


fc> Exactly what fraction of current research is done on the big, 
fc> visable light telescopes? From what I've seen, 10% or less 
fc> (down from amlost 100% 25 years ago.) That sounds like "dying"
fc> to me...

 That doesn't seem like a fair comparison.  Infrared astronomy 
 didn't really get started until something like 25 yrs. ago; it
 didn't explode until IRAS in 1983.  Gamma-ray (and I think 
 X-ray) observations didn't really get started until the '70s.
 I believe the same is true of ultraviolet observations in 
 general, and I know that extreme UV (short of 1000 Angstroms)
 observations, until the EUVE (launched last year) had almost 
 no history except a few observations on Skylab in the '70s.

 Twenty-five years ago, the vast majority of astronomers only 
 had access to optical or radio instruments.  Now, with far more
 instruments available, growth in some of these new fields has
 resulted in optical work representing a smaller fraction of 
 total astronomical work.



fc> That would be true, if adaptive optics worked well in the visable.
fc> But take a look at the papers on the subject: They refer to anything
fc> up to 100 microns as "visable". I don't know about you, but most
fc> people have trouble seeing beyond 7 microns or so... There are
fc> reasons to think adaptive optics will not work at shorter 
fc> wavelengths without truely radical improvements in technology.

 Hmm, some of the folks in this department planning on using 
 adaptive optics at the 5 m at Palomar for near-infrared 
 observations (1 and 2 microns) might be surprised to hear this.

 And isn't the NTT already pushing toward 0.1 arcsecond resolution, 
 from a ground-based site (remember 0.1 arcseconds was one of the 
 selling points of HST).




