Why was M87 targeted for the Event Horizon Telescope instead of Sagittarius A*?












31












$begingroup$


The first image of a black hole has been released today, April 10th, 2019. The team targeted the black hole at the center of the M87 galaxy.



Why didn't the team target Sagittarius A* at the center of our own galaxy? Intuitively, it would seem to be a better target as it is closer to us.






black-holes astronomy event-horizon







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 9




    $begingroup$
    Related question on Astronomy Stack Exchange: astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/30313/2153.
    $endgroup$
    – HDE 226868
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Another similar question on Astronomy - Why not take a picture of a closer black hole?
    $endgroup$
    – BruceWayne
    12 hours ago


















31












$begingroup$


The first image of a black hole has been released today, April 10th, 2019. The team targeted the black hole at the center of the M87 galaxy.



Why didn't the team target Sagittarius A* at the center of our own galaxy? Intuitively, it would seem to be a better target as it is closer to us.






black-holes astronomy event-horizon







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 9




    $begingroup$
    Related question on Astronomy Stack Exchange: astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/30313/2153.
    $endgroup$
    – HDE 226868
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Another similar question on Astronomy - Why not take a picture of a closer black hole?
    $endgroup$
    – BruceWayne
    12 hours ago
















31












31








31


5



$begingroup$


The first image of a black hole has been released today, April 10th, 2019. The team targeted the black hole at the center of the M87 galaxy.



Why didn't the team target Sagittarius A* at the center of our own galaxy? Intuitively, it would seem to be a better target as it is closer to us.






black-holes astronomy event-horizon







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




The first image of a black hole has been released today, April 10th, 2019. The team targeted the black hole at the center of the M87 galaxy.



Why didn't the team target Sagittarius A* at the center of our own galaxy? Intuitively, it would seem to be a better target as it is closer to us.






black-holes astronomy event-horizon




black-holes astronomy event-horizon






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 13 hours ago









Peter Mortensen

1,95511323




1,95511323










asked yesterday









MaxterMaxter

332210




332210








  • 9




    $begingroup$
    Related question on Astronomy Stack Exchange: astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/30313/2153.
    $endgroup$
    – HDE 226868
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Another similar question on Astronomy - Why not take a picture of a closer black hole?
    $endgroup$
    – BruceWayne
    12 hours ago
















  • 9




    $begingroup$
    Related question on Astronomy Stack Exchange: astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/30313/2153.
    $endgroup$
    – HDE 226868
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Another similar question on Astronomy - Why not take a picture of a closer black hole?
    $endgroup$
    – BruceWayne
    12 hours ago










9




9




$begingroup$
Related question on Astronomy Stack Exchange: astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/30313/2153.
$endgroup$
– HDE 226868
yesterday




$begingroup$
Related question on Astronomy Stack Exchange: astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/30313/2153.
$endgroup$
– HDE 226868
yesterday




1




1




$begingroup$
Another similar question on Astronomy - Why not take a picture of a closer black hole?
$endgroup$
– BruceWayne
12 hours ago






$begingroup$
Another similar question on Astronomy - Why not take a picture of a closer black hole?
$endgroup$
– BruceWayne
12 hours ago












1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















43












$begingroup$

Of course they targeted Sgr A* as well.



I think though that this is a more difficult target to get good images of.



The black hole is about 1500 times less massive than in M87, but is about 2000 times closer. So the angular scale of the event horizons should be similar. However Sgr A* is a fairly dormant black hole and may not be illuminated so well, and there is more scattering material between us and it than in M87.



A bigger problem may be variability timescales$^{dagger}$. The black hole in M87 is light days across, so images can be combined across several days of observing. Sgr A* is light minutes across, so rapid variability could be a problem.



The penultimate paragraph of the initial Event Horizon Telescope paper says:




Another primary EHT source, Sgr A*, has a precisely measured mass three orders of magnitude smaller than that of M87*, with dynamical timescales of minutes instead of days. Observing the shadow of Sgr A* will require accounting for this variability and mitigation of scattering effects caused by the interstellar medium




