New telescope brings the power of Hubble down to Earth

From the University of Arizona

UA astronomers take sharpest photos ever of the night sky

MAGAO_telescope
The Magellan Telescope with MagAO’s Adaptive Secondary Mirror (ASM) is mounted at the top looking down some 30 feet onto the 21-foot diameter primary mirror, which is encased inside the blue mirror cell. Credit: Yuri Beletsky, Las Campanas Observatory

Using a new camera and a telescope mirror that vibrates a thousand times each second to counteract atmospheric flickering, astronomers have achieved image resolution capabilities that could see a baseball diamond on the moon

Astronomers at the University of Arizona, the Arcetri Observatory near Florence, Italy and the Carnegie Observatory have developed a new type of camera that allows scientists to take sharper images of the night sky than ever before.

The team has been developing this technology for more than 20 years at observatories in Arizona, most recently at the Large Binocular Telescope, or LBT, and has now deployed the latest version of these cameras in the high desert of Chile at the Magellan 6.5-meter telescope.

“It was very exciting to see this new camera make the night sky look sharper than has ever before been possible,” said UA astronomy professor Laird Close, the project’s principal scientist. “We can, for the first time, make long-exposure images that resolve objects just 0.02 arcseconds across – the equivalent of a dime viewed from more than a hundred miles away. At that resolution, you could see a baseball diamond on the moon.”

The twofold improvement over past efforts rests on the fact that for the first time, a telescope with a large diameter primary mirror is being used for digital photography at its theoretical resolution limit in visible wavelengths – light that the human eye can see.

“As we move towards shorter wavelengths, image sharpness improves,” said Jared Males, a NASA Sagan Fellow at the UA’s department of astronomy. “Until now, large telescopes could make the theoretically sharpest photos only in infrared – or long wavelength – light, but our new camera can take photos that are twice as sharp in the visible light spectrum.”

Equipped with the newly developed MagAO adaptive optics system, the Magellan Telescope revealed details about the Orion nebula. The background image, taken with the Hubble Space Telescope, shows the Trapezium cluster of young stars (pink) still in the process of forming. The middle inset photo reveals the binary nature of the Theta Ori C star pair. The bottom insert shows a different binary young star pair shaped by the stellar wind from Theta 1 Ori C. Credit: Laird Close and Ya-Lin Wu; NASA, C.R. O’Dell and S.K. Wong

 

These images are also at least twice as sharp as what the Hubble Space Telescope can make, because with its 21-foot diameter mirror, the Magellan telescope is much larger than Hubble with its 8-foot mirror. Until now, Hubble always produced the best visible light images, since even large ground-based telescope with complex adaptive optics imaging cameras could only make blurry images in visible light.

To overcome atmospheric turbulence, which plagues earth-based telescopes by causing the image to blur, Close’s team developed a very powerful adaptive optics system that floats a thin (1/16th of an inch) curved glass mirror (2.8 feet across) on a magnetic field 30 feet above the telescope’s primary mirror.

This so-called Adaptive Secondary Mirror (ASM) can change its shape at 585 points on its surface 1,000 times each second, counteracting the blurring effects of the atmosphere.

“As a result, we can see the visible sky more clearly than ever before,” Close said. “It’s almost like having a telescope with a 21-foot mirror in space.”

The new adaptive optics system, called MagAO for “Magellan Adaptive Optics,” has already made some important scientific discoveries, published today in three scientific papers in the Astrophysical Journal. As the system was being tested and received what astronomers call “first light,” the team pointed it to a famous and well-studied massive star that gives the Great Orion Nebula (Object M42) most of its UV light. The Orion Nebula, located just below Orion’s Belt visible as smudge of light even with regular binoculars.

Considered young at about 1 million years old, this star, called Theta 1 Ori C, has been previously known to be in fact a binary star pair made up of two stars called C1 and C2. However, the separation between the two is so small – about the average distance between Earth and Uranus – that astronomers had never been able to resolve the famous pair in a direct telescope photo.

Once MagAO and its visible science camera called VisAO were pointed towards Theta Ori 1 C, the results were immediate.

