What do telescopes in space do? what do they collect?
121747
The main purpose of having a telescope in space is to avoid the problems (like 'bluriness') caused by the earth's atmosphere.\n\nGround-based telescope 'see' light that has passed through miles worth of air, dust particles, clouds, turbulence, etc - which can have a big effect on how sharp an image is (especially for things that are very far away).
223804
Just what the he[[ does that have to do with astronomy and space?????????????
224692
Pretty much any telescope will see 'to' Uranus. Occasionally it can even be seen without any optical aid. That said, do not expect to see more than a small blue dot, even with a fairly big scope (one past what you are willing to pay).\n\nGenerally speaking, refractors are better for planetary viewing because they allow a higher magnification (longer focal length). The problem is that they are subject to chromatic abberation (little rainbows around bright objects) unless you spend a lot to correct it with good quality lenses. Reflectors will more often have spherical abberation, which tends to blur out features, so they tend not to be as good for planets.\n\nNext, are you talking about just the telescope or is the $600 for the telescope AND eyepieces? The right eyepieces can make a huge difference, so don't neglect them when shopping. For planets, get a couple of medium to high power Plossl eyepieces.\n\nBelow is a site with some good refractors. Disclaimer: I am not in any way affiliated with Orion Telescopes.
376656
Dear Sir:\n\nWhile there have been some actual transmissions from Earth to the Solar System seeking echos, and some of this might still be going on in a coordinated fashion, as I understand it, the primary mission of the existing radio telescopes is to "Listen" to upper wavelength radio emissions from gas clouds, and other phenomina in the universe. Of course, once some interesting\nradio emissions are detected, a full spectrum scan of the target is most likely conducted to determine the full extent of radio\nsignals from that source.\n\nOther radio transmissions are made from Earth to our traveling Space Probes and Robotic Explorers at various locations in the Universe. A continual litany of telemetry, television and voice signals also flows between the Space Station and Ground Control Center to keep a constant watch on the health, status, and activities of the space crew, mission, and the station itself.\n\nI will defer to someone from one of those positions for an\nanswer as to the power and frequency of transmissions from Earth to the Space Station, Earth to the Robot Explorers, and Earth to the existing Space Probes way out in deep space.\nMy guess is that these various transmissions take place on frequencies between 2,500 Mhz and 40,000 Mhz. That is a \nvery large radio spectrum. \n\nSince my response turns around your question, in that I am telling you that the biggest radio telescopes listen rather than\ntransmit, let me also tell you that the biggest radio telescopes are not simply single structures at a given location. In recent years a scheme for the linkage of two or more radio telescopes was developed. Therefor, the biggest radio telescope would be an electronic combination of the signals from most of the largest installations on Earth. A lot of work has been done in that vein in recent years. Using more than one receiving antenna provides an easy means for researchers to filter out local ground (earthbound) noise generators and radio disturbances. Signals heard at the same time by widely separated receiving antennas (and equipment) are most probably from the sighted target source (assuming both antennas are aimed at the same target). It is also interesting to know that the radio signals that are received require a vast amount of processing to be identified and detected. The processing of the radio telescope incoming signals takes a huge array of computers and some very complex software programs to yield useable data.\n\nYes, radio waves do go on forever. However, their strength at the point of interception decreases by the square of the distance from the source. So, the strength of radio waves become very, very weak as you move into distances like 100,000,000 miles.\nThe wave front would continue out like rings of water in a pond until they hit something and bounced back off of it. In that sense,\na portion of the radio wave would not go on forever, but would become a new wave moving in the oposite direction from the new source (which was the object that the wave struck). The\nrest of the wave front would continue on until it struck something, and we repeated the above scenario. The exact same thing happens to signals transmitted from a sonar transducer in the water. Those devices are used to detect the depth of the bottom of rivers/oceans (depth finder), fish in the water (fish finder), or even other vessels (sub hunting). Sonar, uses sound waves and not radio waves, but the principle is almost the same.  Sound waves radiate out. Nearby echos are strong enough to be detected with existing equipment and are plotted and displayed on information screens. Some echos are so weak coming back that the existing equipment cannot detect/plot/or display  them.\n\nRegards,\nZah
238649
gravity shows them to move and rotate. the hubble space telescope has pics that show it in time lapse of course.
205117
It's actually a composite of photos (as are most photos of space).  Some more information is here:\n\nhttp://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap000828.html\n\nwww.snopes.com has some information as well.  Type in Eye of God in the search box.