$dagger$ The accretion flow into a black hole is turbulent and variable. However, the shortest timescale upon which significant changes can take place across the source is the timescale for light (the fastest possible means of communication) to travel across or around it. Because the material close to the black hole is moving relativistically, we do expect things to vary on these kinds of timescales. The photon sphere of a black hole is approximately $6GM/c^2$ across, meaning a shortest timescale of variability is about $6GM/c^3$. In more obvious units:
$$ tau sim 30 left(frac{M}{10^6 M_{odot}}right) {rm seconds}.$$
i.e. We might expect variability in the image on timescales of 30 seconds multiplied by the black hole mass in units of millions of solar masses. This is 2 minutes for Sgr A* and a much longer 2.25 days for the M87 black hole.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 4




    $begingroup$
    I was going to protest this answer, but now just have a catch to add. In some places (looking at you, Veritasium) a simulated image of SgrA* is easy to mistake as a genuine photo. Now I understand why SgrA* isn't even in the press release. The circulating SgrA* image is just a simulation. See source material and comments section: youtu.be/VnsZj9RvhFU
    $endgroup$
    – World Outsider
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I'd intuitively think that dust in the disk of our galaxy plays a part by obscuring the innermost regions.
    $endgroup$
    – Allure
    yesterday






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    @Allure The centre isn't obscured at 1.3mm wavelengths.
    $endgroup$
    – Rob Jeffries
    20 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    So why not Andromeda, or any closer galaxy? Size of central black hole? Orientation of galaxy (edge-on, face-on, or in between)?
    $endgroup$
    – David Conrad
    10 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @DavidConrad You will find another question about that somewhere. Yes, the angular size of the Andromeda black hole would be a bit smaller.
    $endgroup$
    – Rob Jeffries
    7 hours ago












Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "151"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f471792%2fwhy-was-m87-targeted-for-the-event-horizon-telescope-instead-of-sagittarius-a%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









43












$begingroup$

Of course they targeted Sgr A* as well.



I think though that this is a more difficult target to get good images of.



The black hole is about 1500 times less massive than in M87, but is about 2000 times closer. So the angular scale of the event horizons should be similar. However Sgr A* is a fairly dormant black hole and may not be illuminated so well, and there is more scattering material between us and it than in M87.



A bigger problem may be variability timescales$^{dagger}$. The black hole in M87 is light days across, so images can be combined across several days of observing. Sgr A* is light minutes across, so rapid variability could be a problem.



The penultimate paragraph of the initial Event Horizon Telescope paper says:




Another primary EHT source, Sgr A*, has a precisely measured mass three orders of magnitude smaller than that of M87*, with dynamical timescales of minutes instead of days. Observing the shadow of Sgr A* will require accounting for this variability and mitigation of scattering effects caused by the interstellar medium




$dagger$ The accretion flow into a black hole is turbulent and variable. However, the shortest timescale upon which significant changes can take place across the source is the timescale for light (the fastest possible means of communication) to travel across or around it. Because the material close to the black hole is moving relativistically, we do expect things to vary on these kinds of timescales. The photon sphere of a black hole is approximately $6GM/c^2$ across, meaning a shortest timescale of variability is about $6GM/c^3$. In more obvious units:
$$ tau sim 30 left(frac{M}{10^6 M_{odot}}right) {rm seconds}.$$
i.e. We might expect variability in the image on timescales of 30 seconds multiplied by the black hole mass in units of millions of solar masses. This is 2 minutes for Sgr A* and a much longer 2.25 days for the M87 black hole.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 4




    $begingroup$
    I was going to protest this answer, but now just have a catch to add. In some places (looking at you, Veritasium) a simulated image of SgrA* is easy to mistake as a genuine photo. Now I understand why SgrA* isn't even in the press release. The circulating SgrA* image is just a simulation. See source material and comments section: youtu.be/VnsZj9RvhFU
    $endgroup$
    – World Outsider
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I'd intuitively think that dust in the disk of our galaxy plays a part by obscuring the innermost regions.
    $endgroup$
    – Allure
    yesterday






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    @Allure The centre isn't obscured at 1.3mm wavelengths.
    $endgroup$
    – Rob Jeffries
    20 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    So why not Andromeda, or any closer galaxy? Size of central black hole? Orientation of galaxy (edge-on, face-on, or in between)?
    $endgroup$
    – David Conrad
    10 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @DavidConrad You will find another question about that somewhere. Yes, the angular size of the Andromeda black hole would be a bit smaller.
    $endgroup$
    – Rob Jeffries
    7 hours ago
















43












$begingroup$

Of course they targeted Sgr A* as well.



I think though that this is a more difficult target to get good images of.