“I have been imaging Theta 1 Ori C for more than 20 years and never could directly see that it was in fact two stars,” Close said. “But as soon as we turned on the MagAO system it was beautifully split into two stars.”

In another result, MagAO has shed light on another mystery: How do how planets form from disks of dust and gas affected by the strong ionizing light called stellar wind coming from a massive star like Theta 1 Ori C, which has about 44 times the mass of the sun?

The team used MagAO and VisAO to look for red light from ionized hydrogen gas to trace out how the strong UV radiation and stellar wind from Theta 1 Ori C affects the disks around its neighboring stars.

The power of visible light adaptive optics: On the left is a “normal” photo of the theta 1 Ori C binary star in red light. The middle image shows the same object, but with MagAO’s adaptive optics system turned on. Eliminating the atmospheric blurring, the resulting photo becomes about 17 times sharper, turning a blob into a crisp image of a binary star pair. These are the highest resolution photos taken by a telescope. Credit: Laird Close/UA

“Close to Theta 1 Ori C, there are two very young stars surrounded by disks of gas and dust,” said Ya-Lin Wu, a graduate student and lead author on one of the publications. “Theta 1 Ori C pummels those disks with stellar wind and UV light. It looks like they are being bent backwards by a strong wind.”

MagAO’s photo revealed that the two stars and their protoplanetary disks are heavily distorted into teardrop shapes as the strong UV light and wind create shock fronts and drag gas downwind of the pair.

The distribution of gas and dust in young planetary systems is another unsolved problem in planet formation. The team used VisAO’s simultaneous/spectral differential imager, or SDI, to estimate the mass of another intriguing object in the Orion Nebula: one of a few stars in Orion sporting a rare “silhouette disk.” The SDI camera allowed the light from the star to be removed at a very high level—offering, for the first time, a clear look at the inner regions of the silhouette.

“The disk lies in front of the bright Orion nebula, so we see the dark shadow cast as the dust in the disk absorbs background light from the nebula,” said Kate Follette, a graduate student and lead author of one of the three papers published in the Astrophysical Journal. “Picture a moth flying across a bright movie screen: Its body will appear opaque, while the wings will be partially transparent. Our SDI instrument allows us to peer into the silhouette and trace how much dust is at each location in the disk based on how transparent or opaque it is.”

“We were surprised to find that the amount of attenuated light from the nebula never reached an opaque point,” she said. “It seems as though the outer parts of this disk have less dust than we would have expected.”

“It is important to understand how dust is laid out in these objects because that dust and gas is what nature uses to build planets,” Close explained. “Our new imaging capabilities revealed there is very little dust and gas in the outer part of the disk.”

According to Close, the silhouette disk might have been close to the massive star Theta 1 Ori C at some point, which might have blown away its outer dust and gas.

“This tells us something about planet-forming disks in these dense, stellar nurseries,” Close said. “There appears to be a limit to the formation of massive planets very far away from their parent stars. One possible explanation might be the presence of a massive star like Theta 1 Ori C stripping away the outer gas and dust.”

###

The MagAO system was developed with support of the National Science Foundation MRI, TSIP and ATI grant programs. The Adaptive Secondary Mirror itself was produced by Microgate and ADS of Italy, with the UA’s Steward Observatory Mirror Lab. The MagAO pyramid wavefront sensor was developed at the Arcetri Observatory, Italy. The Magellan telescopes are operated by a partnership between the Carnegie institute, the UA Harvard University, MIT and the University of Michigan. The work of NASA Sagan Fellows Jared Males and Katie Morzinski was performed in part under contract with the California Institute of Technology and was funded by NASA through the Sagan Fellowship Program executed by the NASA Exoplanet Science Institute. The work of Kate Follette was funded in part by the NSF Graduate Research Fellowship program.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

77 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Rathnakumar
August 24, 2013 11:37 pm

Cool stuff!

August 24, 2013 11:59 pm

This a really interesting post…unfortunately it makes me feel quite old because I can remember when Hubble was set up…it was the ultimate telescope at the time and now has been superseded 🙁

Patrick
August 25, 2013 12:09 am

We know the moon landings were real because an experiment is still running. The Lunar Laser Ranging experiment.

