Cerro Armazones Telescope to be 40m (130 ft) across

[PB666]

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34326506

Due to popular opinion, the moderators request I add some opinion to turn something arbitrarily known by a few pedantics as click bait into something else.

So here are the opines.

We need this, but many times larger in diameter, in space.

Stop wasting the groups time with post about balloons on Venus or colonies on Mars, both technologically unfeasible, and in both cases not sustainable.

Stop wasting the groups time with long winded post about whether you use a space-taxi to go to the moon or mars.

More installments with next click-bait.

Oh and I should add, a new 130 ft telescope is alot more scientifically relevant than terraforming mars, cloudriding cities on venus, or space weapon design.

Edited September 23, 2015 by PB666

[justidutch]

I know that your intentions are good, but In My Opinion, telling people what and what not to read, question, wonder or fantasize about isn't really very cool.

I am interested in your opinion, but a short synopsis of the articles you think I should read would be of great help. I gather you want to begin conversations about various topics, so start the conversation. With your words, not a link.

[jwenting]

not opinions here, facts:

we need less click bait

we need more space exploration and exploitation

we need permanent settlement in space

just because something isn't technically feasible at this very moment doesn't mean we shouldn't try to make it technically feasible in the near future. You're promoting stagnation, stagnation is devolution, devolution is extinction.

[Scotius]

We need freedom of though. We need to share our opinions. We need to bounce our ideas off each other. We need more dreamers. Because space exploration started with people dreaming about flying, visiting other worlds and having adventures you can't find on your personal boring patch of dirt.

[Slam_Jones]

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34326506

Due to popular opinion, the moderators request I add some opinion to turn something arbitrarily known by a few pedantics as click bait into something else.

So here are the opines.

We need this, but many times larger in diameter, in space.

Stop wasting the groups time with post about balloons on Venus or colonies on Mars, both technologically unfeasible, and in both cases not sustainable.

Stop wasting the groups time with long winded post about whether you use a space-taxi to go to the moon or mars.

More installments with next click-bait.

-snip-

Hmmm.....

I know that your intentions are good, but In My Opinion, telling people what and what not to read, question, wonder or fantasize about isn't really very cool.

-snip-

My thoughts exactly.

[wumpus]

We need this, but many times larger in diameter, in space.

Cute.

Hubble is 2.4m and took a shuttle to launch. Skylab had a 6.6m diameter (so could presumably have contained a mirror much larger than hubble, but far smaller than Cerro), but needed a Saturn launch vehicle.

The thing about lens/mirrors is that they have to be extremely precise: Hubble needed "glasses" because the edges of the primary mirror were off by a micrometer or so. I'd love to see how you plan to assemble "many times more" than 100 (needed "just" to equal Cerro) ~2m mirrors in space and keep the error well under a micrometer. Maybe it would be possible by some sort of automated tuning (there is a reason that the James Webb space telescope is nowhere near Earth and possible shadows and heating/cooling cycles), but it seems yet another idea thrown out without looking at the heaps of data that already exist.

[Friend Bear]

Oh and I should add, a new 130 ft telescope is alot more scientifically relevant than terraforming mars, cloudriding cities on venus, or space weapon design.

Given almost every space-faring UN and otherwise affiliated nation signed resolutions against weapons in space and are equally ready to enforce that agreement on non-signing parties, space weapons should be avoided altogether.

However, there is much to discuss about Mars. Seems awkward you would attempt to limit discussion. I would hope at least one other person would like to seriously discuss things that are relatively possible. No, we are not discussing tearing apart black-holes and travelling through time. Theory is great but it requires the mind for it and technological know-how. Otherwise, it becomes a blog post of "what I wish for," rather than a directed, well-meaning attempt to better humanity through prospective growth.

Discussion of Mars and colonization would be discussion about a planet near similar to ours going through a process that can arguably be said to have occurred to Earth, but at an accelerated rate purely because of an inhabitants (humans) ability to do as much. Without exploring the how, you cannot even begin to approach the possibility of accomplishment and instead stay rooted in your living room using a telescope to dream of reaching the stars rather than succeeding in doing so.

