OBSERVATORY DESIGN Item Type text; Master's Report-Reproduction (electronic) Authors REYNOSO, RAUL REYES Publisher The University of Arizona. Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author. Download date 08/10/2021 02:06:03 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/555336 OBSERVATORY DESIGN BY RAUL REYES REYNOSO This Report is submitted to the Faculty of the COLLEGE OF ARCHITECTURE In Partial Fulfillment of the requirements For the Degree of MASTER OF ARCHITECTURE In the Graduate College. THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA 1985. !;:j; v.- , /JtSfz. To ray mom and dad, for their love and good home, wise advice and contagious energy. Vb To my wife Lourdes, who always has been my support and companion, steadily looking for new roads in life. To my daughter Lourdes, who has given us much more happiness than could ever be imagined. 2 vS AKNOWLEDGEMENTS The present report presents only part of the work done during the course of my studies to achieve a masters degree in Architecture. It would not be fair, however, that total credit be given to me. It should also be extended to all those generous persons who dedicated their time and efforts to share their knowledge * Although it is not possible ot mention all those who helped me, I would like to thank them all. I am sure that few people would consider going through what Professors Fred Matter and Kenneth Clark have done in order to help me. Indeed, all their students receive this help everyday. I am greatly indebted to them for their guidance, advice and valuable assistance. In many ways my degree could not have been possible without their help. Let this be but a little tribute to their dedication and patience. I am also thankful to Dr. Thomas Swihart from Steward Observatory for sharing his valuable time to review this report and to make comments on the areas in which he is a unique capable guide. I will not forget the challenging 3 discussions on some Astronomy topics that we had in his office, and I am sure that he will not forget them either. The collaboration of the faculty members and colleagues of the College of Architecture of the University of Arizona was invaluable. I would specially like to thank John Dettloff for his infinite patience (which I tested so many times) and knowledge, as well as Prof. Robert Dvorak for his help. Some ideas here presented came directly or indirectly from comments made by friends: In am indebted to William Shannon, architects Warren Hampton, Salem Alshattl and Rafael Martinez for their contribution. Faculty members, researchers and libraries of several institutions and departments on campus proved invaluable sources of information for my work: From Steward Observatory I would like to thank N.J. Woolf, William Hoffman, Roger Angel, John Ross Warner and Laurey Jule, among others, for the help given to me. Access was never a problem to the NOAO (National Optical Astronomical Observatories, formerly Kitt Peak National Observatory) library, nor the use of their 4 photocopying services. Certainly this library contains a wealth of information that it is eagerly willing to share. The staff of the Fred Whipple Observatory were always willing to help whenever possible. Comments I received from Richard Brittain from the Architecture Research Laboratory were always accurate and useful, and I certainly owe a great deal to his effort for guiding me in Architecture. Finally, both the Atmospheric Sciences Library and Dr. William Sellers, head of the department, were most interested and helpful for my work. 5 SUMMARY FOREWORD. PART ONE: ASTRONOMICAL OBSERVATORIES. I. INTRODUCTION. II. ASTRONOMICAL OBSERVATORIES: TYPES AND CONSTRAINTS A. Types of Observatories. B. Types of Astronomical Observatories. 1. Terrestrial. 2. Space Observatories. C. Constraints on Ground-based Optical Telescopes D. Non-optical Astronomy. 1. The Radio Window. 2. Infrared. 3. The Shortwave Region. PART TWO: HISTORICAL OVERVIEW. Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries. III. HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT. A. The Beginnings. The Nineteenth Century. Stimulus and Incentives. B. The Twentieth Century. 1. University Observatories. 2. Private Observatories. 3. Government Observatories. IV. ARCHITECTURAL DEVELOPMENT. A. Introduction. B. The Early Nineteenth Century. C. Middle and Late Nineteenth Century. D. The Age of the Giant Refractors. E. The Giant Reflectors. 6 PART THREE: SITE PLANNING V. SITE SELECTION CRITERIA. Site Requirements. VI. SEEING. A. General Considerations. B. Man-controllable Seeing. VII. SCINTILLATION. VIII. EXTINCTION. IX. BRIGHTNESS OF SKY BACKGROUND. A. Components of the Light of the Night Sky 1. Integrated starlight. 2. Zodiacal light. 3. Airglow. 4. Aurora. 5. Diffuse galactic light. 6. Integrated cosmic light. 7. Moonlight. 8. Artificial light: optical wavelengths a. Outdoor city lighting. 1 . Incandescent. 2. Fluorescent. 3. Metal halide. 4. High-pressure sodium. 