The black hole is about 1500 times less massive than in M87, but is about 2000 times closer. So the angular scale of the event horizons should be similar. However Sgr A* is a fairly dormant black hole and may not be illuminated so well, and there is more scattering material between us and it than in M87.



A bigger problem may be variability timescales$^{dagger}$. The black hole in M87 is light days across, so images can be combined across several days of observing. Sgr A* is light minutes across, so rapid variability could be a problem.



The penultimate paragraph of the initial Event Horizon Telescope paper says:




Another primary EHT source, Sgr A*, has a precisely measured mass three orders of magnitude smaller than that of M87*, with dynamical timescales of minutes instead of days. Observing the shadow of Sgr A* will require accounting for this variability and mitigation of scattering effects caused by the interstellar medium




$dagger$ The accretion flow into a black hole is turbulent and variable. However, the shortest timescale upon which significant changes can take place across the source is the timescale for light (the fastest possible means of communication) to travel across or around it. Because the material close to the black hole is moving relativistically, we do expect things to vary on these kinds of timescales. The photon sphere of a black hole is approximately $6GM/c^2$ across, meaning a shortest timescale of variability is about $6GM/c^3$. In more obvious units:
$$ tau sim 30 left(frac{M}{10^6 M_{odot}}right) {rm seconds}.$$
i.e. We might expect variability in the image on timescales of 30 seconds multiplied by the black hole mass in units of millions of solar masses. This is 2 minutes for Sgr A* and a much longer 2.25 days for the M87 black hole.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 4




    $begingroup$
    I was going to protest this answer, but now just have a catch to add. In some places (looking at you, Veritasium) a simulated image of SgrA* is easy to mistake as a genuine photo. Now I understand why SgrA* isn't even in the press release. The circulating SgrA* image is just a simulation. See source material and comments section: youtu.be/VnsZj9RvhFU
    $endgroup$
    – World Outsider
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I'd intuitively think that dust in the disk of our galaxy plays a part by obscuring the innermost regions.
    $endgroup$
    – Allure
    yesterday






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    @Allure The centre isn't obscured at 1.3mm wavelengths.
    $endgroup$
    – Rob Jeffries
    20 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    So why not Andromeda, or any closer galaxy? Size of central black hole? Orientation of galaxy (edge-on, face-on, or in between)?
    $endgroup$
    – David Conrad
    10 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @DavidConrad You will find another question about that somewhere. Yes, the angular size of the Andromeda black hole would be a bit smaller.
    $endgroup$
    – Rob Jeffries
    7 hours ago














43












43








43





$begingroup$

Of course they targeted Sgr A* as well.



I think though that this is a more difficult target to get good images of.



The black hole is about 1500 times less massive than in M87, but is about 2000 times closer. So the angular scale of the event horizons should be similar. However Sgr A* is a fairly dormant black hole and may not be illuminated so well, and there is more scattering material between us and it than in M87.



A bigger problem may be variability timescales$^{dagger}$. The black hole in M87 is light days across, so images can be combined across several days of observing. Sgr A* is light minutes across, so rapid variability could be a problem.



The penultimate paragraph of the initial Event Horizon Telescope paper says:




Another primary EHT source, Sgr A*, has a precisely measured mass three orders of magnitude smaller than that of M87*, with dynamical timescales of minutes instead of days. Observing the shadow of Sgr A* will require accounting for this variability and mitigation of scattering effects caused by the interstellar medium




$dagger$ The accretion flow into a black hole is turbulent and variable. However, the shortest timescale upon which significant changes can take place across the source is the timescale for light (the fastest possible means of communication) to travel across or around it. Because the material close to the black hole is moving relativistically, we do expect things to vary on these kinds of timescales. The photon sphere of a black hole is approximately $6GM/c^2$ across, meaning a shortest timescale of variability is about $6GM/c^3$. In more obvious units:
$$ tau sim 30 left(frac{M}{10^6 M_{odot}}right) {rm seconds}.$$
i.e. We might expect variability in the image on timescales of 30 seconds multiplied by the black hole mass in units of millions of solar masses. This is 2 minutes for Sgr A* and a much longer 2.25 days for the M87 black hole.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$



Of course they targeted Sgr A* as well.



I think though that this is a more difficult target to get good images of.



The black hole is about 1500 times less massive than in M87, but is about 2000 times closer. So the angular scale of the event horizons should be similar. However Sgr A* is a fairly dormant black hole and may not be illuminated so well, and there is more scattering material between us and it than in M87.



