eugene@ames.UUCP (Eugene Miya) (08/30/84)
[] Hardly! I am not sure how some people see ground based astronomy dying. Space telescopes, flying telescopes, and ground telescopes, complemented by computers and other electronics will make more interesting astronomy. If on the other hand, as you say, astronomers will be put out of work, maybe I should go to work on a PhD in astronomy [I have a standing invitation from a friend at UCSC/Lick, I decided to get out of astronomy in 6th grade because I thought the World could only support about 800 astronomers, I had to settle for the space program instead.] Maybe this will get rid of some dead wood. The problem with all space telescopes, and the large facilities like the VLA, Palomar, the Kuiper Flying Observatory (based here at Ames), all the big science facilities like SLAC, CERN, etc. is that time is such a precious resource, you may never get to use it. The waiting list for Palomar is about 5-6 years, and I think the Space Telescope Project already has a back log of users [Some may be dead before they use it]. So you have to test your model using other means. I have friends [Two of them former unix-wizards] starting a new observatory in Monterey. They just had their building dedicated in June. They already have work with their small computer driven 36 inch. Their users include UCB, NASA, and other installations [all small grants at this time, but will be growing]. There's lots of work on ground systems. --eugene miya NASA Ames Research Center
nather@utastro.UUCP (Ed Nather) (08/31/84)
[] >I have friends [Two of them former unix-wizards] starting a new observatory >in Monterey. They just had their building dedicated in June. They already >have work with their small computer driven 36 inch. Their users include >UCB, NASA, and other installations [all small grants at this time, but will >be growing]. There's lots of work on ground systems. > >--eugene miya > NASA Ames Research Center Put up a few sunsats, so there is bright "moon"light every night, and watch your friends give up bright-night astronomy and go back to kernel hacking. -- Ed Nather {allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!nather Astronomy Dept., U. of Texas, Austin
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (09/11/84)
Several people have responded to my suggestion that ground-based astronomy is dead, mostly with sharp denials. I stand by my previous comments, however; these folks have missed the point. The claims that ground-based astronomy is not going to die are all based on one fundamental postulate: P. Access to space will remain expensive and infrequent. From which we get four theorems: T1. Space-based telescopes will be few. T2. Observing time on space-based telescopes will be scarce. T3. Space-based telescopes and their instruments must be built to be ultra-reliable. T4. Since there are few telescopes, they and their instruments must be as sophisticated as possible to maximize results. If one agrees with these assumptions, then obviously space-based astronomy can *never* do more than supplement ground-based astronomy. Unfortunately, all these assumptions will shortly become wrong. Access to space *will* become cheap and routine; the only question is how soon. I know some people who think it *might* be within the next 10-15 years. Certainly it will happen sometime within the next few decades. (Note that the Shuttle is not cheap and use of it is not routine and probably never will be, despite the original hopes. It will take second-generation hardware to achieve the effect I refer to.) Let us re-examine theorems T1-T4 on this basis. T1 becomes false. Space-based telescopes will be easy and cheap to loft, hence plentiful. The biggest hassle will be uplinks and downlinks. This is probably best handled by having most of the telescopes near one or more space stations, so they can use part of the stations' ultra-high-bandwidth communications gear. This aside, setting up a space telescope becomes not much harder than setting up an observatory on a nearby mountain. T2 becomes false. Anyone who has a real need sets up his own telescope; minor users share existing instruments. There is no drastic shortage of scopes, hence no drastic shortage of observing time. T3 becomes false. With routine access for maintenance, there is no reason why (say) a photometer for space use has to cost much more than a similar instrument for ground use. Most current ground-based instruments would work just fine, albeit briefly, in space. Most could be upgraded for a fair useful life in space with very minor changes, i.e. vacuum-tolerant lubrication for moving parts and remote controls for adjustments. The space environment is a bit more severe than the ground-based environment, but not horrendously so. The big price tags on space-qualified gear are mostly a matter of ultra-high reliability and spectacularly inefficient bureaucratic organizations. [Those of you who doubt the last should look at the costs for the amateur-radio satellites, which are orders of magnitude below those of similar "professional" satellites.] T4 becomes false. Space-based instruments can be built for specific jobs in much the same way as ground-based instruments, and there is no need to eke every last possible bit of performance out of them -- there'll be another one next week, after all. This is a powerful factor in bringing costs down. Getting the maximum possible performance costs a bundle. In other words, given cheap and routine space transportation, ground-based astronomy dies. Setting up a major, or even minor, telescope on the ground makes no more sense than setting one up in the middle of a major city. It's just the wrong place. None of the critics has come up with anything that refutes my major contention: the right place for astronomy is in space. Putting it on the ground has *no* *advantages* except cost. Once access to space is easy and cheap, ground-based astronomy is dead except for secondary purposes like training. [Those who protest that mid-city telescopes are still good for something should go talk to the Carnegie folks; they've got a 100-inch telescope they'd like to sell you. The Mount Wilson observatory, including the original 100-inch telescope, is for sale. It's too close to the suburbs of L.A. now. I'm sure they'll be delighted to see you, because rumor hath it that there are no bids so far...] > >............-- and by the way, astronomers who oppose it are cutting off > >their noses to spite their faces... > > ... > And I know of no astronomers who are opposing the space station, and since > I know a lot of astronomers, it obviously isn't widespread. You've never heard of Carl Sagan? Last I heard, he claimed to be an astronomer. Ditto James Van Allen, whose name should also ring a bell. It doesn't really matter how widespread it is; influence matters more than numbers. A good many influential folks in the astronomy-and-space- science community have made unfriendly noises about the space station, on various grounds. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
elt@astrovax.UUCP (Ed Turner) (09/12/84)
This is really pretty silly. Essentially no astronomer of the many I know thinks that ground based astronomy is coming to an end (or even declining in importance) in the forseeable future (decades). Moreover, groups of astronomers charged with the task of planning the discipline's future have generally reached the opposite conclusion (i.e., that there is some danger of damage to astronomical research by devotion of too large a fraction of available resources to space astronomy). See for instance "Astronomy and Astrophysics for the 1980's: Report of the Astronomy Survey Committee", a study performed by the National Academy of Sciences (=a couple of dozen of the county's top astronomers) which was charged (despite the 1980's reference in the title) with taking a long range look at astronomy's future. I hate to argue "from authority" instead of "in detail" but I simply don't have the time to explain all of the types of observations which are not impacted at all significantly by the atmosphere. For a good detailed comparison of ground based vs. space based astronomy at a quite technical level see the Appendix of "Optical and Infared Telescopes for the 1990's" ed. A. Hewitt, KPNO, 1980 (in Vol. 2). Ed Turner astrovax!elt P.S. - The predictions of astronomers about the future of astronomy, in addition to whatever force of expertise they have, may in any case be self-fullfiling. After all, it is astronomers who will implement the future of astronomy.