One more orbital telescope with 10000 times power of Hubble |
![]() |
| log in |
Message boards : SETI@home Science : One more orbital telescope with 10000 times power of Hubble
| Author | Message |
|---|---|
|
| |
| ID: 1129599 · | |
|
Orgil, | |
| ID: 1129610 · | |
|
Let's pray and wait along with russian scientists that The Eye bring us some wonders in a few weeks. Because Hubble got some mirror problem initially and many russian satellites had problems historically. | |
| ID: 1129611 · | |
|
Was hubble a radio telescope? | |
| ID: 1129672 · | |
|
I guess since there is traditional Space Race is still on in certain hidden level both sides may argue any Race issues through their own interest. | |
| ID: 1129676 · | |
Was hubble a radio telescope? No, but light is also electromagnetic radiation. But of course Hubble is not the telescope with highest resolution, there are ground based telescopes with much larger optics. It's just a convenient reference which most readers will recognize. They could have said the resolution using interferometry with a baseline so large is a million times better than any single radiotelescope. The interferometry of course requires another radiotelescope observing the same But exquisite resolution isn't the whole story, at 10 meters the sensitivity is much less than the portion of the Arecibo surface used by the ALFA receiver system, and that makes a big difference in sensitivity. Joe | |
| ID: 1129767 · | |
... But exquisite resolution isn't the whole story, ... But being outside of the Earth's atmosphere and particularly outside of the ionosphere for radio astronomy removes a lot of artefacts of turbulent distortion and refraction. Hence, even if your orbital telescope is not as 'powerful' as the land-based telescopes, you can gain a significant advantage due to being above all the atmospherics. Hence, such as Hubble can enjoy ridiculously long exposures to see faint objects that just isn't possible for land-based instruments many times its size/mass/'power'. What will be interesting is what will be found. Especially for how the atmospheric aberrations can be compensated for from the ground based interferometry part of the data. Would a second and third identical satellite give much better results? For the satellite itself, I just wonder how they keep the petals exactly curved and positioned despite the harsh temperature swings experienced in orbit? Keep searchin', Martin ____________ Mandriva Linux A user friendly OS! See new freedom Mageia2 The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3) | |
| ID: 1129823 · | |
|
What form of turbulence is going to distort a radio wave? | |
| ID: 1130100 · | |
What form of turbulence is going to distort a radio wave? http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/ Causes earthquakes too ... ____________ | |
| ID: 1130114 · | |
|
What are the main imaging differences between radioastron and james webb? I mean both are non optic telescopes. and advantages and disadvantages of IR and radios... | |
| ID: 1132058 · | |
What are the main imaging differences between radioastron and james webb? I mean both are non optic telescopes. and advantages and disadvantages of IR and radios... Nope, not like that. See link below for a orbital IR telescope. http://www.spitzer.caltech.edu/ ____________ | |
| ID: 1132059 · | |
What are the main imaging differences between radioastron and james webb? I mean both are non optic telescopes. ... What we call "radio waves", "infrared light", and "light" are all part of the electromagnetic radiation spectrum. It's just that we can 'see' light. We feel the longer wavelength light as heat (infrared - longer wavelength than what we see as red light). At longer wavelengths still, you move into the radio part of the spectrum. At radio wavelengths, glass optics become impractical and so 'mirror' (dish) reflectors are used instead. Indeed, at optical wavelengths, there are advantages to using mirrors rather than lenses. So... It's all a question of what 'colour' of light you want to observe. Due to the effect of "red shift", infrared and radio astronomy allow you to look at objects at greater distances and so farther back in time. Also, the longer wavelengths are affected less by interstellar dust, again letting you see farther. Hope that helps, Keep searchin', Martin ____________ Mandriva Linux A user friendly OS! See new freedom Mageia2 The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3) | |
| ID: 1132185 · | |
|
Video releases from Roscosmos: | |
| ID: 1137134 · | |
|
Here is Radioastrons latest updates, BTW why russians not releasing any deep space images so far now! | |
| ID: 1145352 · | |
|
Because this is not an imaging telescope. You have to process the data here on the Earth to obtain any image. | |
| ID: 1145365 · | |
|
I mean worldwide at least million people waiting to see that arcsecond images. | |
| ID: 1145397 · | |
|
Radiotelescopes are not built to give images, like optical telescopes.They give data, which are analyzed like we are doing at SETI@home and Einstein@home. Einstein@home so far has discovered two unknown pulsars in Arecibo data and nine in Parkes data. Parkes, in Australia, can cover the galactic center, which Arecibo cannot reach. It is also steerable, like Green Bank and the Allen Telescope Array, which should restart in September. | |
| ID: 1145403 · | |
|
Yes for pro's like you data is everything but for non pro's like me and rest of majority of fans some image is our kind of result. Hopefully that data-to-image process would not take much long time. | |
| ID: 1145405 · | |
|
Spitzer works in the IR band and Chandra in the X band. The IR is near the optical band and some animals see this band. Chandra is on the X band, and its data must be processed. However, to "see" an object you must use a radiation whose wavelength is smaller than the size of the object, and radiowaves can have very long wavelengths.I am not familiar with the algorithms used in processing radiosources, but I know that they are also used in computerized axial tomography. They were developed by British astronomers using mathematical tools developed by a Russian mathematician. | |
| ID: 1145416 · | |
Message boards : SETI@home Science : One more orbital telescope with 10000 times power of Hubble
| Copyright © 2013 University of California |