A case of Hubble envy?

Marty, Carson City — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 01:03:28 GMT

The lower image of part of M13, which you say is from Hubble, is obviously a lot more clear. I don't understand their claim that Lucky has any advantage.

A case of Hubble envy?

Roy Hodges — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 04:23:51 GMT

You've got to be kidding me, out of the pictures above. The Hubble pictures clearly contain more information and resolution. What a silly claim!

A case of Hubble envy?

Jim Cook — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 05:33:34 GMT

As to the top 3 images; if you take the one on the right, expand it 200%, mirror image it, and rotate it clockwise 25 degrees, you'll have a direct comparison with the previous 2 pictures.

A case of Hubble envy?

Michael, Layton, Utah — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 05:33:57 GMT

Marty and Roy have it right. If the captions are correct, then Hubble is still king.

A case of Hubble envy?

Richard, Kentucky — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 13:16:22 GMT

They may be trying to prepare us for the loss of Hubble, because if things continue the way they are, the funding will be cut to help financially contribute to wars over oil.

A case of Hubble envy?

M S. Mallory — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 13:24:40 GMT

That compared picture caption has to be a mistake.
For more on the origins (and quirks) of the Hubble Telescope, presented in a humorous yet informative fashion, I suggest Bill Bryon's book "A Short History of Nearly Everything." Fascinating throughout.

A case of Hubble envy?

bob manke — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 13:35:21 GMT

we need to get moon based and get it over with. I'll pay my share of the taxes to get it done.

A case of Hubble envy?

S. Lange — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 13:47:34 GMT

Every tool has advantages and disadvantages depending on the situation. Ground based telescopes will always be subject to weather, to the part of the sky they face, and to the fact that on average they can only be used 12 hours or less a day for most of the projects they serve. Hubble and the upcoming Webb scope can be used 24 hours per day over virtually the entire sky, but there will never be many of them. Lately it seems that some of the most fascinating imaging has come from combining ground and orbiting optical images with orbital x-ray and infrared images plus ground based radio telescope images!

A case of Hubble envy?

Guy S. Newell — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 14:48:47 GMT

"You get what you pay for." Allow me to rephrase that. "You ALLWAYS get what you pay for."

A case of Hubble envy?

Michael , kent oh — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 14:54:17 GMT

The Hubble pictures certainly contain more resolution,but I don't think we can even make an accurate comparison with those images. The size of the field is not what we need to be looking at. What we need to be looking at is what can be seen. Take the Hubble image and expand it to the point where the features are the same size in both images. (get the zoom factor the same on both) In fact,I just did this in a photo editing program. When you do that,the lucky image IS in fact better than the Hubble image.

A case of Hubble envy?

Phillip, Houston, Texas — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 15:05:11 GMT

It's inappropriate for researchers to make wild claims not clearly supported by facts. As noted by the other comments above, the evidence doesn't support the wild claim that this camera system is twice as good as Hubble for even most applications, and certainly not for all applications. In fact, the Lucky Imaging system is only better than Hubble for applications where a huge amount of light is available, say pictures of the bright moon, or where a suitably bright guide star is available and the Lucky Imaging camera is combined with traditional adaptive optics on a very large telescope.

The fact is, at $2.5 Billion, Hubble has already produced more science than the $76 Billion International Space Station and that will probably always be the case. This just shows the tremendous advantage that robotic devices have in space over humans. In my own humble opinion it's a foolish waste of money to send humans into space, and the sooner we realize that the better off science will be.

And just for everyone's info, even after The James Webb Space Telescope is deployed, Hubble will still take the best pictures in most of the frequencies of light we can see. JWST is an infrared telescope and will take much better pictures in the near infrared and can see into the mid infrared which the Hubble can't, but the JWST is blind in most of the visible light waves that we humans can see. So in the end, Hubble still reigns supreme in the visible light spectrum and is likely to keep that position long into the future.

A case of Hubble envy?

Alan Sheets, Loveland CO — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 15:26:30 GMT

In terms of light gathering power, ganged surface-based scopes (with or without adaptive optics) will have the advantage over space-based optics for at least one more generation. In terms of clarity, space-based units will rule.

The future, of course, is going to be crater-sized adaptive optics on the lunar far side -- the best of both worlds.

A case of Hubble envy?

Gary F, New orleans, La — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 15:30:30 GMT

The concept seems sound, but fortune would smile on making enough images fast enough, with software to knit it together. How fast. ????? Keep trying.....

The toss of the dice would only yield possibilities, weighting the dice would yield high probibilities. Weight it, you are not cheating anyone.

A case of Hubble envy?

Earl Stratton, San Luis Obispo, CA — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 15:57:04 GMT

Not mentioned in the article is that Earth's atmosphere filters out bands (rangese of wavelengths) of light. No amount of processing or adaptive optics can recover what is never received.

A case of Hubble envy?

not important, somewhere, some state — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 16:06:18 GMT

Maybe they think its like todays fashion trends. If you say its the best, and pretend really hard, then everyone else will believe you. If you ask me, the Hubble pictures are 20/20 and the Lucky pictures are coke bottle glasses.

A case of Hubble envy?

Dr. TANSTAAFL — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 16:37:46 GMT

Optical astronomy isn't always about seeing sharp details on a celestial object. If what your are interested in is spectrographic data from a particular object, the Lucky data is more than sufficient and quite probably more inexpensive and easier to obtain than Hubble data.

A case of Hubble envy?

Tom, Beaumont, Texas — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 17:11:47 GMT

LUCKY IS MAKING SOME BIG CLAIMS. HUBBLE HAS DONE MORE TOWARD HELPING MAN UNDERSTAND THE COSMOS THAN LUCKY COULD EVEN THINK ABOUT. I'M GLAD APPROVED THE EXTRA MONEY TO RE-FIT HUBBLE, THERE WILL ALWAYS BE A PLACE FOR IT.

A case of Hubble envy?

Lonnie, mine, usa — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 18:09:49 GMT

They were talking about it being more detailed, closer image of the same part of space. You can see that they have a tighter shot than the Hubble.

Is Hubble clearer, you bet. Should we keep fixing and upgrading the Hubble, heck yes.

A case of Hubble envy?

Linda LaFlamme, Stonewall, OK — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 18:57:59 GMT

My vote is still out till the future brings something better. Hubble is clearer and bargain basement cost? ....sometimes you get what you pay for!

A case of Hubble envy?

Loren, SF Bay Area CA — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 23:33:28 GMT

They must get their press written by the same folks who feel we're succeeding in Iraq...

A case of Hubble envy?

Patty Mendoza Calmia CA — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 00:34:49 GMT

I really don't understand it, the Hubble is way better.

A case of Hubble envy?

JC, Fairbanks, AK — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 02:25:09 GMT

This:
http://www.physorg.com/news108302681.html
is worth checking out Alan. The implications for Cosmology are not small . . . .

A case of Hubble envy?

Dr. L. Long, Tertius — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 10:25:12 GMT

Yeah, they're pretty pictures, and technically it's science, but what use is it? Dr. TANSTAAFL, sometimes there ARE "free lunches." It seems to me that astronomers are getting them. Why should taxpayers fund scientific research that produces no practical benefits, only theoretical improvements in our understanding of the universe?

A case of Hubble envy?

Marcos van Dam, Kamuela, HI — Sat, 08 Sep 2007 00:04:42 GMT

The images using Lucky do appear to have better resolution, as measured by the FWHM (full width at half maximum). The reason they appear to be fuzzier is because there is a lot of scatter (halo effect). For certain applications (e.g., splitting binary stars), it is acceptable to have a large halo. Incidentally, using the WM Keck Observatory adaptive optics system, I am able to get 30 milliarcsecond resultion, which is much better than both Hubble and Palomar.

A case of Hubble envy?

Mr. Adam Selene, L. City — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 16:24:09 GMT

Dr. Long,
I have to agree with Dr. TANSTAAFL. Somebody somewhere has to pay for lunch; even if it is the chicken who gave its life for your sandwich.

It seems to me that YOU are complaining about paying for Astronomers' fundamental research. Ita vero, you prove the point. TANSTAAFL.

As to why this endeavor should be undertaken, with no fundamental research, there can be no advanced research. You can never know where fundamental research will lead you. Ipso facto, Dr. Long, ipsa scientia potestas est. By that fact alone, sir, knowledge is power.

A case of Hubble envy?

raine,phil — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 10:54:20 GMT

let us not argue or what so ever about who is really the best ( Hubble or Lucky).the important is that they both helpful to fully understand everything on our solar system..ok.

A case of Hubble envy?

Misanthrope, Conchord, California — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 16:15:16 GMT

Metaphorically, Would you rather study clouds from underwater or from a boat? The less in the way for a picture, the better, no?

Money is the only reason this is even an issue.

A case of Hubble envy?

GWAYNE,HEMPSTEAD TEXAS — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 00:59:30 GMT

i AM WONDERING IF THE HUBBLES ABILITIES COULD BE EXPANDED WITH THE UPDATING OF ITS SYSTEMS FOR A LONGER LIFE?