OT: Hubble rulez !

[narf poit chez BOOM]

Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
No, the James Webb scope only operates in the 'near infra-red' not in visible light frequencies. It is designed for seeking out the most distant features in the universe (cosmology research). Once Hubble is gone we have no space telescopes for visible light. Apparently the new computer techniques for fixing atmosphere distortion are good enough that ground-based telescopes will be better than any reasonable sized space telescope. The burden of launch weight for any space telescope makes it very hard to compete with this innovation.

So it seems to me that a space telescope with filtering would be even better.

[oleg]

Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
...The burden of launch weight for any space telescope makes it very hard to compete with this innovation.

But the base distance between two or more telescopes in space allows the interferometer type experiments to detect Earth size planets across the Galaxy ...

[Aiken]

Originally posted by oleg:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
...The burden of launch weight for any space telescope makes it very hard to compete with this innovation.

But the base distance between two or more telescopes in space allows the interferometer type experiments to detect Earth size planets across the Galaxy ...

---

It would be a layout for Terrestrial Planet Finder (TPF) telescope's array. Aimed to 2015.

[Fyron]

Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:
So it seems to me that a space telescope with filtering would be even better.

I think he meant just that the atmosphere of the Earth distorts the images, which is why ground based ones have been no good (compared to Hubble). Now that computers can take care of the distortion, a single telescope on the ground is just as good as one in space.

[ July 04, 2004, 00:18: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[Baron Munchausen]

Yes, that's it exactly. Space-based telescopes don't need the filtering to correct for the atmosphere. It would have no effect on a space telescope to try to correct for atmosphere. But it turns out that the huge cost of boosting something into orbit, and the difficulties of servicing it there, make ground based telescopes with the correction system seem a pretty good deal.

And as already pointed out, oleg, there is an interferometer in the works.

[oleg]

I wonder why can't we focus Hubble on the Apolo 11 landing site and clear all conspiracy theories ? Or is NASA reluctant to do it for some strange reason ?

[Raging Deadstar]

Originally posted by oleg:
I wonder why can't we focus Hubble on the Apolo 11 landing site and clear all conspiracy theories ? Or is NASA reluctant to do it for some strange reason ?

Ahh, but what if they did. It doesn't mean the images they would release IS the apollo 11 landing site