how real are the photos sent  by hubble telescope?
97399
The photos are as real as the stars in the sky \nWhatever see in the sky is the past ,all these have been found to obey a gravitational theory proposed by einstein,many experiments conducted on earth also validate the theory ,So if u have the belief in the theory then believe what u see
154725
The difference is....if you place a screen where the images is suppose to be and you can actually see an image, then it's real. Otherwise it's virtual.\n\nThis applies to diverging lenses, among others.\n\nAs much as I dislike using websites in my responses, sometimes it can't be avoided....like now.\n\nIn the link below, about half way down it talkes about a little a virtual image.\n\nHope this helps you.
124650
It is pretty hard for me to say..no they are not real...\nI have seen several things both day and night..A huge object perhaps the size of a football field..it was very massive and overwhelming..I have have witnessed a silver disc object above me in mid afternoon..that shot straight up into the sky with instant speed. Speed that we dont have here. An elongated diamond light at night that turned out to have the intensity of a very bright spotlight...then dimmed again..and shot off up into the sky..with incredible speed ..Orange glowing spheres in early evening...backwards "c" shaped object in the daylight...the list goes on..but..Yeah..I have seen many...I cannot believe other than..We are NOT alone
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.
195703
Using a little math and common sense, I figured out, no, it would not nearly be possible to see the flag on the moon with the Hubble space telescope.\n\nFirst, lets get some basic facts straight.\nThe Diameter of the Hubble telescope is 4.2 meters and the distance from the Earth to the moon (on average) is about 3.84 E8 meters.\n\nPretty much the only thing limiting what Hubble can and cannot resolve is diffraction through a circuilat aperature (ie.  How light waves intreract with eachother when they get to Hubble's mirror.\nThe minimum angle which a circular arperture can resolve is given by the formula,\nTheta_min = 1.22 Lamba / D\nwhere Theta min is the minimum angle, Lamba is the wavelength of light we are using, and D is the diameter of the opening.\n\nIf we assume we are using light at 500 nm (roughly the middle of the visible spectrum) and we know that Hubble's diameter is 4.2 meters, we can find the minimum angle to be,\nTheta_min = 1.425 E-7 radians.\nThis is quite a small angle by Earthly standards, but will it compare to the angle to the flag on the moon?..we'll see.\n\nHere is where I have to make an assumption, but it is a very reasonable assumption and one that will assure us that out answer is correct.  Watching the moon landing videos, one can see that the astronaughts placed a moderatly sized flag on a pole on the moon.  Although I dont know the exact dimentions of the flag, I can assure you, it was definately no bigger than 10 ft.  But for the sake of argument and to make the numbers easier, lets assume it was 10 feet (3 meters).\nIf the distance between the flag and hubble is the same (about) as the distance from the Earth to the moon, then we can calculate the angle between the top of the flag and the bottom of the flag pole as seen by hubble orbitting Earth.  The angle comes out to be about,  7.81 E-9 radians, about 20 times SMALLER than the absolute minumum angle Hubble can resolve...and this is if we assume that the flag is 10 ft, which it obviously is smaller than that in reality.\n\nPlus, Hubble was specifically designed to look at VERY distant object.  Although the moon is far away, it might as well be right next to us compared to the stars/glaxies/.. Hubble is suppose to be looking at.  Therefore, I dont know exactly how it will respond looking at such a close and bright object.\n\nOne this is sure through, you could not see the flag, even with one othe best telescopes ever built opperating perfectly under ideal conditions using visible light.
746511
Dear Sir:\n\nWhile there have been some actual transmissions from Earth to the Solar System seeking echos, and some of this might still be going on in a coordinated fashion, as I understand it, the primary mission of the existing radio telescopes is to "Listen" to upper wavelength radio emissions from gas clouds, and other phenomina in the universe. Of course, once some interesting\nradio emissions are detected, a full spectrum scan of the target is most likely conducted to determine the full extent of radio\nsignals from that source.\n\nOther radio transmissions are made from Earth to our traveling Space Probes and Robotic Explorers at various locations in the Universe. A continual litany of telemetry, television and voice signals also flows between the Space Station and Ground Control Center to keep a constant watch on the health, status, and activities of the space crew, mission, and the station itself.\n\nI will defer to someone from one of those positions for an\nanswer as to the power and frequency of transmissions from Earth to the Space Station, Earth to the Robot Explorers, and Earth to the existing Space Probes way out in deep space.\nMy guess is that these various transmissions take place on frequencies between 2,500 Mhz and 40,000 Mhz. That is a \nvery large radio spectrum. \n\nSince my response turns around your question, in that I am telling you that the biggest radio telescopes listen rather than\ntransmit, let me also tell you that the biggest radio telescopes are not simply single structures at a given location. In recent years a scheme for the linkage of two or more radio telescopes was developed. Therefor, the biggest radio telescope would be an electronic combination of the signals from most of the largest installations on Earth. A lot of work has been done in that vein in recent years. Using more than one receiving antenna provides an easy means for researchers to filter out local ground (earthbound) noise generators and radio disturbances. Signals heard at the same time by widely separated receiving antennas (and equipment) are most probably from the sighted target source (assuming both antennas are aimed at the same target). It is also interesting to know that the radio signals that are received require a vast amount of processing to be identified and detected. The processing of the radio telescope incoming signals takes a huge array of computers and some very complex software programs to yield useable data.