SpaceRip is that kind of documentary channel we miss from the TV. I'd like to find another such amazing RUclips channel for History documentaries. I'm sick of pawn shops and gold hunters!
You mean like it was before? This sort of stuff was on TV years ago. But they slowly took it out and replaced it with crap. And it's not just in the science world. Scifi, movies, music. I haven't watched TV for more than 8 minutes in 7 years now. There's no point.
aserta So true. I haven't had any broadcast/program television for 10 years now. I do watch TV shows (netflix, TPB)..I just don't need the PROGRAMMING, because I'm not a robot. I'm fully capable of deciding what actual show to watch instead of which trough to watch from.
aserta I'm glad I'm not the only one who has noticed this, when I talk to my family and some of my friends about it they look at me like I'm from another planet.
Tyger Fuhr Well, u know, sometimes the ouvious hides behind its own. Didnt touch tv in years, except for large sport events and such. Keep being interrested in what u like. I´m an electrician, but i cant stop for one day looking up new findings in astronomy and space exploration on the internet. Internet ftw!
So they built a very large telescope. What did they call it? Well, it's called VLT, for Very Large Telescope. Then, now they are building another one, even bigger. Its name? ELT, Extremely Large Telescope. There is something really charming in these simplistic and utterly descriptive naming-conventions. I'm just waiting for the one named SLTttLO, for Somewhat Larger Telescope than the Last One.
their size is mostly limited due to difficulty with transporting them, which is why the new Magellan telescope they're building has 7 mirror parts, each weighing about 20 tons. Their weight and size become a big problem when moving them from factory to observatory if they were all one big mirror.
Very enjoyable video! It is mind boggling the engineering involved in mirror making and the platforms required to support them to track flawlessly and reliably.
I really do hope that when the EELT is built, it's housed in a polished aluminium dome like the CG images of it. If they do and they need a guy to live up there 24/7 to polish it, pass my name on.
Hey spacerip, I think a cool video idea would be the selection process for locations of these large telescopes. Where is the most ideal spot to place a land-based telescope? Are there struggles where human produced light blocks some of the view? Thanks for the awesome videos!
Desert mountain tops are ideal, low humidity/clouds, thin atmosphere, away from city lights. But of course building in such remote remote locations has its own problems. New roads need to be made and specialized transport equipment etc. not to mention the poor personnel who have to work and commute there lol.
Thank you man for saying this. I 100% agree with you about this musical audio pollution in these videos. The music is nice on it's own, but when someone is talking, it obliterates the spoken word. These video makers have no clue about people who are trying to listen to the speaker. I'm guessing these video producers care more about the music than the astronomy, and that the producers don't care about science what so ever.
audio post production engineer here.... in the very unlikely event whoever mixed this reads this comment thread.. I don't think the music is too loud. I think we may have yet another earwax problem. I enjoyed the video.
Exciting prospects in astronomy for the near future. Can't wait to see how far back in time and how far can the Extremely Large Telescope reach. The potential for producing fabulous deep sky images will be a reality and to think this ground based telescope will come on line after the James Webb Space Telescope and between the two of them and other huge astronomical instruments, we certainly are fortunate to be alive during this period of discovery and science. The age of astronomy is upon us, but the downside that has yet to be recognized is the proliferation of LED lighting, the greatest source of light pollution and threat to ground based astronomy. I consider myself an astronomy enthusiast, an amateur astrophotographer and the effects of LED lighting is already damaging our ability to image deep sky objects and it has been said we are losing our night sky darkness at a rate of 2% to 6% a year. At this rate it won't be long before amatuer astronomy will be doomed, just when it has been gaining traction in popularity, not just with older people, but young people as well are taking up an interest in astronomy like no other time and that is because high grade equipment is not only much better, but more affordable. Light pollution has other downsides besides making it more difficult to pursue visual and imaging astronomy on the amateur level, but it is also causing an impact on the professional level too. Most all of the biggest ground based telescopes are located on high mountaintops for obvious reasons, but even there the reach of light pollution is encroaching. But, the notion of losing our dark skies has biological implications as well and much research has been done on this topic and the negative impacts are far and wide. If you care about this and want to know more, I would look up the IDA, International Dark Sky Association and read what they have to say regarding the loss of our night time and the biological cycles associated with it. The problem with LED lighting is not only are they much brighter, but the wavelength they produce are difficult if not impossible to filter out. With other traditional forms of light that occupy a certain space on a light wavelength graph, to which special astronomical filters can block, at the same time the same filters allow good light (or photons) to pass to eventually hit the camera filter. The LED light wavelength is all over the place and hard to nail down in terms of filtering it. However, if they are shielded, directed down, dimmed at night, etc., they can be mitigated to tolerable levels I believe. Education of how LEDs affect us should get more exposure.
Since the Resolution of a Telescope depands on it's effective Diameter (the points that are furthest apart) and its light-collecting abillity depends on it's overall surface-area, its possible do "make" telescopes with a "diameter" of the earths orbit. You observe the object at a point in time, and observe the same objects exactly half a year later, so that you measure at the opposing point of the earths orbit, and add the data up with a specific algorythm similar to the processing in interlinkend telescopes. Of course this is only possible with objects that move next to nothing at all within this half year, so it only works for things like fixstars or galaxies+nebulars outside of our local galaxy-group etc. (don't now specific distance, but imo you'll get the point). Also I wonder why they havn't at least mentioned the gravitational lensing effect, since this also kinda works as a HUGE-ass telescope (dependig of the diameter of the object that causes the lensing object, but at least it have to be of "normal" sun-like diameter and mass. And finally they did't properly explained so called "active optics" like the one tested in the NTT either...
