Mammoth liquid mirror telescope could be constructed on the moon

Roger Angel's idea to launch a 100-meter liquid mirror telescope on the moon is far from the only mammoth-sized dream that could be headed into space, and if the feasibility study shows enough promise, it just might happen. The University of Arizona astronomer mentioned that the idea of putting an "enormous liquid-mirror telescope on the moon that could be hundreds of times more sensitive than the Hubble Space Telescope" had been around awhile, but apparently it's finally getting the attention it deserves. If constructed, it would easily be the largest ever built, and would reportedly allow scientists to "study the oldest and most distant objects in the universe, including the very first stars." The project is being investigated on behalf of NASA's Institute for Advanced Concepts, and while these type devices are "relatively cheap" to build, it should be noted that it's being compared (at least financially) to the $4.5 billion James Webb Space Telescope. Now, where's the signup sheet for freelance contractors to get in on the moon-based build process?

[Via Wired]

[strider_mt2k @ May 29th 2007 9:26AM]

Hmm.

Optics, dusty environment.

Genius!

[strider_mt2k @ May 29th 2007 9:29AM]

I kid, I kid.

[NHAnimator @ May 29th 2007 9:31AM]

Still wouldn't be powerful enough to find intelligent life on Earth.

[The Aggie CEO™ @ May 29th 2007 9:39AM]

ROFLMAO!!!

[Keef @ May 29th 2007 9:46AM]

hahahahahahahaha that was awsome!

[supermeerkat @ May 29th 2007 10:33AM]

Instead of looking for intelligent life, how about a big sign warning it to stay away?

[Rynth @ May 29th 2007 10:34AM]

Dust? What dust? No atmosphere you nincompoop!

However..if we were to get an atmosphere for the moon, then your point would be valid..

[Karim @ May 29th 2007 10:55AM]

102:45:17 Aldrin: 40 feet, down 2 1/2. Picking up some dust.
[Armstrong, from the 1969 Technical Debrief - "I first noticed that we were, in fact, disturbing the DUST on the surface when we were something less than 100 feet; we were beginning to get a transparent sheet of moving DUST that obscured visibility a little bit. As we got lower, the visibility continued to decrease. I don't think that the (visual) altitude determination was severely hurt by this blowing DUST; but the thing that was confusing to me was that it was hard to pick out what your lateral and downrange velocities were, because you were seeing a lot of moving DUST that you had to look through to pick up the stationary rocks and base your translational velocity decisions on that. I found that to be quite difficult. I spent more time trying to arrest translational velocity than I thought would be necessary."]

---

"Dust is the number one environmental problem on the Moon."
-- Harrison Schmidt, Apollo 17 astronaut

http://www.wired.com/science/space/news/2005/04/67110

---

"It appears lunar dust does levitate above the Moon's surface because of electrostatic charging."

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/30mar_moonfountains.htm

---

etc. etc. etc.

[Rynth @ May 29th 2007 10:59AM]

Apart from the fact that its quite probable that the moon has never been visited, it would be a good reason..

[evilmonkey @ Jun 14th 2007 12:31PM]

sorry mate, but how do you link dust with atmosphere?

[Craig @ May 29th 2007 10:36AM]

Check out the little moon dude in the illustration. Nobody told him about the telescope and he's thinking he's happened upon some kind of prehistoric moon-monolith and expecting the hallucinations to begin very shortly.

[Dan @ May 29th 2007 10:40AM]

Sign me up, Scotty!

[strider_mt2k @ May 29th 2007 10:45AM]

Make a note of that Apollo Astronauts and NASA:
No dust on the moon because it doesn't have an atmosphere.

Super.

Rynth, is that your final answer, or would you like to "phone a friend"?

[Karim @ May 29th 2007 11:14AM]

Soooo... you know there is no dust on the moon *because* no one has ever been there?

Do you frequently make assertions about places based on your never having been to them? Just curious.

[blueeyesm @ May 29th 2007 4:27PM]

"That's no moon."

[TheChaz @ May 29th 2007 11:20AM]

Maybe better minds than mine can shed some light on this. If the mirror is made of a liquid, then won't the telescope be immobile? Seems like it would always find it's own level relative to the surface of the moon, and thus would always be "pointed" in the same direction.

[strider_mt2k @ May 29th 2007 11:42AM]

@ Karim: Your nincompoopery will garner you a naysay!

Stop obscuring the issue with electrostatically charged facts!

[Karim @ May 29th 2007 1:13PM]

@TheChaz: Your common sense serves you well. :-) According to Wikipedia, liquid metal telescopes only point straight up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_liquid_mirror_telescope

I guess it's kind of like having Superman's keen sense of vision but being unable to move your neck, head, or eyeballs :-)

@strider_mt2k: LOL sorry about that....

[Matt E. @ May 29th 2007 1:25PM]

"Apart from the fact that its quite probable that the moon has never been visited, it would be a good reason.."

Rynth: And with that statement, you've just invalidated any previous point you've made. Good job!

[Will S @ May 29th 2007 1:26PM]

So what if they only point straight up? Let's do some math....

If Hubble cost $4.5B, and this is cheaper than Hubble, then it's safe to say that, even after they find out they got their numbers wrong and need more money, you can still build one for a cool $5B.

Congress just slapped down an extra $100B in additional funds for a war effort, whatever your opinions on it are, above and beyond the normal defense budget.

If we have that kind of tax money to throw around, let's sign up for $100B in telescopes, build 20 of these bastards on the moon, and always have something to look at!

(On a side note, I'm equally interested on what the telescope will see when it faces the earth. Individual hair follicles?)

[Will S @ May 29th 2007 1:28PM]

Let me correct my stupidity before someone else does: Hubble wasn't $4.5B, the Webb telescope is, and that's a comparable price tag, apparently. I stand by my $5B number, it just may not be so conservative.

[Murc @ May 29th 2007 10:43PM]

Will S. said: ("On a side note, I'm equally interested on what the telescope will see when it faces the earth. Individual hair follicles?)"

they dont work like that.
think of your binoculars...you can adjust its focus...from closer to farther away...but if someone puts their hand in fron of it...all you would see is a blur...telescopes are much a same.

I've reason of this concept before...it sounds feasable.

Its one more reason to colonize out moon. heres a few: (bigg ass telescope, Helium 3, steping stone to mars and beyond(there is no better proving ground then one thats a mere 3 days away...versus Mars, which is 7 months) the reason for Nasa to set up shop on the moon it getting pretty big

[Matt E. @ May 29th 2007 1:27PM]

How would this liquid mirror telescope fair against other dust particles? Like meteorites? See moon's surface for example.

[GSPLBASSDC @ May 29th 2007 4:15PM]

Hubble was 1.5B to build....

[blueeyesm @ May 29th 2007 4:28PM]

....and I shall dub thee, oh moon-based plan,... the 'Alan Parsons' Project'.

[Lengator @ May 29th 2007 4:29PM]

allow scientists to "study the oldest and most distant objects in the universe, including the very first stars."

If we don't know how big the universe is then how would we know that the new found objects were the oldest and first stars? Not trying to be a smart ass...promise.

[rcappo @ May 29th 2007 11:04PM]

Why don't they put some radio 'telescopes' on the far side of the Moon? It will never point at the Earth and detect the radio waves we are emitting into space. And you can also build a few other types of telescopes there as well. Although you would still have to deal with the Sun every few weeks.