PDA

View Full Version : Hubble 2 telescope



Hogan315
2009-Dec-16, 04:25 PM
Where do we stand on developing a next generation Hubble telescope..

I'm suggesting one that can see 20 or 30 billion years into the past.

The development of such a scope would tremendously improve resolution at at the 14 billion year mark.

Yet I wonder what's beyond.

Just for the sake of conversation , I don't think anything is on the drawing board.

But if you wanted to see more, what financial and technological achievements need to be accomplished?

djellison
2009-Dec-16, 04:36 PM
The JWST is due for launch in 5 years or so - it's probably the most appropriate thing to consider a 'hubble 2'

However, looking beyond the age of the universe ( 13 or so billion years ) isn't actually possible.

antoniseb
2009-Dec-16, 04:48 PM
... I'm suggesting one that can see 20 or 30 billion years into the past. ...

djellison is right, seeing 13 or so billion years into the past is the limit (time-wise). The JWST will see a little deeper into the past because it works in the infrared, where the earlier light has been shifted to.

If you read an article about how Hubble sees that far back, the point is how close to the beginning it can see, not some absolute linear measure of greatness of the optics where a scope twice as good can see twice as many years back.

slang
2009-Dec-17, 12:39 AM
Find a good way to see neutrinos like we can see photons now, and it'd be a start, I think.

Murphy
2009-Dec-17, 01:19 AM
As was said, there is the James Webb Space Telescope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Webb_Space_Telescope), which will be launched in a few years.

There is also the possibility for and even bigger telescope the Advanced Technology Large-Aperture Space Telescope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Technology_Large-Aperture_Space_Telescope) (ATLAST), which would be really huge, but that's probably a long way off, and nowhere near certain to be funded.

Hungry4info
2009-Dec-17, 05:41 AM
Find a good way to see neutrinos like we can see photons now, and it'd be a start, I think.

With neutrinos moving at v < c, how would this enable one to see further out than the Hubble volume?

slang
2009-Dec-17, 08:58 AM
With neutrinos moving at v < c, how would this enable one to see further out than the Hubble volume?

As I understand it we can't see photons from beyond the surface of last scattering (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_of_last_scattering). Or before, in time, rather. I read somewhere that neutrinos might give some insight into the time before that... but I couldn't substantiate that notion with a reference if my life depended on it. Not 20 or 30 billion years tho. (If this is completely wrong, than this post isn't written by the real slang but an imposter. :) )

ShinAce
2009-Dec-17, 06:19 PM
As I understand it we can't see photons from beyond the surface of last scattering (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_of_last_scattering). Or before, in time, rather. I read somewhere that neutrinos might give some insight into the time before that... but I couldn't substantiate that notion with a reference if my life depended on it. Not 20 or 30 billion years tho. (If this is completely wrong, than this post isn't written by the real slang but an imposter. :) )

Gravity waves and neutrinos 'should' get us beyond the decoupling event, but that only gains, what, 380,000 years over a span of over 14 billion. Sure, it's a bit more, but not that much more. It would allow a glimpse into the inflationary period, which is still very exciting.

Back to the topic at hand...

slang
2009-Dec-17, 06:48 PM
Back to the topic at hand...

I'm curious why you would consider that off-topic, considering


But if you wanted to see more, what financial and technological achievements need to be accomplished?

in relation to Hubble (and JSWT, since that one is already on the drawing board)?

ShinAce
2009-Dec-17, 07:29 PM
When I think of Hubble 2, I think of Spitzer, James Webb, Chandra, Wise and so forth. Your earth orbiting satellite photon observatories.

When I think of neutrino detectors and gravity wave detectors, I think of giant constructs on the ground. Moreso for neutrinos, I can't imagine one in space. Because of this sort of limitation, I personally wouldn't be building these exotic detectors for the purpose of examining something that's expected to be quite homogenous. and faint in signal.

I guess I just group different probing tools based on their build instead of their capabilities.

I say I'm off topic because we'd be going into some serious depth just to consider these ideas, instead of refining what's been proven to work(Hubble).

slang
2009-Dec-17, 07:51 PM
(So the "technological achievements" required include making them orbitable. :))

Fair enough, I see your point.