RawThinkTank Flat Space Telescope

[RawThinkTank]

This telescope is mostly made up of the light collector rather than the nozzle we can see in HST.

Create long micro ( or nanotubed) photo sensors that collect light in considerable straight line, straighter the better ie. coming only from one direction. Align these millions of micro telescopes in flat panel such that they all collect light parallel with little gaps in between for concave or convex motion of the panel ( that replaces mirror) . This panel concaves and convexes at command ie. Flatter for far off images and concave for zooming in.

Because there is no mirror and no huge tube it will be light weight suitable for sending in space.

I dont see any problems with this , I dont know what u humans are waiting for.

Check this out http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=34255

[RawThinkTank]

RTT FST version 2.00

Create a micro digital Telescope with fantastic resolution possible with today’s technology with exceptional focusing accuracy in any particular direction and region.

The length or height of this telescope should be at least in millimeters. Now create millions of such telescopes and create an array of these telescopes on a plain panel. The shape of the panel can match the max plain that can be fit in today’s largest Space launch Vehicle. This light weight thin design is a contrast to HST’s bulky mirrors and huge nozzle idea for Space Telescope. Each of the micro telescopes take the same command and scans the same region of space at the same time. The images are overlapped digitally and combined to form sharp images, so the FST can be of any flat shape.

[Arch_Rival]

Essentially you have one big spread of photosensors on a thin film that can be shaped right? And this surface does not have a focal point like a telescope mirror, right?

[RawThinkTank]

RTT FST version 2.51

I forgot that HST along with length and breadth also has height. Hence just like any spacecrafts folding solar panels we can send stacks of FST in a space vehicle and then unfold them to form an even bigger FST. Imagine the total light collected by an FST compared to HST.

[Tristan]

First off, you are basically describing a CCD chip. A giant CCD chip. But remember that a CCD chip alone is not capable of producing images of galaxies, nebula and stars. It has a whole, huge telescope in front of it, collecting and magnifying the light onto the chip. In your design, you mention nothing but collecting light. Ok, so we have a huge picture of the night sky... but we wont be able to picture individual galaxies. No magnification.

Not to mention cost. If it has to be "Unfurled" in space from a vehicale, chances are its pretty dam big. Right now, you could spend $40,000 on a fricken CCD camera with a chip half the size of a buisness card. Imagine how much it would cost to build the telescope you propose.

Later
T

[blackholesun]

His idea would work if you have a very large CCD of extremely high resolution. This of course is very cost prohibitive as a large CCD that has a resolution handycap is pretty much useless. This is why the Hubble and other telescopes use lenses or mirrors to focus the light down to a very powerful and high resolution CCD that is expensive but not prohibitive for its size.

Of course you have to worry about the environment you're in as well. If there was a huge CCD that raw describes it would, over time, lose its resolution as elements of the CCD start to fail due to the environment. The Hubble and other orbiting telescopes do a good job of keeping those imaging components safe inside a shell of the craft.

[RawThinkTank]

… But remember that a CCD chip alone is not capable of producing images of galaxies …



It seems U did not read my 2nd post of this thread. Learn to read ok.

And about the cost issue , lets make it when the cost come down ok.

I don’t believe that the cost per say compared to HST resolution will ever be greater in FST because I wont use CCD ( read version 2.00 of RTT FST).

[(Q)]

RawThinkTank

There are plenty of ATM'ers who continually are coming up with ideas and putting them into practice. I would suggest to build a prototype and try it out.

[RawThinkTank]

RawThinkTank

There are plenty of ATM'ers who continually are coming up with ideas and putting them into practice. I would suggest to build a prototype and try it out.

I am just dong my job.

My job is to think what U cant.

I am giving my ideas as charity for the future generations.

I have too much to give and one life time is too short for that.

So if what I think is put in practice after I die , then thats what i prefer, Or if it inspires future or current generations then that’s what is my aim.

Its better to pull the future here now by thoughts instead of wasting time building one by one.

I am RawThinkTank not just by name. I build all these thing in my mind , That’s more than enough for me. If I live for next 500 years and run out of ideas then I will start to build all these. It will be a Crime to not give more of what I can think instead of less of what I can do.

