zuz
- 100
- 36
Has anyone ever taken a "deep field" picture of the sky, like Hubble, but with a radio telescope?
The discussion centers around the possibility of capturing a "deep field" image of the sky using radio telescopes, akin to those taken by the Hubble Space Telescope. Participants explore the methods, technologies, and challenges associated with deep sky observations in radio astronomy.
Participants express varying views on the capabilities of current radio telescopes for deep sky imaging, with no consensus reached on the feasibility or effectiveness of existing technologies like FAST versus the SKA.
Limitations include the dependence on international collaboration for VLBI, the challenges posed by man-made interference, and the specific operational constraints of telescopes like FAST and SKA.
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.