A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Amateur Astronomy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

"'Telescope of the future' puts focus on KU"



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 11th 05, 06:55 PM
Mike Maxwell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "'Telescope of the future' puts focus on KU"

An article at http://www.ljworld.com/section/kunews/story/192798 talks
about a prototype telescope whose mirror is made of composites. The 16"
telescope (unclear exactly what they're talking about, but it appears to
include the mirror, some kind of mirror mount, and the truss tube, all
in what I take to be a Cassegrain configuration) weighs 20 pounds. It
was built by Kansas University, San Diego State University, Dartmouth
College, and Composite Mirror Applications in Tucson.

Apparently it's a prototype for larger telescopes--the next one will be
a one meter mirror. But if someone started making this sort of
telescope for amateurs... Of course, I suppose the cost of materials
would outweight (sorry for the pun) any savings from the construction
method.

An earlier story (before they built the prototype) is at
http://www.ljworld.com/section/archive/story/148016. And
http://www.physics.ku.edu/facilities.../specsfin.html is a rfp for
the one meter scope.

Mike Maxwell
  #2  
Old January 11th 05, 07:12 PM
Mark
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Several thoughts pop to mind for amateur use:

I wonder how it would do in a stiff breeze? A mirror's larger mass

can be advantageous at times, especially when anchoring a large OTA.

Pretty soon the eyepieces are going to outweigh the telescopes. It

could be difficult to adapt to a Dobsonian mount.

Those Meade marketing folks would have a field day with it. A

whole new set of superlatives might have to be invented...




Mike Maxwell wrote:
An article at http://www.ljworld.com/section/kunews/story/192798

talks
about a prototype telescope whose mirror is made of composites. The

16"
telescope (unclear exactly what they're talking about, but it appears

to
include the mirror, some kind of mirror mount, and the truss tube,

all
in what I take to be a Cassegrain configuration) weighs 20 pounds.

It
was built by Kansas University, San Diego State University, Dartmouth


College, and Composite Mirror Applications in Tucson.

Apparently it's a prototype for larger telescopes--the next one will

be
a one meter mirror. But if someone started making this sort of
telescope for amateurs... Of course, I suppose the cost of materials


would outweight (sorry for the pun) any savings from the construction


method.

An earlier story (before they built the prototype) is at
http://www.ljworld.com/section/archive/story/148016. And
http://www.physics.ku.edu/facilities.../specsfin.html is a rfp for
the one meter scope.

Mike Maxwell


  #3  
Old January 11th 05, 10:30 PM
Roger Hamlett
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Mike Maxwell" wrote in message
...
An article at http://www.ljworld.com/section/kunews/story/192798 talks
about a prototype telescope whose mirror is made of composites. The 16"
telescope (unclear exactly what they're talking about, but it appears to
include the mirror, some kind of mirror mount, and the truss tube, all
in what I take to be a Cassegrain configuration) weighs 20 pounds. It
was built by Kansas University, San Diego State University, Dartmouth
College, and Composite Mirror Applications in Tucson.

Apparently it's a prototype for larger telescopes--the next one will be
a one meter mirror. But if someone started making this sort of
telescope for amateurs... Of course, I suppose the cost of materials
would outweight (sorry for the pun) any savings from the construction
method.

An earlier story (before they built the prototype) is at
http://www.ljworld.com/section/archive/story/148016. And
http://www.physics.ku.edu/facilities.../specsfin.html is a rfp for
the one meter scope.

I think you have 'hit the nail on the head', with the cost of materials
'outweighing' any savings.
The obvious design idea, is to keep weights down, and distortions from the
weight down, on larger scopes. I'd doubt if the design is
economic/practical for scopes any smaller than the prototype, and even on
this, if produced in quantity, is still likely to be more expensive than a
simple 'glass' and carbon fibre tube design...

Best Wishes


  #4  
Old January 12th 05, 07:26 AM
RichA
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 21:30:17 GMT, "Roger Hamlett"
wrote:


"Mike Maxwell" wrote in message
...
An article at http://www.ljworld.com/section/kunews/story/192798 talks
about a prototype telescope whose mirror is made of composites. The 16"
telescope (unclear exactly what they're talking about, but it appears to
include the mirror, some kind of mirror mount, and the truss tube, all
in what I take to be a Cassegrain configuration) weighs 20 pounds. It
was built by Kansas University, San Diego State University, Dartmouth
College, and Composite Mirror Applications in Tucson.

Apparently it's a prototype for larger telescopes--the next one will be
a one meter mirror. But if someone started making this sort of
telescope for amateurs... Of course, I suppose the cost of materials
would outweight (sorry for the pun) any savings from the construction
method.

An earlier story (before they built the prototype) is at
http://www.ljworld.com/section/archive/story/148016. And
http://www.physics.ku.edu/facilities.../specsfin.html is a rfp for
the one meter scope.