Stacey
August 25, 2013 1:08 am

Thank you for posting this and thank you John Silver for the link.
What can be said:
What a piece of work is a man! How noble in
reason, how infinite in faculty! In form and moving
how express and admirable! In action how like an Angel!
By WS

August 25, 2013 1:28 am

Björn, here’s a NASA video of hi res images from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter which captured the sharpest images ever taken from space of the Apollo 12, 14 and 17 sites…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/8746306/Nasa-releases-new-high-definition-images-of-Apollo-moon-landings.html

Steve Jones
August 25, 2013 1:54 am

RoHa says:
August 24, 2013 at 11:24 pm
That is precisely the point I make every time some tiresome individual, usually a desperate to impress pseudo-intellectual, brings up the subject of faked moon landings.
Whilst in rant mode, I went to Hawaii a few years ago to visit the observatories. In a bookshop in Honolulu I noted one shelf of popular science books and seven covering new age nonsense. How disheartening.

björn from sweden
August 25, 2013 2:53 am

Thank you Ben, Im not super impressed by the quality of the images from the link you provided, and I hope to see much better quality pictures with the new telescope. I think it would be great to end the lunar debate, and verify that all three rovers are on the moon. I have always found it strange there where no catastrphical missions resulting in lost lives. Very strange.

Dudley Horscroft
August 25, 2013 3:41 am

All the mirrors I have ever seen reflect light. So how come parking a mirror in front of a mirros can be used to correct light that (presumably doesn’t) reaches the main mirror?
Perhaps some journalist was allowed to write the article, and his spell checker changed ‘lens’ to ‘lense’, or vice versa, so he gave up and wrote “mirror” – he knew how to spell that!

August 25, 2013 3:55 am

Your welcome Björn. Unfortunately I doubt that image resolution capabilities that could see a baseball diamond on the moon will provide much better detail than the LRO images.
Actually I worked as a tech on relaying the earlier Apollo mission’s voice, data, and video communications back to the Houston via Oakland Comsat from Moree Australia, and thoroughly enjoyed the experience, listening to the voice comms which we had on the speaker systems during our shifts during the missions. And no, I didn’t find it strange there were no catastrophical missions, but given the risks, known and unknown, it would have been taken in stride by the NASA Apollo team and all the supporting operations.

jackmorrow
August 25, 2013 5:51 am

Can we see “The Great Attractor ” now?

beng
August 25, 2013 6:08 am

***
Owen in GA says:
August 24, 2013 at 6:03 pm
***
Thanks, Owen. I was thinking of a binary system just like you propose — ~equal mass stars in close orbit around the system’s center-of-mass, and planets orbiting outside the stars & also (obviously) around the mass-center (I don’t even know if such a system could actually form). Planets in orbit around each individual star would seem to me quite prone to being quickly flung out or dropped into a star, unless the separation of the binary stars was quite large.

Randy
August 25, 2013 6:26 am

“All the mirrors I have ever seen reflect light. So how come parking a mirror in ”
I suggest you look up astronomical telescopes and learn a little about design. It’s a fun subject and what’s going on today has it’s beginnings centuries ago.
This, and almost every large telescope, is some variation of the “Cassegrainian” configuration. The Cassegrain uses a small, usually curved hyperbolic secondary mirror to “fold” the optical path so that the length is short compared to the aperture (compact aspect ratio), and the image is located in a convenient place at the rear of the telescope, not several stories up in the air near the entrance. So, in a Cassegrainian (BTW, the first reflector design, actually described by Cassegrain before Newton built his simpler single curved ‘Newtonian”) The light is first intercepted and focused by the large concave primary mirror. Near the primary focus the convex secondary intercepts the light and reflects it to the Cassegrain focus where the image is formed. This is a simplistic explanation as there are countless variations of how this is done.