We miss Spacerip TV documentary channel type. So far, a documentary I want to find such an amazing RUclips channel. I'm sick of pawn shops and gold hunters!
Light collecting capability of a mirror depends, of course, on its surface. But resolution, which is the ability to separate tiny details, depends on the distance between its edges. So two mirrors one kilometer apart would have the same resolution as a one kilometer-wide mirror. This resolution applies only in the direction of a line between the two mirrors; in the perpendicular direction, the resolution depends ob the width of the mirrors. Linking mirrors together to get a single image is a difficult task called interferometry. The shorter the wavelength, the more difficult it is to precisely synchronise the waves from each mirror to get a clear image. Which is why the first applications were done with ratio telescopes that observe long wavelengths (much longer than the wavelengths of light). Presently, it is possible to link radio telescopes that are at the antipodes of each other, thus providing the resolution of a mirror that would be as large as planet Earth. There are projects for putting mirrors in orbit (like at the Lagrange points) oriented to direct their light t a common focus to provide angular resolutions in the order of a millionth of an arc second, like that of a mirror that would be 20 to 50 times the diameter of the Earth.
Designed further sized primary mirror. One of my jobs as uni technician - repair vacuum deposition unit - so with that experience - mirror surface not a problem - even cleaning between re surfacing -, light (pun) as a feather
Very cool. I am already curious about the pictures the gigantic mirror will deliver. Possibly the Video could have added, how the astronomers cope with the thickness variations of our Atmosphere. Is the ELT capable of adjusting for these fluctuations? If not, is its purpose the examination of faint galaxies? Or do they hope also for better resolution?
Can’t wait untill the ESO produces the first, detailed pictures from the Apollo landing sites. This way the moonhoaxers will be shutt their cakeholes....forever...
The ELT will probably be the largest earth based optical telescope that will ever be built. The future larger telescopes will all be space based as it is actually much easier to design very large structures for space than on earth. On earth gravity and wind are the major factors the structure has to fight against. The reason we are not yet building telescopes in space is the ridiculously high cost of just putting stuff up into space, let alone sending people to put that stuff together. That however looks like it will be changing rapidly in the next decade as expendable launch systems become extinct and are replaced with reusable systems such as Spacex's Starship, something which could have and should have happened decades ago. An active mirror could be built out of a large number of small mirror assemblies design to easily interlock with each other through joints that are adjustable by servos to maintain the overall shape required, and same could be done for a central tower to which the imager would be mounted. Small here means up top 8 meters or so. One could probably fit a dozen or two of these in a single Starhip fairing. The telescope could even become operational with only a few such elements and then build them up gradually over time increasing its aperture.
Experts please answer me... why we cant build large thin mirrors with some less weight material behind it for support, like few centimeter thick mirror??
Can't wait until they link two telescopes as an interferometer at opposite sides of earth's orbit,maybe see details on extra-solar planets or a mile diameter telescope in space like the Webb.
My opinion: with multiple sensing stations, and good time-keeping (to adjust for speed of light lag in communications), you could have a telescope of any 'size'...even as wide as the Solar System itself. After all, there is no such thing as a perfectly continuous light-gathering surface. The very cones in your eye are discrete objects, separated by some distance. Radio telescopes have routinely been operated on the principle of separated sensing stations. Visual telescopes of such design also exist.
It depends on how large the universe is, if the universe is finite then the answer is the size of the universe, if it is infinite then the answer is infinite
Mentions only one interferometer-type telescope. Not as much collecting area as the virtual diameter would suggest, but a mirror a thousand miles across with an effective area of several square kilometers may be operational someday. Main problem is coordination between elements... best done on a solid surface, like the Moon or an asteroid. If you're less sensitive about distance or apporximate resolution, someday I'm sure we will have a network of hundreds of 10m-class satellites beyond Neptune. Not going to resolve the surface of an alien planet, but will be able to see them as specks from hundreds of light years away.
Noting that some ground based telescopes have, for certain views, been better than the Hubble ST, I'm going to be comparing the EELT to the James Webb ST. I'm eager to see the discoveries of these new machines.
The forthcoming 39 meters telescope will give similar images of the nearly thirty years old Humble telescope. If something goes wrong with a ground telescope there is always the possibility of repairs. However with the forthcoming Space Webb infrared telescope any repair will be nearly impossible.
is it just me or is Hubble and its wimpy 1.4 meter or whatever optical mirror and high f rating just so damn breathtaking...its still mindblowing today......and I still say the way to go is a 10 meter space telescope or several smaller ones space apart as to duplicate a larger collection area, or smaller depending on what details you wish to obtain......yes launching into space is expensive, but so is all that active optics servos and wave reducers extenders, and the massive computing power to control the huge collection area! Cmon usa get your shit together! At least launch James web space telescope....that was supposed to have been is space years ago, lol....
4 years later James Webb Space Telescope is nowhere to be seen... but hey at least USA is ready to start new war and we all know how badly Middle East needs another oil producing country in ruins. :P
Biały , I saw the James Webb a couple of months ago at Johnson Space Center. It’s sad that we had to build it like a school ground gym set, by holding bake sales and making sure ever congressman got some part of it built in his district. But until you see it in person it’s hard to grasp the scale and the intricacy of the design. The heat shields are giving them fits but they are essential and the design must work perfectly or the telescope will be pretty much useless. Unlike the Hubble, there is no way to do a servicing mission. So it has to be perfect. Now perhaps in 2020 when a launch costs a few million bucks, they’ll take on the concept of building four to be sure that one works, but that wasn’t the design and construction principle used for the JWST.
