sharp@aquila.UUCP (08/28/84)
>> = me, before > = them, as identified >> NO, NO, NO, NO, NO ..... well, maybe. It all depends on your definition of >> "the long run". Ground based astronomy is not doomed in our lifetimes, >> whereas powersats are quite possible on that timescale. >I'm not a politician; when I say "in the long run", I refer to a time span >rather longer than the next election or two. >Also, if really cheap space transportation develops, ground-based astronomy >may well be doomed in our lifetimes... >> For a start, there >> are so many things you can do from the ground where the extra expense of >> space is a complete waste. >The real point is, there is essentially nothing that you can do *better* >from the ground. The only thing standing in the way of the mass movement >of astronomy into space is cost. Alright, I'll try to say it again. There are projects which are done by small universities, which cost reasonable amounts of money, because those people do not have, and cannot justify asking for, the expenses to travel to large telescopes, and the (non-negligible) cost of using the large telescope. This state of affairs WILL NOT CHANGE just because the "large, expensive facility" is in space: there will continue to be good and useful science done from the ground, just as there is good and useful science done by smaller facilities than the current top-of-the-line. [As a small aside, I should point out that astronomy is the only science left where amateurs continue to make good and worthwhile contributions.] You will only kill off ground based astronomy if you kill off ground based people - by which time I, for one, will have lost interest :-) >> There are also projects (like mine, since I >> should declare bias [although the signature should be enough]) which need >> the largest possible telescope area.... >My own view is that nobody in his right mind should be making long-term >plans to build a big ground-based telescope any more. It no longer makes >sense. I agree that bigger mirrors are desirable, and agree that they >should be built on the ground *if* they cannot be built in space -- the >point is that they should be built in space. Once the space station is >operational -- and by the way, astronomers who oppose it are cutting off >their noses to spite their faces -- this will be obvious to all. Again, let me try to emphasise the amounts of money involved. For one tenth of the cost of the space telescope, we can have a good, new, large telescope here on the boring old ground, which will do much, much more for our understanding of the large scale structure of the universe and its evolution. Even the space telescope (the Hubble telescope, now that it's been named) will not be up and around for several years (choose your favourite prediction). Meanwhile, there continue to be many things which can be done better from the ground until such time as you have AN ENTIRE OBSERVATORY in space - not just the telescope, but all the support staff, the engineers, the technicians, the spare parts stores, etc., etc. I confessed to bias because it's my job, but I get very upset with people who want to take away my livelihood for completely incorrect reasons. Of course I would rather have a 15m observatory in space than on the ground, but I would rather have it on the ground than have a second space telescope of small aperture - and you would all get much more science for your tax dollar. 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. > Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology I might just as well insist that there is no point building new ground-based zoological laboratories, because we'll soon have lots of extraterrestrials to study, and anyway, most of the ground based animals will be extinct soon. Do I really need to add :-), which I only half feel ? >Ground-based astronomical OBSERVATION is slowly going out of business anyway, >because it can't compete with observations made from satellites, except in >lower cost. But ground-based astronomy will do just fine; witness all the >analysis of Jovian moons by ground-based astronomers. > Howard A. Landman And another one. Satellites have been very successful, but mostly because they are complementary to ground based work. They have NOT superseded ground based observations: they are used for observations which cannot be made from the ground because of atmospheric problems. See above - satellites are not observatories, but specific, remote controlled instruments. I don't know what "Metheus" does, so I don't know Howard's expertise. I happen to know of plenty of reasons against very large telescopes here on the ground, although I think they're outweighed by the arguments in favour, but "the doom of ground based astronomy" is pure fantasy. Please, please, please don't go around telling your legislators that we're doomed when it's JUST NOT TRUE. By the time we have whole cities, self-sufficient, in space, then top-of-the-line astronomy may well be done out there, but ground based observations will never stop. -- Nigel Sharp [noao!sharp National Optical Astronomy Observatories]