The hope for new ventures and adventures; the desire to reach new places; the drive to create new mechanisms for travel, communication, and day-to-day application; these all played a role in attaining the stance civilization holds today.

Hence, the goal, even further, the desire to reach Mars and create sustainable living is not only a scientific possibility, but arguably a necessity. Now, I am not saying we have the ability to succeed tomorrow, but I am saying we have more a need for it over a telescope that will tell us more accurately things we generally already have information about on areas of our universe we cannot reach. Further, seeking that goal will create scientific discovery that will not only enhance our ability to get a telescope like that into orbit and space, but additionally, make application of that telescope possible and, realistically, more useful.

Ultimately, reaching Mars forces us to engineer better and strive for more, whereas a telescope will cost money in a world that is not willing to pay for it.

Edited September 23, 2015 by Friend Bear

[Slam_Jones]

^^ As far as automation goes, it's getting better by leaps and bounds. Yesterday I saw an article about some drones that had been programmed to be able to analyze and area, and then build a bridge (stable enough for a human to walk across) by working together.

http://www.cnet.com/news/watch-a-swarm-of-drones-build-a-rope-bridge/

So in 10, 15 years, who knows how advanced they'll be? Possibly precise enough to build such a big telescope in orbit.

[PB666]

I know that your intentions are good, but In My Opinion, telling people what and what not to read, question, wonder or fantasize about isn't really very cool.

I am interested in your opinion, but a short synopsis of the articles you think I should read would be of great help. I gather you want to begin conversations about various topics, so start the conversation. With your words, not a link.

I read the article, I know what i think, I want to know what others think. Cool or not, its an opinion.

[Friend Bear]

I read the article, I know what i think, I want to know what others think. Cool or not, its an opinion.

Fair enough.

I like the idea. I think it would be helpful because it would reduce the hyper-extensive use of satellite, orbital telescope, and ground telescope cooperation in order to acquire information on a single point in space since, ideally, this telescope would do what a collection of telescopes do, now.

The only issue is how hugely expensive it will be. Hopefully it would be a collected effort by many nations, which, sadly, leaves the U.S., China, and the Koreas out of the equation. (Think of medical research...if it doesn't make money, the U.S. won't fund it. When was the last time you saw the U.S. look beyond chemotherapy for cancer treatment?)

Edited September 23, 2015 by Friend Bear

[PB666]

not opinions here, facts:

we need less click bait

we need more space exploration and exploitation

we need permanent settlement in space

just because something isn't technically feasible at this very moment doesn't mean we shouldn't try to make it technically feasible in the near future. You're promoting stagnation, stagnation is devolution, devolution is extinction.

Our space exploration is unencumbered by click bait

We need more space science and good science in space.

We need to understand better the physics of our universe

Then and only then should we consider settling in space.

I am not at all promoting stagnation, I am promoting targets that are feasible and will not leave a sour taste in the public's mouth about space and science after they fail. Mars colony is a fantasy, Blimps on venus are a fantasy. Is not something we might achieve if we work hard at it, It is something that can be achieved only if alot of other space 'things' are done, like stations at lagrangian points, stations of the moons of mars, etc. Things in which you can change course if something goes wrong.

What is being advocated in this group for Mars colonization is nothing but fantasy, you cannot have a reproducing colony of humans on Mars with anything near the current technology. The whole concept of blimp colonies floating on Venus, its just because something floats, you still have to insert that something through the upper atmosphere at 8,000 m/s, the bigger the item is the harder it is to insert. Or do you propose we build something floating around in venus and that we capture falling materials in free fall for assembly.

The primary problem with Mars

Electric power supply not up to task

Self contained resource extraction not up to task

dV for launchs and retroburns coming and going to mars not powerful enough at the efficiency one needs.

No method for improving the gravity of a celestial other than centrifugal methods (which work better in space and with no drag)

The way to do something and get it done is to serialize the problem into accomplishable task.

1. Building a station in space - done

2. Making a station capable of centripedal acceleration while not done could be done if relatively easily.

3. Protecting a station from radiation doable

4. Growing plants in space goes with 2. Solar panels, Blue and orange LEDs and heat radiators (doable)

5. Puting things in stable orbits at L1 or L2 - done

6. Intercepting asteriods or comets, done

7. Putting science material on asteroids and tracking them looking for a good intercept point.

The idea of having a 300 foot telescope at L2 assembled in space is not insane, it can be built through a serial effort in space.

