Yeah I know - me too. It's quite the marvel of engineering too.

Johan ousback I feel the same way man!

Very cool! Me, my mathematical abilities were always with me but now I'm exploring math topics I never knew existed.

You mob the floor, I'll clean the toilet. I'm sure scientist are like humans and need to shit too.

It's a job I wouldn't mind having...just to be around this scope would be fantastic.

Yes - the lack of respect for and pursuit of science and technology we have in our country these days is very sad.

+CamiloSanchez1979 Or neither and help thousands of people! I mean millions!

CamiloSanchez1979 How about basic necessities like food and water for children starving to death.

CamiloSanchez1979 yes I totally agree with you

I'd rather have the telescope.

shoe maker you can do both.

Just following up. Secretly hoping you went back to school to follow your wishes.

Sandesh Míñð Freâk Sawant There were plans for the "Overwhelmingly Large Telescope"

The JWT seems to be a huge waste of money. Could have built several more Hubble’s instead.

@@georgequalls5043 It's 100 times more powerful than a single Hubble. You wanna launch 100 Hubbles and not see it as a waste of money?

@@alanwatts8239 since it is up and appears to be working so far, fine. But it still can fail and no way to fix it. Quiet frankly, I am happy it is up and working.

@@georgequalls5043 It was made to last 10 years, no more. They will launch a more permanent, bigger version of it if it's mission proves to be a success.

For, me it is the creator of the sky, Jesus.

You are smart. Smart enough to see beyond your finger tips and appreciate the world and universe around you. Keep asking questions and learning. Your wonder will enrich all of us by supporting these kinds of endeavours and will enrich yourself no matter where it takes you. You have a lot of friends on this page.

Muchas gracias a seguirme, saludos desde Roma Cristiana.

Giant Magellan Telescope

no. it would be about 5000/20 nm or 250 one-billionths of a meter

Oops, I was thinking in angstroms. It would be 500 nm /20 - or 25 one-billionths of a meter (500 nm is our ideal dark-adapted peak sensitivity)

+jinxy72able how about them being separated over 100's or even 1000's of miles; using the same (or similar) interferometry, get a ridiculously great collecting area of similar dimensions?

+Ryan C. Engineering they use actuators under the mirrors to correct for any anomaly - also the mirrors are accurate to better than 1/20th the wavelength of light not 1/2 wave.

Ryan C. Engineering I

thye got a guy to stand on the roof, and pull a rope tied onto the truss!!!

That’s done with radio telescopes, probably because otherwise they would be much too large to be practical. For optical telescopes, I’m sure that using multiple mirrors in one structure is more cost-effective.

I have an 9.25 HD, so,there.

Thank you for your questions. After installation, we will clean the mirrors twice per week using a spray of CO2 that will lift off the dust. This effectively removes most of the dust particles from the mirror surface. Once a year we will wash each mirror, and in alternate years we will strip off the coating and apply a fresh layer of aluminum. The GMT project is funded through its international consortium of twelve leading universities and science institutions. If the GMT project were to receive federal funding then astronomers from any US institution would be able to apply to use the telescope.

I think in 2018

1.) no one knows, but theories have been thought up that there are multiple universes etc (these are nothing but theories) 2.) again, no one on earth could ever know. 3.) I’m not sure so I won’t answer the question

Yes it is difficult because black holes do not reflect light so consequently astronomers must look for a disturbance around it such as close orbiting stars or debris gradually being drawn into it.

That would be to easy. There's no money in easy.

it means it's frikkin smooth.

Mirrors have tiny bumps on them. This one is way smoother

WW3 is near

If you actually studied the basics of astronomy and what IS known then it would start to make sense to you.

@@michaeldeierhoi4096 Nothing makes sense when you study somethings : landbeforetime.home.blog/

+Alex xeon 20 tons per mirror, strong vibrations that might damage the mirrors, the fact that there are several telescopes already in orbit and plans to launch new ones... I doubt NASA would want to blow its annual budget on a single orbital telescope, when there are already several of them in service. That telescope is just too big and heavy, NASA can't afford to send such a giant into orbit with the existing rocket technology and budget (NASA's annual budget wouldn't even cover the total expense). Putting all 7 mirrors in orbit would require a rocket more powerful than the Saturn V... keep in mind that modern rockets are around 1/3 (or less) as powerful. NASA could do it, by dividing the orbital telescope setup process in several missions. Send a mirror or two per launch, requiring a total of either 7 or 4 missions... but that would only take care of the mirrors. Additional missions would be necessary in order to send the actual telescope components and structure into orbit, assembly process, maintenance, etc... not to mention that the telescope hasn't been designed to work in space. In other words, NASA's annual budget would disappear just by redesigning and putting part of it into orbit... It's better for NASA to work on lots of "affordable" missions with their budget, rather than burning it all in a ridiculously expensive orbital telescope that isn't even necessary right now.

Goreuncle *Verne gun*

It is expensive. The mirrors would not need to weigh as much but tons of material is still expensive to put in orbit. Because the mirrors wouldn't weigh as much the exo-structure wouldn't need to be as robust although they would need shielding. with space x building the BFR eventually it will become feasible to launch and build giant telescopes that rival the ones on Earth.

Just a bit too large. Unless you broke the project into a hundred, seperate rocket launches, pioneered a management into such a project that would rival Apollo, then, sure, put a giant, mega-scope in space! Keep in mind, Webb space telescope is blions of $ over budget, decades behind its first planned launch... All of that is fine... No matter how ling it takes, no matter how much it costs, it is fine, dosen't matter. As.long as the US can waste 0.10 cents on other crap, the Webb is fine. No matter the cost!

I wouldn't put giant mirrors in a shooting gallery

+Hey Hey I doubt this telescope has the proper design to work in space. Also, putting this giant into orbit would require NASA to invest its full annual budget for several years... Total weight of the 7 mirrors = 140 tons... not even a Saturn V would be able to house and carry all those mirrors. Modern rockets are just 1/3 as powerful, so several missions (4-7) would be needed just to put the mirrors into orbit. In other words, it would be financial suicide.

The video is still a million times better and clearer then your comment. Just sayin'.

It would be super expensive considering how many people you'd need to educate/train, how much material needs to be transported / how many trips need to be made, and how much time it would take. But imo you're absolutely right!

Maybe someday, when Elon makes cheaper rockets. The telescope mirrors need to be grinded and polished on the moon by robots. At least there is enough dust for grinding...

Good idea. You do that.

Pointing it to the moon could be dangerous for the instruments. Moon reflects too much light and maybe heat too. Just leave moon to other cheaper instruments.