![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In looking again at the February 2013 Sky and Telescope, on page 9,
Lawrence H. Aller is quoted as noting that many optical astronomers were, in 1963, struggling with equipment that was a hundred years old. (But ample funding was available for novel fields, such as radio astronomy and space satellites.) This somewhat puts in perspective the funding issues faced by the astronomical community today. John Savard |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Jan 19, 12:19*am, "T.T." wrote:
"Paul Schlyter" wrote in message ... In article 79512be1-cb35-4a31-832a-d4940ff357e9 @sb6g2000pbb.googlegroups.com, says... In looking again at the February 2013 Sky and Telescope, on page 9, Lawrence H. Aller is quoted as noting that many optical astronomers were, in 1963, struggling with equipment that was a hundred years old. (But ample funding was available for novel fields, such as radio astronomy and space satellites.) This somewhat puts in perspective the funding issues faced by the astronomical community today. John Savard I'm currently reading the book "Giant Telescopes" by W Patrick McCray, which describes optical astronomy from the 5-meter (200-inch) Palomar telescope to today's giant telescopes. The 5-meter Palomar telescope remained the world's largest optical telescope for 28 years, from 1948 until the russian 6-meter telescope was finished in 1976. Then it took another 17 years until the 10-meter Keck I telescope was finished in 1993. *During those years there were nine telescopes 3 meters or larger built though. Also, during these years, there were strong improvements in the detectors used in the large telescopes, from traditional photographic plates to photomultiplier tubes to today's modern CCD imaging devices. *A 1-meter telescope using a modern detector can easily outperform the 5-meter Palomar telescope using traditional photographic plates. I don't remember the year, but it was before the Palomar telescope began operation, an astronomer friend of the family wangled us a guided tour of the the dome. It was awe-inspiring stuff, and the thing that impressed me the most was a sort of clock-work drive that aimed the monster. It was no bigger than a small refrigerator with gears and cogs no more robust than a grandfather clock's. Massive telescopes now and to come, incredible detectors, image stabilization. Professional telescopes seem to have weathered bad economics well enough, which is good. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article ,
Paul Schlyter wrote: In article 79512be1-cb35-4a31-832a-d4940ff357e9 , says... In looking again at the February 2013 Sky and Telescope, on page 9, Lawrence H. Aller is quoted as noting that many optical astronomers were, in 1963, struggling with equipment that was a hundred years old. (But ample funding was available for novel fields, such as radio astronomy and space satellites.) This somewhat puts in perspective the funding issues faced by the astronomical community today. John Savard I'm currently reading the book "Giant Telescopes" by W Patrick McCray, which describes optical astronomy from the 5-meter (200-inch) Palomar telescope to today's giant telescopes. The 5-meter Palomar telescope remained the world's largest optical telescope for 28 years, from 1948 until the russian 6-meter telescope was finished in 1976. Then it took another 17 years until the 10-meter Keck I telescope was finished in 1993. During those years there were nine telescopes 3 meters or larger built though. And it's going to be the better part of another 28 years from first light at Keck I to first light at the EELT, with nine eight-metre scopes built in the interim; it looks as if that's just how astronomy works. GTC opened in 2007 but is only marginally bigger than Keck, and it looks as if instrument development was very badly hit by Spain's financial trouble; it's being used, but there aren't all that many papers coming out http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND.../0/1/0/all/0/1 and it doesn't have the fancy adaptive optics required to compete in high-resolution ground-based astronomy, or the incredibly stable spectroscopes required to compete in exoplanet-hunting, or the wide-field imagers required to compete in lensing-based cosmology. I don't know if it's quite fair to compare GTC to Keck as if comparing the Russian BTA with Palomar, but it seems tempting. Tom |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Jan 19, 12:19*am, "T.T." wrote:
"Paul Schlyter" wrote in message ... In article 79512be1-cb35-4a31-832a-d4940ff357e9 @sb6g2000pbb.googlegroups.com, says... In looking again at the February 2013 Sky and Telescope, on page 9, Lawrence H. Aller is quoted as noting that many optical astronomers were, in 1963, struggling with equipment that was a hundred years old. (But ample funding was available for novel fields, such as radio astronomy and space satellites.) This somewhat puts in perspective the funding issues faced by the astronomical community today. John Savard I'm currently reading the book "Giant Telescopes" by W Patrick McCray, which describes optical astronomy from the 5-meter (200-inch) Palomar telescope to today's giant telescopes. The 5-meter Palomar telescope remained the world's largest optical telescope for 28 years, from 1948 until the russian 6-meter telescope was finished in 1976. Then it took another 17 years until the 10-meter Keck I telescope was finished in 1993. *During those years there were nine telescopes 3 meters or larger built though. Also, during these years, there were strong improvements in the detectors used in the large telescopes, from traditional photographic plates to photomultiplier tubes to today's modern CCD imaging devices. *A 1-meter telescope using a modern detector can easily outperform the 5-meter Palomar telescope using traditional photographic plates. I don't remember the year, but it was before the Palomar telescope began operation, an astronomer friend of the family wangled us a guided tour of the the dome. It was awe-inspiring stuff, and the thing that impressed me the most was a sort of clock-work drive that aimed the monster. It was no bigger than a small refrigerator with gears and cogs no more robust than a grandfather clock's. Isn't it supposed to be so perfectly balanced that it can be moved with finger pressure? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
PBS: 400 Years of the Telescope | Rick033050 | Amateur Astronomy | 20 | April 27th 09 11:09 AM |
Two years of amazing discoveries for Canada's "Humble Space Telescope" | Jacques van Oene | News | 0 | July 1st 05 09:20 AM |
[AD} 35 years of Sky & Telescope Magazine for sale | Morgoth | Amateur Astronomy | 12 | August 17th 03 07:37 PM |
[AD} 35 years of Sky & Telescope Magazine for sale | Morgoth | UK Astronomy | 2 | August 6th 03 06:18 AM |
Light Years and telescope question | YFC747 | Misc | 2 | June 25th 03 08:16 PM |