Talk:Very Large Telescope

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Astronomy (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon Very Large Telescope is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Chile (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chile, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chile on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Surely you're joking[edit]

Can somebody please make a joke about the name? Or at least the desire to use the acronym VLT? Yes, I'm sure these jokes aren't very funny in conversation, but on the web, and to laymen .... Well, I'm going to go and have a lie-down.

A much better name would be the Adrian Pingstone Telescope seeing that I've done the two illustrations for the article.
Now that the name VLT has been used up, their next project is called OWL (Overwhelmingly Large Telescope). Just the rotating part of OWL will weigh 12000 tons!!
By the way, you can sign your Username and Date with four tildes (the wavy thingy above the hash sign).
Adrian Pingstone 18:37, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Schlock Mercenary actually made a joke that referred to the VLT. At one point, the characters used a "Very Large Array" that essentially worked as a VLT.
Their array, however, was made out of a missile arsenal, so they subsequently dubbed it the "Very Dangerous Array" or VDA.

Images[edit]

As the two pics are non-commercial ESO PR-stuff, you may want to have a look at the commons, fresh and steaming.

First sentence[edit]

Can someone knowledgable about the subject write a good introductory sentence? Usually people want to know WHAT Very Large Telescope is (apart from the obvious), not what it conisists of.

History[edit]

If anyone has any information on when it was built that would be useful to put in the article. Oh, and information on who the heck named the thing, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbarbier (talkcontribs) 15:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolving power[edit]

What is the resolving power of the VLT at the distance of the Moon, in the visual spectrum? The article Apollo Moon Landing hoax conspiracy theories used to say that it would be 130 meters but someone just changed it (with a reference) saying it would be 2 meters (0.001 arcsecond). Bubba73 (talk), 18:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

  • lambda/D at lambda=500 nm and D=8 m is 0.625e-7 rad. The moon is on the average

380 thousand kilometers away. 0.625e-7 times 380e+6 is 23 m with the standard definition. 132.229.222.14 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC).

arc-minute[edit]

I think there is an error because if one takes 0.001 arc-minute=0.001' as resolution one gets about 112 meters because the observable length on the moon is r*tan(0.001')≈r*0.001:60*pi:180=112m with r=3.844*10^8 m the distance to the moon (tan(a)≈a for little angels). With a 0.001 arc-second resolution one would be able to see objects with diameters of 1.86 m, which apparently is not the case. Do you agree? — comment added by Huldreich (talkcontribs) 18:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Importance Rating[edit]

Just glancing at this article I am struck by how uniquely important ESO's 'Very Large Telescope' will be to astronomy, more so than even the Kepler telescope. Surely this article should be rated at 'Top' importance and not 'Mid'? Again, I just have to glance at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Importance ratings article and it is obvious to see that the Very Large Telescope article ticks all the boxes for being a Top importance rated article.

For example. Top: Fundamental and famous astronomy.

Well it fits that criteria easily as it is going to be the world's most advanced visible-light astronomical observatory. It is easily going to be the most famous telescope in history!

Top: Very important, fundamental and pioneering instrument types.

Well d'oh, obviously.

However you want to rate the quality of this article the subject matter is of the highest importance to astronomy. This magnificent, ground breaking and uniquely advanced telescope will discover nearly all the Earth like exo-planets, out to about 50 light years. There is never going to be a more important piece of equipment, in the field of astronomy! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.99.79 (talk) 23:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you rate Kepler so highly and not for example Hubble which has done orders of magnitudes more to further astronomy in many disparate areas of research...even the Hubble article is only rated "High".
"Well it fits that criteria easily as it is going to be the world's most advanced visible-light astronomical observatory. It is easily going to be the most famous telescope in history!"..."This magnificent, ground breaking and uniquely advanced telescope will discover nearly all the Earth like exo-planets, out to about 50 light years."
Eh? Are you confusing the Very Large Telescope with the Extremely Large Telescope? ChiZeroOne (talk) 03:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Instruments section[edit]

This is somewhat out of date and does not include the locations of the second generation instruments (e.g. SPHERE at UT3 Naysmith A, MUSE at UT4 Naysmith B). It also doesn't include the coherent combined focus, the incoherent combined focus. See http://www.eso.org/sci/facilities/paranal/instruments/overview.html.

I would update myself it but my wiki-foo is inadequate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajebson (talkcontribs) 10:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I changed 2 of them to KMOS and MUSE to reflect the current instruments. Sphere is in transit to Chile, it has not been mounted at Paranal yet. The interferometic or combined light instruments aren't applicable to the table, but they have descriptions below. Martin Cash (talk) 20:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

VLTI discovers the largest yellow star, so far[edit]

Headine-1: ESO’s Very Large Telescope spots largest yellow hypergiant star

QUOTE: “The European Southern Observatory’s (ESO) Very Large Telescope Interferometer (VLTI) has revealed the largest yellow star — and one of the 10 largest stars found so far. This hypergiant measures more than 1,300 times the diameter of the Sun and is part of a double star system, ...” [There is a lot of current interest in astronomy!] — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Headine-2: ESO Very Large Telescope Captures Largest Yellow Star Ever Spotted

QUOTE: “Scientists in Chile operating the ESO's Very Large Telescope Interferometer spotted the yellow star, HR5171 A, which is one of the top ten largest stars ever discovered. The star is 1,300 times the diameter of the sun, shining 12,000 light-years away. ... European Southern Observatory officials reported that it is possible to see the star with the naked eye because of its intense glow that's one million times brighter than the sun. ” [Wow! Can an Earthlings even appreciate vastness/brilliance?] — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:09, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Very Large Telescope. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:47, 30 August 2015 (UTC)