What's the largest optical telescope mirror ever put in space?What's the largest aperture telescope sent beyond the Earth-Moon system?What's the largest optical lens put in space?Where did Herschel Space Telescope go in 2013?What's the largest aperture telescope sent beyond the Earth-Moon system?Infrared space interferometry - Why isn't it being done?What's the largest optical lens put in space?
Find duplicated column value in CSV
Was Jesus good at singing?
What does the "c." listed under weapon length mean?
How "pissed" come to mean "drunk" or "angry"?
PhD - Well known professor or well known school?
Find the Factorial From the Given Prime Relationship
Can the poison from Kingsmen be concocted?
What are the peak hours for public transportation in Paris?
When 2-pentene reacts with HBr, what will be the major product?
If you had a giant cutting disc 60 miles diameter and rotated it 1000 rps, would the edge be traveling faster than light?
What makes Ada the language of choice for the ISS's safety-critical systems?
How to build suspense or so to establish and justify xenophobia of characters in the eyes of the reader?
Genetic limitations to learn certain instruments
What's up with this leaf?
How can drunken, homicidal elves successfully conduct a wild hunt?
How to officially communicate to a non-responsive colleague?
Is this a mistake? (regarding maximum likelihood estimator)
HT12e: How is this a 2¹² encoder?
Was the output of the C64 SID chip 8 bit sound?
Frame failure sudden death?
Is using haveibeenpwned to validate password strength rational?
What can plausibly explain many of my very long and low-tech bridges?
Why doesn't Adrian Toomes give up Spider-Man's identity?
Different pedals/effects for low strings/notes than high
What's the largest optical telescope mirror ever put in space?
What's the largest aperture telescope sent beyond the Earth-Moon system?What's the largest optical lens put in space?Where did Herschel Space Telescope go in 2013?What's the largest aperture telescope sent beyond the Earth-Moon system?Infrared space interferometry - Why isn't it being done?What's the largest optical lens put in space?
$begingroup$
As a follow-on question to What's the largest optical lens put in space? I'd like to as about mirrors this time.
Question: What's the largest optical telescope mirror ever put in space?
Optical could include infrared, visible and ultraviolet, but not microwaves. It also needs to be a single mirror, not an array of separate sub-mirrors like the JWST design. It could be a telescope's objective mirror or a part of an optical assembly of mixed elements, or it could still be in its shipping crate. It could be curved or flat, as long as it's used in an optical telescope.
Answers to What's the largest aperture telescope sent beyond the Earth-Moon system? are in the 0.5 to 1.4 meter ballpark for deep space, but what about closer to home?
space-telescope optical record
asked 8 hours ago
uhohuhoh
43.8k20172564
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
As a follow-on question to What's the largest optical lens put in space? I'd like to as about mirrors this time.
Question: What's the largest optical telescope mirror ever put in space?
Optical could include infrared, visible and ultraviolet, but not microwaves. It also needs to be a single mirror, not an array of separate sub-mirrors like the JWST design. It could be a telescope's objective mirror or a part of an optical assembly of mixed elements, or it could still be in its shipping crate. It could be curved or flat, as long as it's used in an optical telescope.
Answers to What's the largest aperture telescope sent beyond the Earth-Moon system? are in the 0.5 to 1.4 meter ballpark for deep space, but what about closer to home?
space-telescope optical record
asked 8 hours ago
uhohuhoh
43.8k20172564
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
No problem, added a potential solution to that question based on what was said here for you :).
$endgroup$
– Magic Octopus Urn
7 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
As a follow-on question to What's the largest optical lens put in space? I'd like to as about mirrors this time.
Question: What's the largest optical telescope mirror ever put in space?
Optical could include infrared, visible and ultraviolet, but not microwaves. It also needs to be a single mirror, not an array of separate sub-mirrors like the JWST design. It could be a telescope's objective mirror or a part of an optical assembly of mixed elements, or it could still be in its shipping crate. It could be curved or flat, as long as it's used in an optical telescope.