[Slam_Jones]

While all the above is, technically, true, there's no reason not to dream past our current technology.

Jules Verne wrote about the Apollo missions to the Moon... except it was over 100 years before it actually happened. And sure, some of the minor details were off, but the majority of it was pretty close to what really happened.

I'm sure people back then were shouting about how it's impossible to get to space because whatever silly notions they had at the time. But despite that, we did it anyway.

You can say inhabiting Venus and Mars in the ways we currently have planned will never happen, and maybe you're right. Maybe they'll be a bit different, due to advancing technology, etc. Regardless, I have no doubt man will one day inhabit many worlds.

[Bill Phil]

A telescope could be built in space, sure. But it's not exactly a high priority.

[Friend Bear]

What is being advocated in this group for Mars colonization is nothing but fantasy, you cannot have a reproducing colony of humans on Mars with anything near the current technology. The whole concept of blimp colonies floating on Venus, its just because something floats, you still have to insert that something through the upper atmosphere at 8,000 m/s, the bigger the item is the harder it is to insert. Or do you propose we build something floating around in venus and that we capture falling materials in free fall for assembly.

I much prefer educated discussion of the possibility of colonization (e.g. what it would take; obstacles to address; etc.) than a lot of argument based on speculation.

I am not trying to be aggressive or attacking, but I have heard all these same things before on the news and popular discussion. However, I see no where in this analysis what the precise issue with radiation is. What are the levels? How can we address this? Then we proceed.

The primary problem with Mars

Electric power supply not up to task

Self contained resource extraction not up to task

dV for launchs and retroburns coming and going to mars not powerful enough at the efficiency one needs.

No method for improving the gravity of a celestial other than centrifugal methods (which work better in space and with no drag)

Similarly here, how can we explore these issues without literal space exploration? Discussing it on earth does not tell us the mineral content or majority element presence on Mars. But landing there with rovers, as we have done, is a step in that direction.

What is the dv that we need and what does that translate to in the real world? What can our ships produce? Have we explored the possibility of ignoring orbit and going straight back to Earth on returns?

Most importantly for these analyses is the gravity issue. Are we even certain the smaller gravity will play a significant role in our inability to colonize? We will not know until we see for ourselves. The experiment with the twins, one of whom is on the ISS, and the effect of low gravity on the human frame is a step in that direction, but that only leads to further speculation, albeit based on more accurate study with both earth and space for comparison; one against the other.

My point is merely how can we know these things without trying or at least approaching it? You may say we cannot get blimps to Venus (weird idea btw, Mars is more understandable, but for example), but just saying it is hard to does not let us find out why or conclude the impossibility. It prevents us from approaching it.

Now to show you I am not attacking and instead addressing the issue bit by bit. As you said, you approach the problem one step at a time. If the first thing we did was say, "screw the moon! Let's go to Mars!" . . . We would be in trouble. But baby steps get us there only if people will open their eyes to the possibility.

Edited September 23, 2015 by Friend Bear

[PB666]

However, there is much to discuss about Mars.

Apparently not science - fantasy.

Much evolving science about Mars, true which is all but not being discussed in the threads on Mars colonization. BTW we are not discussing in lieu of the fact we are discussing fantasy. We keep talking about water on Mars, but its not alot in the equitorial regions of mars its very little. The atmosphere is 1/100 the thickness of earths and has no hydrogen to speak of.