I heard about these conferences at Spie.org on the same subject. It was the Magellan Telescope in Chile. If the resolution is gonna be 15×'s greater, does the S/N~(A*n/E)0.5/(FWHM) formula still apply?
As telescope gets bigger, have the materials improve to be printed like those 3d printing? Not talking in a small scale, but in a larger type machine? Knowing that the largest known commercial type would like take forever to print. Even the hand size objects take a very long time to print.
Looking through the telescope into the Universe is like a bacteria looking up at us. The vision is simply not far enough to make out objects way beyond light travels and reaches us.
What about the giant Magellan telescope , im pretty sure it's bigger there making it with 7 segments at 26ft in diameter each , that's bigger than one segment at 36 ft or whAtever the diameter is
interesting. What would be if one segment 1.5 m wide consist of 2 segments 0.75 m wide. 2 segments consist of 4 segment 187,5 cm. 4 segments consist of 8 segments 23,4375 cm. 8 consist of 16. 16 consist of 32. 32 consist of 64. 64 consist of 128. 128 consist of 256. 256 consist of 512. 512 consist of 1024. =)
Terrestrial telescopes are fundamentally limited by gravity, the fight between size/weight and the warping due to gravity. Is there a fundamental limiter in microgravity? Right away I can think of the need to precisely control the overall mirror such that it preserves the incoming light wavefront. Having a kilometers-wide mirror is useless if vibrations cause the mirror to distort the wavefront from moment to moment. Segmented mirror with lasers to measure and correct for changing relative positions? The possible observations that a kilometers-wide mirror enables! Then the resolutions possible if the E-ELT interferometer tech could be extended to a fleet of space-based telescopes! To not only confirm extra-terrestrial life but to count the hairs on ET's head!
Lenard Segnitz even if you would have a telescope interferometer in the asteroid belt (about 6 AU or 900 million kilometers), you'd only be able to get resolution of several centimeters for the closest stars(planetary systems), and that's not even talking into account light gathering capabilities. So, definitely no ET faces on the photos made by a telescope, regardless of how big it is.
I guess a telescope can be as large as the Earth's orbit, or even more, if your algorithms are able to correct for that kind of time/space difference. Exciting times.
First: It is not the glass which reflects. The glass is covered with a layer of aluminum, which does the reflection. The glass itself is just the carrier material. So why glass? Because it can easily be processed to the exact shape needed down to the required precission of nanometers. But more important: because you can create glass mixtures which do not expand or shrink when temperature changes. And this is something you really want. The shape of the reflecting surface must be held constant, no matter what is going on. Adaptive optics can correct for minor devitions. But there are limits to this technique. We are talking about variations in the nanometer scale, which need to be corrected for. Variations due to thermal expansion are way to large for this.
One wonders how such things get built. Easy, you just need someone in charge to sign on the line that says, “Do it!” Other, smarter people will figure out a way. By the way, what happened to the OWL telescope? (OverWhelmingly Large)
If we cannot solve the light pollution problem, which is the easiest kind of pollution to deal with, how can we Possibly hope to solve other more difficult to tackle kinds of pollution?
They do this already with the Large Binocular Telescope. The problem is that the two optics paths must be held with respect to each other to a fraction ofa wavelength. For radio, where the wavelength is cm to many meters, that's easy. For optical scopes, the two beam paths have to be precise to a few nanometers. We can presently do that for two scopes right next to each other but it jsut isn't possible for anything widely spaced. Also, with radio, the frequencies are low enough that the result can be digitized and sent digitally across the planet to do virtual synthetic apertures. We jsut don't have electronics fast enough to digitize the actual waveforms from visible light so it has to be an actual physical recombination process.
Dan Heidel yeah it is, they do it in Europe with several telescopes at once by constantly adjusting beam length from each scope, the 4 big ones and a few smaller ones all combined to form one single image.
no...you said we dont have the technology to do it fast enough, when we do....either way we both are right, because the optical waves can be recorded and stored from separate scopes and joined later, or at the same time.....look at the VLT....they have several bigger scopes and several (4) small ones about .7 meters..or just a bit bigger..I am not sure off hand....but theses scopes can be moved..in real time to widen the FOV and the total image of all the scopes together is joined making in essence one huge scope, in real time....
Roy Hemion Yeah, you're wrong. Maybe you should do some research before making declaritive statements like that: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Very_Large_Telescope#Interferometry_and_the_VLTI The VLT uses the same optical path recombination that any other optical interferometer uses. There's pipes under the VLT with variable length delay lines that are used to do optical recombination of the light. They have to bounce the light off of so many mirror in the process that 99% of the light is lost to reclection losses. There is no techology in existence to do realtime recording of visible light waveforms. The fastest digitizing ADCs that we have are in the gigahertz range. In order to digitize visible light, you'd have to have a sampling speed in the 4-8 * 10^14 hertz range times 2 to get past the Nyquist limit. And that's for _each individual pixel._ In order to grab the interferometry data for a one megapixel image, you would need to be recording 10^21 data points a second. This is literally billions of times faster than any computer system in existence or anything that could even theoretically be built. So no, you can't record interferometry data for use later. Visible light interferometry has to be done by physically combining the light from two scope and is only possible when the scopes are close enough to have physical beamlines between them.
material strength, money, time needed to forge it scalability. I suppose you could take you pick of the reasons why but I'd say its mostly having to do with the money and whether it's good enough to spend the extra money on rather than your everyday metals.
could the very large mirrors be made out of a carbon fiber honey comb structure with a thin layer of highly reflective material over it, and then a layer of super clear epoxy resin type substance to protect it? It would be amazingly light, strong and the clear protective layer can be polished just the same way glass is polished + repairs may be possible or a entire new surface if needed Also, it could be designed to flex (if needed) much better than glass because carbon fiber can be weaved in many different ways to perform different tasks Does anyone know if this has been attempted?
