Astronomers Send Robots to Stargaze in Clear-Skied Antarctic HellHole!

"Astronomers are rejoicing that they've found the best place on earth
for astronomical observation. The only problem? It also happens to be
the "very worst place on the surface of the planet for humans."
Whoops. Send in the Robots."

http://gizmodo.com/5349832/astronome...rth-for-humans

Double-A

On Sep 4, 2:25*pm, Double-A wrote:
"Astronomers are rejoicing that they've found the best place on earth
for astronomical observation. The only problem? It also happens to be
the "very worst place on the surface of the planet for humans."
Whoops. Send in the Robots."

http://gizmodo.com/5349832/astronome...targaze-in-ver...

Double-A

Actually robotic observations via hydrogen balloons can't be all that
bad anymore. Cruising along with those winds at 75+km has to be
relatively clear viewing at perhaps 0.1% of the spendy cost for any
LEO alternative.

However, for as little as another two cents ($135M) we could have a
pair of TRACEe2, or for a nickel ($338M) would buy us a pair of the e2
and and perhaps one TRACEe3. (a thousand fold better magnification
than our existing TRACE)

They claim a delivery cost of $10/kg, however I bet the Antarctic
observatory would end up costing us more than all three TRACE (two e2s
and one e3), and couldn't possibly accomplish 0.1% as much good.

~ BG

On Sep 4, 3:13*pm, BradGuth wrote:
On Sep 4, 2:25*pm, Double-A wrote:

"Astronomers are rejoicing that they've found the best place on earth
for astronomical observation. The only problem? It also happens to be
the "very worst place on the surface of the planet for humans."
Whoops. Send in the Robots."

http://gizmodo.com/5349832/astronome...targaze-in-ver...

Double-A

Actually robotic observations via hydrogen balloons can't be all that
bad anymore. *Cruising along with those winds at 75+km has to be
relatively clear viewing at perhaps 0.1% of the spendy cost for any
LEO alternative.

However, for as little as another two cents ($135M) we could have a
pair of TRACEe2, or for a nickel ($338M) would buy us a pair of the e2
and and perhaps one TRACEe3. (a thousand fold better magnification
than our existing TRACE)

They claim a delivery cost of $10/kg, however I bet the Antarctic
observatory would end up costing us more than all three TRACE (two e2s
and one e3), and couldn't possibly accomplish 0.1% as much good.

*~ BG

Balloons in the wind are not stable enough platforms. Ever try to
hold a camera steady while taking a time exposure? Usually the
pictures come out blurred.

Double-A

On Sep 4, 6:16*pm, Double-A wrote:
On Sep 4, 3:13*pm, BradGuth wrote:



On Sep 4, 2:25*pm, Double-A wrote:

"Astronomers are rejoicing that they've found the best place on earth
for astronomical observation. The only problem? It also happens to be
the "very worst place on the surface of the planet for humans."
Whoops. Send in the Robots."

http://gizmodo.com/5349832/astronome...targaze-in-ver....

Double-A

Actually robotic observations via hydrogen balloons can't be all that
bad anymore. *Cruising along with those winds at 75+km has to be
relatively clear viewing at perhaps 0.1% of the spendy cost for any
LEO alternative.

However, for as little as another two cents ($135M) we could have a
pair of TRACEe2, or for a nickel ($338M) would buy us a pair of the e2
and and perhaps one TRACEe3. (a thousand fold better magnification
than our existing TRACE)

They claim a delivery cost of $10/kg, however I bet the Antarctic
observatory would end up costing us more than all three TRACE (two e2s
and one e3), and couldn't possibly accomplish 0.1% as much good.

*~ BG

Balloons in the wind are not stable enough platforms. *Ever try to
hold a camera steady while taking a time exposure? *Usually the
pictures come out blurred.

Double-A

Stability is no longer a big problem, as it was decades ago. Nifty
stability gyros, laser and star tracking, digital image stacking and
PhotoShop is the norm.

~ BG