Why does the hubble space telescope achieve higher resolution than the 10 m keck telescopes in Hawaii?
138088
The hubble telescope it up above all the atmospheric disturbance, allowing for much higher quality photos.\n\nFor the same reason stars twinkle, land based telescopes have a limited resolution power, after a certain size, it doesnt really help any (unless you want to build a complicated atmospheric correction machine to adjust the mirror to compensate).
1068112
We just don't know yet cause that Hubble Telescope is only strong enough to see a certain distance. \n\nScientifically we just don't know and I am not at liberty to guess....Neither are you. hehe
842466
Very few splotches.  Check NASA website for hubble photos.
26165
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.
909777
The brightness and apparent size of the Sun would be inversely proportional to the square of one's distance from it.  If you moved to 2000 miles from the Sun, about 1/50,000 the Earth's distance from it, the Sun would appear 2.5 billion times larger (in apparent area, but only 50,000 times wider) and brighter.  Hubble can't be moved close to the Sun because Hubble orbits the Earth at a fixed orbital radius.  In addition, Hubble and most other astronomical observation tools cannot be pointed at the Sun, because the light output would overwhelm their sensors.  Only a very few devices have been designed to observe the Sun.
823026
Being so far away, telescopes don't have the resolution needed to see the equipment. It's a bit like trying to use Google Earth and figuring out what the make and model of each car is. We can see the area of the moon where they touched down, but the equipment is just too small.\n\nBeing so far away, the light reflected off the metal facets of the hardware will rarely be reflected at just the right angle to be seen. The moon orbits Earth at a 5 degree inclination. Plus, the landers aren't at the moon's equator, which complicates things even more. The equipment will need to be at the right place at the right time, and our telescopes will need to be looking in the right place at the right time, just for a chance flash of something. It's a lot of variables that almost never come together right.
99180
Mostly cost. Making perfect lens gets more and more expensive as the lenses (3 in a good refractor) get bigger.\n80mmm = $1000 160mm = $10,000 200mm = 50,000. The really big ones, like 30 inches, also have such long tubes, it gets very expensive to build a mount for them.\n\nreflectors have only mirrors, no lenses.  much easier and cheaper to make. Since light does not go "thru" the mirror, you don't have to have perfect, expensive glass. And all colors (red, blue, green) come to focus at the same point. Not true with lenses.\n\nHawaii is not only above the clouds and the polution, it is also above the weather, so the air from the top of the mountains out to space is much calmer. From sea level, the air "boils" with all the wind layers, and distorts the image seen throught telescopes.
828006
It's a great toy. A 60mm aperture (2.4") won't gather much light (which also determines the amount of detail you can make out at higher magnifications). Is this a refractor? Cheap models suffer from various distortions produced by inferior coatings, poor collimation, etc.\n\nYou can see a long way (moon, mars, stars, etc), but thre real question is how good the image is (fuzzy, dim, etc)\n\nTry the following website (page goes to a celestron 760 mm refractor - a decent instrument. Lots of description.)\n\nhttp://www.telescope.com/jump.jsp?itemID=116608&itemType=PRODUCT&path=1%2C2%2C4%2C13&KickerID=699&KICKER
111046
The Bradford telescope at the website below is the best:\n\nhttp://www.telescope.org/
1450
Go to the website below...\n\nhttp://hubblesite.org/
151685
not sure of web site but think it's http://www.hubble.com,or you can try NASA's web site,either should might be of use/help.
326074
Braxton Paul has two out of the three reasons.\n\nOne has to do with frames of reference.  There are objects on the horizon to which the Sun or Moon can be compared.  Try holding your finger up against the Moon when it is rising or setting vs. when it is overhead.  \n\nAnother as to do with the nature of the atmosphere, which makes the Sun or Moon look larger when their light passes through more of it.  \n\nBut Carl Sagan discussed an experiment carried out in a darkened planetarium dome, where it was demonstrated that even without reference objects, we tend to perceive objects at the horizon as larger than objects overhead.  We have no explanation for why this is so.
719477
I would have to say yes. As an avid amateur astronomer the search for knowledge is always a good thing. After all, the Hubble still has a few good years left in it, but they won't upgrade it (I think it's a mirror, that was made specifically for it, and it's still sitting on earth because NASA wants to scrap the Hubble). Mind you, I could be wrong about NASA's decision, since I heard it was going to change and they would be upgrading after all. As for us willing to spend the money, sure. After all, our tax dollars are being wasted elsewhere. I honestly believe the individual should decide where the majority of their own tax dollars are spent.
491826
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.
895404
Its discovered a lot of new galaxies, moons, comets, etc.  It is finding out lots about black holes etc.  I think astromers are finding out new things about our universe all the time thanks to the Hubble Telescope.
110726
When the Hubble was first launched, it was discovered that the main mirror was polished to slightly the wrong curvature, making everything look a bit blurry.  The first shuttle servicing mission put in place some corrective optics to correct the problem...sort of like a near-sighted person having to wear glasses.  That remedied the blurry vision.  Along the way, several stabilizing gyros have fail and have been replaced, but without another servicing mission and more failed gyros, the Hubble will be eventually out of service.
890617
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.