The Hubble Space Telescope

There are other ways to escape the seeing caused by the earth’s atmosphere: You can get above and away from the atmosphere. In fact, for observing in some portions of the electromagnetic spectrum, it is absolutely required to get above the earth’s atmosphere. That is just what NASA, in conjunction with the European Space Agency, did with the Hubble Space Telescope. High above the earth’s atmosphere, the HST regularly achieves its theoretical resolution.
The HST was deployed from the cargo bay of the space shuttle Discovery in 1990. The telescope is equipped with a 94-inch (2.4-meter) reflecting telescope, capable of 10 times the angular resolution of the best Earthbased telescopes and approximately 30 times more sensitive to light, not because it is bigger than telescopes on the earth, but because it is above the earth’s atmosphere. Unfortunately, due to a manufacturing flaw, the curvature of the 2.4-meter mirror was off by literally less than a hair (it was too flat by 1/50 of the width of a human hair), which changed its focal length. The telescope still focused light, but not where it needed to, in the plane of the various detectors.

Astronauts aboard the shuttle Endeavour rendezvoused with the HST in space in 1993 and made repairs—primarily installing a system of small corrective mirrors. HST then began to transmit the spectacular images that scientists had hoped for and the world marveled at. Subsequent repair missions have installed the short-lived but productive infrared camera (NICMOS) and other instrumentation. A final servicing mission is planned for 2003, after which HST will be replaced by the Next Generation Space Telescope (NGST) near 2010.

New optical technology

The greatest limitation of ground-based observations is that Earth’s atmosphere gets in the way. The turbulence present in the upper atmosphere means that the best resolution attainable with a traditional telescope from the surface of Earth is about 1 arcsecond, or 1/1800 the size of the Moon. Now that might seem like a pretty sharp picture, but for the largest telescopes on the surface of Earth, it is only a fraction of the theoretical resolution, the resolution that a telescope should have, based on its size. It was thought to be a shame, for example, that the 10-m diameter Beck telescope, while it could collect more light, would have no better resolution than a 1-m diameter telescope.
A new technology has been developed to get around this limitation. Dubbed adaptive optics, it allows astronomers to counteract the distortions introduced by the atmosphere with distortions of their own. The distortions are made to another reflective surface inserted into the optical path, the path that light follows through the telescope. The idea is that if the distortions can be removed quickly enough, then large telescopes would have both of the advantages that they should have, namely more sensitivity and more resolution. This technology has produced stunning results recently on the Keck Telescope and the Gemini North Telescope located on Mauna Kea, Hawaii. What does this all mean? As the technology is perfected, ground-based telescopes will be able to make images as sharp as those made from space—in a more easily maintained and upgradeable package.
This technology is very dependent on fast computers and rapidly movable motors that can make tiny, precise adjustments to the surfaces of small mirrors.

Computer Assisted Telescope

Beginning in the late nineteenth century, most serious telescope viewing was done photographically. Astronomers (despite the popular cartoon image) didn’t peer through their telescopes in search of new and exciting information, but studied photographic plates instead. Photographic methods allowed astronomers to make longer observations, seeing many more faint details than could ever be distinguished with visual observing. In recent years, chemical-based photography has increasingly yielded to digital photography, which records images not on film but on CCDs (charge-coupled devices), in principle the same device at the focal plane of your camcorder lens. CCDs are much more sensitive than photographic film, which means they can record fainter objects in briefer exposure times; moreover, the image produced is digital and can be directly transferred to a computer.

Remember the sound of old-fashioned 12-inch, vinyl LP records? Even the best of them had a hiss audible during quiet musical passages, and the worst served up more snap, crackle, and pop than a popular breakfast cereal. CDs, recorded digitally, changed all that by electronically filtering out the nonmusical noise found at high frequencies. Analogous digital computer techniques can be used to filter out the “visual noise” in an image to improve its quality. The disadvantage of current CCDs is that they are relatively small. That is, CCD chips are much smaller than a photographic plate, so that only relatively small areas of the sky can be focused on a single CCD chip.