[(Q)]

My job is to think what U cant.

Sitting around thinking up ideas without putting them into practice is equivalent to pissing into the wind.

However, sitting around thinking up ideas that are already in practice and then trying to take credit for it is... well, you can finish the sentence.

http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bpa/AEOS_Telescope_Review-Letter_Report_Final.pdf

[Tristan]

"It seems U did not read my 2nd post of this thread. Learn to read ok."
No I read it quite well, and I can read quite well too. So now you are suggesting a million micro telescopes each with its own set of mirrors/lens?

"I don’t believe that the cost per say compared to HST resolution will ever be greater in FST because I wont use CCD ( read version 2.00 of RTT FST)."
It wont use CCD? Then how do you suppose to get images from your HUGE array of microscopic telescopes? Film? You even say "Create a micro digital Telescope", explain what supposed "new" imaging process you have besides CCD.

And as far as your last post, talk about Q giving an inch, and you taking a mile. Sheesh.

Later
T

[(Q)]

talk about Q giving an inch, and you taking a mile

No problem, I gave him an inch but he doesn't have a 'foot' to stand. :D

[phlogistician]

RTT, that's already kinda done. X-Ray Telescopes use MCPs (micro channel plates) to 'funnel' X-Rays onto CCD's. It's impossible to 'lens' X-Rays, as they prefer passing through solid objects, but they can be focussed by using mirror shells and reflecting the X-Ray at a glancing angle. They can then be imaged using MCPs and CCDs. I used to work with a bunch of guys who made that stuff;

http://www.src.le.ac.uk/instrumentation/mcp/lobster.html

[Boris2]

a very similar idea was used in a sci-fi book i read probably 30 years ago. long narrow glass fibres....precursor to fibre optics i guess. had a flexible mirror/receiver for zooming in on the object.

:-)

[RawThinkTank]

Sitting around thinking up ideas without putting them into practice is equivalent to pissing into the wind.


What made U think I just sit around? U have no idea about me , my profession and what do I put into practice in it. The ideas I present are justa by products of my incredible thinking capacities that I believe should not just get lost in time.


However, sitting around thinking up ideas that are already in practice and then trying to take credit for it is... well, you can finish the sentence.


U need to do a lot more explaining before accusing.

[(Q)]

I am not U - I am Q.

See above link for full explanation.

[RawThinkTank]

...
It wont use CCD? Then how do you suppose to get images from your HUGE array of microscopic telescopes? Film? You even say "Create a micro digital Telescope", explain what supposed "new" imaging process you have besides CCD.
...

Nice try Trisan, but U know a lot of things have happened about the cheapness of CCD since U learnt about them. Firstly U dont have to use the amplification systems on all the micro telescopes that I proposed. That will be done at the common collection of all the signals. That is the key to cost reduction. Secondly, haven’t U heard about the rates of WebCams, and Mobile Cams these days, We can modify some of them ?

[(Q)]

the micro telescopes that I proposed.

Again, U didn't propose it. Stop trying to take credit for others' works.

[Tristan]

WebCams and Mobile Cams are CCDs. CCD stands for Charged Coupled Device. Its essentially a chip with hundreds to millions of little light buckets that react to photons, collecting electrons. The way a computer reads the chip is simple, it litterally counts the number of electrons in each "light bucket" and assigns a value to it.

And no, you can't just use Webcams or Mobile Cams for a telescope. The best you will be able to image is a shotty image of the moon or Jupiter. The reason CCD cameras are so insanely expensive for real astronomy is because the are highly specialized. Astronomical CCD's are like the Mclaren F1, Mercedes-Benz, Corvettes (choose your comparison) of the CCD world.

In addition, they are much smaller than any thing you can buy at best buy. A specialed reciever at the 10m diameter Heinrich Hertz Submillimeter Telescope on Mt Graham, in Arizona, has, if im not mistaken, only about 20 pixels... And it the cost was around 1million US dollars per pixel. In addition, the reciever is built specially to be cooled by, not liquid nitrogen, but liquid helium.

The CCDs in use in astronomical observations are just insanely expensive. Not to mention they are generally cooled by liquid nitrogen or liquid helium (the latter being much more expensive).