5. Low-pressure sodium b. Remedies. B. Conclusions. X. AVERAGE NUMBER OF CLEAR NIGHTS PER YEAR. A. General Considerations. B. Cloud Observations. a. Visual. b. Photographic. C. Statistics. 7 XI. ACCESS TO A CONSIDERABLE FRACTION OF BOTH NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN SKIES. XII. WIND. A. Large scale effects. B. Local effects. 1. Atmospheric effects. 2. Man-made effects. C. Shielding effect of buildings. XIII. TEMPERATURE EFFECTS. A. Ambient temperature. B. Temperature range effects. C. Temperature observations. D. Temperature statistics. E. Local effects of temperature on seeing conditions. XIV. AIR HUMIDITY. XV. SITE RECONNAISSANCE AND SELECTION. A. General concepts. B. Contemporary site surveys. C. Quantitative Assessments. PART FOUR: DOME DESIGN. XVI. BASIC DESIGN CONFIGURATIONS. A. Conventional telescopes. 1. Equatorial mounts. 2. Altazimuth mounts. B. Steerable dish concept. C. Singles arrays. D. Fixed primary: the hemispherical bowl concept. E. The rotating shoe concept. F. The multiple mirror array. G. Siderostats. 8 XVII CRITICAL ARCHITECTURAL AND ENGINEERING DOME REQUIREMENTS. A. Dome requirements. B. Thermal behavior of materials in domes. C. Dome use and building materials. D. Paint and color in domes. XVIII. LARGE DOME AUXILIARY FACILITIES. A. Auxiliary facilities. 1. Cranes. 2. Darkrooms. 3. Computer facilities. 4. Visitors gallery. 5. Electronographic camera preparation lab. 6. Mechanical shop. 7. Electronics shop. 8. Living facilities. 9. Observers' office. 10. Loan equipment room. 11. Hypersensitizing lab. B. Special installations. 1. Power. 2. Water supply. 3. Cooling systems. 4. Compressed air. 5. Dry nitrogen. 6. Heating systems. XIX. ROTATING BUILDINGS: THE MMT EXPERIENCE. XX. VIBRATION. A. Independent telescope foundations. B. Vibration from mechanical equipment. XXI. EARTHQUAKE AND FIRE HAZARDS. A. Earthquake. B. Fire. XXII. VEGETATION. 9 XXIII. COSTS. A. Current telescope and dome costs. B. Future predictions. C. Summary. XXIV. GENERAL DEVELOPMENTS. Factors that determine the developments of observatories and some examples. XXV. DAYTIME OBSERVING AND REMOTE CONTROL A. Daytime operations. B. Remote control. XXVI. CONCLUSION. APPENDICES. A. THE ELECTROMAGNETIC SPECTRUM. B. EXPRESSING LIGHT MEASUREMENTS: MAGNITUDE AND S10 UNITS. C. THE BEAUFORT SCALE FOR WIND SPEED. D. DRAG COEFFICIENTS FOR GEOMETRICAL SHAPES. E. MAJOR OPTICAL OBSERVATORIES. F. WORLD SEISMIC ZONE MAPS. G. OBSERVING POLICIES AT MAJOR OBSERVATORIES. H. SOLAR TELESCOPES. BIBLIOGRAPHY. IO FOREWORD This work is primarily an architectural overview of the current trends in large observatory design. The type of observatory that is basically considered for discussion here are buildings designed to house ground-based optical telescopes of a large size, those with apertures of 2.0 meters or larger. Although most requirements may be similar for other types of observatories (solar or infrared, for instance) it might be necessary to consider other factors and the importance of them should be weighted against those mentioned here. As each project is unique because the conditions greatly vary from one to another, the project is expected to be somewhat different from a proposed standard design. This work does not intend to give specific solutions but merely tries to expose some of the different trends in design that now exist. It is by no means a complete listing of the concepts that have been or will be used. It is certain that in the future, with the development of more sophisticated and complex equipment, it will be necessary for buildings to meet very special requirements we now cannot imagine. II In this very special type of project the architect might consider some of the concepts presented here as well as search for new solutions and find new applications for old ideas. If this work serves as a guide to those interested in the realm of observatories, it will have fullfilled its purpose. 12 I INTRODUCTION The last two decades have seen the rise of new technology both in the design and in the construction of telescopes and their housing. The classical image of an observatory as an old, venerated building with a round dome in a respectable university has been replaced by that of a much larger metallic enclosure at the top of a mountain far from all human development. Not too many years ago few people would have imagined that in their near future there could be five-story buildings that could be moved by just pressing a button. The implicit law that established architecture as a fixed-to-the-ground activity has been broken. And not only has this law been shattered but many others: Architecture has merged so thoroughly with technology that it is impossible to differentiate the limits of one from the other. In a way, this type of buildings are partly responsible for the change of image of conventional design to that of a high-technology Architecture. It took more than twenty years to bring the Palomar 200- inch telescope from the first study phase to completion. The concept of a European telescope in the southern hemisphere preceded the installation of the 3.6 m at La Silla by 23 years.