The effect of twinkling star

Theoretically, the giant Hale telescope at Mount Palomar is capable of a spectacular angular resolution of a .02” (or 20 milliarcseconds); that would be its resolution in the absence of complicating factors like the earth’s atmosphere. In actual practice, it has a resolution of about 1”. The source of this limit is related to the reason that stars twinkle. The earth’s turbulent atmosphere stands between the telescope’s gigantic primary mirror and the stars, smearing the image just as it sometimes causes starlight viewed with the naked eye to shimmer and twinkle.

If you took a still photograph of a twinkling star through a large telescope, you would see not a pinpoint image, but one that had been smeared over a minute circle of about 1” (1 arcsecond). This smeary circle is called the seeing disk, and astronomers call the effect of atmospheric turbulence seeing. When weather fronts are moving in (even if the skies appear clear), or have just moved out, the seeing can be particularly bad.

High, dry locations generally have the best seeing. To achieve resolutions better than about 1” from the surface of the earth is possible, but it requires a few tricks.

Adaptive optics, for example, are being increasingly employed on new research telescopes. This method allows a mirror in the optical path to be slightly distorted in real time (by a series of actuators) in order to compensate for the blurring effects of the atmosphere. Of course, much higher resolutions are possible at other wavelengths. As we will see, radio interferometers regularly provide images with resolutions better than 0.001” (or 1 milliarcsecond).

The Power to Gather Light

Why this passion for size?
As we mentioned before, the bigger the bucket, the more light you can collect, so the more information you can gather. The observed brightness of an object is directly proportional to the area (yes, area; not diameter) of the primary mirror. Thus a 78-inch (2-meter) diameter mirror yields an image 4 times brighter than a 39-inch (1-meter) mirror, because area is proportional to diameter squared, and the square of 2 (2 times 2) is 4. A 197-inch (5-meter) mirror would yield images 25 times brighter (5 times 5) than a 1-meter mirror, and a 393-inch (10-meter) mirror would yield an image 100 times brighter than a 1-meter mirror.

Now, things that are farther away are always going to be more faint. It should be obvious that a 100-watt light bulb will appear more faint if it is 1 mile away versus 1 foot away. Thus, a telescope that can see more faint objects is able to see things that are farther away. So, in general, the bigger the telescope, the more distant are the objects that can be viewed. As we’ll see near the end of this book, being able to see very distant (faint) objects is important to answering some fundamental questions about the ultimate fate of the universe.

Size Does Matters

Throughout the nineteenth and well into the twentieth century, astronomers and others interested in science and the sky avidly followed news about every new telescope that was built, each one larger than the last. In 1948, the Hale telescope at Mount Palomar, California, was dedicated. Its 200-inch (5-meter) mirror was the largest in the world.
It was designed flexibly to be used as a prime-focus instrument (with the astronomer actually ensconced in a cage at the front end of the telescope), a Cassegrain-focus instrument (with the observer perched on an adjustable platform at the back of the telescope), or a coudé-focus instrument. The Hale telescope was the largest in the world until 1974, when the Soviets completed a 74-ton, 236-inch (6-meter) mirror, which was installed at the Special Astrophysical Observatory in Zelenchukskaya in the Caucasus Mountains.
In 1992, the first of two Keck telescopes, operated jointly by the California Institute of Technology and the University of California, became operational at Mauna Kea, Hawaii. A second Keck telescope was completed in 1996. Each of these instruments combines thirty-six 71-inch (1.8-meter) mirrors into the equivalent of a 393-inch (10-meter) reflector. Not only do these telescopes now have the distinction of being the largest telescopes on Earth, they are also among the highest (of those based on Earth), nestled on an extinct volcano 2.4 miles above sea level.