A bigger problem may be variability timescales$^{dagger}$. The black hole in M87 is light days across, so images can be combined across several days of observing. Sgr A* is light minutes across, so rapid variability could be a problem.



The penultimate paragraph of the initial Event Horizon Telescope paper says:




Another primary EHT source, Sgr A*, has a precisely measured mass three orders of magnitude smaller than that of M87*, with dynamical timescales of minutes instead of days. Observing the shadow of Sgr A* will require accounting for this variability and mitigation of scattering effects caused by the interstellar medium




$dagger$ The accretion flow into a black hole is turbulent and variable. However, the shortest timescale upon which significant changes can take place across the source is the timescale for light (the fastest possible means of communication) to travel across or around it. Because the material close to the black hole is moving relativistically, we do expect things to vary on these kinds of timescales. The photon sphere of a black hole is approximately $6GM/c^2$ across, meaning a shortest timescale of variability is about $6GM/c^3$. In more obvious units:
$$ tau sim 30 left(frac{M}{10^6 M_{odot}}right) {rm seconds}.$$
i.e. We might expect variability in the image on timescales of 30 seconds multiplied by the black hole mass in units of millions of solar masses. This is 2 minutes for Sgr A* and a much longer 2.25 days for the M87 black hole.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited 3 hours ago

























answered yesterday









Rob JeffriesRob Jeffries

71k7150247




71k7150247








  • 4




    $begingroup$
    I was going to protest this answer, but now just have a catch to add. In some places (looking at you, Veritasium) a simulated image of SgrA* is easy to mistake as a genuine photo. Now I understand why SgrA* isn't even in the press release. The circulating SgrA* image is just a simulation. See source material and comments section: youtu.be/VnsZj9RvhFU
    $endgroup$
    – World Outsider
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I'd intuitively think that dust in the disk of our galaxy plays a part by obscuring the innermost regions.
    $endgroup$
    – Allure
    yesterday






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    @Allure The centre isn't obscured at 1.3mm wavelengths.
    $endgroup$
    – Rob Jeffries
    20 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    So why not Andromeda, or any closer galaxy? Size of central black hole? Orientation of galaxy (edge-on, face-on, or in between)?
    $endgroup$
    – David Conrad
    10 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @DavidConrad You will find another question about that somewhere. Yes, the angular size of the Andromeda black hole would be a bit smaller.
    $endgroup$
    – Rob Jeffries
    7 hours ago














  • 4




    $begingroup$
    I was going to protest this answer, but now just have a catch to add. In some places (looking at you, Veritasium) a simulated image of SgrA* is easy to mistake as a genuine photo. Now I understand why SgrA* isn't even in the press release. The circulating SgrA* image is just a simulation. See source material and comments section: youtu.be/VnsZj9RvhFU
    $endgroup$
    – World Outsider
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I'd intuitively think that dust in the disk of our galaxy plays a part by obscuring the innermost regions.
    $endgroup$
    – Allure
    yesterday






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    @Allure The centre isn't obscured at 1.3mm wavelengths.
    $endgroup$
    – Rob Jeffries
    20 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    So why not Andromeda, or any closer galaxy? Size of central black hole? Orientation of galaxy (edge-on, face-on, or in between)?
    $endgroup$
    – David Conrad
    10 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @DavidConrad You will find another question about that somewhere. Yes, the angular size of the Andromeda black hole would be a bit smaller.
    $endgroup$
    – Rob Jeffries
    7 hours ago








4




4




$begingroup$
I was going to protest this answer, but now just have a catch to add. In some places (looking at you, Veritasium) a simulated image of SgrA* is easy to mistake as a genuine photo. Now I understand why SgrA* isn't even in the press release. The circulating SgrA* image is just a simulation. See source material and comments section: youtu.be/VnsZj9RvhFU
$endgroup$
– World Outsider
yesterday




$begingroup$
I was going to protest this answer, but now just have a catch to add. In some places (looking at you, Veritasium) a simulated image of SgrA* is easy to mistake as a genuine photo. Now I understand why SgrA* isn't even in the press release. The circulating SgrA* image is just a simulation. See source material and comments section: youtu.be/VnsZj9RvhFU
$endgroup$
– World Outsider
yesterday




1




1




$begingroup$
I'd intuitively think that dust in the disk of our galaxy plays a part by obscuring the innermost regions.
$endgroup$
– Allure
yesterday




