The Chinese Solar Machine Layer by Layer Fire in the Library The Mystery Behind Anesthesia
Mirror, mirror: Inside the Keck II telescope, a 10-meter-wide mirror (bottom) collects starlight and reflects it to a smaller secondary mirror (top), which in turn directs it to other instruments, including the adaptive-optics system.
Keck Observatory
Advances in adaptive optics are bringing the universe into focus.
Astronomers have spotted the most distant, oldest galaxy they've ever seen, using optical tricks both celestial and man-made. While the observation of the galaxy as it existed just two billion years after the Big Bang is scientifically significant in its own right, it also serves as an early peek at what's to come as astronomers adopt a sophisticated technique called adaptive optics to peer much deeper into the night sky.
The team of astronomers, from Caltech and Durham University, in England, announced their findings in the journal Nature last week. Using the Keck telescope in Hawaii, they examined a galaxy 11 billion light-years from Earth. Previously, astronomers had been able to see no farther than seven or eight billion light-years. Because looking across astronomical distances is the equivalent of looking back in time, the observation brings astronomers much closer to the birth of the universe, approximately 13 billion years ago.
To spot a galaxy at such a great distance, the astronomers used two optical tricks. One is a naturally occurring phenomenon called a cosmic lens, which exploits gravity's ability to bend light. A galaxy that's precisely aligned between the astronomers and the object they want to look at will bend the light from the object around itself, refocusing it toward the astronomers. That gives them an image about eight times sharper than if they'd tried to look at the distant object alone.
But when the object is a galaxy that's only a few thousand light-years across (as opposed to the 100,000-light-year diameter of the Milky Way) and 11 billion light-years away, eight times the sharpness still yields little more than a point of light. Astronomers use adaptive optics to make the image clear enough to get some useful information.
Light can be thought of as a wave, with a series of wave fronts moving through space, much like the fronts of ocean waves rolling ashore. Ordinarily, the front of a light wave is flat. But as it passes through Earth's turbulent atmosphere, it becomes distorted--more like unevenly corrugated cardboard. This turbulence is what makes stars twinkle, and it reduces a telescope's resolution. So the Keck uses an adaptive-optics system that measures that turbulence and corrects for it.
To make the measurement, a ground-based laser fires a beam of light into the air, where it strikes a thin layer of sodium deposited by meteors burning up in the atmosphere, about 90 kilometers up. The sodium reflects the laser light toward the telescope's main mirror, which directs it to a series of wave-front sensors that measure how much the atmosphere has distorted the light wave. Based on these measurements, a computer causes a series of actuator arms to push and pull on a set of small, deformable mirrors. The actuators bend the mirrors roughly a micrometer (about one-hundredth the thickness of a human hair) many times each second, canceling out the atmosphere's turbulence. The corrected wave front is then registered by a camera. Caltech astronomer Richard Ellis says that the result is an image of higher quality than astronomers get with the Hubble Space Telescope, which has no atmospheric distortion to contend with.
Manufacturing in the United States is in trouble. That's bad news not just for the country's economy but for the future of innovation.
Gaetano Marano
246 Comments
>>> that's why I've suggested to DELETE FOREVER the Hubble SM4 >>>
this is a link to a Wired article about the new Earth-based telescopes:
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/10/in-the-late-197.html
and this is a wiki article about them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremely_Large_Telescope
all them with a resolution very much higher than Hubble!
that's why from sept. 25 I've suggested to "STOP the Hubble Servicing Mission 4 now!" since "It's TOO dangerous!" and that's why (between sept. 25 and sept. 29) I've sent dozens emails to the Press, opened several threads on space and non-space forums and posted several comments on space and non-space blogs and news sites with a link to my blog and this (very clear) image:
http://www.ghostnasa.com/hubbledeathtrap.jpg
then, in sept. 29 I was very happy to read that this VERY DANGEROUS repair mission has been delayed to feb. 2009 or later since the Hubble's Control Unit/Science Data Formatter (that has a never used backup system) ended to work EXACTLY four days after my ghostNASA article (and my several posts, emails and comments everywhere) just after 18 YEARS, 5 MONTHS and 4 DAYS of PERFECT work... :) :) :)
ok, I did not want any medal for that... but I always suggest them to STOP FOREVER the SM4 since it's TOO DANGEROUS and completely USELESS!!!
Reply
wtfchuck
5 Comments
Re: >>> that's why I've suggested to DELETE FOREVER the Hubble SM4 >>>
Next time you write this type of baseless drivel, do the world a favor and DELETE IT FOREVER before posting it...
Reply
Gaetano Marano
246 Comments
Re: >>> that's why I've suggested to DELETE FOREVER the Hubble SM4 >>>
.
my comment was mainly about the new earth-based telescopes and the (very high) risks of the SM4
while, about the "coincidence" of the Hubble's computer (that worked well 18 years, 5 months, 4 days) to end (?) work EXACTLY in the SAME DAYS of my press/forums/blogs campaign to "STOP the SM4" (and after dozens visits of an "important space agengy" to my blog) its, just... a "coincidence"... of course... :) :) :)
.
Reply
Silverthorn
11 Comments
Re: >>> that's why I've suggested to DELETE FOREVER the Hubble SM4 >>>
I've no strong opinion about Hubble SM4. For the record, however, I'll note that adaptive optics do not--and can not--enable earth based telescopes to do everything that space-based telescopes can.
For one thing, there is simply the issue of seeing at wavelengths that are blocked by the earth's atmosphere. Those wavelengths convey a lot of useful information.
Even in the visible and near-IR wavelengths that do get through the atmosphere, adaptive optics inherently provide high resolution in only an extremely limited field of view. I haven't tried to calculate the exact field of view that is possible, but for something like the planned 30-meter telescope, it would be measured in arc-seconds rather than arc-minutes. Adaptive optics are useless for wide-field surveys.
The most serious limitation, for romantics like me who dream about direct imaging of earthlike extrasolar planets, is that scattering in the atmosphere makes it functionally impossible to resolve a planetary image from the glare of scattered light from its parent star. The problem isn't one of resolution and it can't be addressed by adaptive optics; it's a problem of signal-to-noise ratio. Only the vacuum of space is clean enough to offer any possibility of direct imaging of earthlike planets around other stars.
Reply