I think you have 'hit the nail on the head', with the cost of materials
'outweighing' any savings.
The obvious design idea, is to keep weights down, and distortions from the
weight down, on larger scopes. I'd doubt if the design is
economic/practical for scopes any smaller than the prototype, and even on
this, if produced in quantity, is still likely to be more expensive than a
simple 'glass' and carbon fibre tube design...

Best Wishes


I could see this same argument occuring when they switched from
speculum metal to glass for mirrors.
-Rich
  #5  
Old January 12th 05, 07:48 AM
Chris L Peterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 21:30:17 GMT, "Roger Hamlett"
wrote:

I think you have 'hit the nail on the head', with the cost of materials
'outweighing' any savings.
The obvious design idea, is to keep weights down, and distortions from the
weight down, on larger scopes. I'd doubt if the design is
economic/practical for scopes any smaller than the prototype, and even on
this, if produced in quantity, is still likely to be more expensive than a
simple 'glass' and carbon fibre tube design...


But it might eventually bring meter-class scopes into a price range where some
amateurs could afford them (say, where 20" RCs are now). The intriguing thing is
that with 1m optics you are getting into the range where true adaptive optics
becomes a possibility.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
  #6  
Old January 12th 05, 07:57 AM
Misa Wahwa
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

But, you have to admit these experiments point the way of the
future. Thuis could prove *very* interesting from an economic-
marketing point of view...

Lets assume for a moment cost of materials falls, precipitously - as
they will of course. Lets assume the costs of these materials falls below
the cost of traditional materials, as I think they will. This then potentially

makes the whole cost of a decent telescope fall, say preciitously. How
would this impact the economics of telescope sales. The answer is quite
simple.

The current cost or even higher costs (due to inflation) could not be
justified on the basis of materials and labour alone. Another formula
would have to be sought. That formula would have to rely on some
premise in the supplier-consumer relationship not previously exploited.

I believe that premise will be: "we supply people *telescopes* -
telescopes are *rare*! Telescopes represent a *rare opportunity*.

The same (bogus) premise is now being slipped in to justify other
commercial transactions, and people buy it. It could become the
justification for the monetary costs of telescopes in the future, after
materials and labour have slipped to a all time low.

Kerry





Roger Hamlett wrote:

"Mike Maxwell" wrote in message
...
An article at http://www.ljworld.com/section/kunews/story/192798 talks
about a prototype telescope whose mirror is made of composites. The 16"
telescope (unclear exactly what they're talking about, but it appears to
include the mirror, some kind of mirror mount, and the truss tube, all
in what I take to be a Cassegrain configuration) weighs 20 pounds. It
was built by Kansas University, San Diego State University, Dartmouth
College, and Composite Mirror Applications in Tucson.

Apparently it's a prototype for larger telescopes--the next one will be
a one meter mirror. But if someone started making this sort of
telescope for amateurs... Of course, I suppose the cost of materials
would outweight (sorry for the pun) any savings from the construction
method.

An earlier story (before they built the prototype) is at
http://www.ljworld.com/section/archive/story/148016. And
http://www.physics.ku.edu/facilities.../specsfin.html is a rfp for
the one meter scope.

I think you have 'hit the nail on the head', with the cost of materials
'outweighing' any savings.
The obvious design idea, is to keep weights down, and distortions from the
weight down, on larger scopes. I'd doubt if the design is
economic/practical for scopes any smaller than the prototype, and even on
this, if produced in quantity, is still likely to be more expensive than a
simple 'glass' and carbon fibre tube design...

Best Wishes


  #7  
Old January 12th 05, 10:57 AM
Roger Hamlett
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"RichA" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 21:30:17 GMT, "Roger Hamlett"
wrote:


"Mike Maxwell" wrote in message
...
An article at http://www.ljworld.com/section/kunews/story/192798 talks
about a prototype telescope whose mirror is made of composites. The
16"
telescope (unclear exactly what they're talking about, but it appears
to
include the mirror, some kind of mirror mount, and the truss tube, all
in what I take to be a Cassegrain configuration) weighs 20 pounds. It
was built by Kansas University, San Diego State University, Dartmouth
College, and Composite Mirror Applications in Tucson.

Apparently it's a prototype for larger telescopes--the next one will
be
a one meter mirror. But if someone started making this sort of
telescope for amateurs... Of course, I suppose the cost of materials
would outweight (sorry for the pun) any savings from the construction
method.

An earlier story (before they built the prototype) is at
http://www.ljworld.com/section/archive/story/148016. And
http://www.physics.ku.edu/facilities.../specsfin.html is a rfp for
the one meter scope.

I think you have 'hit the nail on the head', with the cost of materials
'outweighing' any savings.
The obvious design idea, is to keep weights down, and distortions from
the
weight down, on larger scopes. I'd doubt if the design is
economic/practical for scopes any smaller than the prototype, and even
on
this, if produced in quantity, is still likely to be more expensive than
a
simple 'glass' and carbon fibre tube design...