[TABLE=class: infobox]

[TR]

[TH]Carbon dioxide[/TH]

[TD]95.97%[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TH]Argon[/TH]

[TD]1.93%[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TH]Nitrogen[/TH]

[TD]1.89%[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TH]Oxygen[/TH]

[TD]0.146%[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TH]Carbon monoxide[/TH]

[TD]0.0557%[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

So basically the advocates of Mars colony are advocating the survival on Mars that requires hydrogen, for both food and fuel, but the only sources of Hydrogen are in trace amounts of water rapidly depleted from surrounding surface deposits and would require a sustain search and gather to achieve. All of this to be done with 1/10th the amount of sunlight reaching the earth. The best hope martian colony would have would be to intercept comets and redirect them at the surface of mars, slowing them down first. Better yet use a asteroid comet colonizing ship to intercept the comets, mine the hydrogen and transport it to the surface using propellant made from the comet to retrograde the material. But then of course you would have first had to colonize comets and asteroids.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composition_of_Mars#/media/File:PIA16089.jpg

The little inset with magnified peak shows hydrogen, not necessarily in an extractable form, the metal and silicate peaks dominate the spectra-graph. If we were discussion martian science, we would have discussed this as part of the thread, nope. Enough said.

[Friend Bear]

Apparently not science - fantasy.

Much evolving science about Mars, true which is all but not being discussed in the threads on Mars colonization. BTW we are not discussing in lieu of the fact we are discussing fantasy. We keep talking about water on Mars, but its not alot in the equitorial regions of mars its very little. The atmosphere is 1/100 the thickness of earths and has no hydrogen to speak of.

[TABLE=class: infobox]

[TR]

[TH]Carbon dioxide[/TH]

[TD]95.97%[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TH]Argon[/TH]

[TD]1.93%[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TH]Nitrogen[/TH]

[TD]1.89%[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TH]Oxygen[/TH]

[TD]0.146%[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TH]Carbon monoxide[/TH]

[TD]0.0557%[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

So basically the advocates of Mars colony are advocating the survival on Mars that requires hydrogen, for both food and fuel, but the only sources of Hydrogen are in trace amounts of water rapidly depleted from surrounding surface deposits and would require a sustain search and gather to achieve. All of this to be done with 1/10th the amount of sunlight reaching the earth. The best hope martian colony would have would be to intercept comets and redirect them at the surface of mars, slowing them down first. Better yet use a asteroid comet colonizing ship to intercept the comets, mine the hydrogen and transport it to the surface using propellant made from the comet to retrograde the material. But then of course you would have first had to colonize comets and asteroids.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composition_of_Mars#/media/File:PIA16089.jpg

The little inset with magnified peak shows hydrogen, not necessarily in an extractable form, the metal and silicate peaks dominate the spectra-graph. If we were discussion martian science, we would have discussed this as part of the thread, nope. Enough said.

This is awesome.

Really it is all I wanted. It leads to discussion of the inevitable versus the possible. But most importantly, now we know what the opinions are based off.

---

To build off this, the study of alternative fuels is ever more important. For example, an Australian physics graduate has successfully made an ion engine that behaves similarly to the xenon fed NASA engine, but is instead fed by metals of varying atomic mass. Apparently, they have the most success with magnesium and it is almost twice as efficient as xenon fed ion engines.

While the study does not show an alternative means to leaving a celestial body, much more so with an atmosphere, the point is there are alternatives. This one was discovered and proven nearly a year after public awareness of the xenon fed ion engine exploded.

As for the sun light, you (unoffensivley) forgot to incorporate two things: first, the ability to generate solar energy is done numerous ways (for example, solar thermal is not used on movable machinery but is used for powerplant based energy production and is likely a bad example due to both presence of dust and lower solar temperature on Mars (again, which we would not have known precisely without going there)), each of which perform better and better exponentially year after year; second, that, on Mars, there is much less atmosphere causing reflection and refraction that otherwise interferes with solar panels. Remember, half the rovers are powered by solar on Mars now and the ISS is running numerous experiments around the clock, using the majority of its power and not breaking into reserves that I have heard (yes, the ISS gets more sun, but my point is we generate a ton, even with old solar panels).

---

I applaud your incorporation of hydrogen. This has been a basis for many arguments for colonization plausibility. Addressing issues head on allow discussion into the alternatives expressed.

Edited September 23, 2015 by Friend Bear

[PB666]

This is awesome.

Really it is all I wanted. It leads to discussion of the inevitable versus the possible. But most importantly, now we know what the opinions are based off.

---

To build off this, the study of alternative fuels is ever more important. For example, an Australian physics graduate has successfully made an ion engine that behaves similarly to the xenon fed NASA engine, but is instead fed by metals of varying atomic mass. Apparently, they have the most success with magnesium and it is almost twice as efficient as xenon fed ion engines.

