More bad news for hubble

[charrison]

linkage

The University of Arizona today announced that the first 8.4-meter (27-foot) primary mirror for the world's most powerful telescope, the Large Binocular Telescope (LBT), has successfully been installed in the telescope structure at Arizona's Mount Graham International Observatory (MGIO).
The 18-ton mirror made its 150-mile journey from Tucson to the top of Mount Graham near Safford, Ariz., in October 2003. Now the mirror has been installed in the telescope, and technicians are testing intricate mirror support system hardware and software in preparation for telescope "first light." First light, or when the mirror collects its first celestial light, is expected later this year.


...


Work on the $100 million LBT project began with construction of the telescope building in 1996 and will be completed in 2005. The project is entirely funded by the LBT Corp., an international consortium of scientific and academic institutions.

When the LBT is fully operational, it will be the world's most technologically advanced optical telescope, creating images expected to be nearly 10 times sharper than images from the Hubble Space Telescope.

10 Times the resolution, 1/10 the price(or less).

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You understand the limits of terrestrial telescopes, right?

 

[SuperTool]

10x resolution through the atmosphere is not necessarily better than 1x resolution through the vacuum of space.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
You understand the limits of terrestrial telescopes, right?

i thought actively warping the mirrors fixed that

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
You understand the limits of terrestrial telescopes, right?

i thought actively warping the mirrors fixed that

Assuming you are in the northern hemisphere, what size scope do you need to see the Southern Cross, or to see Orion in the summer?

Very real problems with ground based systems regardless of cost. Adaptive optics are great, but they cant see through to the other side of the earth.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
You understand the limits of terrestrial telescopes, right?

you understand english right?

When the LBT is fully operational, it will be the world's most technologically advanced optical telescope, creating images expected to be nearly 10 times sharper than images from the Hubble Space Telescope.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
You understand the limits of terrestrial telescopes, right?

you understand english right?

When the LBT is fully operational, it will be the world's most technologically advanced optical telescope, creating images expected to be nearly 10 times sharper than images from the Hubble Space Telescope.

You apparently havent seen the 8000 mile in diameter ball of rock you are standing on. See the post above yours.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
You understand the limits of terrestrial telescopes, right?

i thought actively warping the mirrors fixed that

Assuming you are in the northern hemisphere, what size scope do you need to see the Southern Cross, or to see Orion in the summer?

Very real problems with ground based systems regardless of cost. Adaptive optics are great, but they cant see through to the other side of the earth.

oh, right.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
You understand the limits of terrestrial telescopes, right?

you understand english right?

When the LBT is fully operational, it will be the world's most technologically advanced optical telescope, creating images expected to be nearly 10 times sharper than images from the Hubble Space Telescope.

You apparently havent seen the 8000 mile in diameter ball of rock you are standing on. See the post above yours.

For the cost of repairing the hubble, several more of these systems could be built. From what I have gathered, many are already in the pipe.

 

[jahawkin]

The article states that the new telescope produces images that are 10x sharper than hubbel. This implies that atmospheric effects have been factored into the estimation.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: jahawkin
The article states that the new telescope produces images that are 10x sharper than hubbel. This implies that atmospheric effects have been factored into the estimation.

Undoubtedly. Everything coming out has adaptive optics which have come a LONG way in the last dozen or so years. Even some amateur scopes are being made with them. I have seen adaptive systems and what they can do is remarkable.

 

[tritium4ever]

Like WinstonSmith said, terrestrial telescopes have a number of challenges that space-borne scopes don't have. Imaging the other half of the sky is one. Another one is exposure length...the longest possible exposure is the length of a single night. Then you have weather, which even at the best locations in the world spoils at least 20% of all available observing time. And finally, infrared radiation from the Earth prevents ground-based scopes from making extremely sensitive infrared measurements (not so critical for Hubble since it does a significant portion of its observing in the visual spectrum, but of absolute importance to the James Webb Space Telescope, which is the successor to Hubble and is designed to operate mainly in the infrared range).

Despite all those limitations, ground-based scopes still make plenty of sense. You get far greater aperture, greater resolution (though plans for future space-borne telescope arrays will negate that advantage), and significantly lower costs. But no one telescope can do everything...you'll always have a combination of ground-based and space-borne telescopes for the reason that one can do things the other can't.

 

[Painman]

Hubble needs maintenance which it isn't going to get, 'cos NASA has suspended all shuttle missions since Columbia burnt up... so it looks like Hubble is going to be left for space junk anyway

 

[tritium4ever]

Originally posted by: Painman
Hubble needs maintenance which it isn't going to get, 'cos NASA has suspended all shuttle missions since Columbia burnt up... so it looks like Hubble is going to be left for space junk anyway

First of all, Hubble isn't doomed because the Shuttle isn't gonna fly any more (it is), it's doomed because if a Shuttle were to fly to Hubble, there would be no way for it to fly to the ISS since the orbits are too different. The requirement that the ISS be reachable is to allow astronauts to repair damage before coming down, and that is the real reason why Hubble will get no servicing missions from astronauts on a Shuttle. Second of all, Hubble can still be maintained with a robotic mission, and there are proposals being drafted to do exactly that. And finally, it will not be left as space junk if in fact all maintenance plans are cancelled...NASA will attach a robotic booster (at a cost of several hundred million dollars by the way, but they justify it by saying it can be used in future missions as well...a robotic maintenance craft is only good for repairing Hubble) and it will send Hubble down in a controlled descent.

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Thought you guys were talking about this Hubble.