Mount Palomar space images now twice as clear as HST

[Smersh]

The famous 200 inch reflector at the Mount Palomar observatory can now produce space images, which are claimed to be twice as clear as Hubble, by using a system called "Lucky." <br /><br /><font color="yellow">Last Updated: Monday, 3 September 2007, 11:34 GMT 12:34 UK <br />Story from the BBC</font><br /><br /><font color="orange">'Clearest' images taken of space</font><br /><br /><font color="yellow">A team of astronomers from the US and the UK has obtained some of the clearest pictures of space ever taken.<br /><br />They were acquired using a new "adaptive optics" system which sharpens pictures taken from the Mount Palomar Observatory in California.<br /><br />The images are twice as sharp as those from Hubble Space Telescope.<br /><br />The new system, dubbed "Lucky", is the result of work by a team from Cambridge University and the California Institute of Technology (Caltech).</font><br /><br />Full story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6975961.stm<br /><br />What can I say - good news eh?<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <h1 style="margin:0pt;font-size:12px">----------------------------------------------------- </h1><p><font color="#800000"><em>Lady Nancy Astor: "Winston, if you were my husband, I'd poison your tea."<br />Churchill: "Nancy, if you were my wife, I'd drink it."</em></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Website / forums </strong></font></p> </div>

 

[docm]

Clearly points out why the HST servicing mission qualifies as pork rather than being a "necessity", and the new 'scopes coming online are even better. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Aetius]

I saw an astronomy lecture once on a university TV channel. The astronomer joked that Hubble Space Telescope was never really the most powerful telescope. He said that it has always just had the most powerful Public Relations department.

 

[Smersh]

Sounds plausible! I guess politics and funding for space-based science entered into that, at least somewhere along the line.<br /><br />I would have thought though, that when the HST was first launched, it <i>would</i> have been the most powerful scope, simply because it was clear of the earth's atmosphere. (Although it did have that initial setback with its mirror being flawed.) Now it has been overtaken by new technology such as this "Lucky" system and times have moved on.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <h1 style="margin:0pt;font-size:12px">----------------------------------------------------- </h1><p><font color="#800000"><em>Lady Nancy Astor: "Winston, if you were my husband, I'd poison your tea."<br />Churchill: "Nancy, if you were my wife, I'd drink it."</em></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Website / forums </strong></font></p> </div>

 

[Smersh]

For info, I just asked for this to be moved to SB & T. <br /><br />(Edit, but it was agreed to move it here instead!) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <h1 style="margin:0pt;font-size:12px">----------------------------------------------------- </h1><p><font color="#800000"><em>Lady Nancy Astor: "Winston, if you were my husband, I'd poison your tea."<br />Churchill: "Nancy, if you were my wife, I'd drink it."</em></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Website / forums </strong></font></p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

It the Hubble servicing mission were "pork" it would not have been supported by the vast majority of thre astronomical community.<br /><br />Adaptive optics are a great innovation, but they can't do everything. They don't allow the telecope to workin wavelengths that the atmosphere blocks out. They don't eliminate light scattering by the atmosphere. They can't see though cloud. <br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

And they can't take uninterrupted, unobstructed observations for dozens of hours. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <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>

 

[yevaud]

Of course, repair jobs are far easier, and don't require a long commute followed by a spacewalk. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />But all in all, the improvement in image quality and clarity is quite good. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[Smersh]

<font color="yellow">Of course, repair jobs are far easier, and don't require a long commute followed by a spacewalk</font><br /><br />Good point - a little easier on the budget as well!<br /><br />For info, here's a link to the Lucky Imaging website, with a whole load more info and photographic examples.<br /><br />Also, here's a link to the Palomar Observatory site, which has some very nice graphic explanations of adaptive optics. <br /><br />If ground-based telescopes can achieve results like this, using this technology, I wonder what the James Webb (next space telescope) will be able to do? (I'd imagine adaptive optics is not neccessary for a space telescope, but it has to be an improvement on ground scopes I would have thought otherwise why launch it?) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <h1 style="margin:0pt;font-size:12px">----------------------------------------------------- </h1><p><font color="#800000"><em>Lady Nancy Astor: "Winston, if you were my husband, I'd poison your tea."<br />Churchill: "Nancy, if you were my wife, I'd drink it."</em></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Website / forums </strong></font></p> </div>

 

[spacefire]

I'm all for space telescopes, but rather than repair hubble we should invest in a successor. I'm sure it can be made lighter, more durable, more powerful and cheaper <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

We are.<br /><br />Herschel Space Observatory and the James Webb Space Telescope are the first off the rank. Others are following.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[qso1]

Good ole Palomar.<br /><br />Wasn't too long ago I was suggesting that extrasolar planets might well be imaged from ground telescopes with technology not yet announced. Time to aim the 200 inch Hale telescope at some of the nearer extrasolar planet candidate stars if thats not already being done. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[signalhill]

The day will come when they deorbit Hubble into the Indian Ocean or the Australian deserts. Like Skylab. and Mir. Hubble is next. It will make the cover of TIME magazine.

 

[JonClarke]

And your point is?<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[signalhill]

IIRC, Hubble has escaped funding cuts before, what would have sank it. Yet it remains and has been useful beyond it's "use." If ground-based imaging can parallel Hubble then it's fate what is to deorbit will be even closer. It's a matter of where she will fragment. <br /><br />Ground based scopes will then capture the Hubble Scope -a scope itself-- reentering the atmosphere in a spectacular fireball.