13852
Learn to use the caps less annoyingly.\n\nOn the space ships, they use vacuums. They suck up the waste. Then they either carry it with them until they land or dump it into space.\n\nWhen I said dump it in space I was mainly referring to moon missions.
383831
Yes, almost all serious research telescopes are controlled this way.  There are a handful of amateur telescopes which are internet controllable. \n\nbut most require a user name and password, and are for authorized  users only.  The ones that don't are usually very very busy. \n\nYou can see an example of one at \n\nhttp://observatory.space.edu/f4_facilities/f3_internet%20telescope/index.php\n\nand a description of the technology at \n\nhttp://www.atnf.csiro.au/pasa/17_2/mckinnon/
408110
Sky and Telescope reviewed under $200 telescopes in the December '05 edition, and their well-rated telescopes (in order of preference) were:\nOrion SkyQuest XT4.5 Dobsonian\nOrion StarBlast Astro Telescope\nOrion SpaceProbe 3 Altazimuth\nOrion Observer 70mm Altazimuth Refractor\nScientifics Astroscan\n\nThe two at the top of the list have the largest apertures, at 4.5", and will therefore show you more than the others. The next two on the list are smaller, and the Astroscan won't take enough magnification for planets.\n\nDon't listen to people who will try to tell you that a small telescope is better for light polluted skies - bigger is ALWAYS better.\n\nStay away from Walmart and other discount stores, sporting goods stores,  science stores, camera stores, and eBay. Buy from a reputable telescope dealer. I've listed a couple below.
9685
It depends on the distance of the satellite.\n\nI'll translate "be seen" as uptake of scattered light. The amount of scattered light obviously is dependent on the amount of light falling on the object and the light absorption and reflection of the object.\n\nWavelength plays a role with absorption of light by the media it has to pass - in this case the various layers of atmosphere plus the optical system. \n\n(Of course it has to be scattered or reflected by the object, too - here we get a hard limit of wavelength.)\n\nDistortion by the atmosphere or the optical system creates different focussing points for different wavelengths. Given enough time and receptors, this effect can be corrected.\n\nSignal to noise ratio is critical. It is easier to see a bright speck on dark background than a dark speck on bright background. If your receptor is tuned to low intensity scattered light, direct reflection will noise out any meaningful signal.\n\nFinally, the signal at the receptor must have sufficient intensity to register as a signal. Here we get not only absorption but also aperture of the optical system as a variable. A giant concave mirror would have lots more aperture than a lense system, which is why astronomical observatories use them. Put a real big perfect mirror into orbit, and the amount of detail you can see will increase considerably.\n\nThere is a problem combining "real big" with "perfect", though. The history of the Hubble Telescope probably is the best proof.
622489
My personal reccomendation for a beginner with limited funds would be to get reflector on a dobsonian mount.  That is the type You move yourself.  Motorized mounts are very nice but they are costly.  Of most importance make sure the tripod and mount are sturdy.  Since a telescope is used to magnify - it will magnify the slightest movement and make the image blurry.  Incidently a Telescope does not magnify.  it only collects light to make the image brighter.  it is the function of the eyepiece to magnify.  I would suggest that you go to the website www.Astronomics.com.  They have been in business a long time and are very dependable and helpful.  They stand behind what they sell.  I have purchased scopes, eyepieces and filters from them over the years and am completly satisfied.  They have a site "how to choose a telescope"  Which you can download.  If You have further questions You can call them toll free and talk to someone who can help You.  Astronomy is a facinating hobby or even a lifetime occupation and the sooner You begin the better.  Also if there is an astronomy club in your area they are usually quite happy to share their knowledge with others.  They usually have "star parties"or viewing sessions and are glad to have visitors.   This would give You a chance to look through different types of scopes before investing in one.
553892
Not only do they search for radio signals, but they search for patterns or data within the signals.\n\nThis is accomplished with many listening stations and some distributed resource calculations.  They get volunteers to run some of the code on home PCs.\n\nThe code executes a Fast Fourier Transform and converts the raw signal into frequencies.  Noise is quickly discernible from a signal.  Then it has to be proved that this was not from a terrestrial source of from a man-made satellite.\n\nSo far no luck.
