in visible and ultraviolet ranges. What is the next resolution level that can bring substantially new knowledge about the Universe ? Of course the higher resolution the better, but what is a thershold to gain new knowledge ? Many astronomers would settle for 0.1 arcsec with 100 times the light gathering power...the great advances will come from being able to do spectroscopy, not just from resolving things. Resolution will help in specific problems, including the search for direct imaging of extrasolar planets, and examining starbursts in the very early universe. 2. As far as I know there is deep interest in using far infrared to peek into the centre of our Galaxy. What is the current limiting factor here - resolution (mirror size), or a need to cool the telescope down ? In case of cooling - is it enough to shield the telescope in space to bring the temperature its elements close to 0K, or it has to be launched far off Earth orbit (far from the Sun), or some active cooling can be used ? You always want the biggest mirror you can afford, mainly for light-gathering power rather than resolution, though resolving power is helpful. All such IR telescopes have to be cooled, if possible by liquid helium. It is not sufficient to shield such a telescope, active cooling is required. The main reason for moving such a telescope away from Earth (say to L2) is that Earth is a huge source of IR radiation, and this makes the coolant run out much faster. The Sun is a problem, but not as big a problem as Earth, because a reflecting shield that works against visible light is relatively easy to make, but it is hard to build an efficient reflector of far IR wavelengths. In space, you can cool the optics as well as the detector; on Earth, this is n't possible due to the atmosphere and ice condensation. 3. Telescopes interferometry can be used to achieve much higher "resolution", provided that the shape of the observation object is known. My queston is - what it can be used for, in addition to measuring stellar diameters, distances between double stars, etc ? What are the limitations there ? The shape can become known through interferometry measurements, using multielement interferometers like the VLT. One of the big quests at the moment is the goal of imaging extrasolar terrestrial planets directly. This can be achieved using "nulling" interferometers. The TPF (terrestrial planet finder, or Darwin mission) is such a space-based interferometer concept. I would also highly appreciate a pointer to good Web resources, or literature, on these topics. -- Mike Dworetsky (Remove "pants" spamblock to send e-mail) |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
http://tobacco.com/re-addiction/posting/webs.html
Sam Wormley wrote: wrote: I have a couple questions, they all related to the future of spece telescopes: 1. Hubble's Telescope has 0.1 arcsec resolution in visible and ultraviolet ranges. What is the next resolution level that can bring substantially new knowledge about the Universe ? Of course the higher resolution the better, but what is a thershold to gain new knowledge ? 2. As far as I know there is deep interest in using far infrared to peek into the centre of our Galaxy. What is the current limiting factor here - resolution (mirror size), or a need to cool the telescope down ? In case of cooling - is it enough to shield the telescope in space to bring the temperature its elements close to 0K, or it has to be launched far off Earth orbit (far from the Sun), or some active cooling can be used ? 3. Telescopes interferometry can be used to achieve much higher "resolution", provided that the shape of the observation object is known. My queston is - what it can be used for, in addition to measuring stellar diameters, distances between double stars, etc ? What are the limitations there ? I would also highly appreciate a pointer to good Web resources, or literature, on these topics. See: http://www.seds.org/billa/bigeyes.html http://www.edu-observatory.org/eo/telescopes.html |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
wrote in message
m... 1. Hubble's Telescope has 0.1 arcsec resolution in visible and ultraviolet ranges. What is the next resolution level that can bring substantially new knowledge about the Universe ? Of course the higher resolution the better, but what is a thershold to gain new knowledge ? In article , "Mike Dworetsky" writes: Many astronomers would settle for 0.1 arcsec with 100 times the light gathering power...the great advances will come from being able to do spectroscopy, not just from resolving things. Resolution will help in specific problems, including the search for direct imaging of extrasolar planets, and examining starbursts in the very early universe. I'm afraid I have to disagree with Mike in some respects. What that should tell you is that the answer is by no means clear! While I agree that spectroscopy is important (and there is no substitute for collecting area), a factor of two to three improvement in resolution would be quite useful. In particular, it would allow much greater sensitivity because of the decrease in the area of background accompanying each object. For background-limited observations, the observing time to reach a given point-source sensitivity goes as the fourth power of the angular resolution, and better sensitivity would allow us to detect intrinsically fainter objects in the early Universe. Higher resolution would also give much more information about the morphologies of very distant galaxies. 2. As far as I know there is deep interest in using far infrared to peek into the centre of our Galaxy. What is the current limiting factor here - resolution (mirror size), or a need to cool the telescope down ? In case of cooling - is it enough to shield the telescope in space to bring the temperature its elements close to 0K, or it has to be launched far off Earth orbit (far from the Sun), or some active cooling can be used ? You always want the biggest mirror you can afford, mainly for light-gathering power rather than resolution, though resolving power is helpful. In the far infrared, resolution is critical. For all the objects we can study now, there are plenty of photons, but existing telescopes are very resolution-challenged. Also see above about background- limited observations, which is always the case in the far IR. All such IR telescopes have to be cooled, if possible by liquid helium. It is not sufficient to shield such a telescope, active cooling is required. This depends very much on what you are trying to achieve and what wavelength you are working at. SOFIA will be uncooled (except by ambient atmosphere, say -50 deg_C). The JWST optics are expected to be passively cooled to 30 K or so; the instruments will need active cooling. I'm not sure what is planned for Herschel, but there has been at least one proposal for a passively cooled telescope operating in the sub-millimeter. The main reason for moving such a telescope away from Earth (say to L2) is that Earth is a huge source of IR radiation, and this makes the coolant run out much faster. The Sun is a problem, but not as big a problem as Earth, because a reflecting shield that works against visible light is relatively easy to make, but it is hard to build an efficient reflector of far IR wavelengths. On the contrary, most metals are more reflective in the IR than in the visible. It would be no problem to shield the telescope from the Earth if the Earth were the only relevant source of radiation. The problem is shielding from _both_ Sun and Earth at the same time. While this has been done (IRAS, COBE), designing an observatory is a lot easier if you can choose an orbit far away from Earth and just worry about the Sun. In space, you can cool the optics as well as the detector; on Earth, this is n't possible due to the atmosphere and ice condensation. Indeed, although stratospheric and Antarctic observatories are somewhat better than typical mountaintops. -- Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 Cambridge, MA 02138 USA (Please email your reply if you want to be sure I see it; include a valid Reply-To address to receive an acknowledgement. Commercial email may be sent to your ISP.) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Our future as a species - Fermi Paradox revisted - Where they all are | william mook | Policy | 157 | November 19th 03 01:19 AM |
Does manned space travel have a future?: Debate in London 6th December | Martin Earnshaw | Policy | 0 | October 7th 03 10:20 PM |
U.S. Space Weather Service in Deep Trouble | Al Jackson | Policy | 1 | September 25th 03 09:21 PM |
Asteroid First, Moon, Mars...later | Al Jackson | Policy | 28 | September 12th 03 06:58 PM |
Asteroid first, Moon, Mars Later | Al Jackson | Space Science Misc | 0 | September 3rd 03 04:40 PM |