Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Friar Bellows · 10-17-2002, 12:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shadowy Man:
<strong>Hehe.. I was at a conference at the end of August where they talked about OWL. Ugh.</strong>

Why "ugh"?

Quote:

<strong>In a couple of years I'll be working <a href="http://www.salt.ac.za" target="_blank">here</a></strong>

Ya lucky bastard!

Answerer · 10-17-2002, 04:03 AM

Shadow, thanks for making everyone jealous.

Shadowy Man · 10-17-2002, 06:34 AM

Ugh on the OWL because of how ridiculously large it will be. I mean it will have a 30 meter flat secondary!!

Everything will have to have serious adaptive optics to keep the images sensible. And any reasonably sized instrument will have a tiny, tiny field of view. And it will cost a fortune!

And the trend of putting more and more money and effort into these large, industrial-sized telescopes will change the field of astronomy in a not necessarily good way. All of the smaller telescopes (and now a 3.5 meter telescope is "small") will get less funding for upgrading instruments, maintainence, training grad students, etc. A lot of really good science can still be done without 30-100 meter telescopes.

We will see how it goes.

Friar Bellows · 10-17-2002, 05:07 PM

Thanks, Shadowy Man. It's nice to hear both sides of the story.

Shadowy Man · 10-17-2002, 07:03 PM

On the other hand, a 100 meter telescope is pretty freaking cool!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-17-2002, 04:03 AM	#12
Answerer Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Singapore Posts: 3,956	Shadow, thanks for making everyone jealous.

10-17-2002, 06:34 AM	#13
Shadowy Man Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: A Shadowy Planet Posts: 7,585	Ugh on the OWL because of how ridiculously large it will be. I mean it will have a 30 meter flat secondary!! Everything will have to have serious adaptive optics to keep the images sensible. And any reasonably sized instrument will have a tiny, tiny field of view. And it will cost a fortune! And the trend of putting more and more money and effort into these large, industrial-sized telescopes will change the field of astronomy in a not necessarily good way. All of the smaller telescopes (and now a 3.5 meter telescope is "small") will get less funding for upgrading instruments, maintainence, training grad students, etc. A lot of really good science can still be done without 30-100 meter telescopes. We will see how it goes.

10-17-2002, 05:07 PM	#14
Friar Bellows Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: arse-end of the world Posts: 2,305	Thanks, Shadowy Man. It's nice to hear both sides of the story.

10-17-2002, 07:03 PM	#15
Shadowy Man Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: A Shadowy Planet Posts: 7,585	On the other hand, a 100 meter telescope is pretty freaking cool!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.