Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ttngx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-10T07:35:18.238Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Options for a New Arizona Observatory: Configurations, Costs and Site

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2016

N.J. Woolf ,
J.R.P. Angel  and
J.T. Williams
N.J. Woolf
Affiliation:
Steward Observatory, University of Arizona
J.R.P. Angel
Affiliation:
Steward Observatory, University of Arizona
J.T. Williams
Affiliation:
Multiple Mirror Telescope Observatory and Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This paper is concerned with the process of creating a major observatory at minimum cost. Its premises are that cost optimization starts with an appropriately modestly priced building block, a 7.5m telescope. There are many possible configurations in which this building block can be used, ranging from a single telescope or a set of separate telescopes with at most electronic data addition, to an MMT in which the light of all telescopes can be phased when desired. In addition there are options for using elements in a non-redundant linear array or Michelson inteferometer. We provide the reader with a means of estimating costs of different facilities all on the same basis, and tied to the actual cost of producing the MMT.

It is also important to place the observatory on a site which maximizes the output per unit cost of the facility. We discuss the selection process which has led to Mt. Graham in Arizona as being likely to satisfy this criterion. We give brief details of our preliminary knowledge about the site.

Type
VI. Very Large Telescope Projects
Information
International Astronomical Union Colloquium , Volume 79: Very Large Telescopes, their Instrumentation and Programs , 1984 , pp. 831 - 843
Copyright
Copyright © ESO 1984

References

Angel, J. R. P., 1984, these proceedings.Google Scholar
Angel, J. R. P., Woolf, N. J., and Epps, H. W. 1982, Proc. SPIE, 332, 134.Google Scholar
Barr, L. D., Lynds, C. R., Angel, J. R. P., Woolf, N. J., Mast, T. S., and Nelson, J. E. 1983, Proc. SPIE, 444, 37. Google Scholar
Bingham, R. 1984, these proceedings.Google Scholar
Dyck, M. H., and Howell, R. R. 1983, PASP, 95, 786.Google Scholar
Epps, H. W., Angel, J. R. P., and Anderson, E. R. 1984, these proceedings.Google Scholar
Evans, D. S. 1969, Astron. Astrophys., 3, 247.Google Scholar
Gehrz, R. D., and Hackwell, J. E. 1978, Sky and Telescope, 55, 467.Google Scholar
Gringorten, I. I., Salmela, H. A., Solomon, I., and Sharp, J. 1966, Rept. AFCRL 66–621.Google Scholar
Hiltner, W. A. 1984, Verbal communication.Google Scholar
Humphries, C. M. 1984, these proceedings.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuiper, G. P. 1974, Comm. Lunar and Planetary Lab., 8, 121, and 337.Google Scholar
Low, F. J. 1980, Optical and IR Telescopes for the 1990’s, Ed. Hewitt, A., 825, KPNO.Google Scholar
Merrill, K. M., and Forbes, F. F. 1983, Proc. SPIE, 444, 148.Google Scholar
Pearlman, M. R., Hogan, D., Kirchhoff, W., Goodwin, K., Kurtenbach, D., Rocketto, S., and van‘t Sant, B. 1971, Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory Special Report #327. Google Scholar
Robinson, L. J. 1982, Sky and Telescope, 64, 410.Google Scholar
Ulich, B. 1984, Proposal to National Science Foundation for support for construction of sub-mm telescope facility.Google Scholar
Wallace, L., and Livingston, W. 1984, PASP, 96, 182.Google Scholar
Warner, J. 1977, PASP, 89, 724.Google Scholar
Woolf, N. J., Angel, J. R. P., and McCarthy, D. E. 1983, Proc. SPIE, 444.Google Scholar
Woolf, N. J., and Ulich, B. 1984, in ESO Workshop on Site Testing for Very Large Telescopes, ed. Woltjer, L. and Andriesse, A. Google Scholar
Woolf, N. J., and Merrill, K. M. 1983, NNTT Technology Development Report #4.Google Scholar