digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

A Plan to Build a Giant Liquid Telescope on the Moon

wired.com — Astronomers propose an enormous liquid-mirror telescope on the moon that could be hundreds of times more sensitive than the Hubble Space Telescope.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • ChillyWilly5280, on 10/11/2007, -0/+39This should have been done a long time ago. We should also put a radio telescope on the moon so we can receive signals more clearly than we can on Earth, there's just too much interference here. In more ways than one...
    • Frost9999, on 10/11/2007, -1/+90And a theme park.
    • futureb, on 10/11/2007, -1/+24i hear now is the time to buy. property values are getting ready to explode.
    • daRoach, on 10/11/2007, -3/+26Scientists taking liquid to the moon, can I safely assume there is a direct connection to how the whalers end up there?
    • miles01110, on 10/11/2007, -7/+4It's called a MELFF. Hahaha.
    • shaun1018, on 10/11/2007, -1/+16We're whalers on the moon,
      We carry a harpoon,
      For they ain't no whales
      So we tell tall tales
      And sing our whaling tune.

      Edit: Drat beat me to it... still love Futurama though
    • Genthree, on 10/11/2007, -0/+19“Yeah, well I'm gonna build my own lunar space lander! With blackjack aaaaannd Hookers! Actually, forget the space lander, and the blackjack. Ahhhh screw the whole thing!”
    • FearlessFreep, on 10/11/2007, -3/+7"and a theme park"

      with hookers, and blackjack

      edit - ergh...genthree beat me
    • ahawks, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5There are 2 problems I can think of for building stuff on the moon:
      - Cost: This is pretty obvious. Not only are you building expensive sensitive equipment, you're flying it to the ***** moon.

      - Even though our atmosphere provides interference with observations and radio comm, it also provides a nice shield from radiation and incoming rocks.
    • jamessavik, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9It's not a bad idea. The moon would be a great place for a big honking 'scope. Sitting on a solid body like the moon, it wouldn't require thrusters and gyros like the Hubble (and that's what fails and needs repair). No atmosphere means 24/7 operations. A few solar panels would power it. Getting there would be a challenge but a challenge that we met almost 50 years ago.

      It could serve the dual purpose of a surface telemetry station on the moon which has quite a lot "moonquakes". After a few landings in the early seventies and a handful of probes, we've still got a lot to learn about the moon and we should learn all that we can since it is our closest neighbor and possible relative in space.

      I would vote for it.



    • undersky, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1if it's so sensitive, would it be so cold and catch a cold?
    • jamessavik, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3>>Getting there would be a challenge but a challenge that we met almost 50 years ago.

      Correction: almost 40 years ago.
    • idonthack, on 10/11/2007, -11/+5DA MOON RULEZ #1
      ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
      ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░░░░░░
      ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░░░░░░
      ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░░░░░░
      ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░░░░░░
      ░░░░░░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░░░░░░
      ░░░░░░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░▐▌░░░
      ░░░░░░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒██▒▒▒▒▒▒▒██▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░▐▌░░░
      ░░░░░░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒██▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒██▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░████░░
      ░░░░░░░░░░▒▒▒▒▒██▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒██▒▒▒░░░░░░░░██░░░
      ░░░░░░░░░░▒▒▒██▒▒▒████▒▒▒▒▒████▒▒▒██▒░░░░░░░░██░░░
      ░░░░░░░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░██░░░
      ░░░░░░░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒████████░░░
      ░░░░░░██▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒██████████▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░░░░
      ░░░░██░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░░░░
      ░░██░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░░░░
      ░░██░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░░░░
      ░░░░░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░░░░
      ░░░░░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░░░░
      ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░██░░░░██░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
      ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░██████░░░░██████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
      ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
    • dasilva333, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3the mooninites are not gonna be too happy about that
    • simpleid, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Sweet! It's not a death ray... but it's close! :-D

      Ok, not really that close, but jeez... some lasers at least would be nice. :-)
    • spawnfree, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0i always wondered why they didn't take a telescope to the moon during the original missions.

      they had plenty of space for those buggys, and the time to assemble them and dick around.

      and i always wondered why they didn't take the opportunity to even photograph the stars, seeing as the lack of atmosphere would have made them the greatest photos of their kind at the time.

  • ggidster, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10"Angel dreams of a 100-meter mirror, which would be larger than two side-by-side football fields and would collect 1,736 times more light than the Hubble."

