<p>Optical telescope sites ideally need to be somewhat remote (to avoid light pollution) yet still accessible for construction, engineering, and observing; high in altitude; dry; with exceptional "seeing" (stable atmospheric conditions); and clear weather. Neither Australia nor Russia really have any sites meeting all those criteria: their mountains tend to have some combination of too low altitude, poor seeing, and/or bad weather. (This is also why there aren't any really big, modern telescopes in Europe.)</p>

<p><a href="http://www.noao.edu/education/gsmt/site" rel="nofollow">This site</a> has some discussion of the different criteria that go into choosing the best sites for new, large telescopes.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-06-05T12:33:22.260Z
2015-06-05T12:33:22.260Z
Peter Erwin
<p>Russia has <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BTA-6" rel="nofollow">BTA-6</a> which is a 6m optical reflector telescope (which is good enough for their research). Additionally, Australia is a member of many telescope projects throughout the world, and one of them (3.89m telescope) is in Australia itself. Have a look at the link <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_optical_reflecting_telescopes" rel="nofollow">here</a>.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-06-02T22:21:49.537Z
I don't know if this is exactly an answer, but for earth based telescopes, it helps to build them high.   Australia's highest point is a bit over 7,000 feet.  It's not known for it's mountains.   and, according to this map, they have their fare share:   https://astro.uni-bonn.de/~rcbruens/links/worldmap.jpg
userLTK
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-06-03T01:23:27.640Z
@userLTK  In yout jpg, all of the three are radio telescopes
questionhang
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-06-03T09:38:03.137Z
Oops.  My mistake.
userLTK
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-06-03T12:57:29.907Z
This is a comment on the question. Not an answer.
ProfRob
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-06-03T13:00:33.567Z
you mean aat, right? Both of the two countries have poor optical telescope resources. Australia has famous radio telescopes. Why do they just have a 3.89m optical telescope?
questionhang
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-06-10T23:39:04.703Z
"Just" a 3.89m telescope -- which at the time it was built, was the third largest in the world -- and only 11cm short of the second largest.
Russell Borogove
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-06-11T07:13:59.823Z
@questionhang - large telescopes are very expensive to make and operate. Why don't they make a larger scope? Because the country has a budget, and there are other priorities there.
Florin Andrei
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-06-11T07:38:54.840Z
@florin   why does not Uncle Sam build telescopes in its northern little brother's land?
questionhang
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-04-21T12:28:22.623Z
@florin But Australia and Russia have a better latitude than USA's little brother.
questionhang
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-06-02T09:11:52.687Z
2015-06-02T18:05:44.793Z
2015-06-02T18:05:44.793Z
Victor Juliet
<p>Australia and Russia have large land areas. However, I am only aware of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siding_Spring_Observatory" rel="nofollow">one 3.9m telescope</a> in Australia. As far as I know, there are lots of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mountains_in_Australia" rel="nofollow">mountains</a> in Australia and Russia.</p>

<p>So why are there not many large optical telescopes?</p>

<p>The reasons for each country may differ because of their latitudes.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-04-20T10:48:26.680Z
3.9 is quite a big telescope... https://aat.anu.edu.au/files/AAT_cross-section.jpg
Jonathan Twite
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-06-02T22:04:11.673Z
Why are you insisting that the largest optical telescope in Australia is 2.3m? It isn't. Re-edit your question to reflect the facts.
ProfRob
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-06-03T09:12:53.750Z
@RobJeffries I had rolled the edit back. The information that had been edited in was suitable for an answer, as it would change the intent of the question (and effectively nullify it).
Mitch Goshorn
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-06-03T12:58:23.370Z
@MitchGoshorn The question *needs* to be edited because it is factually inaccurate. An answer that merely points out this factual inaccuracy is just a comment, not an answer. I am sure that the intent of the question is to ask why neither Russia or Australia are considered good sites to place the  world's largest telescopes.
ProfRob
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-06-03T13:31:01.310Z
@RobJeffries OP never claimed there weren't others, they stated what they knew of - changing this would make it factually inaccurate, as it states that the OP was aware of a telescope that they were apparently *not* aware of. The wording of the original question would have been answerable with contradicting examples of existing optical telescopes, but based on the OPs comment to Vivian's question, their intent is more in line with why there aren't *more/larger* optical telescopes.
Mitch Goshorn
<telescope>
Why don't Australia/Russia have large optical telescopes?
questionhang
# Why don't Australia/Russia have large optical telescopes?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2015-06-02)