Variations on an Optical Theme

While the two major types of optical telescopes are the refractor and the reflector, it is also useful to be aware of the basic variations in reflector design, especially when you think about choosing a telescope for yourself (see the next chapter). We have already seen that the simplest reflector (prime focus) focuses its image at the front of the telescope, introducing the possibility that the observer may block the image. The Newtonian focus instrument, as mentioned, overcomes this problem by introducing a secondary mirror to direct the focus to an eyepiece at the upper side of the instrument. This remains a popular arrangement for small reflecting telescopes used by amateur astronomers. This arrangement is unwieldy, however, for a large telescope. Imagine trying to get to the “top” of a telescope 6 feet long, perched on a 6-foot pedestal.

Some larger reflecting telescopes employ a Cassegrain focus. The image from the primary mirror is reflected to a secondary mirror, which again reflects the light rays down through an aperture (hole) in the primary mirror to an eyepiece at the back of the telescope.

Finally, a coudé-focus (coudé is French for “bent”) reflector sends light rays from the primary mirror to a secondary mirror, much like a Cassegrain. However, instead of focusing the light behind the primary mirror, another mirror is employed to direct the light away from the telescope, through an aperture and into a separate room, called the coudé-focus room. Here astronomers can house special imaging equipment that might be too heavy or cumbersome to actually mount to the barrel of the telescope. Reflecting telescopes have their problems as well. The presence of a secondary mirror (or a detector, in the case of a prime-focus reflector) means that some fraction of the incoming light is necessarily blocked.

Although reflectors do not experience “chromatic aberration” (since light does not have to pass through glass), their spherical shape does introduce spherical aberration, light being focused at different distances when reflecting from a spherical mirror. If not corrected, this aberration will produce blurred images. One common solution to spherical aberration is to use a very thin “correcting” lens at the top of the telescope. This type of telescope, which we will discuss more in the next chapter, is called a Schmidt-Cassegrain, and is a popular design for high-end amateur telescopes.

What is Reflection?

The refracting telescope was one of humankind’s great inventions, rendered even greater by the presence of a genius like Galileo to use it. However, the limitations of the refracting telescope soon became apparent:

• Even the most exquisitely crafted lens produces distortion, which can be corrected only by the introduction of other lenses, which, in turn, introduce their own distortion and loss of brightness, since a little of the energy is absorbed in all that glass. The chief distortion is chromatic aberration.
• Excellent lenses are expensive to produce, and this was even more true in the days when all lenses were painstakingly ground by hand. Lenses are particularly difficult to produce because both sides have to be precision crafted and polished. For mirrored surfaces, like those found in reflecting telescopes, only a single side must be polished.
• Generally, the larger the lens, the greater the magnification and the brighter the image; however, large lenses get heavier faster than large mirrors. Lenses have volume, and the potential for imperfections (such as bubbles in the glass) is higher in a large lens. All of this means that large lenses are much more difficult and expensive to produce than small ones. Recognizing the deficiencies of the refracting telescope, Isaac Newton developed a new design, the reflecting telescope, in 1668.

Instead of the convex lens of a refractor, the reflector uses a concave mirror (shaped like a shallow bowl) to gather, reflect, and focus incoming light. The hollow side of your breakfast spoon is a concave mirror (the other side is a convex one). This curvature means that the focal point is in front of the mirror—between the mirror and the object being viewed. Newton recognized that this was at best inconvenient—your own head could block what you are looking at—so he introduced a secondary mirror to deflect the light path at a 90-degree angle to an eyepiece mounted on the side of the telescope.

Refracting telescope design continued to develop throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, culminating in the 40-inch (that’s the diameter of the principal lens) instrument at Yerkes Observatory in Williams Bay, Wisconsin, installed in 1897.
But due to the limitations just mentioned, the biggest, most powerful telescopes have all been reflectors. In the eighteenth century, the great British astronomer Sir William Herschel persuaded the king to finance an instrument with a 47-inch (1.2-meter) mirror.

With this telescope, Herschel had a big enough light bucket to explore galaxies beyond our own Milky Way (though he did not know that’s what they were). By the middle of the nineteenth century, William Parsons, third Earl of Rosse, explored new nebulae (fuzzy patches of light in the sky, some of which are galaxies) and star clusters with a 73-inch (1.85-meter) instrument constructed in 1845. It ranked as the largest telescope in the world well into the twentieth century, until the 100-inch reflector was installed at the Mount Wilson Observatory (near Pasadena, California) early in the century.

