Infrared Telescope Lifts Off 127
An anonymous reader writes "On its Delta 2 Heavy-Lift vehicle, the Space Infrared Telescope (SIRTF) successfully launched to its solar orbit at 1:35 AM (EDT). As a result of the expansion of the Universe, most of the optical and ultraviolet radiation emitted from stars, galaxies, and quasars since the beginning of time now lies in the infrared. How and when the first objects in the Universe formed will be learned in large part from this observatory's infrared observations."
Oh no! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Oh no! (Score:1, Funny)
Re:Oh no! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Oh no! (Score:2)
M@
Digital Cameras in freezers on rockets. (Score:1, Interesting)
Soon they'll try the ultimate, using the recent MIT laser cooling technique to bring down the temperature to below 1 kelvins. Now thats when the ambient cosmic background radiation will become a pain.
Ive photographed in the night, and I know you need to keep the shutter open for up to a minute or more. I wonder if those giant freezers can hold
Re:Digital Cameras in freezers on rockets. (Score:2)
SIRTF will be in an Earth-trailing heliocentric orbit.
Re:Digital Cameras in freezers on rockets. (Score:2)
Judging from Hubble, long exposure times will not be a problem.
Re:Digital Cameras in freezers on rockets. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Digital Cameras in freezers on rockets. (Score:2)
One of the recent deep field frames had an impressive exposure time. Ah, I found it I think - only 153,700 s. Still, quite a while. ;-)
Re:Digital Cameras in freezers on rockets. (Score:1)
Re:Digital Cameras in freezers on rockets. (Score:2)
Given the way CCDs operate, any long exposure is typically made up of many shorter exposures. You are correct in that the telescope may not be pointed continuously over the entire exposure.
Re:Digital Cameras in freezers on rockets. (Score:4, Funny)
As long as they can point accuratly, it shouldn't be a problem.
Things in space inevitably drift a little, but the beauty of digital cameras is that you don't have to do the exposure all at once. You could pause, re-aim the telescope then begin again.
Re:Digital Cameras in freezers on rockets. (Score:2, Informative)
Actually, the real beauty of digital cameras is that you can do several images slightly offset from each other and drizzle the light around to get a larger image at a higher. That's how Hubble's big images are done.
Dunno if they're going to do this with SIRTF, though.
Re:Digital Cameras in freezers on rockets. (Score:1)
"...a larger image at a higher pixel resolution."
Re:Digital Cameras in freezers on rockets. (Score:3, Funny)
him: if you had an infinitely small aperature, you could take pictures with infinite depth of field!
me: but you'd have to take an infinitely long exposure...
him: not if you had infinitely fast film!
-calyxa
Re:Digital Cameras in freezers on rockets. (Score:4, Informative)
Indeed. The Hubble Deep Field [cam.ac.uk] images were assembled in exactly this way.
By the way, the parent post is modded Funny. Why is that?
Re:Digital Cameras in freezers on rockets. (Score:2)
Same reason dolphins are always smiling. They know something we don't.
Re:Digital Cameras in freezers on rockets. (Score:2)
Re:Digital Cameras in freezers on rockets. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Digital Cameras in freezers on rockets. (Score:1, Informative)
You'd be amazed at the meetings debating kinds of black paint.... A lot of tiny details were sweated to optimize this lifetime. Electronics that do the data compression and spacecraft control are all situated way far away from the detectors/dewar so that the heat put off by the electronics will have less warming effect on the dewar
Re:Digital Cameras in freezers on rockets. (Score:2, Informative)
I'm no physicist, so I may not have the terms right in my explanation, but you definetely need coo
Re:Digital Cameras in freezers on rockets. (Score:3, Insightful)
Technically, space itself is cold around here, yes... but only because there isn't much in the way of matter to heat up. That also means there isn't any physical medium of significance to transfer heat to kinetically, so you can only radiate heat away.
Effectively, this means that if your spacecraft is directly exposed to a radiant heat source like, say, the sun, and you are fairly close to it, you have a serious need to dump heat from the far side if you want to stay frosty.