They've been trying to make CF mirrors for about 20 years now. The problem is that the CF weave tends to show up in the final grinding, rendering the mirror useless. That's why the James Webb uses beryllium instead. Eventually they'll get it worked out but there's probably a fair amount of R&D in the matrix material before that gets solved.
Adaptive optics make up for the atmospheric distortion and the mirror is about twenty times larger too... The picture takes time to expose, seconds, minutes, and the atmosphere takes a few minutes to change as light passes thru it, it doesn't change all that fast, but electric motors are faster than you might think. Ever watch a printer work? Each pecoliter of ink deposited on a sheet of paper takes very co-ordinated and lightning fast timing to get right. That is pretty fast.
ThimbleStudios That doesn't make sense. The atmospheric distortions, particularly due to convection which make stars twinkle, are way too fast for a 100 lb motor to react. This is not a ink jet motor...... next explanation please anyone?
TheArfdog The mirror is not being moved, it is being "deformed" along the lines of the distortions. In some cases, thousandths of an inch, not a lot for something to do. Figure it out yourself- Next idiot?
its a matter of combining perfectly timed light waves from telescopes all over the earth and space......not one big scope........as this is insanely expensive and your best images will be from several areas spread out as far as possible to cover vantage points with the farthest range.....then piece in the middle by collecting data on similar software covering as much of the electromagnetic spectrum as possible and combining it to give a highly detailed image, sort of like radio interferometry.
Seeking permission to use this video, to be adapted into a dome format for a discussion of telescopes and aperture evolution, inside a planetarium dome. --- Rathnasree, Nehru Planetarium, New Delhi, India
SpaceRip is that kind of documentary channel we miss from the TV. I'd like to find another such amazing RUclips channel for History documentaries. I'm sick of pawn shops and gold hunters!
You mean like it was before? This sort of stuff was on TV years ago. But they slowly took it out and replaced it with crap. And it's not just in the science world. Scifi, movies, music. I haven't watched TV for more than 8 minutes in 7 years now. There's no point.
aserta So true. I haven't had any broadcast/program television for 10 years now.
I do watch TV shows (netflix, TPB)..I just don't need the PROGRAMMING, because I'm not a robot. I'm fully capable of deciding what actual show to watch instead of which trough to watch from.
aserta I'm glad I'm not the only one who has noticed this, when I talk to my family and some of my friends about it they look at me like I'm from another planet.
Tyger Fuhr Well, u know, sometimes the ouvious hides behind its own. Didnt touch tv in years, except for large sport events and such. Keep being interrested in what u like. I´m an electrician, but i cant stop for one day looking up new findings in astronomy and space exploration on the internet. Internet ftw!
gogorreal History TV - The Universe
So they built a very large telescope. What did they call it? Well, it's called VLT, for Very Large Telescope. Then, now they are building another one, even bigger. Its name? ELT, Extremely Large Telescope. There is something really charming in these simplistic and utterly descriptive naming-conventions. I'm just waiting for the one named SLTttLO, for Somewhat Larger Telescope than the Last One.
Yes.... ''The very large array''.... a group of radio telescopes in New Mexico....talked of by Sir Patrick Moore.... always made me chuckle.
or the SFBISE So Fucking Big It Shouldnt Exist Telescope
the possibilities are eneldess! xD
+jmalmsten My astronomy professor always used to say that astronomers are not very good at naming things haha!
just give it a name, like jennifer.
The next larger one will be named "Size Matters" and the one after that will be named "Compensating" ^_^
Q:How large can a telescope be? A: *Large enough so that your mother can see herself fully by using the mirror embedded within.*
lol
Apply ice directly to burn
Dammmn
The question posed in the video title was not answered.
+tomcornwall83 As long as a piece of string.
Well said.
their size is mostly limited due to difficulty with transporting them, which is why the new Magellan telescope they're building has 7 mirror parts, each weighing about 20 tons. Their weight and size become a big problem when moving them from factory to observatory if they were all one big mirror.
"A solid single piece mirror at 8 meters is basically the limit" He literally said that, but we don't know the limit yet of multi mirror telescopes...
Its good to know more about telescopes and what we can expect in the future.
Very enjoyable video! It is mind boggling the engineering involved in mirror making and the platforms required to support them to track flawlessly and reliably.
I really do hope that when the EELT is built, it's housed in a polished aluminium dome like the CG images of it.
If they do and they need a guy to live up there 24/7 to polish it, pass my name on.
it's actually corrugated iron, light weight, easy to transport up a mountain side, and available locally at a decent price.
Not gonna lie. I'm disappointed.
Hey spacerip, I think a cool video idea would be the selection process for locations of these large telescopes. Where is the most ideal spot to place a land-based telescope? Are there struggles where human produced light blocks some of the view? Thanks for the awesome videos!
Desert mountain tops are ideal, low humidity/clouds, thin atmosphere, away from city lights. But of course building in such remote remote locations has its own problems. New roads need to be made and specialized transport equipment etc. not to mention the poor personnel who have to work and commute there lol.
Why do video makers have music obliterating the spoken word. The astronomers talk about light pollution. Videos have music pollution.
