Posted on 09/04/2007 9:40:40 AM PDT by TChris
A team of astronomers have taken pictures of the stars that are sharper than anything produced by the Hubble telescope, at 50 thousandths of the cost.
The researchers, from the University of Cambridge and the California Institute of Technology (Caltech), used a technique called “Lucky Imaging” to take the most detailed pictures of stars and nebulae ever produced – using a camera based on the ground.
Images from ground-based telescopes are usually blurred by the Earth’s atmosphere - the same effect that makes the stars appear to twinkle when we look at them with the naked eye.
The Cambridge/Caltech team, however, surpassed the quality of images taken from space by using a high-speed camera to take numerous images of the same stars at a rate of 20 frames per second. Because of fluctuations in the atmosphere, some of these were less smeared than others. The team then used computer software to choose the best images, and these were combined to create pictures far sharper than anything that has been taken from space.
(Excerpt) Read more at ast.cam.ac.uk ...
:-)
WAY TO GO NASA!! WOOHOO BLOWING TAXPAYER LOOT LEFT AND RIGHT YEAAHHHH!! ROCK ON!!!
Don't bother to read a lot, do you?
In case you wanted an answer, no sharper.
The point is that the intrinsic capabilities of the ground-based telescope is much better, because it is much larger. But there is a fuzzing of the picture because of the atmosphere.
By using the fact that once in a while, the atmospheric fuzz doesn’t impact a small set of pixels, they can choose the best pixels from hundreds of shots and get an image closer to what they would get if the same telescope was in space.
Now, what I’d like to explore is the idea of using a large-power laser with the telescope. You shoot the laser in the same direction you are looking, in the hopes that ionizing the air will align particles and minimize the fuzz factor.
Yeah, I hadn't thought of that. I wonder if this technology could eventually become something like that.
D'oh!
I knew that. Since this thing is compensating for atmospheric distortion and all. :-/
I guess good grammar would be too much to expect.
Fantasic!
I clicked thru to the further info links: ...they're gr-reat. (bottom of the page)
hint: Technology, including cameras, have long improved since Hubble was launched and repaired. Can you imagine how cool photos from Hubble would be with THIS camera technology in use?
Which is correct?
“There is a lot of reasons.”
“There are a lot of reasons.”
I had 10 people tell me I was wrong and had to take down a billboard over this one!
These kids ditched English to watch Star Trek. ;-)
In Britain, it’s a convention that collective nouns acting as subject frequently agree with a plural verb.
Not unless your perp stands still for a great many pictures.
No sharper. AT 20 frames per second, they just eliminate the fuzzy ones that are distorted because of the the atmospheric fluctuations and keep the good ones. Much as you do picking the good ones at the drug store film counter........when there were such things....
“There be a lot of reasons.”....................
And in other news, scientists have put more computer power in my watch, than computer power that existed in the 60’s (when the Hubble was built).
It is amazing how technology has advanced in the last 40 years.
Hubble was a wonder during the early days of space exploration.
....Bob
“There is a lot of reasons.”
“There are a lot of reasons.”
I had 10 people tell me I was wrong and had to take down a billboard over this one!
Eliminate the ambiguity:
"There are lots of reasons", "There are many reasons",
or, "There is good reason"
:-)
Where you see the benefit of Hubble is in the UV range.
I suppose the images are normally blurred because for such a dim object, you need a long exposure time, and the atmosphere can do a lot of movement in that time.
I wonder why (if) this technique doesn't need such a long time?
neither
there are lots of reasons...
I refuse to call them astronauts -- those people are NASA's lobbyists, primarily.
They also go to schools "to inspire our nation's children", or some such melodramatic crap. But mostly they are selected for their lobbying skills.
Hubble was a wonder during the early days of space exploration.
Yes, it is amazing.
However, Hubble was launched in 1990. Here's a link to read up on it:
Aren't you afraid that something might shoot back? ;-)
Cool technology ping.
LOL
Those people know how to make a camera that takes better pictures than the Hubble yet still cant design a website that doesnt look like a 6th grader did it with Frontpage.
“There is a lot of reasons.”
“There are a lot of reasons.”
