GLORIA To Give Amateur Astronomers Access To Robotic Telescopes 35
Zothecula writes with an excerpt from a Gizmag article: "Amateur astronomers wanting to observe celestial bodies soon won't be limited to just their own personal telescopes, or visits to the local public observatory. Starting next year, the first in a worldwide network of robotic telescopes will be going online, which users from any location on the planet will be able to operate for free via the internet. Known as GLORIA (GLObal Robotic telescopes Intelligent Array for e-Science), the three-year European project will ultimately include 17 telescopes on four continents, run by 13 partner groups from Russia, Chile, Ireland, the United Kingdom, Italy, the Czech Republic, Poland and Spain. Not only will users be able to control the telescopes from their computers, but they will also have access to the astronomical databases of GLORIA and other organizations."
Can we trust robot telescopes? (Score:5, Funny)
Can we really trust robot telescopes? How do we know they won't be sending SOS [save our sircuitry] signals to extraterrestrial robotic civilizations without our knowledge?
It is only a matter of time before the robot telescopes invite an invasion force of galactical roomba warlords to enslave humanity.
Re: (Score:3)
But we can also tell them to send a different signal. That's the beauty of distributed computing: some nodes will misbehave, but the signal from the rest can overcome them.
Unless the number of rogue nodes exceeds a percolation threshold...
Re: (Score:2)
When you discover something, there is a Wolowitz dilemma: you can be punished if you reveal your identity, but without revealing it, you won't get credit if the discovery is rewarded.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_change#United_States [wikipedia.org]
"In nearly all states, a person cannot choose a name that is intended to mislead (such as adopting a celebrity's name), that is intentionally confusing, or that incites violence; nor can one adopt, as a name, a racial slur, a threat, or an obscenity."
Re: (Score:1)
But that person doesn't need to be born in the U.S.
Maybe in some language "nigg" means "peace", "erd" means "of", "icks" means "world", and 6969 is considered a lucky number.
Re: (Score:2)
"6969 is considered a lucky number" that name does not make any sense for a single person.
Re: (Score:2)
Cloud Astronomy (Score:2)
We have already cloud computing and crowd sourcing, various @home, distributed hosting of data (torrents), what is else left undistributed? I am not even mentioning malicious applications (cf. Methods section of Office Space). CCTV cameras? It's all Internet based, of course. Amazing how information flow moving from server->clients to servers->clients to practically everybody->everybody. Our connected computers are truly becoming some kind of swarm organism with the control of myriad peripheral dev
Old news (Score:4, Informative)
Old old old old news
http://www.phy.duke.edu/~kolena/imagepro.html [duke.edu]
Scroll down to "remote access telescope projects"
This seems to only list "free" options, I donno how you miss GRAS. To a first approximation GRAS is cheap enough compared to owning to be "free".
http://www.global-rent-a-scope.com/gras-news/tag/remote-telescopes [global-rent-a-scope.com]
I have always been into the AAVSO and have always had this desire to do CCD photometry, or at least for a decade or so since it became easy to do. The plan has been to rent time on a scope, and if I really like it, I'll drop four or so figures on the exact same model. Rent before buy.
Or I'll run the rental for awhile until I get sick of it and swear off the hobby forever. I've never done it, always planned to "when I have time".
Kind of like how I rented a Cessna 172 for many hours but thankfully never bought one outright (given that I don't do the private pilot thing anymore, it would have been a huge money loss)
Re: (Score:1)
I don't get it (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
A simple method of requiring a user to create an account, which could then either be timeslotted or placed in a queue would be the obvious answer. Once it's your turn, you get 10 minutes or whatever. It's the norm today for almost all telescopes.
Situation right now (Score:4, Informative)
This is not the first of its kind (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
how are targets going to be prioritized. That's the problem with professionals getting time on scopes. Just imagine what a nightmare that will be for all us Amateurs.
With the "pay to play" providers its pretty straightforward.