Australia and Russia have large land areas. However, I am only aware of [one 3.9m telescope](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siding_Spring_Observatory) in Australia. As far as I know, there are lots of [mountains](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mountains_in_Australia) in Australia and Russia.

So why are there not many large optical telescopes?

The reasons for each country may differ because of their latitudes.

**Tags:** telescope

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: Why are you insisting that the largest optical telescope in Australia is 2.3m? It isn't. Re-edit your question to reflect the facts.  
> **username_3**: @RobJeffries I had rolled the edit back. The information that had been edited in was suitable for an answer, as it would change the intent of the question (and effectively nullify it).  
> **username_2**: @MitchGoshorn The question *needs* to be edited because it is factually inaccurate. An answer that merely points out this factual inaccuracy is just a comment, not an answer. I am sure that the intent of the question is to ask why neither Russia or Australia are considered good sites to place the  world's largest telescopes.  
> **username_3**: @RobJeffries OP never claimed there weren't others, they stated what they knew of - changing this would make it factually inaccurate, as it states that the OP was aware of a telescope that they were apparently *not* aware of. The wording of the original question would have been answerable with contradicting examples of existing optical telescopes, but based on the OPs comment to Vivian's question, their intent is more in line with why there aren't *more/larger* optical telescopes.  
> **username_1**: 3.9 is quite a big telescope... https://aat.anu.edu.au/files/AAT_cross-section.jpg  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_4 on 2015-06-05. Score: 4

Optical telescope sites ideally need to be somewhat remote (to avoid light pollution) yet still accessible for construction, engineering, and observing; high in altitude; dry; with exceptional "seeing" (stable atmospheric conditions); and clear weather. Neither Australia nor Russia really have any sites meeting all those criteria: their mountains tend to have some combination of too low altitude, poor seeing, and/or bad weather. (This is also why there aren't any really big, modern telescopes in Europe.)

[This site](http://www.noao.edu/education/gsmt/site) has some discussion of the different criteria that go into choosing the best sites for new, large telescopes.


---

### Answer by username_5 on 2015-06-02. Score: 2

Russia has [BTA-6](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BTA-6) which is a 6m optical reflector telescope (which is good enough for their research). Additionally, Australia is a member of many telescope projects throughout the world, and one of them (3.89m telescope) is in Australia itself. Have a look at the link [here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_optical_reflecting_telescopes).

> **Comments:**
> **username_6**: I don't know if this is exactly an answer, but for earth based telescopes, it helps to build them high.   Australia's highest point is a bit over 7,000 feet.  It's not known for it's mountains.   and, according to this map, they have their fare share:   https://astro.uni-bonn.de/~rcbruens/links/worldmap.jpg  
> **username_0**: @username_6  In yout jpg, all of the three are radio telescopes  
> **username_6**: Oops.  My mistake.  
> **username_2**: This is a comment on the question. Not an answer.  
> **username_0**: you mean aat, right? Both of the two countries have poor optical telescope resources. Australia has famous radio telescopes. Why do they just have a 3.89m optical telescope?  
> **username_7**: "Just" a 3.89m telescope -- which at the time it was built, was the third largest in the world -- and only 11cm short of the second largest.  
> **username_8**: @username_0 - large telescopes are very expensive to make and operate. Why don't they make a larger scope? Because the country has a budget, and there are other priorities there.  
> **username_0**: @florin   why does not Uncle Sam build telescopes in its northern little brother's land?  
> **username_0**: @florin But Australia and Russia have a better latitude than USA's little brother.  

---