"Nice try Trisan, but U know a lot of things have happened about the cheapness of CCD since U learnt about them"
And no, I dont think so. Im 17 years old and just 3 weeks ago, spent a week in Arizona, one night of which I spent on Kitt Peak National Obervatory. We spent time in the 90" observing with an infrared CCD cooled by liquid nitrogen (PISCES: world-class 1024x1024 pixel wide-field near-infrared (1.0-2.5 microns) camera). The rest of the week we spent using Mt. Bigelow's 61" telescope with 2048x2048 pixel thinned-CCD camera, Mt.Lemmon's 60" with an Optomechanics Research grating spectrometer, 40" with a Photon-counting aperture OPTEC SSP-3 photometer, and 12" with an amateur ST-7XE CCD.

Yes, CCDs have become less expensive. But ASTRONMICAL CCD chips and their camera's are still insanely expensive compared with the off the shelf WebCam.
And one more thing, these CCDs are extremely sensitive to light, heat (which is why professional ones are cooled by helium or nitrogen), and any type of radiation. Putting one in space completely unprotected would be like building a circuit board and dropping it into and electrical arc.

"Firstly U dont have to use the amplification systems on all the micro telescopes that I proposed. That will be done at the common collection of all the signals."
You need some way to collect the information that is being collected by your proposed micro telescopes. Otherwise, you are not making a telescope, but a rather large, multi-billion dollar floating potatoe chip.

[Tristan]

P.S.
"U have no idea about me , my profession and what do I put into practice in it. The ideas I present are justa by products of my incredible thinking capacities that I believe should not just get lost in time."

You have no idea how miniscule of a distance arrogance will get you.

[Arch_Rival]

An individual ccd, or equivalent, only records light but does not collect it. Thousands of CCDs aligned together wouldn't give anything.

Imagine this: getting together hundreds of people, tell them to look at a magnitude 13 galaxy, and none of them will see it.

Conversely, if you had a light gathering device, like a mirror or lens, anyone can see the galaxy.

And the bigger the mirror, or lens, the dimmer the object you can see. So having thousands of tiny CCDs wouldn't be practical.

[Phrank]

Maybe another approach would be be to intercept the electromagnetic component of light as this would allow you to detect a signal no matter how faint the original light source, Would'nt it???.

[Boris2]

>>>>...electromagnetic component of light....

light is em. isn't it?

[Tristan]

In other words, light and electromagnetic spectrum are two different ways of saying the same thing.
What do you mean phrank?

[Phrank]

My apologies for nor making my point correctly my original thought was that maybe a good or better way of detecting the presence of photon's would be to detect the magnetic component's of the photon's to be detected but in saying that i am not sure of the way a ccd collects it's signal is it a mini camera or does work another way i suppose that fact that it is a charge coupled device means it already works in the fashion i propose, Mmm maybe i should have looked into ccd's before posting :o

[Vortexx]

The idea of lightweight nanoscale CCD telescopes is promising. However there are still some production and costissues.

Eventually these hurdles will be taken as consumer digital cameras/projectors further improve and the price plummets.

So, the idea seems valid, we have to wait until the market is ready OR the millitary gain some interest with their deep pockets.

[RawThinkTank]

thats a great idea PHRANK. But I have no idea how to bend the light. We will have to some how bend light into the CCDs. That would be for the first time that telesopes will be made without mirrors or lenses. In a tv CRT electrons are bend at will to form a picture, so may be we can develop some kinda magnetic lenses or something.

Q TRISTAN Arch_Rival
U people r good for nothing, all U can tell is why something wont work ( because U cant understand), so learn something from Vortexx and Phrank

My point was to reduce the bulk of HST and I have achieved where U failed !

[blackholesun]

My point was to reduce the bulk of HST and I have achieved where U failed !

Raw, you haven't achieved anything but in designing a large digital camera. You won't see to the farthest edges of the universe with it because you would be collecting light from a very wide field and you wouldn't be focusing it. It's practically like taking a picture of the sky with a pocket cam. For someone calling themselves a genius you sure don't think too logically.

And who said magnetic fields bend light? They've made field millions of times as strong as the earth's right here on earth without the least bit of photon deflection being detected.