Uh, I started that thread. Yes and it has fantastic potential but it was generally poo-pooed in the group. The one thing that S-asteroids have alot of is magnesium. The problem is that you can use aluminum and other soil components to make SFRBs but ion drives won't get you off the surface of Mars. Nor can they retro a payload to parachute altitude or correct to land.

There are very few sustainability options that do not include a readily availabe supply of hydrogen.

As for the sun light, you (unoffensivley) forgot to incorporate two things: first, the ability to generate solar energy is done numerous ways (for example, solar thermal is not used on movable machinery but is used for powerplant based energy production and is likely a bad example due to both presence of dust and lower solar temperature on Mars (again, which we would not have known precisely without going there)), each of which perform better and better exponentially year after year; second, that, on Mars, there is much less atmosphere causing reflection and refraction that otherwise interferes with solar panels. Remember, half the rovers are powered by solar on Mars now and the ISS is running numerous experiments around the clock, using the majority of its power and not breaking into reserves that I have heard.

But has dust, which one could get around by elevating panels 100M over the surface, this is actually more trouble some. The actual reduction of solar radiation due to atm on earth is not disproportionately high. The bigger issue is diffraction but most of the light is scattered and reaches panels anyway, the UV is scattered moreso.

If you have a panel, the heat is going to come from electric power used to light your greenhouse, most likely underground with LEDs, the soil provides insulation, and the heat may have to be radiated. We provide almost all the food for the ISS, and the rovers don't eat. You will on mars have to provide enough energy to grow food, and that is a sizable amount more than here on earth, since we provide almost no electric power to grow food, the sun provides directly. Corn for instance will unitilize about 3 times more hv per day on earth than would be available on mars. So yeah you will be using solar power at least to suppliment sunlight.

[Friend Bear]

Yes and it has fantastic potential but it was generally poo-pooed in the group. The one thing that S-asteroids have alot of is magnesium. The problem is that you can use aluminum and other soil components to make SFRBs but ion drives won't get you off the surface of Mars. Nor can they retro a payload to parachute altitude or correct to land.

Right, but my point is we didn't have those, what, 6 years ago? Possibilities seem endless. I'm not saying these are the seed for lift potential delivery vehicles. I'm saying they are evidence of far more options, undiscovered.

But has dust, which one could get around by elevating panels 100M over the surface, this is actually more trouble some. The actual reduction of solar radiation due to atm on earth is not disproportionately high. The bigger issue is diffraction but most of the light is scattered and reaches panels anyway, the UV is scattered moreso.

I believe UV scatters less.

If you have a panel, the heat is going to come from electric power used to light your greenhouse, most likely underground with LEDs, the soil provides insulation, and the heat may have to be radiated. We provide almost all the food for the ISS, and the rovers don't eat. You will on mars have to provide enough energy to grow food, and that is a sizable amount more than here on earth, since we provide almost no electric power to grow food, the sun provides directly. Corn for instance will unitilize about 3 times more hv per day on earth than would be available on mars. So yeah you will be using solar power at least to suppliment sunlight.

This is one of many options. They are still experimenting with celestial body heat as it relates to conductivity of Mars and its inner core(s). Further, if I remember, UV plays a major role in plant growth. A less inhibiting atmosphere would help permeate growth, but needs to be explored and controlled.

Uh, I started that thread.

I am not sure what the point of this sentence is, but I sense hostility. I have gone out of my way to show the opposite so I think I'm done.

If you want to see the thread you started, take a look at your first post. It sure wasn't about anything I am trying to spur conversation on.

[PB666]

Right, but my point is we didn't have those, what, 6 years ago? Possibilities seem endless. I'm not saying these are the seed for lift potential delivery vehicles. I'm saying they are evidence of far more options, undiscovered.

I believe UV scatters less.

This is one of many options. They are still experimenting with celestial body heat as it relates to conductivity of Mars and its inner core(s). Further, if I remember, UV plays a major role in plant growth. A less inhibiting atmosphere would help permeate growth, but needs to be explored and controlled.

I am not sure what the point of this sentence is, but I sense hostility. I have gone out of my way to show the opposite so I think I'm done.