441321
Meade and Orion both make quality telescopes, as does Celestron.\n\nBut, Meade and Celestron both have a "economy, department store" line scopes which they offer for $200 or less and they skimp on quality to allow those who just want to "see something dammit!" without spending over $200, have a telescope. These telescopes typically have flimsy mounts and are bought by people with unrealistic expectations of what they will be able to see in the telescope. \n\nMost of these lower end telescopes produced by Meade and Celestron are refractors or reflectors of small aperture on flimsy tripods and mounts. Orion produces a lot of Dobsonians though. These telescopes have simple but sturdy, ground based alt-azimuth mounts, are cheaper to produce, and thus can be made larger for the same price as a low end Meade or Celestron. They are easy for beginners to use and since they are larger they can see more and better meet the user's expectations. Perhaps this is why you've heard people recommend Orion.\n\nThe best telescope for under $200 depends on what you want out of it and if you want to buy it new or used. If you want to eventually do astrophotography with it you'll need something with a sturdy equatorial mount or something that comes with tracking capability already to follow the object. If you want to see a lot of galaxies you need a lot of aperture (diameter of the primary mirror or lens) and you will probably have to sacrafice astrophotography potential and buy a Dobsonian. I would not buy a refractor in your pricerange because you won't be able to afford a decently sized apochromatic one. If you buy used things are cheaper.\n\nI recommend making of list of things you want out of the telescope and then doing some more research and going to a few star parties to try out different telescopes.
483739
Small observatory class telescopes can be as cheap as tens of thousands of dollars. The Keck telescopes, which are among the largest in the world, cost $94 million and the Hubble Space telescope, which is actually smaller, cost $1.5 billion.
139781
Satellites are always in danger of dust and micrometeorites. Since they are above much of the atmosphere, they are not shielded. Cosmic radiation also degrades the circuitry and even the collectors.  As far as insurance, my guess (and it is only one) is that someone is willing to bet on that. Insurance, after all, is betting that something will or will not happen.
565880
I would like to to add a few words to a great input other people have already provided.\n\nIn Astronomy, as in all sciences, one can detect an object in one of two ways: either by observing it directly, or observing the effect that it has on other, more easily observed, objects. \nIt's always been known that there was matter in the night sky that we couldn't really directly see. When astronomers use telescopes, or even radio telescopes, they can only see objects which emit light or radio waves. Not all of the matter in the Universe does this - for instance, we wouldn't be able to see planets like our own, because they would be too dim to see. \nAll the mass of of all the planets in our solar system, though, is significantly less than one percent of the Sun's mass. So worrying about matter that didn't shine - non-luminous matter - wasn't of great concern. \nThe first evidence: Clusters of Galaxies The first evidence that there was a significant amount of matter that we couldn't readily see was in investigating clusters of galaxies, which are simply aggregates of a few hundred to a few thousand clusters otherwise isolated in space.\nWhat is Dark matter? This still is an open question.  There are many possibilities, and nobody really knows much about this yet.  Here are a few of the many published suggestions, which are being currently hunted for by experimentalists all over the world.  Remember, you need at least one baryonic candidate and one non-baryonic candidate to make everything work out, so there may be more than one correct choice among the possibilities given here.\nThe baryons are a family of subatomic particles including the proton and the neutron (collectively called nucleons), as well as a number of unstable, heavier particles (called hyperons). The term "baryon" is derived from the Greek barys, meaning "heavy," as they are heavier than the other main groups of particles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryon \n•Normal matter which has so far eluded our gaze, such as: \n dark galaxies \n brown dwarfs \n planetary material (rock, dust, etc.) \n•Massive Standard Model neutrinos.  If any of the neutrinos are massive, then this could be the missing mass.  On the other hand, if they are too heavy, as the purported 17 keV neutrino would have been, massive neutrinos create almost as many problems as they solve in this regard. \n•Exotica (See the Particle Zoo FAQ entry for some details. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/particle_zoo.html) \n\nHere are a wew references \nWhat is the Universe Made Of? http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101matter.html \nCosmic Hide and Seek http://www.eclipse.net/~cmmiller/DM/ \n\nDark Matter, Cosmology, and Large-Scale Structure of the Universe http://www.astro.queensu.ca/~dursi/dm-tutorial/dm1.html \n\nExperiment\nExperiment with simulation of cluster of galaxies  http://www.astro.queensu.ca/~dursi/dm-tutorial/cluster-sim.html \n\nWhat is dark matter? http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/dark_matter.html
398274
Satellites are generally boosted into orbit using rockets (although several have been deployed from the payload bay of the space shuttle).  Satellites have any number of functions.  Some relay telephone and data traffic from one place on earth to another.  Others do the same for TV signals.  Others (working together) form the backbone of the Global Positioning Satellite system (GPS).  Still others take pictures of the earth for various purposes.\n\nHope that helps.