zuz
- 100
- 36
Has anyone ever taken a "deep field" picture of the sky, like Hubble, but with a radio telescope?
The discussion centers on the capabilities of radio telescopes for capturing deep field images of the sky, comparing the Five-hundred-meter Aperture Spherical Telescope (FAST) and the Square Kilometre Array (SKA). While FAST excels in pulsar detection due to its larger aperture, it is limited in deep sky observations due to its single-location design and zenith restrictions. In contrast, the SKA, with its distributed aperture and long baseline interferometer capabilities, is positioned to achieve significantly higher resolution for deep sky imaging. The challenges of man-made interference and noise floor are also highlighted as critical factors affecting image quality.
PREREQUISITESAstronomers, astrophysicists, and researchers in radio astronomy, particularly those focused on deep sky observations and the technological advancements in radio telescope capabilities.
All that exists at FAST but all publications I could find from them were pulsars and FRB and again pulsars, i.e. only the sources that were very bright for the telescope. I wonder whether this is for a reason or due to the relatively young age of FAST.Baluncore said:To get deeper detailed images of smaller areas, requires VLBI, with international collaboration. The construction of detailed radio images, from the VLBI time data, requires intensive numerical processing. An optical image can be accumulated, on an image sensor array, which is a faster parallel process.
Deep sky observations require high sensitivity and high resolution. Unfortunately, man-made interference, and nearby bright sources, raise the noise floor of the synthesised images.fresh_42 said:All that exists at FAST but all publications I could find from them were pulsars and FRB and again pulsars, i.e. only the sources that were very bright for the telescope.