Hyper Mega Super Duper Telescope

A new telescope is well on its way to being completed... its that one
somewhere with approx 11.9m diameter mirrors... 2 of them in fact... now
i've searched the newsgroups as thats where I originally read about it, but
I can't tell you exactly where it is or what it is called... all I know is
its BIG and resolution about 10 times that of hubble...

Now put this behemoth aside and imagine the clarity of such a telescope up
in space with no atmospheric distortion... better still, stereoscopic (or
quadrascopic if there is such a word) orbiting around the sun... huge
distances in between them, we would be able to get a much more accurate
measurement of distances, depth etc... only problem I see is avoiding debris
floating around, maintaining the lenses free of dust, and communication
between the 2 or 4 telescopes and keeping them 'in sync'... not to mention
transporting them up there...

I know that we do something similar now, we measure something against the
backdrop of other stars, wait 6 months and do it again... measure the
difference and make our distance measurements from there, but its a bit
harder for hugely distant places... so we use redshift... indeed.... but for
looking directly at another star's orbiting planets i think about 4 of these
beasts orbiting the sun would do fine...

Comments/suggestions/flames ?

Niko

"Niko Holm" wrote in message
...
A new telescope is well on its way to being completed... its that one
somewhere with approx 11.9m diameter mirrors... 2 of them in fact... now
i've searched the newsgroups as thats where I originally read about it,
but
I can't tell you exactly where it is or what it is called... all I know is
its BIG and resolution about 10 times that of hubble...

Now put this behemoth aside and imagine the clarity of such a telescope up
in space with no atmospheric distortion... better still, stereoscopic (or
quadrascopic if there is such a word) orbiting around the sun... huge
distances in between them, we would be able to get a much more accurate
measurement of distances, depth etc... only problem I see is avoiding
debris
floating around, maintaining the lenses free of dust, and communication
between the 2 or 4 telescopes and keeping them 'in sync'... not to mention
transporting them up there...

I know that we do something similar now, we measure something against the
backdrop of other stars, wait 6 months and do it again... measure the
difference and make our distance measurements from there, but its a bit
harder for hugely distant places... so we use redshift... indeed.... but
for
looking directly at another star's orbiting planets i think about 4 of
these
beasts orbiting the sun would do fine...

Comments/suggestions/flames ?

Niko

.... is this supposed to the eventual replacement for Hubble??

... is this supposed to the eventual replacement for Hubble??


Replacement? Why have just one? Keep the hubble... brilliant piece of
work... even though its not running at full potential... the more eyes the
better

"Niko Holm" wrote in message
...
... is this supposed to the eventual replacement for Hubble??


Replacement? Why have just one? Keep the hubble... brilliant piece of
work... even though its not running at full potential... the more eyes the
better


.... there have been talks about Hubble's eventual replacement; the
hostile enviroment will do her in someday. NASA has no plans to return it
from orbit which means she will have the fate of Mir or Skylab and burnup on
reentry. That has some people up in arms who want it placed in the Air &
Space Museum in D.C. but that would mean using an entire shuttle mission
just for the retrieval & after losing Columbia every shuttle mission becomes
even more valuable than before. But all this is years in the future so who
knows?

In message ,
Dudhorse writes

"Niko Holm" wrote in message
...
... is this supposed to the eventual replacement for Hubble??


Replacement? Why have just one? Keep the hubble... brilliant piece of
work... even though its not running at full potential... the more eyes the
better


.... there have been talks about Hubble's eventual replacement; the
hostile enviroment will do her in someday. NASA has no plans to return it
from orbit which means she will have the fate of Mir or Skylab and burnup on
reentry. That has some people up in arms who want it placed in the Air &
Space Museum in D.C. but that would mean using an entire shuttle mission
just for the retrieval & after losing Columbia every shuttle mission becomes
even more valuable than before. But all this is years in the future so who
knows?

Isn't the problem that they are required to dispose of Hubble "safely",
even though the risk of doing so is more than the risk posed by the
telescope?
It's like the Compton gamma ray observatory, where the risks of
attending a news conference to hear it would be destroyed were allegedly
higher than those from the observatory.
--
Rabbit arithmetic - 1 plus 1 equals 10
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

*barmitzvah'd*

Isn't the problem that they are required to dispose of Hubble "safely",
even though the risk of doing so is more than the risk posed by the
telescope?
It's like the Compton gamma ray observatory, where the risks of
attending a news conference to hear it would be destroyed were allegedly
higher than those from the observatory.

As good as the hubble is, bringing it back to earth is not going to happen
with it in one piece... I propose we slingshot it to the Sun and give it the
respect it deserves... that, or slingshot out into deep space... or
jupiter... ive seen stuff on a tether method so why not test this theory on
something that is going to lose its lustre, so to speak, eventually...

"Niko Holm" wrote in message
...
*barmitzvah'd*

Isn't the problem that they are required to dispose of Hubble "safely",
even though the risk of doing so is more than the risk posed by the
telescope?
It's like the Compton gamma ray observatory, where the risks of
attending a news conference to hear it would be destroyed were allegedly
higher than those from the observatory.

As good as the hubble is, bringing it back to earth is not going to happen
with it in one piece...

What's your basis for saying that?

I propose we slingshot it to the Sun and give it the
respect it deserves... that, or slingshot out into deep space... or
jupiter... ive seen stuff on a tether method so why not test this theory
on
something that is going to lose its lustre, so to speak, eventually...

As good as the hubble is, bringing it back to earth is not going to
happen
with it in one piece...

What's your basis for saying that?

Speculation... pure speculation... only from what i've read, it seems more
cost effective to do something else with it than bring it back in one
piece... not so much a monetary cost but the human risk...as stated
earlier...

"Niko Holm" wrote in message
...
... is this supposed to the eventual replacement for Hubble??


Replacement? Why have just one? Keep the hubble... brilliant piece of
work... even though its not running at full potential... the more eyes the
better

You need to upgrade your information.
The Hubble Space Telescope has exceeded its original
expectations. It is indeed running at full potential. It is
currently the most productive telescope in history and
will likely remain so for the duration of its mission.
Ground based telescopes work only at night and when
the weather permits. Hubble works 24 hours a day.
Every day. Every night. Every one of its instruments
is working well. Among other projects, it is currently
shooting the Hubble "Ultra Deep Field" which will take
it to a whole new level. The best is yet to come.

"Niko Holm" wrote in message
...

As good as the hubble is, bringing it back to earth is not going to happen
with it in one piece... I propose we slingshot it to the Sun and give it
the
respect it deserves...

There is no rocket in existence or in planning anywhere near powerful
enough to send anything directly to the sun. Never has been. The same
applies to tethers. The angular momentum involved is simply too great.
It would have to be a carefully choreographed sequence of planetary
flybys to get Hubble to slow down enough to drop into the sun.
Too expensive, I'm afraid. Not going to happen.