Randy
August 25, 2013 6:44 am

BTW, the basic limit of resolution due to the wave nature of light is 1.22lambda/diameter. In the case of this 4 meter telescope that works out as
1.22*0.0005mm/4000mm = 1.5E-7 radians or 0.15 microradians
There are 4.8 urads to the arcsec so that’s 0.032 arcsecs. Hmmmm….

August 25, 2013 7:01 am

Of course this telescope can see a baseball diamond on the moon, because all the baseball diamonds on the moon are six times bigger to make up for 1/6 gravity – it’s almost half a mile to the wall in center field! 😉

Randy
August 25, 2013 7:12 am

Ha ha, I’m afraid baseball diamonds don’t inversely scale with gravity. While the “drop” will definitely be less, the velocity will be the more or less the same. Of course, without any air it’s going to be impossible to do some of the tricks like a curve or knuckle ball.
In fact, I claim because the resulting consistent nature of pitch trajectories, baseball diamonds will have to be smaller on the moon! The outfield, now that’s different.

george e. smith
August 25, 2013 12:53 pm

“””””……Randy says:
August 25, 2013 at 6:44 am
BTW, the basic limit of resolution due to the wave nature of light is 1.22lambda/diameter. In the case of this 4 meter telescope that works out as
1.22*0.0005mm/4000mm = 1.5E-7 radians or 0.15 microradians
There are 4.8 urads to the arcsec so that’s 0.032 arcsecs. Hmmmm……….””””””
Well that number; 1.22 lambda /D is NOT the resolution limit. It is the diameter of the first dark ring in the diffraction pattern of an un-aberrated circular aperture.
It is well known by visual astronomers, that you can visually resolve such a pair of stars; that is clearly identify them as two stars, when they are at half of that separation, so the edge of one disk is on the center of the other.. The eye does not see an intensity dip, which as I recall is about 4% of the peak intensity, but the pair is recognizable because of the notch in the outline.
So 0.61 lambda /D is the Raleigh criterion for resolution. The dip disappears for a separation of 0.5 lambda/D, which is also the visual apparent diameter of the central “Airy disk”.
).5 lambda / d is often referred to as the “Sparrow Criterion for resolution.
So 1.22 lambda/D is a very loose resolution criterion..
Don’t take my word for it (or Wikipedia). Go read “Applied Optics and Optical Design” volume 1 by A.E. Conrady, or Born and Wolfe, or “Modern Optical Engineering” by Warren J Smith

cba
August 25, 2013 3:27 pm


RoHa says:
August 24, 2013 at 11:24 pm
High Treason.
The easiest way to find out whether the Moon landings were real is ask the Russians. NASA and Hollywood could probably have fooled me (all I did was watch on TV) but I don’t believe they would have been able to fool the Soviet scientists. If the landings had been fakes, you can be certain that the Soviets would have broadcast the proof far and wide.

There are problems with the notion of asking the Russians versus merely applying the context of history of the time to the question.
Problems with asking Russians. 1) they didn’t know. 2) it might or might not be in their interest to lie about it.
Context of history. NASA did not have the computing power of a modern laptop and they did not have sophisticated software capable of image processing. Watching scifi movies of the time should help one understand the state of special effects. However, we had the ability to launch rockets into space at that time, partly thanks to the german V2 program. Building a big rocket booster running off of kerosene and liquid oxygen was not exactly some magical event. Building a lander was not a miracle of impossibility. Getting the playtex living girdle company to make an air tight suit was not either. And putting all this together and launching 3 guys into orbit in a tin can and providing enough rocket engine to launch them to the moon was no impossible feat in the least. Giving them an onboard flight computer with something like 90,000 bytes or words of core memory and a 3 line numeric display and a calculator style keypad was not an insurmountable problem either. The project was full of engineering level problems to overcome but there was absolutely nothing that couldn’t be dealt with using the technology existing or invented at the time. Also things like severe solar flares are fairly infrequent and also were not very well understood as to their danger at the time.
In short, far easier to do the missions after the equipment was invented than it was to fake the missions. Lots of people saw the Saturn V rocket launched for these missions. It was real and it launched. After that, it was child’s play to have rocket powered crafts under jet pilot trained human control – fearless people that could fly anything. Only by assuming one had the modern technology and programs that exists today back in the 1960s could one presume that it would have been possible to fake the event.

