Big telescopes

[zarnic]

If we have the Hubble why do we need new large telescopes ... ya know, the ones at large observatories! Each one is supposedly 'the largest in the world'. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Wisdom doesn't automatically come with old age. Nothing does - except wrinkles.</em> A. Van Buren, 1978<br />* <em>An unbreakable toy is useful for breaking other toys.</em>  -- according to Van Roy</p> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Because, while the Hubble has no air to bother it, it is not a particularly large scope, a Cassagrain only Hubble's primary mirror is 94.5 inches (2.4 m) in diameter. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

I meant to add this, but had to quit the post to announce the STS-118 morning briefing.<br /><br />More aperture means higher resolution. So ground scopes can have an advantage there, since they can be MUCH larger.<br /><br />So bigger ground scopes (especially interferometers), with adaptive optics can resolve smaller features than the hubble ever can.<br /><br />But Hubble has the clearest skies of any telescope in existence, which gives it advantages in many applications, such as the Hubble deep fields, it doesn't have to worry about weather, and does have darn good resolution.<br /><br />It's better to have many tools in your toolbox, so you can use the best one for the particular job at hand.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>