    Blimey. They don't talk about how they get it up there? Is this something that you'd make on earth and send up, or would you have to build a basestation on the moon to ship all the bits to and then people to build it there? Maybe that could then be turned into a theme park when done? :)
    • miles01110, on 10/11/2007, -9/+1"They don't talk about how they get it up there?"

      Presumably on rockets.

      "Is this something that you'd make on earth and send up"

      You mean like every other satellite and space vehicle in human history?

    • swrostmore, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6actually the ISS was/is assembled in orbit. I'd guess they would bring the components (liquid?) to the moon, and assemble it there.

      THE MOON RULES #1
    • Langford, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2It would be interesting to see how many building materials could come from the moon it's self.
    • InsomniaSlim, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6@langford:

      it's self != itself

      So long as this has become a grammar and spelling correction thread... digg me down if you must, but this kind of stuff just drives me crazy, sorry. :-P
    • undersky, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1actually the reason that they use liquid is because they don't have to rocket these liquid up to the space.
      they simply evaporate the liquid in a heated pot and let the vapor float to the top of the atmosphere where the outer space meets. then a specialized probe will be used to collect the vapor which has become the liquid due to the weightless freezing temperature which change the physical property of the said liquid. this is a very sensitive (hence the title) method, affected by factors such as earth rotation and weather, but doable in the 21st century science.
    • tstocker, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0I seriously hope they do this in some sort of cheap robotic scaled down version first.
      If only to prove the viability of the technology, work out the bugs, get real results quicker.
      Afterwards they should be able to make a case for going full scale with this. Robots would
      work quite well on the moon, it's only 1.3 light seconds away, compared to 3-21 light minutes on mars.

      However, this is going to be damn expensive if they can only send up 3 ounces of liquid Mercury each trip.

      [EDIT] They can just make the Mercury solid during the trip then heat it up to a liquid after getting to the moon. Suck it TSA!

  • thcobbs, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3"100 times more sensitive" So, what about asteroid impacts on other parts of the moon surface?
    • FearlessFreep, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3well, since it's made out of water...it'll just shimmer a bit and then settle down
    • Neem, on 10/11/2007, -0/+13we'll have sharks with lasers in their head swim inside the liquid and blast the asteroids.
    • Flashman, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1@FearlessFreep:

      Not water, but yeah, you're still right. Interestingly this would also provide data on the rate of lunar meteoroid impacts.
  • Hemingrubbish, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1good shout.
  • SouthsideIrish, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1And how do you plan on getting there? We can barely get anyone into Earth orbit anymore, so one wonders how we could get all of the equipment needed to do this there.
  • slapthemonkey, on 10/11/2007, -5/+1Good Article.
  • eatsushi, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7This idea is still 100x better than the white house's plan to block the sun to control global warming.
    • thcobbs, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2Why?

      If global warming is soooooooo horrible, wouldn't any workable solution be.... worthwhile?
    • zadadka, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6You gotta be kidding me !!
      Only a complete and utter moron could think that such an idea would.......oh....wait.....
  • L0C0loco, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4There is only one small problem - DUST. The Moon has a lot of electrostaticly levitated dust. UV and X-ray photons from the Sun charge the surface dust until the dust particles repel each other to form a dusty 'atmosphere'. The Apollo astronauts saw it from orbit and more recent robotic missions have confirmed its existence. The liquid of the mirror would quickly film over with dust. The dust could also mix into the liquid making for a mud mirror. I hope the cost analysis in this study includes frequent replacement of the liquid or some method of skimming of the contaminated surface. Looks like show stopper to me.
    • undersky, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10i think they use the BRITA technology to filter the liquid w/ reverse osmosis
    • Creamedweasel, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Not unless they also charge the water to repel the dust as well. Methinks it would work.
    • Tempest811, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Do you really think the astronomers, astrophysicists, and rocket scientists haven't thought of this yet? It's not like the telescope would be a swimming pool with a mirror at the bottom of it. Theres no way this liquid would be in the free air or unprotected. I'm sure they have put a bit more thought into this than you have in your armchair.
  • zadadka, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Are liquids allowable hand luggage on space flights...?
    • undersky, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1nope, but read my earlier comment. the liquid is actually transported via a specialized evaporation channel that saves the most difficult part of any space mission: getting onto the orbit.
  • JD52, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1This is a fantastic way to start our reach out into the galaxy.....

    These liquid telescopes usually use liquid mercury for the reflective surface. Imagine how many tons of the stuff a telescope this big would require.