Re:Digital Cameras in freezers on rockets. (Score:1)
Prepare to be underwhelmed by images though as they'll probably the the spotty or smudgey things astronomers whoop with joy over and say, "Nyah! Dark Mass, told you so!" But just aren't visually appealing enough
Re:Digital Cameras in freezers on rockets. (Score:2)
I believe that orbital speed and orbital distance are related - so if you managed to get the satellite into orbit about the Sun in the Earth's shadow, it would have a year that was longer than ours and would fall out of the shadow into direct sunlight anyway.
It gets better. (Score:2, Insightful)
L2 is, I believe, opposite the Sun on the other side of earth... I am unsure if it would be in shadow, as I'm not sure of the distance... but something sitting there will have a year the same length as the earth.
This is due to the earth's gravity added to the suns.. effectively something at L2 feels like it's orbiting a heavier mass, so it can orbit faster to keep
Re:It gets better. (Score:2)
I'm sorry, but I refuse to accept anything as a fact when it's cited by someone who believes in planet X.
Actually, I'm not sorry.
And I believe only 2 of the 4 Lagrange points are 'stable' for the purposes of parking anything there for a long time. The points leading and trailing earth in its orbit are the most stable, which is why they will tend to hold small debris for fairly long periods of time.
Re:Digital Cameras in freezers on rockets. (Score:1)
Re:Digital Cameras in freezers on rockets. (Score:3, Funny)
Thanks for all the responses! You've shed a lot of light, on heat.
Re:Digital Cameras in freezers on rockets. (Score:3, Informative)
Of course, I'm talking about more conventional cryostats. The laser cooling methods that the poster referred to are only relevant for gas phase atoms.
Instead, the telescope launched with 360 liters of liquid helium. It will last 5 years. When the helium is
Actually I was waiting for something like this ... (Score:1)
What is the density of the universe (our solar system)?
Where does it end, when does a new one start?
Is th
Re:Digital Cameras in freezers on rockets. (Score:5, Informative)
Using a simple pumped He3 system, which we just set up in our lab last week, you can easily reach about 300 mK. You use a pumped He4 bath to surround your insert, keeping it at about 1.5 K, and then pump the He3 with a charcoal sorb, to get to 300 mK. In space, you can use blackbody radiation to cool you to the ambient temperature of space (I forget whwat it is, somewhere between 3 to 7 K), and then use He3 pumping to go colder.
You can also get to about 10 mK if you use a dilution regridgerator, which uses a mix of He3 and He4 and relies on changes of entropy as you add them together, and then separate them out.
However, this all assumes that the highest CCD's need to actually go this low. But if for some reason this is needed, these refridgeration techniques are much more efficient and easier than laser cooling. Laser cooling is when you need to go COLD, like microKelvins.
Re:Digital Cameras in freezers on rockets. (Score:2)
You're right about the practical cooling methods we might use soon, but as the visual distance gets longer, for lower wavelengths we might need VERY cool CCDs, unless we have to move to radio arrays.
Um... (Score:2)
I don't think so (Score:2)
It sounds like he's just talking about straightforward refrigeration: pump a refrigerant to a low pressure, and it boils, absorbing heat from whatever you want cooled; then pump it back up to a high pressure, and it condenses, dumping the heat somewhere else. The refrigerant never actually gets used up unless there's a leak.
Re:Digital Cameras in freezers on rockets. (Score:1)
And as for the ability to hold it still, the Hubble has a near infrared camera, NICMOS, that is cooled the same way. It has both gyros and optical instraments watch for drift and large momentum
Re:Digital Cameras in freezers on rockets. (Score:1)
Re:Digital Cameras in freezers on rockets. (Score:3, Informative)
SCUBA (Submillimeter Common-User Bolometer Array) on JCMT [hawaii.edu] maintains a temperature of about 60mK using a liquid helium dilution refrigerator. It is probably the continuously coldest place that we know of in the universe, since it maintains 60mK for weeks on end.
