information about the reflecting telescope?
816306
What do you need?  There are several types.  Newtonians, invented be Isaac Newton in 1673.  They have a primary mirror with a parabolic shape whose size is what is quoted when the telescope's size is mentioned.  The secondary mirror is small, flat, and angled to send the image to an eyepiece (or camera) mounted on the side of the tube.\nThe Cassegrainian (invented by Cassegrain!) has a hole in the primary mirror, and the image is reflected by the secondary through the hole to the eyepiece mounted on the end of the tube.  Most large reflectors today are this type.\nCoude' (from the French for elbow, not the inventor's name) has three mirrors, and the image is sent off to the side.\nSchmidt or Maksutov (invented during World War 2) has a lens at the top of the tube, plus the mirrors usually in the Cassegrain arrangement.\nNewtonians tend to be cheapest, Schmidt/Maksutov the most expensive.\nCheck wikipedia under each name for more details.
296045
Try looking it up on Galileo or EBSCOHost database.
1024896
Get all the info you need from its official website.\n\nhttp://hubble.nasa.gov/index.php\n\n\nYou can get more info, putting  "Hubble telescope" in your search machine  and follow the list that appears there.
129856
I suggest the Celestron FirstScope 114 EQ Short Newtonian Reflector.  It's an excellent first or second telescope for an excellent price.  On sale right now actually for $159  at:   http://www.telescopes.com/products/Celestron_FirstScope_114_EQ_Short_Newtonian_Reflector_5936.html
1018864
You can purchase a Tasco 4.5 inch reflector telescope that comes with eyepieces that give magnifications of 50x 100x and 200x. \n\nTasco however is not known for great optics. They are better know for cheap optics. \n\nYou did not mention what you wanted to use the telescope for. \n\nFor a decent spotting scope, select a Celestron Ultima 100 mm. \n\nAnd do not scimp on the tripod. \n\nFor a top of the line spotting scope, select a Swarovski. The best of the best. \n\nFor astronomical viewing you want something a tad larger. An 8 inch reflector.  \n\nCheck out the link to this one.
874618
I came up with a magnification of about 16\n\nThis interactive website will calculate what you need ==>http://www.csgnetwork.com/telescopemagcalc.html
1097369
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.
92830
A type of telescope known as "refractor." Telescopes called "reflectors" are most often used to view distant celestial objects.
1127088
You should watch the episode of mythbusters where they try to build a death ray with mirrors and need a focal point, they make a mirrior in a contact sorta shape and the light focases on it. if you could make a solar cell like that maybe it would work. The episode was on all weekend, it might be helpful for some other things too!
98059
The short answer is: No one really knows, since the details are classified. Also, the current satellite performance is probably not as good as what it CAN be. \n\nI think that comparing what astronomers are able to do with what the best satellites are able to do can be a bit misleading. \n\n1. The space telescope does not have to look through the air, with the water vapor and turbulence and dust. The space telescope has only the very outer reaches of the atmosphere to look through. \n\n2. The space telescope and ground-based astronomers do not have at their disposal anywhere near the resources that governmental organizations do. For example, the space telescope was not even calibrated, because there was so little money! It was only because of heroic efforts and a few minor miracles that the space telescope was brought into focus. The space telescope is basically a toy, and has barely been able to get funded for the last few years, and might be soon decommissioned. \n\n3. Astronomers just do not have the interest, the background, the training, the knowledge, or the resources to command the type of bleeding-edge technology that governments do. Astronomers for the most part are mired in phenomenology, and do not worry much about the details of pedestrian things like optics. Optics is, in general, disparaged by astronomers and left to the "engineers" and other lesser beings like mathematicians, physicists, statisticians, computer scientists, etc. Basically, astronomers hurt themselves with their attitudes and their culture. \n\n4. No responsible government is going to announce what they are capable of seeing with their satellites. All of this material is very closely held at best, and most likely highly classified. \n\n5. It is well known (or at least often reported in the newspapers, so it might not be correct) that spy satellites are so big and so heavy because they bring a large reserve of fuel with them so that they can be lowered and raised as needed to see various features and details. Apparently, they do not always orbit at the same altitude. \n\n6. It is quite possible to combine imagery from platforms such as multiple satellites, planes, high altitude balloons, etc. to improve resolution considerably. It is hard to know the extent to which this is done, or if it is done, because of course the area is shrouded in secrecy, so we do not know. But the question was, how detailed CAN it be? Well you COULD use multiple sensors on multiple platforms, unlike the Hubble telescope (in fact, multiple sensors on the ground are able to beat Hubble now). \n \n7. As a gross upper bound on resolution limits, look at the mutually agreed upon limits on size of warheads etc by the Russians/FSU/USSR and the USA, for example (typically, the silo doors would reportedly be opened to permit treaty inspections, according to newspaper accounts anyway). These specifications in the treaties imply MUCH higher resolution than the some of the numbers given here by others. And remember, these are the mutually agreed-upon resolutions by two very suspicious adversaries, who do not want to give anything away. Both have to be able to achieve these resolutions, and probably are capable of far better resolution. \n\n8. Having looked at Dawe's limit, and knowing a bit about resolution, I can tell you that it is not particularly useful as an indicator of achievable resolution. How close we are able to come to ultimate resolutions depends on how many resources we are willing to spend, and again since it is classified, it is difficult to know.\n\nTherefore, to answer the question how detailed can satellite imagery be? The answer is, VERY. How detailed is it? We do not know, since it is classified.
