Thirty-Meter Telescope

[blobrana]

Thirty-Meter Telescope gets $200m
"The California Institute of Technology and the University of California have received a $200 million commitment over nine years from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation toward the further development and construction of the Thirty-Meter Telescope (TMT). Funding under this commitment will be shared equally between the two universities, with matching gifts from the two institutions expected to bring the total to $300 million. When built, TMT will be the largest telescope in the world."

Read more (http://www.tmt.org/index.html)

[draqon]

the question is not whether the telescope will be the largest or not...but what resolution it will have...how far are the image distance focus location will it have. Hubble for example is not as large...yet it sees more than any largest telescope on Earth can see.

[cosmictraveler]

It would be more prudent to build..."Astronomical interferometers can produce higher resolution astronomical images than any other type of telescope. At

radio wavelengths image resolutions of a few micro-arcseconds have been obtained, and image resolutions of a few milliarcseconds can be achieved at

visible and infrared wavelengths."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_interferometer

[draqon]

It would be more prudent to build..."Astronomical interferometers can produce higher resolution astronomical images than any other type of telescope. At

radio wavelengths image resolutions of a few micro-arcseconds have been obtained, and image resolutions of a few milliarcseconds can be achieved at

visible and infrared wavelengths."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_interferometer

on Earth? the clouds are still there...blocking the view to the stars. I say space telescope is our best option.

[cosmictraveler]

An interferometer is by far the best way to view the cosmos.

[draqon]

An interferometer is by far the best way to view the cosmos.

Hey a compromise...a Interferometer system in space :D cheers

[cosmictraveler]

That is fine with me however to keep all of that type of system in perfect

alignment in space will be exceedingly difficult if not almost impossible.

IMHO.

[draqon]

That is fine with me however to keep all of that type of system in perfect

alignment in space will be exceedingly difficult if not almost impossible.

IMHO.

lasers.

[cosmictraveler]

Solar winds, meteors, space debris and other phenomenon can knock them

out of alignment and they won't have much fuel to keep them positioned

exactly the same all of the time. That's why a ground base is better. IMHO

[draqon]

grrr....cosmictraveler...were are your compromises? geeese.

[leopold99]

Hubble for example is not as large...yet it sees more than any largest telescope on Earth can see.
Hubble's angular resolution is 0.05 arcsecond. This is the "sharpness" of Hubble's vision. If you could see as well as Hubble, you could stand in New York City and distinguish two fireflies, 1 m (3.3 feet) apart, in San Francisco.

[cosmictraveler]

grrr....cosmictraveler...were are your compromises? geeese.

I understand your frustration but I look at it in many ways. First the cost.

To operate a space based system would cost 5 times as much to build and

operate as a ground based. You can have mechanical problems in a space

system that astronauts won't be able to fix therefore rendering the whole

thing useless, as what happened to the Hubble, if you will recall. If any

modification is needed to upgrade the system it cannot be done but on a

ground based they can easily upgrade the system easily and repair any

malfunctions. I hope I have brought you some new data that you may have

overlooked before you made your assessment of both systems and will

change your viewpoint as you wanted me to alter mine now that you have

this new information.

[kaneda]

Ground based telescopes in places like Canary Islands, Hawaii, etc are situated on top of mountains above (normal) cloud level. They are relatively easy to set up and work on as well as add things too. While the 96" HST has better definition than ground based telescopes, it is not going to see anything near as faint as a 1200" telescope which in theory could take in about 150 times as much light. It will see things far too faint for the HST and take photos in minutes that the HST needs hours to accomplish. Used in conjunction with another optical telescope, it could do even better.