Antarctica Gives Astronomers Best View of the Stars

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

Going to the ends of the earth may be as good a strategy for observing the heavens as sending telescopes into space is. Findings published today in the journal Nature indicate that the middle of an Antarctic plateau is the best place to situate a telescope--images taken there can approach the quality of those taken by the Hubble Space Telescope at a fraction of the cost.

Ground-based telescopes are hampered by our planet's atmosphere, which causes light coming from stars to waver. Scientists describe the ¿seeing¿ of a potential telescope site by how much light jittering occurs, which in turn affects the sharpness of the images that can be taken. Michael C. B. Ashley of the University of New South Wales in Australia and his colleagues tested seeing conditions at a site in Antarctica called Dome C, which is located at 75 degrees South Latitude and at an elevation 400 meters higher than the South Pole is. Previous tests at the South Pole had indicated that seeing at the South Pole Station is nearly twice as bad as it is at mid-latitude telescope locations. The researchers determined that conditions at Dome C, however, are two to three times clearer than those experienced at central observatories. ¿This implies a factor of 10 increase in sensitivity,¿ Ashley says. ¿Put another way, an eight-meter telescope on the Antarctic Plateau could achieve the sensitivity limits of a hypothetical 25-meter telescope anywhere else.¿

Dome C's high elevation, flat surrounding terrain, low wind speeds, and extreme temperatures and humidity contribute to the excellent conditions, the scientists report. The team concludes that Dome C is the best ground-based site to develop a new astronomical observatory and that telescopes positioned there ¿could work on projects that would otherwise require a space mission.¿

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American