Best Wishes


I could see this same argument occuring when they switched from
speculum metal to glass for mirrors.
-Rich

Except glass was every bit as heavy...
I'd suspect the key is to look at the cost of supporting a mirror. If you
look at small mirrors (up to about 12"), the extra costs involved in
supporting it are practially nil, and potential savings just don't really
exist. As you go up in size to perhaps 24", the costs rise, and by the
time you reach perhaps 36", they have become really significant, with the
weight of the glass, being greater than any other part in the scope, and
maintaining a rigid structure, to the accuracies needed when dealing with
light, have become a real bind. The materials involved in this technology,
may well fall in price in the future, but not because of the extra demand
from astronomers (most of the composites involved, are used in the
aerospace industries, in quantities far larger than astronomers are ever
likely to want). Hence my expectation, is that though 'production' units
will be a lot cheaper than the prototype, it is not likely to affect the
prices of scopes much below perhaps 24" in aperture. Though this may make
some of the current largest amateur observers, able to move up from 24"
scopes to 36" scopes, it is not likely to affect the purchasing of most
'normal' amateurs....

Best Wishes



  #8  
Old January 12th 05, 03:02 PM
Mike Maxwell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Roger Hamlett wrote:
I think you have 'hit the nail on the head', with the cost of materials
'outweighing' any savings.
The obvious design idea, is to keep weights down, and distortions from the
weight down, on larger scopes. I'd doubt if the design is
economic/practical for scopes any smaller than the prototype


If this turns out to be true, it would provide a nice excuse to make
much larger amateur telescopes (as some other postings to this thread
have suggested). I can easily put a saucer sled in the back seat of my
small car. I would guess such a sled is a meter or so across. If that
fits, so would a meter-wide mirror (in a protective case). And a
knock-down truss assembly would fit, too.

BTW, while the original was a Cass, I don't suppose there's any problem
in principle with using a composite mirror in a Newtonian, in which case
a Dob mount should be feasible. Then again, I'd have to fit the ladder
in my car :-(. Or could a very deep mirror work, with some sort of
corrective optics to flatten the field? I'm getting beyond anything I
know now, but it's sure fun to speculate about eyeballing galaxy
clusters with a one meter mirror!

Mike Maxwell
  #9  
Old January 12th 05, 03:43 PM
Mark
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I had the opportunity to view several objects through a 42" Dobsonian
at Chiefland and it was truly memorable.

But low weight does not solve the entire problem, that scope was still
the size of a small car. The primary weighed about 200 lbs.
Presumably a lighter scope still does not imply a much faster scope, at
least until there are huge gains in eyepiece technology. This means
portability and setup issues are still significant.

Mark Pippin




Mike Maxwell wrote:
Roger Hamlett wrote:
I think you have 'hit the nail on the head', with the cost of

materials
'outweighing' any savings.
The obvious design idea, is to keep weights down, and distortions

from the
weight down, on larger scopes. I'd doubt if the design is
economic/practical for scopes any smaller than the prototype


If this turns out to be true, it would provide a nice excuse to make
much larger amateur telescopes (as some other postings to this thread


have suggested). I can easily put a saucer sled in the back seat of

my
small car. I would guess such a sled is a meter or so across. If

that
fits, so would a meter-wide mirror (in a protective case). And a
knock-down truss assembly would fit, too.

BTW, while the original was a Cass, I don't suppose there's any

problem
in principle with using a composite mirror in a Newtonian, in which

case
a Dob mount should be feasible. Then again, I'd have to fit the

ladder
in my car :-(. Or could a very deep mirror work, with some sort of
corrective optics to flatten the field? I'm getting beyond anything

I
know now, but it's sure fun to speculate about eyeballing galaxy
clusters with a one meter mirror!

Mike Maxwell


  #10  
Old January 12th 05, 11:22 PM
Astro-nut
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Extremely light weight, collapsable (yes... you read that correctly)
carbon fiber replication mirrors have been around for a while.

In his 2001 presentation at Stellafane, Dr. Peter Chen shared the
results of the technology at that time. He was then working on a 52"
primary that weighed in at 27 pounds. Up to 50 mirrors could be made
between cleanings of the precision mandrils:

http://www.astro-nut.com/stchen.html
Cheers,

Paul

--- http://www.astro-nut.com ---

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Large Binocular Telescope to be Dedicated in October 2004 Ron Misc 3 September 25th 04 06:15 PM
8.4-meter Mirror Successfully Installed in Large Binocular Telescope Ron Astronomy Misc 1 April 9th 04 08:06 PM
Congressional Resolutions on Hubble Space Telescope EFLASPO Amateur Astronomy 0 April 1st 04 03:26 PM
World's Single Largest Telescope Mirror Moves To The LBT Ron Baalke Technology 0 November 11th 03 09:16 AM
NASA And NAACP Focus On The Future Ron Baalke Space Shuttle 1 July 11th 03 12:16 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:44 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.