    **Shakes Head**
    • InsomniaSlim, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2Or worse... the shuttle explodes in the atmosphere en route to the moon with a full load of mercury...
  • picaman, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2"A rat done bit my sister Nell,
    with Whitey on the moon."

    http://www.gilscottheron.com/lywhitey.html

    Sorry...couldn't resist the obscure reference.
  • wipis, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1A possibly bigger cost but maybe added benefit is that they would likely need an engineer who could stay up there at all times to operate it and or maintain it and fix it. One big problem with putting things on the moon are meteors and dust. No atmosphere is a huge benefit for telescopes but at the same time it makes the telescope vulnerable to damage. But with a small team on a permanent base scientist could work on discovering many new things about the moon and what it is like to live in low gravity rather then zero gravity. This could also become a launch pad in the future for missions to other planets, particularly Mars.
  • cbp76, on 10/11/2007, -2/+0I read that as Build a giant liquid Tesco on the moon!?
  • Meowbiusfox, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1A lot of obstacles to be sure,but that's the great part about it.
    It may be billions of years before the Earth is destroyed by the Sun
    but if the human experiment is to succeed,we are going to have to
    sally forth into the void eventually.Time share on one of Jupiter's moons
    anyone?
  • zadadka, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Micro-meteorites alone would be enough to dismiss any results...try seeing (let alone defining) an object on the bottom of a swimming pool when small objects (say M&M sized) are cast into the water...clearly (no pun), a meteor-proof, completely transparent shield would be necessary...of necessity, frequently and cheaply replaceable ...

    I don't see this dog going hunting......
  • Loftonian, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Sounds like a great idea. I'm just wondering how they'd transport the liquid? I mean, at the point in between exiting the Earth's gravitational pull and entering the Moon's gravitational pull, I could imagine the astronauts looking at each other as the cabin fills with liquid mercury going, "Oh sh.....".

    Obviously it would be contained, but I just got a funny mental picture...

    :-O
  • DarthJay, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0It would be much cooler if they would build a "laser" on the moon, so evil geniuses like me could use it to threaten the government to bend to our will.
  • Virtualtaco, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1To the geniuses that came up with this one...

    The Hubble's Deep Field images took over 300 exposures over 10 days. If this telescope does a comparable scan (that will show deeper space), how will you ever be able to take the pictures so you can line them all up on a constantly moving platform (the moon).
  • DarthJay, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0You're saying that Hubble was stationary?!
    • Virtualtaco, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1no, but the moon rotates... the Hubble can keep looking at the same place for days. Any deep space image will require a lot more time and effort.
    • Virtualtaco, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I take it back cause i just checked the Hubble's speeds. doh. but hopefully they will build it on the dark side, and hopefully there is enough gravity too keep the mirrors shape consistent.
    • Duositex, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Is it possible that because the targets of these telescopes are so far away that the light rays are essentially parallel by the time they reach us? Therefore it wouldn't really matter where you position the telescope as long as its pointed at the right spot. The moon is even far enough away to look identical to all observers on Earth..
  • matdevdug, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2This is a great idea on so many levels and really makes me wish we invested more money into space. The Hubble telescope did so much to advance our understand of the universe and with more modern technology based on a platform like the moon we can really begin to study space without the limited focus of previous pieces of technology.

    I also have to disagree with L0L0loco in that it is quite possible to build a telescope that can easily resist the dust present on the moon along with any other challenges facing the location. We have tons of data on the moon, much more than we have for Mars or any other planet. We know the exact chemical make-up of the dust along with almost exactly how much radiation reaches it everyday. The best part about this plan would be that once installed there would be so little maintenance needed. Instead of the patchwork network of coverage we have around the globe now we could have a much more complete view of the space around the earth.

    Sign my tax dollars up.
  • synapseattack, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Does anyone else think the liquid should be Beer?
  • p0seidon, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0I can see it now, McDonalds, Starbucks and a Walmart on the moon.

    Simpsons quote: Better hurry up, it's turning into a Starbucks.
  • yujie, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Thats no moon!!, it's a ....
  • godofgodlygods, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Anyone else very amused by the whole "MELFF" bit? :)
  • kmpr326, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Why not just make another Hubble (of course a bit more powerful because logic says they would have developed something between Hubble launch and present) and set it to orbit the moon. The distance is pretty huge and it's orbit probably wouldn't decay as much as the Hubble due to the moons lower gravitational pull.

    It seems so much easier than building a telescope on the moon which would be subject to the problems mentioned above (dust ect...).
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.