Thank you man for saying this. I 100% agree with you about this musical audio pollution in these videos. The music is nice on it's own, but when someone is talking, it obliterates the spoken word. These video makers have no clue about people who are trying to listen to the speaker. I'm guessing these video producers care more about the music than the astronomy, and that the producers don't care about science what so ever.
added to that the music is not identified - so cannot get a copy
Will anybody give the appropriate name for psychic morons who complain of music always.
LET THEM SHUT IT OFF, so simple!!!
audio post production engineer here.... in the very unlikely event whoever mixed this reads this comment thread.. I don't think the music is too loud. I think we may have yet another earwax problem. I enjoyed the video.
I get it but I am impressed with my little 5 inch Newtonian.
yea, you can get a lot of shit with 5 in
Better than the fucking reality TV they put on the Documentary channels. I only watch them for Mythbusters.
Great video. I'd like to see a similar video on radio telescopes please!
SpaceRip... You rock! I always enjoy the videos you share with us! Keep em coming...
There is no way to "clean" a telescope mirror. it can only be stripped of it's reflective coating, then re-aluminamzed......
Astronomers are getting creative with the names!
I wish ESA would of went with the OWL (OVERWHELMINGLY LARGE) telescope :)
that would be the sequel, followed by the Monstrously Large Telescope
Turbo-Fan Until Trump's Bigly scope arrives. Payed for by the Mexicans!
And the BLT - the Bigger Larger Telescope.
Gotta spend that money on giving phones to illegal immigrants!
I'm very late but you're confusing ESA (European Space Agency) with ESO (European Southern Observatory)
Exciting prospects in astronomy for the near future. Can't wait to see how far back in time and how far can the Extremely Large Telescope reach. The potential for producing fabulous deep sky images will be a reality and to think this ground based telescope will come on line after the James Webb Space Telescope and between the two of them and other huge astronomical instruments, we certainly are fortunate to be alive during this period of discovery and science. The age of astronomy is upon us, but the downside that has yet to be recognized is the proliferation of LED lighting, the greatest source of light pollution and threat to ground based astronomy. I consider myself an astronomy enthusiast, an amateur astrophotographer and the effects of LED lighting is already damaging our ability to image deep sky objects and it has been said we are losing our night sky darkness at a rate of 2% to 6% a year. At this rate it won't be long before amatuer astronomy will be doomed, just when it has been gaining traction in popularity, not just with older people, but young people as well are taking up an interest in astronomy like no other time and that is because high grade equipment is not only much better, but more affordable.
Light pollution has other downsides besides making it more difficult to pursue visual and imaging astronomy on the amateur level, but it is also causing an impact on the professional level too. Most all of the biggest ground based telescopes are located on high mountaintops for obvious reasons, but even there the reach of light pollution is encroaching. But, the notion of losing our dark skies has biological implications as well and much research has been done on this topic and the negative impacts are far and wide. If you care about this and want to know more, I would look up the IDA, International Dark Sky Association and read what they have to say regarding the loss of our night time and the biological cycles associated with it.
The problem with LED lighting is not only are they much brighter, but the wavelength they produce are difficult if not impossible to filter out. With other traditional forms of light that occupy a certain space on a light wavelength graph, to which special astronomical filters can block, at the same time the same filters allow good light (or photons) to pass to eventually hit the camera filter. The LED light wavelength is all over the place and hard to nail down in terms of filtering it. However, if they are shielded, directed down, dimmed at night, etc., they can be mitigated to tolerable levels I believe. Education of how LEDs affect us should get more exposure.
Can't wait until the EELT is complete!
if they have the money
thankforsharingable jeyy
GalderIncarnate lm
Since the Resolution of a Telescope depands on it's effective Diameter (the points that are furthest apart) and its light-collecting abillity depends on it's overall surface-area, its possible do "make" telescopes with a "diameter" of the earths orbit. You observe the object at a point in time, and observe the same objects exactly half a year later, so that you measure at the opposing point of the earths orbit, and add the data up with a specific algorythm similar to the processing in interlinkend telescopes.
Of course this is only possible with objects that move next to nothing at all within this half year, so it only works for things like fixstars or galaxies+nebulars outside of our local galaxy-group etc. (don't now specific distance, but imo you'll get the point).
Also I wonder why they havn't at least mentioned the gravitational lensing effect, since this also kinda works as a HUGE-ass telescope (dependig of the diameter of the object that causes the lensing object, but at least it have to be of "normal" sun-like diameter and mass.
And finally they did't properly explained so called "active optics" like the one tested in the NTT either...
I sure don't want to clean that mirror.
We'd be in trouble if cleaning that mirror were my job. I vacuum my place once a year, whether it needs it or not.
Consuela says, "No."
We miss Spacerip TV documentary channel type. So far, a documentary I want to find such an amazing RUclips channel. I'm sick of pawn shops and gold hunters!
Light collecting capability of a mirror depends, of course, on its surface. But resolution, which is the ability to separate tiny details, depends on the distance between its edges. So two mirrors one kilometer apart would have the same resolution as a one kilometer-wide mirror. This resolution applies only in the direction of a line between the two mirrors; in the perpendicular direction, the resolution depends ob the width of the mirrors. Linking mirrors together to get a single image is a difficult task called interferometry. The shorter the wavelength, the more difficult it is to precisely synchronise the waves from each mirror to get a clear image. Which is why the first applications were done with ratio telescopes that observe long wavelengths (much longer than the wavelengths of light). Presently, it is possible to link radio telescopes that are at the antipodes of each other, thus providing the resolution of a mirror that would be as large as planet Earth.
There are projects for putting mirrors in orbit (like at the Lagrange points) oriented to direct their light t a common focus to provide angular resolutions in the order of a millionth of an arc second, like that of a mirror that would be 20 to 50 times the diameter of the Earth.
