Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Chazmer87 t1_j24blpb wrote

Good stuff. I've been surprised that we haven't seen more telescope projects from Asia.

50

Pharisaeus t1_j24lwhh wrote

> ambitious plans

It's always nice to have another telescope, but I'm not exactly sure about the "ambitious" part here. First 6m telescope was built in 1976, that's 46 years ago, and first 10m telescope in 1993, almost 30 years ago. And just for comparison, currently largest telescope under construction is going to be 40m. 6m sounds like a project a large university could pull-off on their own - so if that's the case (as in: the Peking University is doing this on their own) then it's definitely ambitious idea.

34

axialintellectual t1_j26jkqs wrote

> When it comes to observing our skies, it’s hard to compete with China’s initiatives. If the nation continues its current efforts it could soon lead the way in space observation.

This is just... Nuts? This article mentions several telescopes that will in the future do exactly zero things the rest of the world isn't already doing. Roman will do the same as the space telescope they discuss, at a slightly higher resolution, and the only way in which this segmented telescope seems to resemble Webb is the segmentation; but we were already doing that anyway?

Chinese astronomers have every right to be proud of their work, but not in this way please. Also, I do feel like it's more sensible to collaborate with other countries on these projects than doing them yourself, as it seems like there's a lot of essentially duplicate facilities now, but that's of course policy at a level most astronomers can't affect either.

3

toodroot t1_j275ogd wrote

It can be very good to have multiple instruments that do similar things.

Also, the Chinese astronomers I've worked with are not confused about the scientific value of things. I don't think university or government PR says anything about the views of the scientists working in any organization.

Oh, and the reason I've worked with Chinese astronomers is because they do collaborate with colleagues outside of China.

10

hardtanker_101 t1_j27sq5m wrote

Bet that the quality of this is gonna be shit if the current china is anything to go off of.

−11

axialintellectual t1_j27ysh9 wrote

I know Chinese astronomers work with colleagues outside of China, but I mean specifically when it comes to instruments and telescopes like this. And sure, there are specific use cases where more similar instruments are better - but the pressure on 6m-class telescopes isn't that high. It's also not observing a different part of the sky, so then you're getting into the pure time series coverage thing, which again, nice, but not particularly groundbreaking either, and certainly not deserving of this level of hyperbole.

0

mynameismy111 t1_j28afir wrote

Still want to see a 100 meter tele, the nuclear option of telescope

1

Quints_Boat t1_j28gttf wrote

Education isn't the limiting factor, it's the massive retooling and change in standards that would be needed across many industries. Not to mention also the need to then ensure interchangeable parts between measurement standards (think housing materials, for example), which could mean increased inventory which is a financial burden for companies.

Unfortunately, the impact is astronomically huge and the imperial measurement system is too ingrained for it to change and make financial sense.

3

nova9001 t1_j28ik99 wrote

You know the article is written by the author right? He/she is the one pumping it up. There's only one short sentence where the official announcement was made its really a simple sentence.

5

glaviouse t1_j28jshj wrote

yes, more or less

US units are based on SI, SI is decimal, so simpler

but, what is the stranger to me is hearing US people saying their system is freedom system, whereas in its name, it's "imperialism" and a testimony of the English Empire

1

mynameismy111 t1_j28k41r wrote

I know but Im just excited about the

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c5/Comparison_optical_telescope_primary_mirrors.svg/1280px-Comparison_optical_telescope_primary_mirrors.svg.png

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overwhelmingly_Large_Telescope

which was intended to have a single aperture of 100 meters in diameter.

Instead the biggest in 2027 will be 40 meters

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremely_Large_Telescope

The observatory aims to gather 100 million times more light than the human eye, 13 times more light than the largest optical telescopes existing in 2014, and be able to correct for atmospheric distortion.

It has around 256 times the light gathering area of the Hubble Space Telescope and, according to the ELT's specifications, would provide images 16 times sharper than those from Hubble.

Author has a big single lens, but man will it be small compared to everything already under construction.

Nearest peer ready 2023 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vera_C._Rubin_Observatory

Directish comparison https://cdn.eso.org/images/screen/elt_giant_optical_telescopes_infographic.jpg

For fun if u got this far: https://xkcd.com/1294/

2

ProjectDv2 t1_j28l5a4 wrote

China is fully capable of making the finest quality of pretty much anything. The reason so much product from China is shit is because the buyers don't want to pay for the top quality. They want to pay the absolute least they can for product that is as close to the mark of "passable and marketable" as they can. It doesn't have to be good, just good enough to sell.

8

glaviouse t1_j28l6sb wrote

I don't think SI was invented by US

to me, it's from the French Revolution, from the need to homogeneize the weights, lengths, ...
many sciencists participated to the construction of this new system

2

GotGRR t1_j29eot3 wrote

Well, the end state is really an 8-meter telescope. So, that's something.

Also, doing the project incrementally sounds like they are trying to build expertise.

Last thought is that Asia has eight hours of night that no one else in the world gets. That doesn't sound like redundancy. That sounds like a wasted opportunity.

Mostly, good on them.

3