$begingroup$
I'd intuitively think that dust in the disk of our galaxy plays a part by obscuring the innermost regions.
$endgroup$
– Allure
yesterday




4




4




$begingroup$
@Allure The centre isn't obscured at 1.3mm wavelengths.
$endgroup$
– Rob Jeffries
20 hours ago




$begingroup$
@Allure The centre isn't obscured at 1.3mm wavelengths.
$endgroup$
– Rob Jeffries
20 hours ago




2




2




$begingroup$
So why not Andromeda, or any closer galaxy? Size of central black hole? Orientation of galaxy (edge-on, face-on, or in between)?
$endgroup$
– David Conrad
10 hours ago




$begingroup$
So why not Andromeda, or any closer galaxy? Size of central black hole? Orientation of galaxy (edge-on, face-on, or in between)?
$endgroup$
– David Conrad
10 hours ago




1




1




$begingroup$
@DavidConrad You will find another question about that somewhere. Yes, the angular size of the Andromeda black hole would be a bit smaller.
$endgroup$
– Rob Jeffries
7 hours ago




$begingroup$
@DavidConrad You will find another question about that somewhere. Yes, the angular size of the Andromeda black hole would be a bit smaller.
$endgroup$
– Rob Jeffries
7 hours ago


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid …



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f471792%2fwhy-was-m87-targeted-for-the-event-horizon-telescope-instead-of-sagittarius-a%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







-

Popular posts from this blog

What other Star Trek series did the main TNG cast show up in?

Image
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0; } 4 I'm referring to Picard, Riker, Data, Worf, Geordi, Dr. Crusher, Wesley Crusher, Chief O'Brien and family, Deanna Troi, Guinan. I know Picard and Worf show up on DS9, though I haven't seen it myself. I'm curious what happened to the characters after that last episode of TNG? star-trek star-trek-tng share | improve this question edited 10 hours ago Ham Sandwich 6,051 2 25 75
Read more

Berlina muro

Image
La berlina muro ĉe Bethaniendamm, 1986 La berlina muro aŭ simple la muro [1] , nomita ankaŭ "kontraŭfaŝisma remparo" en propaganda lingvo de la iama Germana Demokratia Respubliko, estis parto de la interngermana limo, kiu dividis de la 13-a de aŭgusto 1961 ĝis la 9-a de novembro 1989 okcidentan Berlinon de la orienta parto de la urbo kaj de la ĉirkaŭa tereno de la GDR. Ĝi estis unu el la plej famaj simboloj de la malvarma milito kaj de la disdivido de Germanio. Pli ol simpla muro, la berlina muro estis fakte tuta defendokonstruaĵo kun du muroj, ena malplena strio, rondirvojo, gardturoj kaj alarmsistemoj. Dum la provo transiri la severe garditan limon al okcidenta Berlino multaj homoj estis mortigitaj. La preciza nombro de viktimoj estas pridisputita kaj ne certa; la nombroj anoncataj varias inter 86 kaj 238 mortintoj. La malplifortiĝo de Sovetunio kaj la politiko de liberigo gvidita de Miĥail Gorbaĉov ebligis al la orientgermanoj faligi la 9-an de novembro 1989 l
Read more

Berlina aerponto

Image
Flugkoridoroj dum la blokado de Berlino La Berlina aerponto estas la provizigo de okcidenta Berlino per aviadiloj fare de la aliancanoj inter la 23-a de junio 1948 kaj la 12-a de majo 1949 dum la blokado de Berlino fare de la sovetia armeo. Enhavo 1 Historio 1.1 La aerkoridoroj 1.2 Unuaj flugoj 1.3 Plibonigo de la aerponto 1.4 Fino de la aerponto 1.5 Rozinbombiloj 1.6 Bilanco 2 Flughavenoj 2.1 Berlino 2.2 Okcidenta Germanio 3 Aviadiloj de la berlina aerponto 4 15-a datreveno de la aerponto 5 Bibliografio 6 Referencoj 7 Eksteraj ligiloj Historio | General Lucius D. Clay, militguberniestro de la usona okupadzono Jam antaŭ la berlina aerponto estiĝis la malgranda aerponto . La estro de la sovetia militadministracio en Germanio, Vasili Daniloviĉ Sokolovski, ordonis la 1-an de aprilo 1948, kiel reago al la konferenco de Londono inter britoj, francoj kaj reprezentantoj de Benelukso pri aligo de Germa
Read more