So no, you don't need laser cooling techniques to
Ball Aerospace Link (Score:5, Informative)
Picture (Score:1, Funny)
Rus
Re:Picture (Score:3, Funny)
On its Delta 2 Heavy-Lift vehicle, the Space Infrared Telescope (SIRTF)
Bob : So, uh, whaddya think we should call this thing. I mean, it's just a Huge Infrared Telescope.
Jim : That's brilliant! HIRT! Haha! Everyone will laugh at our clever naming scheme.
Bob : Yeah, but the heads of the program will never go for it. How about SIRT? Space Infrared Telescope?
Jim : Hmm, don't you think 4 letters in an aerospace acronym is soooo cliche? Can't we make it 5 le
Re:Picture (Score:2)
On the other hand, these are the same people who named an X-Ray telescope after a theorist. But not even the theorist's full name; they used his nickname.
Re:Picture (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Picture (Score:2)
Re:Picture (Score:2)
It means "Facility". On Mauna Kea NASA operates an (obviously ground-based) infrared telescope called IRTF, which stands for Infrared Telescope Facility. They slapped the "Space" on SIRTF to differentiate between the two.
You BOUGHT one? (Score:2)
Coffee Pot and SIRTF (Score:2)
See: this article in Space Today [spacetoday.org] on SIRTF.
Re:Coffee Pot and SIRTF (Score:2)
This seems to require that it's in a fairly low Earth orbit, not in a solar orbit at all.
What's the story?
A good article about SIRTF (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyway,
Here's [spaceflightnow.com] a nice article about SIRTF that I found to be pretty cool.
Excellent development (Score:4, Insightful)
60 years (Score:5, Interesting)
God, I hope they calculate the trajectories right or there might be an interesting "meteor" shower in about 60 years...
CNN Article [cnn.com]
Re:60 years (Score:2)
Re:60 years (Score:3, Funny)
We'll be fine as long as it doesn't try to hump the Earth's leg!
Re:60 years (Score:2)
Re:60 years (Score:2)
Re:60 years (Score:1)
Of course, it also helps that this telescope is only intended to work for a few
Re:60 years (Score:2)
Re:60 years (Score:1)
The odds of us not launching relay sats in a similar solar orbit in the next 30 years is very low, so we'll know if it's still working when behind the sun if we're still here and still interested in antiques.
--
Some other projects along the same lines.... (Score:5, Informative)
Technology (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Technology (Score:4, Funny)
Oh, so THAT'S why it's shaped like a giant coffee maker.
Re:Technology (Score:2)
Going to ADASS?
Cheers,
Andrew
Last of the Great Observatories (Score:2, Funny)
From the CNN.com article [cnn.com]:
SIRTF's detectors are incredibly sensitive. If you could put a common household television remote control in deep space SIRTF could detect it at a distance of 25,000 miles.
Considering that taxpayers put up 1.9 billion for the observatory, do you think they could use it to find the remote cotrol that I lost in my living room?
SIRTF may discover advanced civilizations (Score:4, Interesting)
Now corrected (Score:2)
Lifts off? (Score:1, Redundant)
Think of a name... (Score:1)
Perhaps Cmdr Taco should tell Nasa who we select?
No answers on a post card, please...
Re:Think of a name... (Score:2)
William Herschel.
He was the first true infra-red astronomer. He used a prism to cast a spectrum of sunlight and then measured the heating effect on the blackened bulb of a mercury thermometer. He was surprised to discover that the heating effect grew greater as he moved towards th
Anyone else hear the liftoff announcer? (Score:2)
I mean I understand it is a high stress job, but he made George Bush sound like a confident and interesting orator....
Dubyah has better script writers to.
Q.
Re:Infrared, eh? (Score:4, Funny)
First you'd have to spot one among the heavens. Aren't you being a tad optimistic?
Re:Infrared, eh? (Score:2)
>> So, this means it will be able to see through those bikinis, eh?
>First you'd have to spot one among the heavens. Aren't you being a tad optimistic?