With it being free, I'm assuming its going to be demographic and politically correct multiculturalism on a quota system, friends of friends, "online social media campaigns", and so forth. May as well just ignore it.
Safeties? (Score:2)
Are there any provisions for safety mechanisms? Like, aren't there a few (okay maybe just one, the Moon) celestial objects that are so bright it could damage the sensors on a moderately large telescope?
Also, as an earlier poster mentioned, what's to keep a user from "thrashing" the telescope from side to side possibly damaging/wearing it out? On the other hand, are these agile enough to track objects in LEO? Can the users "program" it to do so (have a track a moving object as opposed to a spot in the sky
Re: (Score:1)
I guess they will have safety limitations built in. The position of the moon is well known, as are the times with daylight, and the limitations of the instruments. There may also be some staff overseeing the operations able to do an emergency shutdown of the instruments (stop motors, cover telescope). After all, even without malicious or stupid users, there may be situations where the telescope has to be shut down e.g. to protect it from extreme weather conditions.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, as an earlier poster mentioned, what's to keep a user from "thrashing" the telescope from side to side possibly damaging/wearing it out?
Despite being called "new" this is very old, and historically the interface has been batchy, like gimme that R.A. and Dec and some optical parameters and away you go.
I'd be curious how they handle focusing. Live human being on site?
Telescopes need to be focused? (Score:2)
They can't be just set at infinity? :)
Though it would be kinda neat if you could focus say from 1500-2000 light years. That way all the junk (planets, satellites, aliens) in front and all the stuff behind (galaxies, heaven, god) would be pleasantly blurry.
More seriously, I'm surprised they don't have some autofocusing mechanism like my cheap pocket camera does. I guess they can't project a little pattern onto the scene like some cameras used to do (it would require quite a light source and you'd be waitin
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're going to need a bigger mirror for that... :)
Focal planes only exist at less than the hyperfocal distance, given by H=f^2/NC.
The hubble has a focal length of 58m - let's consider that a good figure to shoot for. Let's say the pixel size is 10uM. Suppose we want a hyperfocal distance of 2000 light years.
Plugging it all into google [google.com] we get that we need an aperature of f-1.8x10^-10. That's a bit faster than the typical DSLR lens. F-number is just f/d, so given that f is 56m we can plug that ba
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I forgot to say - the reason for the focus on a telescope is to correct for warping of the structure of the telescope, not really to move the focal plane per se.
And there is something comical about having a mirror the size of the earth's orbit focusing its light in on a central point floating only 56 meters above the surface of the meter at the center. I imagine that all kinds of crazy effects come into play in such a situation. Sunlight reflecting off of a comet in the ort cloud would probably burn a
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, too bad, I thought maybe I had stumbled across an idea that would've helped astronomy. I would've called it the "Vari-Focus Telescope". Clearly impractical for now, especially with our current fiscal problems.
Wow (Score:1)
Oblig. (Score:1)
I, for one, welcome our new robotic telescope overlords..
Hey! Does this include RADIO telescopes? (Score:2)
I couldn't tell (from my incredibly brief skimming of the article) whether this included non-visible spectrum telescopes, notably radio telescopes.
Although it seems that radio telescopes are far too specialized and technical (expensive) a resource to be shared with the public, it would be neat to control one of those "dishes". I once worked on a S.E.T.I. project using the 84 ft. telescope at Harvard, MA (owned by Harvard U.) and I wouldn't mind more time on it. Of course probably the only thing we "amateu
One meeting does not make a Web 2.0 service (Score:2)
The website contains a lot of "will" and "going" but no "is" or "does", so personally I'll give it a year or two and see if it ever gets beyond a few meetings and some nice ideas. In the meantime, there's always the commercial outfits (e.g. GRAS, no association) that ARE actually connecting eyeballs with tele
Don't forget about current data availability (Score:1)
There is a gigantic amount of available observational data through projects like VSO, and people have written lots of nifty interfaces, e.g. aladin (aladin.u-strasbg.fr). It's even GPL...
space pr0n (Score:1)