Amazing as always, thank you.
"How large can a telescope be?" is the title of this video. It concludes with the words, "who knows...? ". Not much of an answer really
Designed further sized primary mirror. One of my jobs as uni technician - repair vacuum deposition unit - so with that experience - mirror surface not a problem - even cleaning between re surfacing -, light (pun) as a feather
I just came here to for this comment 😂
Very cool. I am already curious about the pictures the gigantic mirror will deliver.
Possibly the Video could have added, how the astronomers cope with the thickness variations of our Atmosphere. Is the ELT capable of adjusting for these fluctuations? If not, is its purpose the examination of faint galaxies? Or do they hope also for better resolution?
Can't wait to see images from that telescope
Can’t wait untill the ESO produces the first, detailed pictures from the Apollo landing sites. This way the moonhoaxers will be shutt their cakeholes....forever...
Our newest telescope is big. "You just won't believe how vastly hugely mindbogglingly big it is".
The ELT will probably be the largest earth based optical telescope that will ever be built. The future larger telescopes will all be space based as it is actually much easier to design very large structures for space than on earth. On earth gravity and wind are the major factors the structure has to fight against.
The reason we are not yet building telescopes in space is the ridiculously high cost of just putting stuff up into space, let alone sending people to put that stuff together.
That however looks like it will be changing rapidly in the next decade as expendable launch systems become extinct and are replaced with reusable systems such as Spacex's Starship, something which could have and should have happened decades ago.
An active mirror could be built out of a large number of small mirror assemblies design to easily interlock with each other through joints that are adjustable by servos to maintain the overall shape required, and same could be done for a central tower to which the imager would be mounted. Small here means up top 8 meters or so. One could probably fit a dozen or two of these in a single Starhip fairing. The telescope could even become operational with only a few such elements and then build them up gradually over time increasing its aperture.
Experts please answer me... why we cant build large thin mirrors with some less weight material behind it for support, like few centimeter thick mirror??
Can't wait until they link two telescopes as an interferometer at opposite sides of earth's orbit,maybe see details on extra-solar planets or a mile diameter telescope in space like the Webb.
I want to see a 1 kilometer (in Diameter) telescope.
Mi2Lethal and i want to see the money that it costs
ruclips.net/video/Ej5brYsdU6A/видео.html
Need elon musk to do another startup
My opinion: with multiple sensing stations, and good time-keeping (to adjust for speed of light lag in communications), you could have a telescope of any 'size'...even as wide as the Solar System itself.
After all, there is no such thing as a perfectly continuous light-gathering surface. The very cones in your eye are discrete objects, separated by some distance. Radio telescopes have routinely been operated on the principle of separated sensing stations. Visual telescopes of such design also exist.
It depends on how large the universe is, if the universe is finite then the answer is the size of the universe, if it is infinite then the answer is infinite
Why can’t the glass portion of the mirror be very thin, like 10mm thick and support it on a ridged lightweight frame?
Mentions only one interferometer-type telescope. Not as much collecting area as the virtual diameter would suggest, but a mirror a thousand miles across with an effective area of several square kilometers may be operational someday. Main problem is coordination between elements... best done on a solid surface, like the Moon or an asteroid. If you're less sensitive about distance or apporximate resolution, someday I'm sure we will have a network of hundreds of 10m-class satellites beyond Neptune. Not going to resolve the surface of an alien planet, but will be able to see them as specks from hundreds of light years away.
Noting that some ground based telescopes have, for certain views, been better than the Hubble ST, I'm going to be comparing the EELT to the James Webb ST. I'm eager to see the discoveries of these new machines.
The Man for compereson took all my attention 😅
The forthcoming 39 meters telescope will give similar images of the nearly thirty years old Humble telescope.
If something goes wrong with a ground telescope there is always the possibility of repairs. However with the forthcoming Space Webb infrared telescope any repair will be nearly impossible.
is it just me or is Hubble and its wimpy 1.4 meter or whatever optical mirror and high f rating just so damn breathtaking...its still mindblowing today......and I still say the way to go is a 10 meter space telescope or several smaller ones space apart as to duplicate a larger collection area, or smaller depending on what details you wish to obtain......yes launching into space is expensive, but so is all that active optics servos and wave reducers extenders, and the massive computing power to control the huge collection area! Cmon usa get your shit together! At least launch James web space telescope....that was supposed to have been is space years ago, lol....
4 years later James Webb Space Telescope is nowhere to be seen... but hey at least USA is ready to start new war and we all know how badly Middle East needs another oil producing country in ruins. :P
Biały , I saw the James Webb a couple of months ago at Johnson Space Center. It’s sad that we had to build it like a school ground gym set, by holding bake sales and making sure ever congressman got some part of it built in his district. But until you see it in person it’s hard to grasp the scale and the intricacy of the design. The heat shields are giving them fits but they are essential and the design must work perfectly or the telescope will be pretty much useless. Unlike the Hubble, there is no way to do a servicing mission. So it has to be perfect.
Now perhaps in 2020 when a launch costs a few million bucks, they’ll take on the concept of building four to be sure that one works, but that wasn’t the design and construction principle used for the JWST.
looks like there's no limit how big it can be if build in space, hurry!
James Webb Space Telescope :3!
I actually really like the names :-)
I would like to see a mirror 100m across In the future thus given us the ability to see millions of years in the past.
Next step global net work of little telescopes working together.
the EELT is based on the insect eye. Nature is where we get our best inspirations.
pretty large actually
I heard about these conferences at Spie.org on the same subject. It was the Magellan Telescope in Chile. If the resolution is gonna be 15×'s greater, does the S/N~(A*n/E)0.5/(FWHM) formula still apply?