What is Refraction?

Galileo’s instrument, like all of the earliest telescopes, was a refracting telescope, which uses a glass lens to focus the incoming light. For all practical purposes, astronomical objects are so far away from us that we can consider that light rays come to us parallel to one another—that is, unfocused. Refraction is the bending of these parallel rays. The convex (bowed outward) piece of glass we call a lens bends the incoming rays such that they all converge at a point called the focus, which is behind the lens directly along its axis. The distance from the cross-sectional center of the lens to the focus is called the focal length of the lens. Positioned behind the focus is the eyepiece lens, which magnifies the focused image for the viewer’s eye.

Modern refracting telescopes consist of more than two simple lenses. At both ends of the telescope tube, compound (multiple) lenses are used, consisting of assemblies of individual lenses (called elements) designed to correct for various distortions simple lenses produce. For example, the exact degree to which light bends or refracts in a piece of glass depends on its wavelength. Since light consists of many different wavelengths, a single lens will produce a distortion called “chromatic aberration.” The compound eyepiece of many modern telescopes also corrects the image, which a simple eyepiece would see upside down and reversed left to right.

The Telescope Is Born

In 1608, lens makers in the Netherlands discovered that if they mounted one lens at either end of a tube and adjusted the distance between the lenses, the lens that you put to your eye would magnify an image focused by the lens at the far end of the tube. In effect, the lens at the far end of the tube gathered and concentrated (focused) more light energy than the eye could do on its own. The lens near the eye enlarged to various degrees that concentrated image. This world-changing invention was dubbed a telescope.

The word telescope comes from Greek roots meaning “far-seeing.” Optical telescopes are arrangements of lenses and/or mirrors designed to gather visible light efficiently enough to enhance observation of distant objects and phenomena. Many, perhaps most, inventions take time to gain acceptance. Typically, there is a lapse of more than a few years between the invention and its practical application. Not so with the telescope.

By 1609, within a year after the first telescopes appeared, the Italian astronomer Galileo Galilei demonstrated their significance in military matters (seeing a distant naval foe), and was soon using them to explore the heavens. The largest of his instruments was quite small, with only modest magnifying power, but, as we’ve seen in the preceding chapter, Galileo was able to use this tool to describe the valleys and mountains on the Moon, to observe the phases of Venus, and to identify the four largest moons of Jupiter.

Buckets of Light

Of course, the fraction of the emitted energy we receive from a very distant star—or even a whole galaxy, like far-off Andromeda—is very small, having been diminished by the square of the distance (but never reaching zero). Imagine a sphere centered on a distant star. As the sphere becomes larger and larger (that is, as we get farther and farther from the star), the same amount of energy will pass through ever larger spheres.

Your eye (or your telescope) can be thought of as a very tiny fraction of the sphere centered on that distant star. You are collecting as much light from the distant source as falls into your “light bucket.” If your eye is a tiny “bucket,” then a 4-inch amateur telescope is a slightly larger bucket, and the Hubble Space Telescope is an even larger bucket. The larger the bucket, the more light you can “collect.” And if we collect more light in our bucket, we get more information.
One early question among astronomers (and others) was, “How can we build a better bucket than the two little ones we have in our head?” The answer came in the early seventeenth century.

Understanding Electromagnetic Spectrum

Electromagnetic radiation travels though the vacuum of space in waves. A wave—think of a water wave—is not a physical object, but a pattern of up-and-down or back-and-forth motion created by a disturbance. Waves are familiar to anyone who has thrown a rock in a pond of still water or watched raindrops striking a puddle. The wave pattern in the water, a series of concentric circles, radiates from the source of the energy, the impact of the rock or the rain drop. If anything happens to be floating on the surface of the water—say a leaf—the waves will transfer some of the energy of the splash to the leaf and cause it to oscillate up and down.

