Extremely Large Telescope (ELT)

[rhodan]

From the BBC:<ul type="square"><b>Record mirror for Euro telescope</b><br /><br />European astronomers are planning to build an optical telescope that is four times as big as any in existence. <br /><br />With a main mirror around 42m-wide, the Extremely Large Telescope (ELT) will allow remote objects to be studied in greater detail than ever before. <br /><br />The powerful observatory will allow astronomers to see some of the first galaxies to form in the Universe. <br /><br />It could also look for the signatures of life on distant planets circling other stars. <br /><br />...</ul>

 

[harmonicaman]

Hmmm...<br /><br />So; this ELT telescope will be bigger than the VLT (Very Large Telescope); but smaller than the OWL (Overwhelmingly Large Telescope)...<br /><br />I'm so confused... <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />

 

[derekmcd]

42m... wow. That would be impressive, but I would think a replacement of the HST would be a bigger priority. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[mikeemmert]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I would think a replacement of the HST would be a bigger priority. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>I'm inclined to agree, but mostly because of access to wavelengths other than the visible. There are other specialty concerns as well; do you know stars twinkle in brightness, as well as position? There are also projects where day/night and cloud interruptions cause serious problems, like the GONG project to probe sound waves on the sun or the Kepler project to detect extrasolar eclipses.<br /><br />And then, of course, there are the projects for which there is no substitute for aperture. That's best approached at present with a ground-based telescope.

 

[rhodan]

<i>42m... wow. That would be impressive, but I would think a replacement of the HST would be a bigger priority.</i><br /><br />I agree, but, this is <i>good</i> news. We'll soon learn more about our environment. Things could be better, yes. A Hubble replacement & improvement would be fantastic. Sadly, we do not live in a perfect world. This scope is an improvement, let's be pleased about that.

 

[qso1]

You won't hear me complain. The problem that still exists with space telescopes is wondering after a decade or so after development, if it will work as advertised. We got lucky with Hubble because we could send a crew to repair it. The space telescopes being built now will be beyond human access IIRC.<br /><br />Ground telescopes are at least easier to access. I'd still like to see a huge space based scope, preferrably on the moon but our snails pace progree in human space flight means were probably still two decades from anything like that. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

I couldn't agree with ya more... definitely good news. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<i>I have one or two other ideas, but they are not suitable for a family message board...</i><br /><br />More along the lines of BFT... no doubt i'm sure it's nickname will be something of that sorts. I'm sure when it is completed in all it's glory, many folks will looks at and simply say, "Damn, that is one BFT!" <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[cygnusx1111]

"The problem that still exists with space telescopes is wondering after a decade or so after development, if it will work as advertised."<br /><br />Besides that problem;<br /><br />I am quite surprised that private groups and/or astronomers have not funded a small space telscope.<br /><br />It seems that even an university could fund a small one.<br /><br />A lot of useful astronomy could be done with space based small scopes.

 

[derekmcd]

I would think it is cheaper for a university to just buy time on a large ground based telescope rather than run the risk of losing their investment. Hubble, I believe, cost around 1.5b. I don't think universities can fund that. No doubt they could fund a smaller one, but a smaller one would likely only provide the same results as a larger ground based telescope.<br /><br />PS... try (blue)go blue(/blue), expcept use [ ] in your sig line. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[mithridates]

Actually there is a small space telescope that has been created partially through funding from universities:<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microvariability_and_Oscillations_of_STars_telescope<br /><br />Also known as MOST. It's so small that it usually escapes media attention though and most people don't know about it.<br /><br />We should fund another! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>----- </p><p>http://mithridates.blogspot.com</p> </div>

 

[alkalin]

The way I see it is that in the future, LBL, long base line interferometric methods will be coordinated with AO, adaptive optics, which has the potential to eliminate turbulence in the atmosphere. LBL gives one the ability with two separated scopes the full advantage of the total aperture of the two as if they were one aperture, yet the two scopes are only part of the full aperture. I believe money is better spent on ground scopes where they are very easy to maintain by comparison to space based systems. There is a lot of work in this area to make it all work. This is all being developed and is a long way from completion. We can learn a lot just keeping such things on the ground, and it is much cheaper. Besides, space systems will for some time be very limited in aperture due to launch capability.<br /><br />Hubble was fantastic in performance, but if we could on a replacement double it’s aperture, triple the sensors sensitivity, and quadruple the EM range, then I think it might be worth launching Hubble 2. But hey, what do I know.<br />