If you want to see the thread you started, take a look at your first post. It sure wasn't about anything I am trying to spur conversation on.

This is the thread I started; not hostility just a fact

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/134540-15KISP-mg2-ION-drive

If you have been reading the links there is a temendous amount of progess being made in materials science, so called supermats and also with various types of deep space engines. One of the key problems is the cotainment of gases, gases are best liquified, the problem is with ion drives that might operate for months in space, liquification is a problem. Vasimr is a solution but its weight and energy needs are enourmous, if you can get a fractional weight with much less ISP then its worth it, IMHO. But the authors did not oresent on the durability.

Light scattering is the inverse forth power of the wavelength. UV scatters worse than visible light. You can get a suburn under a cloud, thats due to scattering of lUV around the cloud.

Not uv - plants like the deep blue and red-orange. plants appear green because they absorb everything but green light, (a generalization because the spectrum tapers at its edges anyway). One group of researchers pointed out that the most productive algae grow best in frequency attenuated LED light and suggest that some light frequencies were inhibitory.

-------------------

But the problem is not straying into science or off topic in a science thread, the problem concerns people right to express themselves within the boundary of bonafida science topics, if i drop a link its no less civil than someone flooding the group with bad science concerning mars or venus colonizations or discussing of space weapons, or meme dropping. So why do certain people fell compelled to keep pointing stand alone links out like its a cardinal sin.

Edited September 24, 2015 by PB666

[SuperFastJellyfish]

I think the point is that I'm not on a newsreel type website where I want to read headlines and then decide whether I should goto another website or not to read an article. I'm on a forum where ideas are exchanged through discussion. You are using the wrong format. Plain and simple.

Edit: Do what you want, of course. This is just my opinion.

Edited September 24, 2015 by SuperFastJellyfish

[PB666]

The read, think and reply and it wont be.

[YNM]

Due to popular opinion, the moderators request I add some opinion to turn something arbitrarily known by a few pedantics as click bait into something else.

So here are the opines.

We need this, but many times larger in diameter, in space.

Stop wasting the groups time with post about balloons on Venus or colonies on Mars, both technologically unfeasible, and in both cases not sustainable.

Stop wasting the groups time with long winded post about whether you use a space-taxi to go to the moon or mars.

More installments with next click-bait.

Oh and I should add, a new 130 ft telescope is alot more scientifically relevant than terraforming mars, cloudriding cities on venus, or space weapon design.

We should create that telescope on the far side of the Moon ! Who is up to the task of moving Arecibo there ? Also, we should be sipping water out of Enceladus and burning methane from Titan !

[PB666]

Other than foolery what advantage is ther for a scope on the moon, at least once a month it would be pointing strait towrd the sun. Webb is going to be as big as a tennis court, there were plans to build a bigger sgregated scope, but they were cancelled, its not a foolish idea, its simply that we cut every thing in our space program to bite suze morsels every time there is. major change in congress or the white house. L2 is an obviuos choice for its final location.

[RainDreamer]

ooh, there was a lot of fiasco over the 30m telescope in hawaii (not about the telescope itself though, just its location), now we have a 40m telescope!

[YNM]

Other than foolery what advantage is ther for a scope on the moon, at least once a month it would be pointing strait towrd the sun.

Have you ever observed the Sun in RADIO wavelength ? That's a real thing I tell you. IMHO we don't really need any visual telescope in space - lucky imaging can make images from Keck sharper than Hubble's, large delicate mirrors are easier to built and install and correct on ground, and interferometry helps avoiding bad weather. But Earth's atmosphere (and biosphere - anthrosphere ? What do we call human activites, sociosphere ?) is not good for any other wavelength, except some low-utility radio gap. Having any other kind of telescope outside Earth's atmosphere is a major advantage, from radio to UV and even X-ray or γ-ray. Radio suffers from ionospheric absorption and comm device interference. Microwave and IR suffer from water vapour absorption. UV suffers from ozone absorption. X-ray and γ ray, you know these thing really hate it's own existence.

EDIT : And FYI, JWST is going to be fully in IR. The only visual wavelength it can see is red.

Edited September 24, 2015 by YNM