I had 10 people tell me I was wrong and had to take down a billboard over this one!
How many reasons are there in a 'lot'? If you have twice as many, do you then have two lots of reasons? :=)
I try to avoid using the term 'a lot of' as an adjective and substitute 'numerous', 'many' or even 'quite a few'. By doing that, you would eliminate the singular 'lot' from the sentence.
Wrong question, actually.
The right questions are: what are the relative advantages and disadvantages of space-based vs. ground-based astronomy?
The primary advantage of space-based astronomy is that there's nothing between the raw photons and the telescope. There's no atmosphere to absorb UV, or to alter the relative proportions of different wavelengths.
The primary disadvantages of space-based astronomy are cost and distance. It's expensive to put things in space, and difficult (and really expensive) to maintain them once they're there. Space-based astronomy is also subject to size constraints, driven mainly by booster capabilities.
Ground-based telescopes are obviously easier to maintain, cost less to deploy, and are less constrained in size. The downside is that they're subject to observability issues: light pollution, atmospheric composition, and so on.
There's a balance, in other words.
No sharper than it is right now, since this compensates electronically for atmospheric distortion which the Hubble does by being outside of the atmosphere. Actually the Hubble's images aren't goniog to be as good once this technique is widespread because ground based scopes are much larger and have inherently better resolution once you clean up the atmospheric fuzz.
Or if Hubble were the size and power of these ground based scopes? Thats the real difference. But while visable light and lower energy IR may come through the atmo ok but if you want to look in the UV range its nice not to have ozone in the way.
lot, n. A separate portion; a number of things taken collectively; as, a lot of stationery; — colloquially, sometimes of people; as, a sorry lot; a bad lot.
Could you say?: “There is a bunch of reasons.” “There is a group of reasons.” “There is a multitude of reasons.”
“There are a lot” is incorrect. “There is a lot” is correct.
“There are lots of reasons” is correct, meaning multiple groups, or bunches...or lots.
BTW...nice camera, huh?
“There are” is correct. In this case, “a lot” is plural, like “a dozen”.
It would be like how a lot of tech caught up to (or surpassed) the tech in Star Trek. The cop and spy shows were just slightly ahead of their time.
My point is many people say “There are a lot...” which is incorrect.
In this case, “lot” is a singular noun.
“There are lots...” would signify multiple groups.
But, if "a lot" is plural, then it shouldn't use the singular word "a".
Adaptive optics, e.g. with guidestars or guidestar lasers, is another way to arrange for lucky viewing all the time. A critical problem of lucky imaging is the duty cycle is low, that is, most of the images will be unlucky and discarded, making dim objects difficult to detect. The source has to be bright enough to afford throwing most of the images away.
Also pretty cool that this technology comes on line right near the end of Hubble’s projected lifespan. Necessity, meet invention.
methinks your definition of “lot” is incorrect. in this case “lot” would be a quantifier as in there are many, there are lots of stars in the sky.
if you are refering to a “lot” as a grouping, then you might have a point, but as in a quantifier, it is taken as multiples of things.
hence “there are lots of reasons”
Then it would be “There is a dozen.” “Dozen” (a group of 12) isn’t plural; “dozens” (multiple groups of 12) is plural.
Maddening, isn’t it? :-)
They need to put the camera on the Hubble.
The easy way to tell is to strip out the adjective "a lot" and see if it makes sense without it: "there are reasons", not "there is reasons".
I agree with #35. a lot means multiple.
but is IS a neat camera!;-)
“Ding, ding!”
THANKS to all who have participated. I did not mean to HIJACK the thread.
No better. This removes atmospheric interference, something Hubble does not deal with.
Of course, “a lot” is singular.
hey! dude! it was fun. really fun.
a lot of fun, lots of fun.
there’s a lot of fun in this thread, or perhaps there’s lots of fun in this thread...
(oh shut up already - skuulking away from the office, dodging lots of flying debris...);-)
In the 60s? I thought the Hubble Telescope was launched in the late 80s or early 90s. Was I not paying attention?
The correct answer is I CAN HAS CHEESEBURGER.
The grammar gets distorted in transmission across the Atlantic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.