sharp@aquila.UUCP (08/16/84)
>> which means ground-based astronomy goes out of business, since most of the >> interesting observations of quasars, distant galaxies, black hole candidates >> and vibrating stellar corpses are confined to "dark time," when the moon is >> nearly aligned with the sun and the night sky is dark. >This is a serious problem. In the long run, ground-based astronomy is >doomed anyway, both because of increasing volumes of stuff in orbit and >because space is a much better place to do astronomy. But a ring of >powersats in equatorial orbit may well hasten its demise considerably. 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. For a start, there are so many things you can do from the ground where the extra expense of space is a complete waste. There are also projects (like mine, since I should declare bias [although the signature should be enough]) which need the largest possible telescope area. Now, we don't plug the 15 metre National New Technology Telescope just to stay employed, nor to out-do (or Reagan-ise) the Russians (currently with a 6 metre, the largest in the world). If you think that the quest for the origin of the Universe, and the search for the physics that put us all here, are worthwhile endeavours, then the time has definitely come for an increase in size. After all, the Palomar 200" is not exactly young (!) and the California sky has reduced its effective aperture considerably. If you can put a 200" in space, allow the engineers regular (i.e. daily) access to change, adjust and improve, allow the astronomers regular (i.e. daily) access for observing ... I hope you get my point. It is worth pointing out that we already have techniques which go fainter than the Space Telescope will, and which cannot be incorporated into the Space Telescope because the design HAD to be fixed some years ago (although they're working on that). Now, if you could reduce going into space to the level of driving from my office here in Tucson to Kitt Peak mountain (which I'm about to do, so no replies for the next week) then I might concede the point. -- Nigel Sharp [noao!sharp National Optical Astronomy Observatories]
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (08/21/84)
> 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. > 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. -- "The trouble with a just economy is, who runs the Bureau of Economic Justice?" Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry