Magellan II's Adaptive Optics Top Hubble's Resolution 136
muon-catalyzed writes "The incredible 'first light' images captured by the new adaptive optics system called Magellan|AO for "Magellan Adaptive Optics" in the Magellan II 6.5-meter telescope are at least twice as sharp in the visible light spectrum as those from the NASA's Hubble Space Telescope. 'We can, for the first time, make long-exposure images that resolve objects just 0.02 arcseconds across — the equivalent of a dime viewed from more than a hundred miles away,' said Laird Close (University of Arizona), the project's principal scientist. The 6.5-meter Magellan telescopes in the high desert of Chile were widely considered to be the best natural imaging telescopes in the world and this new technology upgraded them to the whole new level. With its 21-foot diameter mirror, the Magellan telescope is much larger than Hubble with its 8-foot mirror. Until now, Hubble always produced the best visible light images, since even large ground-based telescope with complex adaptive optics imaging cameras could only make blurry images in visible light. The core of the new optics system, the so-called Adaptive Secondary Mirror (ASM) that can change its shape at 585 points on its surface 1,000 times each second, counteracts the blurring effects of the atmosphere."
Re:Still can't handle proper units? (Score:2, Informative)
Well, the sentence where they compare the two is already converted to similar units, so it doesn't hurt my brain. YMMV
Hubble resolution, at a price (Score:5, Informative)
What they rarely mention in these sorts of press releases (everyone with AO system has a "better than Hubble" press release) is that the cost of getting to that resolution is losing most of the light along the way. It's not hard to beat HST with perfect atmospheric correction, as Hubble is only a 2.4 m aperture, and nearly every AO system is on a larger telescope. It's just that the correction is achieved by sufficient optical contortions that only a small fraction of the original light actually makes it to the detector.
My personal experience is that even the largest and most sensitive AO system in the world (NIRC II on Keck II with laser guide star) still really struggles make an observation in 20 minutes that Hubble can do in 5 minutes. If anyone were to launch a >3 m aperture visual-band space telescope (NOT JWST, that's IR), it would blow all these AO systems out of the water.
Re:Awesome (Score:4, Informative)
All of these things are why the James Webb is going to go to the Lagrange point, rather than orbit.
Orbit is a dumb place to be for a telescope. :-)
Re:Not entirely fair comparison (Score:4, Informative)
I thought the 2008 upgrade made it better than originally designed [newscientist.com]?
Re:Hubble resolution, at a price (Score:4, Informative)
Inside the optics. For optical/near-IR astronomy (i.e. roughly in the wavelengths that your eyes can see), atmospheric opacity only comes into play if there are clouds. You always want to look at objects higher in the sky (meaning through less atmosphere), but that's more because they have less distortion.
Inside the telescope, you lose some light every time you have a reflective surface. A simple telescope might have three reflective surfaces at 0.9 reflectivity, and so no more 3/4 of the original light reaches the detector. A complex AO system typically has closer to ten mirrors, so no more than a third of the original light will reach the detector. And that's before you account for all the other losses, like scattered light and the parts of the distortion that deformable mirror in the AO system can't correct for. So at worst case, it might be only 10% of the original light making it to the detector.
AO systems are great, especially for bright targets, but it always makes me cringe when people claim they are "better than Hubble". Space telescopes exist for reason...
Re:Hubble resolution, at a price (Score:4, Informative)
pretty sure the "price" he's referring to isn't monetary.