\n\nYes, radio waves do go on forever. However, their strength at the point of interception decreases by the square of the distance from the source. So, the strength of radio waves become very, very weak as you move into distances like 100,000,000 miles.\nThe wave front would continue out like rings of water in a pond until they hit something and bounced back off of it. In that sense,\na portion of the radio wave would not go on forever, but would become a new wave moving in the oposite direction from the new source (which was the object that the wave struck). The\nrest of the wave front would continue on until it struck something, and we repeated the above scenario. The exact same thing happens to signals transmitted from a sonar transducer in the water. Those devices are used to detect the depth of the bottom of rivers/oceans (depth finder), fish in the water (fish finder), or even other vessels (sub hunting). Sonar, uses sound waves and not radio waves, but the principle is almost the same.  Sound waves radiate out. Nearby echos are strong enough to be detected with existing equipment and are plotted and displayed on information screens. Some echos are so weak coming back that the existing equipment cannot detect/plot/or display  them.\n\nRegards,\nZah
1061786
There are actual images of the entire galaxy, but from our position within the disk, it looks a lot like an edge on thin disk with a galactic bulge.  The earliest image of our galaxy that I know of was assembled from IRAS data.  The DIRBE experiment aboard COBE also produces a some nice ones (COBE was a mission to explore the microwave background radiation left over from the big bang.  DIRBE was aboard that spacecraft to characterize the diffuse infrared foreground, namely our galaxy, so its contribution could be removed from the microwave measurements).\n\nDIRBEs shorter wavelength infrared channels trace the stars in the galaxy nicely so you can see the bulge:http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap000130.html\n\nThe longer wavelength channels are more sensitive to dust:http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap000517.html\n\nNote that these are all sky images probably using a Molleweide projection.  The centers look towards the center of the galaxy, but the edges look directly out (away) from the center.  This is a "wraparound" view.
1127272
This site has up-to-date release-quality photos (ie. not raw data, just the images that are good enough for a regular person to want to look at) from the Mars Exploration Rovers (Spirit and Opportunity):\n\nhttp://www.jpl.nasa.gov/missions/mer/
734970
there a quite a few sites out there.  Since the pics are taken off satelite the pcs are sometime a few years behind.  \n\ngooglemaps.com\nzillow.com\n\nalso google has a program called google earth that you can get satelite pics from all over the world and it lets you zoom in pretty far.
161169
We think so--up to a point.\n\nThere is something called the Hubble Shift--a change in the frequency of electromagnetic radiation that occurs due to the theorized expansion of the universe.  That boils down to things looking redder and redder the farther away they are.\n\nWhat's happening, as we currently understand it, is that we're seeing the light that was emitted however many years ago, that has taken that long to get here.  The trip may have caused some minor changes in the image, but the prevailing belief right now is that other than a little distortion (like from the Hubble effect, and gravitational lensing, and interacting with the dust and stuff between here and there) it's what it looked like then.
1129943
This question doesn't belong in the category Astronomy/Space...but in fiction.....\n\nGet real........:)
725849
Sure, it's possible. But you won't see any artifacts there. Even the largest telescope on earth does not have the resolution to see a 10 meter spacecraft from a distance of 350,000 km.\n\nAn object that size at that distance subtends an arc of .005 arcseconds. Both Hubble and Keck (the best telescopes on or near earth) have a resolution limit of about .05 arcseconds.
722933
Absolutely.  A lot of the limits we have on the Hubble Constant are due to uncertainty in the distances--and hence luminosities--of the standard candles used to calibrate it, such as Cepheid variables, supergiants, globular clusters, and so forth.  If astrophysical missions like the Space Interferometry Mission, and ESA's GAIA get off the ground within the next decade, we could greatly reduce what uncertainty there is.
427453
Even on a cloud free night the atmosphere will still affect the infra red light as it descends to earth.\n\nEarth;s air is continuously moving, a ray of starlight is refracted in a random direction causing the star we see to twinkle. This twinkling is extremely irritating to astronomers as it blurs the images from telescopes, leaving the resolution of the largest observatories no better than that from a 10cm telescope. (Larger instruments are built to collect more light, producing brighter images but with the same resolution). The only way to entirely avoid this problem is to launch a telescope into space. This is why NASA built the Hubble Space Telescope.
313250
http://www.naturephotosonline.com/npo_main.htm\nit has real picture\nand they also pretty
506372
look at www.terraserver.com. You should be able to get photos from there
748844
According to Stephen Hawking, black holes are real and I believe that the Hubble telescope has found some way off in space.  Read Hawking's books and he explains them in a very straight forward, every man can understand style.