Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 6821598" data-attributes="member: 177">And, to be fair, it isn't like they didn't know that.&nbsp; The science of characterizing what the waves should look like was rather ahead of the tech for building the detector.&nbsp; Part of the point, as I understand it, was to get practice and learn with the first version (and just in case there was a more nearby event that they could catch - this one was an estimated billion light years away).&nbsp; My understanding is that the upgrade was part of the plan.Sure, there will be smaller events.&nbsp; Or more distant ones.&nbsp; But as we learn, we also improve detectors, being able to do more with less...But, as to yoru question - how many more billions of dollars - over what timespan?&nbsp; We're going to be doing astronomy hopefully forever.I'm&nbsp; not sure on that point.&nbsp; I don't think the laser frequency is the real issue.&nbsp; I think power output and mirror quality are more likely to be the important bits.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 6821598, member: 177"] And, to be fair, it isn't like they didn't know that. The science of characterizing what the waves should look like was rather ahead of the tech for building the detector. Part of the point, as I understand it, was to get practice and learn with the first version (and just in case there was a more nearby event that they could catch - this one was an estimated billion light years away). My understanding is that the upgrade was part of the plan. Sure, there will be smaller events. Or more distant ones. But as we learn, we also improve detectors, being able to do more with less... But, as to yoru question - how many more billions of dollars - over what timespan? We're going to be doing astronomy hopefully forever. I'm not sure on that point. I don't think the laser frequency is the real issue. I think power output and mirror quality are more likely to be the important bits. [/QUOTE]

Verification