As telescope gets bigger, have the materials improve to be printed like those 3d printing? Not talking in a small scale, but in a larger type machine? Knowing that the largest known commercial type would like take forever to print. Even the hand size objects take a very long time to print.
Хорошо бы привести сравнение изображений одного и того же объекта, разными поколениями телескопов.
Mechanical engineering is the only limit. Size is only limited by how much weight you can control.
...and of course we love Dr J !!!
Next steps: build the mirror in space, build the telescope in space, use it in space, and make it huge of course
No word about adaptive mirrors? Atmosphere is the biggest obstacle for the largest terrestrial telescopes nowadays.
Looking through the telescope into the Universe is like a bacteria looking up at us.
The vision is simply not far enough to make out objects way beyond light travels and reaches us.
Is it just me, or is this entire video in 140P horrible resolution.. I can't select any higher quality...
it was still uploading
Brian Ingram Processing* :)
1080p HD is available to me; your computer must be using the innards from the apollo missions......
video's that are just uploaded aren't rendered properly in all resolutions, the lower ones get online first
1080 for me
Anyone know of any other good channels as good as spacerip? I've watched all spacerips vids but still can't get enough of space.
How about deep sky videos?
What about the giant Magellan telescope , im pretty sure it's bigger there making it with 7 segments at 26ft in diameter each , that's bigger than one segment at 36 ft or whAtever the diameter is
interesting. What would be if one segment 1.5 m wide consist of 2 segments 0.75 m wide. 2 segments consist of 4 segment 187,5 cm. 4 segments consist of 8 segments 23,4375 cm. 8 consist of 16. 16 consist of 32. 32 consist of 64. 64 consist of 128. 128 consist of 256. 256 consist of 512. 512 consist of 1024. =)
I would like to believe that (one) chirps makes a telescope as big as you want. But the cost, materials & resources would multiply exponentially.
Marvelous !
One day everyone will have telescopes this strong on their phones.
No, it doesn't work like this...
@@Martin_4852 its a joke
Terrestrial telescopes are fundamentally limited by gravity, the fight between size/weight and the warping due to gravity. Is there a fundamental limiter in microgravity?
Right away I can think of the need to precisely control the overall mirror such that it preserves the incoming light wavefront. Having a kilometers-wide mirror is useless if vibrations cause the mirror to distort the wavefront from moment to moment. Segmented mirror with lasers to measure and correct for changing relative positions?
The possible observations that a kilometers-wide mirror enables! Then the resolutions possible if the E-ELT interferometer tech could be extended to a fleet of space-based telescopes! To not only confirm extra-terrestrial life but to count the hairs on ET's head!
Lenard Segnitz even if you would have a telescope interferometer in the asteroid belt (about 6 AU or 900 million kilometers), you'd only be able to get resolution of several centimeters for the closest stars(planetary systems), and that's not even talking into account light gathering capabilities.
So, definitely no ET faces on the photos made by a telescope, regardless of how big it is.
Didn't want to overthink the names, eh? When are they going to build the Astronomically Large Telescope?
I guess a telescope can be as large as the Earth's orbit, or even more, if your algorithms are able to correct for that kind of time/space difference. Exciting times.
Large Telescope
Very Large Telescope
Extremely Large Telescope
Safe to say that the next one will be called called "Ginormously Huuge Telescope"!
I m surprised they didnt find a thinner material who could reflect like a mirror. Why still using glasse?
First:
It is not the glass which reflects. The glass is covered with a layer of aluminum, which does the reflection.
The glass itself is just the carrier material.
So why glass?
Because it can easily be processed to the exact shape needed down to the required precission of nanometers. But more important: because you can create glass mixtures which do not expand or shrink when temperature changes. And this is something you really want. The shape of the reflecting surface must be held constant, no matter what is going on. Adaptive optics can correct for minor devitions. But there are limits to this technique. We are talking about variations in the nanometer scale, which need to be corrected for. Variations due to thermal expansion are way to large for this.
Incredible!
One wonders how such things get built. Easy, you just need someone in charge to sign on the line that says, “Do it!” Other, smarter people will figure out a way.
By the way, what happened to the OWL telescope? (OverWhelmingly Large)
Just big enough to see the edge of the petri dish
Apa dampak TELSCOP terhadap METRO PICKSSS ???👍👍🙏🙏🙏
If it were the in the U.S, the new telescope would be turned into a death ray.
with this scope, we might be able to visually see planets around other stars.
It doesn't work like this....
If we cannot solve the light pollution problem, which is the easiest kind of pollution to deal with, how can we
Possibly hope to solve other more difficult to tackle kinds of pollution?
its peeverse - the wider the aperture - the smaller ( and further distants ) examined - need more telscopes
Can they make visible light telescopes like radio telescopes? String a bunch together to make one gigantic telescope?
They do this already with the Large Binocular Telescope. The problem is that the two optics paths must be held with respect to each other to a fraction ofa wavelength. For radio, where the wavelength is cm to many meters, that's easy. For optical scopes, the two beam paths have to be precise to a few nanometers. We can presently do that for two scopes right next to each other but it jsut isn't possible for anything widely spaced.
Also, with radio, the frequencies are low enough that the result can be digitized and sent digitally across the planet to do virtual synthetic apertures. We jsut don't have electronics fast enough to digitize the actual waveforms from visible light so it has to be an actual physical recombination process.
Dan Heidel
yeah it is, they do it in Europe with several telescopes at once by constantly adjusting beam length from each scope, the 4 big ones and a few smaller ones all combined to form one single image.