883197
There is much information you have not given but try this reference as it may help:\n\nhttp://www.du.edu/~jcalvert/astro/gnomon.htm
770421
No one really knows. Galileo is generally credited with making one and using it specifically for astronomy but he was not the first to make one.\n\n"The first telescopes may have been Assyrian crystal lenses[1], but the Visby lenses tentatively suggest that the technology was known to the Arabs and Persians. Leonard Digges is sometimes credited with the invention in England in the 1570s, but usually credit for assembling the first telescope is given to an unknown Dutch spectacle maker in about 1608. Some name that person as Hans Lippershey (c. 1570 – c. 1619), but Jacob Metius and Zacharias Jansen also claimed to have invented a telescope during the same period. Even if Lippershey did not make the first one, he publicized it. Galileo Galilei made his own telescope in 1609, calling it at first a "perspicillum," and then using the terms "telescopium" in Latin and "telescopio" in Italian (from which the English word derives). Galileo is generally credited with being the first to use a telescope for astronomical purposes"
337864
reflection of the sky
1085025
An optical maser. Now there's an obscure reference. How many know that without looking it up?
747903
The first known telescope was built by Hannes Lippershey, a Dutch optician, in early 1608.  Other opticians followed, and he sued.  It is this lawsuit, which he won that provides the historical basis for his claim.  The first Englishman to use a telescope that we know of was Thomas Harriot, who discovered lunar craters, phases of Venus, and that there are stars the human eye cannot see.  He never published, and his work, done in August 1609, was lost until a descendent sold his desk in 1912, and the papers were found.  Galileo heard of the telescope from a former student of his living in France, and went out and made a telescope on his own, starting his observations on Nov 30, 1609.  When Kepler heard of this, he also built his own.  These were all refractors.  Isaac Newton built the first reflecting telescope in 1673.
243874
First, the type of telescope you want depends mainly on what kind of observing you want to do. If you're mostly interested in deep space, get yourself what's called a REFLECTOR. I have an 8" Meade reflector and under good "seeing" conditions can observe just about every star in our galaxy visible from the Northern Hemisphere, plus structures beyond the Milky Way up to about 10-billion light years. Just be sure and buy a reflector system that has a clock drive. This makes it possible to stay locked on to some object without having to constantly move the 'scope tube to compensate for Earth's rotation.\n\nIf you're into Solar System observing, then a refractor will do nicely. They don't gather as much light as a reflector, but the resolution is much better--plus images aren't inverted as with most reflectors.\n\nCelestron Inc puts out the Cadillac of telescopes, but Meade provides very good products at less cost. Do NOT buy any telescope from retail stores like K-Mart, Sears, etc.,. Most of the stuff is cheap junk. Either buy mail order from Celestron or Meade, or visit a store that sells nothing but astronomy-related things.\n\nGod is spelled B-I-G B-A-N-G\nPBrax@netscape.com
90314
Check out these sites. Or just google your topic.\n\nhttp://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/waves/U10L3b.html\nhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/physics/waves/reflectionrefractionanddiffractionrev1.shtml\nhttp://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/PY106/Reflection.html