RoHa
August 25, 2013 6:59 pm

@cba
Soviet science was extremely sophisticated, so I find it very difficult to imagine that the Russian scientists would not know if the landings had been faked. Nor can I see why they would have lied about it. The Soviet space programme had been leading the US programme since Sputnik, and the Soviets were working hard on their own Moon landing project. Given the tensions at the time (and I remember them well) it would have been a glorious propaganda coup to reveal the fraud.
“Only by assuming one had the modern technology and programs that exists [ sic ] today back in the 1960s could one presume that it would have been possible to fake the event.”
NASA has a time machine, of course.

Randy
August 25, 2013 10:16 pm

George, you are advertently or inadvertently splitting hairs here .
1.22 lambda is the basic rule, FOR EXACTLY the reason you stated. But if you don’t give us a little tutorial on MTF, your STATEMENT IN CAPS saying I’m wrong really means nothing. In fact, I’m saying you are wrong, categorically stating what the resolution limit is when you apparently are not aware of what a narrow condition those criteria apply to. What does “resolve” mean? Separated, or merely detected as a double star. Is a double star the same as planetary detail (no). What about uneven doubles? What about baseball diamonds on the moon? Sorry, you want to bash my admittedly hastily and casually written explanations, at least extend the explanation past what is a forum gotcha. You want to drag up a bunch of empirically determined criteria for double stars by long dead astronomers be my guest, those are a matter of history and hardly anything to argue about. But at least explain what they really mean if you are going to use them to refute what someone else is saying. Have fun paraphrasing Conrady, Born and Wolf, and Smith. Might want to add Kingslake , King, and Welford while you are at it.
Here’s something for you to do that doesn’t have anything to do with reading something out of a book. Get or make a USAF 3 bar resolution chart. Use a good optical system to examine it. Report back what the resolution limit is. I know what the answer is – I’ve determined it many times in my professional career.

Gerard Dean
August 26, 2013 2:56 am

Could somebody please translate the phrase, ‘baseball diamond’ into something that most of us might understand, like ‘A cricket ground’ or an ‘Aussie Rules Football Oval’.
Thanks

Patrick
August 26, 2013 6:20 am

“Gerard Dean says:
August 26, 2013 at 2:56 am”
Google is your friend. While there are cricket grounds, the normal term used is “cricket pitch”. As I am from a village near Hambledon, the home of cricket, I should know. Been there and been to the pub…
http://www.hambledon-hants.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogsection&id=7&Itemid=58

RACookPE1978
Editor
August 26, 2013 6:50 am

Patrick says:
August 26, 2013 at 6:20 am (replying to)
“Gerard Dean says:
August 26, 2013 at 2:56 am”

Google is your friend. While there are cricket grounds, the normal term used is “cricket pitch”. As I am from a village near Hambledon, the home of cricket, I should know.

Ah, but regardless of the weight of the ground crickets, or the noise they used to make, you can’t use a “cricket pitch” as a reference length in astronomy. For one, the length of a cricket pitch in vacuum is longer than a cricket pitch near the suds (er, the pub). 8<)

Patrick
August 26, 2013 7:17 am

“RACookPE1978 says:
August 26, 2013 at 6:50 am
Ah, but regardless of the weight of the ground crickets, or the noise they used to make, you can’t use a “cricket pitch” as a reference length in astronomy.”
Of course you can. How man chains in an AU? Sod that, lets have a beer!

RACookPE1978
Editor
August 26, 2013 7:37 am

Well, the “difficultly” in man chaining the AU is just that. Ya gotta get a man to stand in the middle of the AU to hold the chain straight!
And pulling out the sag when Mercury and Venus swing by is just bleedin’ nasty work.

Patrick
August 26, 2013 7:48 am

“RACookPE1978 says:
August 26, 2013 at 7:37 am”
If ever you are in that part of England, and if THAT pub is still a Gales pub (Not been there since 1988), then drop by and have some HSB. Sit outside, enjoy!

Verified by MonsterInsights