Roy Hemion
Um, you just agreed with me.
no...you said we dont have the technology to do it fast enough, when we do....either way we both are right, because the optical waves can be recorded and stored from separate scopes and joined later, or at the same time.....look at the VLT....they have several bigger scopes and several (4) small ones about .7 meters..or just a bit bigger..I am not sure off hand....but theses scopes can be moved..in real time to widen the FOV and the total image of all the scopes together is joined making in essence one huge scope, in real time....
Roy Hemion
Yeah, you're wrong. Maybe you should do some research before making declaritive statements like that: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Very_Large_Telescope#Interferometry_and_the_VLTI The VLT uses the same optical path recombination that any other optical interferometer uses. There's pipes under the VLT with variable length delay lines that are used to do optical recombination of the light. They have to bounce the light off of so many mirror in the process that 99% of the light is lost to reclection losses.
There is no techology in existence to do realtime recording of visible light waveforms. The fastest digitizing ADCs that we have are in the gigahertz range. In order to digitize visible light, you'd have to have a sampling speed in the 4-8 * 10^14 hertz range times 2 to get past the Nyquist limit. And that's for _each individual pixel._ In order to grab the interferometry data for a one megapixel image, you would need to be recording 10^21 data points a second. This is literally billions of times faster than any computer system in existence or anything that could even theoretically be built.
So no, you can't record interferometry data for use later. Visible light interferometry has to be done by physically combining the light from two scope and is only possible when the scopes are close enough to have physical beamlines between them.
Great video I love it thanks... super...
You have permission, build it.
I'm just waiting on someone to name one BFT 9000
How will the extremely large telescope compare to things like hubble?
I just came here to say, fugging huge!
Why not construct mirrors out of superlight metamaterial instead.
material strength, money, time needed to forge it scalability. I suppose you could take you pick of the reasons why but I'd say its mostly having to do with the money and whether it's good enough to spend the extra money on rather than your everyday metals.
could the very large mirrors be made out of a carbon fiber honey comb structure with a thin layer of highly reflective material over it, and then a layer of super clear epoxy resin type substance to protect it?
It would be amazingly light, strong and the clear protective layer can be polished just the same way glass is polished + repairs may be possible or a entire new surface if needed
Also, it could be designed to flex (if needed) much better than glass because carbon fiber can be weaved in many different ways to perform different tasks
Does anyone know if this has been attempted?
They've been trying to make CF mirrors for about 20 years now. The problem is that the CF weave tends to show up in the final grinding, rendering the mirror useless. That's why the James Webb uses beryllium instead. Eventually they'll get it worked out but there's probably a fair amount of R&D in the matrix material before that gets solved.
How big will the James Webb Telescope be when its finished?
You can build extremely large structures in space... with added benefit of no atmosphere distortions / junk in orbit obscuring view
everything in computer era goes from continuous to quantized
Y que hay del telescopio espacial James Webb.
build and maintain it in the outer space, and you wont need to worry about the weight or deformation. just keep it away from the rays of the sun
Why can't you put lots of these telescopes together and link them?
That's ALMA dude
Stiff, solid and thick - that's what she said.
... but not active enough, right?
You did mean your boyfriend?
+david reeee triggered
And what about EST , Earth size Telescope !!
you are discounting galaxy clusters... the best and largest telescopes ever!
They aren't telescopes, they're lenses - which are a part of a telescope. Point taken though.
The only thing I’ll regret when I die is all the new technologies we will have built. :(
The host sounds quite german ;)
Indeed, Dr. Joe Liske is from Germany (see www.planetary.org/connect/our-experts/profiles/joe-liske.html)
"Decades to come"? You must be kidding. These days NOTHING can remain the biggest and best for very long.
So it this ELT more powerful than the Hubble, with its advantage of being above the atmospherE?
correct
***** OK but atmospheric distortion happens very quickly, it's very dynamic. How do the slow little motors compensate?
Adaptive optics make up for the atmospheric distortion and the mirror is about twenty times larger too...
The picture takes time to expose, seconds, minutes, and the atmosphere takes a few minutes to change as light passes thru it, it doesn't change all that fast, but electric motors are faster than you might think. Ever watch a printer work? Each pecoliter of ink deposited on a sheet of paper takes very co-ordinated and lightning fast timing to get right. That is pretty fast.
ThimbleStudios That doesn't make sense. The atmospheric distortions, particularly due to convection which make stars twinkle, are way too fast for a 100 lb motor to react. This is not a ink jet motor...... next explanation please anyone?
TheArfdog The mirror is not being moved, it is being "deformed" along the lines of the distortions. In some cases, thousandths of an inch, not a lot for something to do. Figure it out yourself- Next idiot?
its a matter of combining perfectly timed light waves from telescopes all over the earth and space......not one big scope........as this is insanely expensive and your best images will be from several areas spread out as far as possible to cover vantage points with the farthest range.....then piece in the middle by collecting data on similar software covering as much of the electromagnetic spectrum as possible and combining it to give a highly detailed image, sort of like radio interferometry.
Seeking permission to use this video, to be adapted into a dome format for a discussion of telescopes and aperture evolution, inside a planetarium dome. --- Rathnasree, Nehru Planetarium, New Delhi, India
Just build a 1 km mirror in diameter, nothing more is needed.
Fix Aranmula Mirror; The mirror that completely making strong solid in southén Indian state of Kerala..
who's the guy who INVENTED adaptive optics? who's the nutter genius???
He was a small man with compensation issues.
Big enough to use the Earths gravity as a lense, and maybe even bigger.