Haven't you seen Star Trek? I know how this is supposed to work!
Wait, you mean Star Trek: TOS lied to me?
Blasphemer!
Re:Infrared, eh? (Score:1)
Re:The electromagnetic spectrum (Score:5, Informative)
Umm, d00d, I think you're supposed to understand that light was in those ranges when it was created, but redshift due to the expansion of space and the massive distances this light has travelled have resulted in it shifting down-spectrum into the infrared.
Re:The electromagnetic spectrum (Score:2)
Re:The electromagnetic spectrum (Score:2)
The long distance the light has traveled does not matter. It just happens that stars that are far away have a high velocity to get that far in the first place.
Re:The electromagnetic spectrum (Score:3, Troll)
Re:The electromagnetic spectrum (Score:1, Funny)
From your link:
The electromagnetic spectrum includes gamma rays, X-rays, ultraviolet, visible, infrared, microwaves, and radio waves. The only difference between these different types of radiation is their wavelength or frequency.
Dumbass....
Re:The electromagnetic spectrum (Score:2)
Re:The electromagnetic spectrum (Score:2)
Exqueeze me?
Perhaps I missed something by not RTFA, but EM DOES shift down the spectrum noticably as it travels large distances, and it ain't because of 'tired light'.
Maybe your post would have been more useful if you'd posted about why you think I was completely wrong, instead of just complaining.
Er, he wasn't replying to you (Score:1)
Re:Er, he wasn't replying to you (Score:1)
That'll teach me to pay better attention to the threading... maybe... for a while.
Still, I do believe I was correct in my critique - the poster probably should have included his reasoning instead of just saying, "you're wrong".
Re:Er, he wasn't replying to you (Score:2)
Re:Er, he wasn't replying to you (Score:2)
Re:Er, he wasn't replying to you (Score:1)
Re:The electromagnetic spectrum (Score:2)
Right, but they're talking about the Red Shift (Score:5, Informative)
Well, I suppose you know about the red shift due to the general expansion of the universe? The most distant objects in the universe are now receeding away from us at such a massive rate that the visible light they emitted has been so far red shifted as to wind up in the infrared region. There's a Doppler effect [everything2.com] for light that causes light from an object moving very quickly away from an observer to reach the observer at a lower frequency than what was transmitted (the red shift), just like a car moving away from you makes sounds at a lower pitch than were it standing still or moving towards you. Because of Hubble's law [everything2.com], the farther away an object is, the faster it's moving away from us, and consequently, the greater the Doppler effect. This infrared probe is designed to view objects that have been so far "red shifted" as to apparently be emitting infrared radiation.
Re:Right, but they're talking about the Red Shift (Score:2)
What else causes redshift?
Vibrational Spectroscopy (Score:1)
Re:The electromagnetic spectrum (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, but...
Ultraviolet range is anything with a frequency above violet light, optical is the frequencies between violet to red, and infrared is anything with a frequency below red light.
Light that was emitted at an ultraviolet or optical wavelength can be slowed down in frequency - Dopler shift is probably the most well known. Heard of red-shift?
Any frequency - gamma rays to visible, if red-shifted far enough is now infrared, and that is what this telescope is looking for.
The entire statement you selectively quoted is:
As a result of the expansion of the Universe, most of the optical and ultraviolet radiation emitted from stars, galaxies, and quasars since the beginning of time now lies in the infrared. I added emphasis to the important part you left out.
So, while you are pedantically correct in that "Optical (visible?), ultraviolet and infrared are distinct parts of the electronmagnetic spectrum. [T]he optical and ultraviolet regions do not lie in the infrared region.", what was originally said is correct and your post does not correct anything.
By the way, unless you go with a definition of red and violet based on specific wavelengths, the designations "ultraviolet" and "infrared" are subjective, and may overlap with visible light to some extent. I am saying that MY definition of where the frequency gets high enough to no longer be visible and therefore becomes "ultraviolet" may not be the same point for you. It should be relatively close, but almost certainly not the exact same as it is subjective.