Better camera than Hubble?

Better camera than Hubble?

Author
Discussion

dkatwa

Original Poster:

570 posts

244 months

Tuesday 6th December 2016
quotequote all
Hi
If this camera was in space, would it be able to take better pix than Hubble?

http://www.bentleymotors.com/en/apps/look-closer.h...

Eric Mc

121,770 posts

264 months

Tuesday 6th December 2016
quotequote all
I wouldn't think so.

It is doubtful if a camera such as the one used in the ad would actually be sensitive enough to be able to image the faint details collected by the Hubble mirror.

Hubble is not a camera. It's a telescope with a giant mirror. Cameras are attached to Hubble which takes their images from the mirror. The mirror's capability is based on the light collecting power of the mirror. This is not affected by whatever type of camera is attached to it.

Also, the objects imaged by Hubble are so far away that simply magnifying the image does not bring out any more detail. Indeed, at the distances some of the objects are, trying to collect enough light from them is so hard and the actual photons that are falling on the mirror are so few that you would actually start showing the granuallar nature of space/time itself.


Zad

12,695 posts

235 months

Tuesday 6th December 2016
quotequote all
The size of the primary lens/mirror is what dictates resolution, even if the light level isn't a problem. It is a function of the wavelength of light used. This is why radio telescopes use arrays of receivers across miles (or even thousands of miles) to get the resolution. The image in that advert looks like a series of cunning cute / fade / paste images. The final image of the Bentley logo is missing detail in the leather, the windscreen and so on. A bit like taking a photograph of the countryside and then another of a blade of grass and going "hey, my image is the equivalent of a squillion pixels". It just isn't.

Einion Yrth

19,575 posts

243 months

Tuesday 6th December 2016
quotequote all
Of course if the manufacturers hadn't made a total fsck up of grinding the mirror Hubble would have been even better.

HarryW

15,150 posts

268 months

Tuesday 6th December 2016
quotequote all
Einion Yrth said:
Of course if the manufacturers hadn't made a total fsck up of grinding the mirror Hubble would have been even better.
Always staggered that QA didn't pick that up pre deployment....

RobDickinson

31,343 posts

253 months

Tuesday 6th December 2016
quotequote all
dkatwa said:
Hi
If this camera was in space, would it be able to take better pix than Hubble?

http://www.bentleymotors.com/en/apps/look-closer.h...
Thats not one image, its many stitched together to form a gigapixel panoramic.

Absolute resolution is down to focal length (field of view) number of frames stitched, overlap, resolution of the sensor, quality of the optics yada yada.

But typically a normal camera filters out much IR and UV that hubble would need to see, then it would likely get fried in space and stop working entirely.

The tech in hubble is quite old, and its near end of life, a new telescope is going up soon and is far more advanced, but still years of planning and building means it wont be cutting edge when we launch it. despite the billions of dollars...

Beati Dogu

8,861 posts

138 months

Tuesday 6th December 2016
quotequote all
With adaptive optics to minimise atmospheric "shimmer", the need for a space based telescope isn't what it once was. Still they're nice to have.

RobDickinson

31,343 posts

253 months

Tuesday 6th December 2016
quotequote all
Beati Dogu said:
With adaptive optics to minimise atmospheric "shimmer", the need for a space based telescope isn't what it once was. Still they're nice to have.
The atmosphere still absorbs quite a significant range of wavelengths so you cannot image these from in atmosphere. I agree though adaptive optics has revolutionised ground based observations.

moleamol

15,887 posts

262 months

Tuesday 6th December 2016
quotequote all
Einion Yrth said:
Of course if the manufacturers hadn't made a total fsck up of grinding the mirror Hubble would have been even better.
Pretty sure the second camera 'fixed' that problem.

Eric Mc

121,770 posts

264 months

Tuesday 6th December 2016
quotequote all
It wasn't the replacement of a camera that sorted out Hubble. It was the fitting of corrective optics to the telescope itself.

RobDickinson

31,343 posts

253 months

Tuesday 6th December 2016
quotequote all
Eric Mc said:
It wasn't the replacement of a camera that sorted out Hubble. It was the fitting of corrective optics to the telescope itself.
Nope it really was a camera. oddly.

https://spaceflightnow.com/2015/04/23/fixing-hubbl...

"Weiler said. “The COSTAR was NOT the fix to the Hubble Space Telescope. WFPC 2 was. And I say that for a very simple reason. Go look at all the press articles and the science that came out of Hubble in 1994 and 1995.”"

Eric Mc

121,770 posts

264 months

Wednesday 7th December 2016
quotequote all
He should know I suppose.

I've just been reading masses on both the Shuttle Hubble Repair Missions and Hubble itself the main focus was on the COSTAR fix. Oh well, I guess the authors weren't being honest.

Monty Python

4,812 posts

196 months

Wednesday 7th December 2016
quotequote all
RobDickinson said:
Nope it really was a camera. oddly.

https://spaceflightnow.com/2015/04/23/fixing-hubbl...

"Weiler said. “The COSTAR was NOT the fix to the Hubble Space Telescope. WFPC 2 was. And I say that for a very simple reason. Go look at all the press articles and the science that came out of Hubble in 1994 and 1995.”"
If you read the article, WFPC2 "saved Hubble in the eyes of the public" - it didn't "fix" Hubble. Without COSTAR, WFPC2 would not have been able to generate the images it does because on its own it would still suffer from the spherical aberration in the primary mirror. COSTAR corrected the faulty mirror.

Eric Mc

121,770 posts

264 months

Wednesday 7th December 2016
quotequote all
Exactly. They could have put the most super duper camera in the world on Hubble but it would have been no good without the corrective optics provided by COSTAR.

Over the decades Hubble has been operating, it received numerous uogrades and improvements to boost its performance.

blueg33

35,574 posts

223 months

Wednesday 7th December 2016
quotequote all
Eric Mc said:
Exactly. They could have put the most super duper camera in the world on Hubble but it would have been no good without the corrective optics provided by COSTAR.

Over the decades Hubble has been operating, it received numerous uogrades and improvements to boost its performance.
Exactly. It has had a few upgrades. I have a friend who used to work on the Hubble project. As a result, I have a bit of Hubble that has been in space and come back. Its a 2 inch square of solar array smile

Eric Mc

121,770 posts

264 months

Wednesday 7th December 2016
quotequote all
Lucky you. Any chance of a picture?

blueg33

35,574 posts

223 months

Wednesday 7th December 2016
quotequote all
Eric Mc said:
Lucky you. Any chance of a picture?
Its in a box in the attic at the moment. I am going up there tonight, will see if I can find it

Eric Mc

121,770 posts

264 months

Wednesday 7th December 2016
quotequote all
It would be interesting to see. I intend to build a model of Hubble at some point and a look at an original piece of solar panel would be very interesting.

blueg33

35,574 posts

223 months

Wednesday 7th December 2016
quotequote all
To be honest its not that exciting, its a blue square that has been set in acrylic. Before the current open plan office, it lived on the shelf in my office along with some model cars a couple of trophies and a mutilated RC helicopter (never could get the hang of those).

I will happily take a pic of the blue square when I find it smile

blueg33

35,574 posts

223 months

Wednesday 7th December 2016
quotequote all
Just found a pic online, its exactly like the one on this website. Just been staggered at the selling price! Better find it pronto!

http://www.christies.com/lotfinder/lot/solar-cells...