The important thing to remember about waves is that they convey both energy and information. Even if we didn’t actually see the rock or the raindrop hit the water, we would be able to surmise from the action of the waves that something had disturbed the surface of the water at a particular point. The type of energy and information created and conveyed by electromagnetic radiation is more complex than that created and conveyed by the waves generated by a splash in the water. Do take a moment now to make sure that you understand two properties of waves: wavelength and frequency.
Wavelength is the distance between two adjacent wave crests (high points) or troughs (low points), measured in meters. Frequency is the number of wave crests that pass a given point per unit of time (and has units of 1/second).

We think of the light from our reading lamp as very different from the x-rays our dentist uses to diagnose an ailing tooth, but both are types of electromagnetic waves, and the only difference between them is their wavelengths. Frequency and wavelength of a wave are inversely proportional to one another, meaning that if one of them gets bigger, the other one must get smaller. The particular wavelength produced by a given energy source (a star’s photosphere, a planetary atmosphere) determines whether the electromagnetic radiation produced by that source is detected at radio, infrared, visible, ultraviolet, x-ray, or gamma ray wavelengths.

The waves that produce what we perceive as visible light have wavelengths of between 400 and 700 nanometers (a nanometer is 0.000000001 meter, or 1 X10–9 m) and frequencies of somewhat less than 1015 Hz. Light waves, like the other forms of electromagnetic radiation, are produced by the change in the energy state of an atom or molecule. These waves, in turn, transmit energy from one place in the universe to another. The special nerves in the retinas of our eyes, the emulsion on photographic film, and the pixels of a CCD (Charge Coupled Device) electronic detector are all stimulated (energized) by the energy transmitted by waves of what we call visible light. That is why we “see.”

The outer layers of a star consist of extremely hot gas. This gas is radiating away some fraction of the huge amounts of energy that a star generates in its core through nuclear fusion. That energy is emitted at some level in all portions of the electromagnetic spectrum, so that when we look at a distant or nearby star (the sun) with our eyes, we are receiving a small portion of that energy.

A Slice of Light

The universe is ruled by the tyranny of distance. That is, the universe is so vast, that we are able to see many things that we will never be able to visit. Light is able to travel at extraordinary speeds (about 984,000,000 feet, or 300,000,000 meters, every second), but the light that we now see from many objects in the sky left those sources thousands, millions, or even billions of years ago. It is possible, for example, to see the Andromeda galaxy, even with the naked eye, but will we ever travel there?

Well, Andromeda is about two million light-years away, and a light-year is the distance light travels in one year—about 9,461,000,000,000,000 meters (some 6 trillion miles). Now, light can travel that far every year, so to get the distance to Andromeda, you multiply the velocity of light (6 trillion miles in a year) by the amount of time it took the light to get here (2 million years), and you get a lot of miles—approximately a 1 with 19 zeroes after it. Another way to think about these unbelievable distances: If you could travel at the speed of light (an impossibility, according to Einstein’s theory of relativity), it would still take you two million years to reach Andromeda.

But we can’t travel at anywhere near the speed of light. Right now, the fastest rockets are capable of doing 30,000 miles per hour (48,000 km/h). Maybe—someday—technology will enable us at least to approach the speed of light, but that still means a trip of two million years up and two million back. All of recorded history consumes no more than 5,500 years, and civilization, perhaps 10,000 years.

Why not go faster than the speed of light? We’ll see that, according to our understanding of space and time, the speed of light is an absolute speed limit, which cannot be exceeded. So revel in the fact that, on a clear night, you are able to gaze at the Andromeda galaxy, an object so distant that no human being will likely ever visit it.
Space ships may be severely limited as to how fast they can travel, but as we’ve said, the information conveyed by electromagnetic radiation can travel at the speed of light. The information from Andromeda, it is true, is not exactly recent news by the time we get it.

In fact, the photons that we are receiving from Andromeda left that galaxy long before Homo sapiens walked the earth. But everything we know about Andromeda and almost all other celestial bodies (aside from the few solar system objects we have visited with probes or landers), we know by analyzing their electromagnetic radiation: radio, infrared, and ultraviolet radiation, as well as x-rays and gamma rays and what we call light.