U people r good for nothing, all U can tell is why something wont work ( because U cant understand),

Oh we understand just fine. It's you who seems to be rusty in the old physics department. You can't make up bunk physics to push your ideas forward; that's what we call snake oil.

[(Q)]

U people r good for nothing, all U can tell is why something wont work

The contradiction in that statement is equaled only by your tenuous grasp of syntax.

If we explain to you why something doesn't work then that should be seen as a good thing. Your statement would show that you are not interested in listening to anyone but yourself and those who agree with you. Very bad science.

[Phrank]

There does not seem to much constructive attitude in these forums, instead members seem content to point out errors in other's post's without presenting alternative idea's of they're own. I suppose that way at least they avoid having error's in they're own posts highlighted!!!

[(Q)]

There does not seem to much constructive attitude in these forums, instead members seem content to point out errors in other's post's

Pointing out flaws IS constructive.

without presenting alternative idea's of they're own. I suppose that way at least they avoid having error's in they're own posts highlighted!!!

What alternatives are there to one hair-brained scheme other than another hair-brained scheme?

[Tristan]

I simply dont have any alternate ideas to purpose, otherwise I would. And like Q said, pointing out flaws in an idea is what we call SCIENCE. Duh... Any person who proposes an idea is going to have it ridiculed because that was makes it better. Unfortunately with this idea, there really is no sound science other than the fact that we can make CCD chips, and nano tubes.

Later
T

[Arch_Rival]

Actually, i've been thinking along the same lines as Phrank for sometime now. How to manipulate the EM components of light in order to focus it, preferably with electronics and not mirrors or lenses. This will reduce the costs significantly.

RawThinkTank, i suppose your motive for posting is not for a constructive discussion, but to get recognition for your wacky ideas. If you can't accept criticism for your ideas, don't post them up at all.

[RawThinkTank]

Its not my problem if humans remain oblivious even after telling them how obviously things work. That BlackHoleSun says that FST will take only dim pictures of sky , what that dam human doesn’t get is that power of any telescope depends on how much light is collected by it at one instance. I have already made it clear in my previous posts that the micro telescopes focus at a particular region all at same time and these pictures are digitally combined to form brighter images. Cant even read, whata waste of my time.

[Tristan]

You still dont get it... We overlap pictures now... Say take 3 10minute exposures of the orion nebula, and then overlap them to create a brighter, color picture. Thats no big deal. You are the one who is not making any sense. You are not suggesting any way of focusing... of collecting alot of light in a little area... In other words, zooming on on an object. You can just lay a pannel of little CCD's in an area and collect light from a single tiny point. Thats why we use mirrors to focus the light.

And stop that "you humans" shit. Im really starting to get sick of it. If you want to entertain yourself with trying to make people think your some alien or machine, search for Backslash777 in the search bar at the top.

Later
T

[RawThinkTank]

Clearly smartass Tristan is oblivious to what is obvious for me. What a waste of resources U r T.

In the same volume of Bulky HST I can send Tens of FSTs in a single launch, Dont U get it DUMBO ? These FSTs will open up like a Folding SolarPanel. Again Whata waste of My Time, cant up flip pages of this thread.

I am not Alien nor a machine ( although they pose a threat to my supremacy), I am what Q, T ans A_R r not , I am Rationalist, humans r my ancestors, If U find that funny or entertaining then U r as good as extinct. Tristan U in particular r a will fit to b called a humanzee ( a man like animal but also like a chimpanzee , an arogant one too ).

[Tristan]

Bahahahahaha.....

In the same volume of Bulky HST I can send Tens of FSTs in a single launch, Dont U get it DUMBO ? These FSTs will open up like a Folding SolarPanel.
Again, you post the same thing you have said countless other times... without saying how you plan to actually create an image.... Its useless trying to talk to you. Mod, please just close this thread.... its going no where and its outlived its purpose

[Arch_Rival]

Let me tell you something you don't seem to get, RawThinkTank. Education don't come easy. It's hard work. Don't think you can skip that, then come up with some wacky idea you didn't think through, then think you are oh-so-great and doing mankind a great service.