Help with question on properties of ground based telescopes vs Hubble
2006-09-25 04:34:03 · 8 answers · asked by myson_012001 1 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Astronomy & Space
When it was launched, the Hubble space telescope was able to resolve finer detail than any ground-based telescope because it didn't have to cope with atmospheric turbulence. Now, advances in adaptive optics have pretty much nullified that advantage. What remains for space telescopes is the ability to see the universe in wavelengths that are blocked by Earth's atmosphere. This includes X-rays, gamma rays, and much of the infrared and ultraviolet ranges.
The James Webb space telescope, the successor to Hubble, is designed to work primarily in the infrared. It will be able to see through some of the dust clouds that block our view of the galactic center, star-birth regions, and other things. It will also be able to see more of the very highly red-shifted galaxies at the limits of the universe.
2006-09-25 07:40:09 · answer #1 · answered by injanier 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Like another responder, I am wondering about the reason for the question.
I will take a different tack. You may be asking why doesn't the hubble simply take over all observations of celestial objects, since it's images are much clearer, without having to deal with atmospheric disturbances or distortions.
For this, I offer two reasons:
1. There is simply too much sky to look at, and the Hubble's time is reserved years in advance. It is costly time and the satellites' resources are limited. It takes fuel to move the Hubble into a different position.
2. Not all research needs the degree of resolution offered by the Hubble. Gorund based 'scopes can still do good science and research for detecing new phenomena and observing the motions and behavior of known objects. The moon is an obvious example, but the local system and even the known objects in the sky can still offer up information to ground based telescopes.
2006-09-25 19:51:43 · answer #2 · answered by Vince M 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Mercury. It is better to view it with ground telescopes. It is so close to the Sun that the Sun's rays would endanger the space telescope. I am not sure if Venus can be viewed either, although I thought I saw Hubble pictures of Venus.
Very distant objects, over 10 billion ly away, would be better to view with the Hubble, as the atmosphere could take the faint smudges and spread them into invisibility. Also the Hubble probably would have a better choice of sky to view - a ground-based telescope can't see the entire sky unless it is on the Equator.
2006-09-25 19:16:05 · answer #3 · answered by alnitaka 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
When it was launched, the Hubble space telescope was able to resolve finer detail than any ground-based telescope because it didn't have to cope with atmospheric turbulence. Now, advances in adaptive optics have pretty much nullified that advantage. What remains for space telescopes is the ability to see the universe in wavelengths that are blocked by Earth's atmosphere. This includes X-rays, gamma rays, and much of the infrared and ultraviolet ranges.
The James Webb space telescope, the successor to Hubble, is designed to work primarily in the infrared. It will be able to see through some of the dust clouds that block our view of the galactic center, star-birth regions, and other things. It will also be able to see more of the very highly red-shifted galaxies at the limits of the universe.
2006-09-25 20:21:22 · answer #4 · answered by cosmoguy2121 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The hubble is always better because there is no atmosphere in space to distort the image. Like what you get with ground telescopes.
2006-09-26 03:01:47 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, if you can buy a moon filter for the telescope, I am particularly fond of looking at the craters of the moon. Without the filter, however, the light of the moon tends to be too bright to see much of anything.
The planets are also good to observe. And if you have a powerful enough telescope, you can view some galaxy shapes and clusters more clearly.
2006-09-25 14:31:00 · answer #6 · answered by Mary 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I assume you mean the kind of telescope that an individual might own. Look at the planets in the solar system, not the stars. Stars pretty well look the same (though some have different colors, believe it or not). Planets are really cool. First time I saw saturn's rings was really neat.
2006-09-25 13:28:54 · answer #7 · answered by Rob 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A ground telescope would work better with planets and astronomy. A smaller telescop would mainly be used for indors.
PLEASE PICK ME FOR BEST AND ONLY ANWSER.
2006-09-26 08:03:32 · answer #8 · answered by haha_MEHELPU_maybe 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