 

[JonClarke]

As pointed out, ground telescopes can match and maybe even surpass Hubble in terms of resolution, thanks to adaptive optics and much greater light collection surfaces.<br /><br />But they cannot match Hubble in terms of dark sky conditions, freedom from weather, the ability to collect very long observations, or work in wavelengths blocked by the atmosphere.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[Smersh]

<font color="yellow">Good ole Palomar.<br /><br />Wasn't too long ago I was suggesting that extrasolar planets might well be imaged from ground telescopes with technology not yet announced. Time to aim the 200 inch Hale telescope at some of the nearer extrasolar planet candidate stars if thats not already being done.</font><br /><br />Yes, Palomar has a special place in my heart as it was responsible for much of the space photography (along with Mt Wilson,) in the astronomy books by Sir Patrick Moore and others that I was reading some 40 years ago.<br /><br />If telescopes like Palomar and Hale can be used to observe extrasolar planets, using technology like Lucky, that will be super cool, no doubt! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <h1 style="margin:0pt;font-size:12px">----------------------------------------------------- </h1><p><font color="#800000"><em>Lady Nancy Astor: "Winston, if you were my husband, I'd poison your tea."<br />Churchill: "Nancy, if you were my wife, I'd drink it."</em></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Website / forums </strong></font></p> </div>

 

[mithridates]

So what can we expect from these telescopes then?<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_optical_reflecting_telescopes<br /><br />Palomar's way down there in terms of size, but can Lucky be used on other telescopes as well? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>----- </p><p>http://mithridates.blogspot.com</p> </div>

 

[mithridates]

Ah, that link to Lucky's site answered my question. It can and is used on other telescopes. That's great. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>----- </p><p>http://mithridates.blogspot.com</p> </div>

 

[anthmartian]

I am of course excited by such news as this. Of course it's fantastic that Earth based scopes are getting better. <br /><br />But there have been extremely valid and good common sense points made here in favour of Hubble and space telescopes in general. If i had the choice, i know where i would rather have my telescope operating. A back garden in cloudy Wiltshire...Or Earth orbit? lol<br /><br />Whatever spin whichever side wants to put on this, the buck really stops with the majority of astronomers and all those involved who are in an area vying for funding. <br /><br />I assume we all agree these people are not complete idiots, and don't want to see valuable budget go down the drain on a service mission. The very fact they do want it says it all for me.<br /><br />Keeping Hubble going makes sense on so many levels. Hubble may have a good PR team, but Hubble itself is possibly the best PR space science has ever had. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em>"Traveling through hyperspace ain't like dusting crops, boy! Without precise calculations we could fly right through a star, or bounce too close to a supernova and that'd end your trip real quick, wouldn't it?"</em></font></p><p><font color="#33cccc"><strong>Han Solo - 1977 - A long time ago in a galaxy far far away....</strong></font></p><p><br /><br />Click Here And jump over to my site.<br /></p> </div>

 

[signalhill]

But deorbiting Hubble makes sense on so many levels, too. A better orbiting platform can replace Hubble. <br /><br />Or better yet, a Shuttle could capture Hubble and return it to Earth for display in the Smithsonian. They could charge extra to see it and some of the proceeds could go to funding NASA. This way, it's not entirely a money draining affair, being useful beyond it's technological limits.

 

[MeteorWayne]

But you have to realize, it is highly unlikely that in our (or our grandchildren's) lifetimes there will ever be a better space telescope in the visual/near IR/near UV spectrum than the Hubble.<br /><br />We will never see anything like her ever again. <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>

 

[anthmartian]

SignalHill, MeteorWayne is right. Your idea hinges on there being something to take Hubble's place. Which there is not.<br /><br />But fear not, you'll get your wish soon enough as we are heading for a long period without any type of vehicle which can carry out a service mission. Which in my mind makes it even more vital we do what we can now and wring every ounce of discovery and science we can out of the Hubble.<br /><br />Do you want Hubble, or do you want nothing at all?<br /><br />Hubble costs money, yes. But when i look back at its legacy so far i feel its money well spent. <br /><br />If we apply your logic to other areas of space exploration we should cut off communications with the MER's. They have completed their primary missions, they are costing money to keep them up and running. They needed babysitting through a dust storm. But most agree future funding for those Rovers is essential, and we would be idiotic to stop them while they are delivering valuable science. <br /><br />Here's an example of what's already been mentioned here in favour of Hubble. Say i have to choose which telescope to book time on. Hubble or an Earth based scope. If you have the choice which are you going to go for? Every back yard astronomer knows it WILL be cloudy when you have your observing session all planned! lol<br /><br />Apply that scenario throughout Hubbles life time and you'll have a lot of happy astronomers who have enjoyed flawless observing time compared to Earth based observations. Adaptive optics or not. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em>"Traveling through hyperspace ain't like dusting crops, boy! Without precise calculations we could fly right through a star, or bounce too close to a supernova and that'd end your trip real quick, wouldn't it?"</em></font></p><p><font color="#33cccc"><strong>Han Solo - 1977 - A long time ago in a galaxy far far away....</strong></font></p><p><br /><br />Click Here And jump over to my site.<br /></p> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Nice post, sir!<br />You descibed my sentiment more eloquently than the mush rolling around in my head.<br /><br />Please take 200 quatloos out of petty cash <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Thanks,<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>

 

[3488]

I second that too MeteorWayne.<br /><br />Anthmartian has hit the nail right on the head. <br /><br />Take a house point & go to the top of the class. <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><br /><br />Andrew Brown. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080">"I suddenly noticed an anomaly to the left of Io, just off the rim of that world. It was extremely large with respect to the overall size of Io and crescent shaped. It seemed unbelievable that something that big had not been visible before".</font> <em><strong><font color="#000000">Linda Morabito </font></strong><font color="#800000">on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.</font></em></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://www.launchphotography.com/</font><br /><br /><font size="1" color="#000080">http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearth</font></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://web.me.com/meridianijournal</font></p> </div>