Answers to What's the largest aperture telescope sent beyond the Earth-Moon system? are in the 0.5 to 1.4 meter ballpark for deep space, but what about closer to home?
space-telescope optical record
asked 8 hours ago
uhohuhoh
43.8k20172564
$endgroup$
As a follow-on question to What's the largest optical lens put in space? I'd like to as about mirrors this time.
Question: What's the largest optical telescope mirror ever put in space?
Optical could include infrared, visible and ultraviolet, but not microwaves. It also needs to be a single mirror, not an array of separate sub-mirrors like the JWST design. It could be a telescope's objective mirror or a part of an optical assembly of mixed elements, or it could still be in its shipping crate. It could be curved or flat, as long as it's used in an optical telescope.
Answers to What's the largest aperture telescope sent beyond the Earth-Moon system? are in the 0.5 to 1.4 meter ballpark for deep space, but what about closer to home?
space-telescope optical record
space-telescope optical record
asked 8 hours ago
uhohuhoh
43.8k20172564
asked 8 hours ago
uhohuhoh
43.8k20172564
edited 7 hours ago
uhoh
asked 8 hours ago
uhohuhoh
43.8k20172564
asked 8 hours ago
uhohuhoh
43.8k20172564
asked 8 hours ago
uhohuhoh
43.8k20172564
43.8k20172564
$begingroup$
No problem, added a potential solution to that question based on what was said here for you :).
$endgroup$
– Magic Octopus Urn
7 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
No problem, added a potential solution to that question based on what was said here for you :).
$endgroup$
– Magic Octopus Urn
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
No problem, added a potential solution to that question based on what was said here for you :).
$endgroup$
– Magic Octopus Urn
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
No problem, added a potential solution to that question based on what was said here for you :).
$endgroup$
– Magic Octopus Urn
7 hours ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
I could only find two real candidates that exist currently, using the following diagram and other sources:
More specifically:
TL;DR:
- Name: collection area / diameter
- Kepler Telescope: 0.708 m**2 / 0.95 m
- Hubble Telescope: 4.525 m**2 / 2.4 m
- JWST (All Mirror): 25 m**2 / 6.5 m
- JWST (One Mirror): Could Not Find, does someone want to share this?
Those, as far as I know, would be the known candidates for a orbital single-mirror telescope (two of which are not single mirror). This leaves us with Kepler and Hubble, which isn't actually a straightforward comparison. Hubble has the larger surface area, however, Kepler is better at resolving exoplanets than Hubble:
Kepler's 115 deg2 field of view gives it a much higher probability of detecting Earth-sized planets than the Hubble Space Telescope, which has a field of view of only 10 sq. arc-minutes. Moreover, Kepler is dedicated to detecting planetary transits, while the Hubble Space Telescope is used to address a wide range of scientific questions, and rarely looks continuously at just one star-field.
It accomplishes this by using improved technology acquired since the launch of Hubble in 1990, as Kepler was launched in 2009. Even James-Webb telescope will not dethrone Hubble (despite it's resolution being a large factor better) because it will have many mirrors all of which are smaller than Hubble's.
However, if you're literally just asking which is physically more massive? Hubble wins.
Feel free to correct any misleading information in my answers, I'm by no means an expert.
answered 7 hours ago
Magic Octopus UrnMagic Octopus Urn
3,55211550
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
"I guess we should have named it the Merely Whelmingly Large Telescope!"
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
7 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The winner (as of 2019) would be the ESA Herschel Space Observatory with a focal mirror of 3.5M/11.5ft.
Optical could include infrared, visible and ultraviolet, but not microwaves.
Herschel covers both far infrared and microwaves (55–672 µm) and so doesn't show up on some lists of optical telescopes, but it counts as far as the current question is defined.
NASA's Hubble Space Telescope would be second at 2.4M/8ft.
If/when the James Webb Observatory makes it up, it will be the largest at 6.5M/21.3ft. While the question excludes JWST, it should be noted that it probably will not be possible with current rocket technology to put a Hubble-esque mirror of that size into space
If the Hubble Space Telescope's 2.4 meter mirror were scaled to be large enough for Webb, it would be too heavy to launch into orbit. The Webb team had to find new ways to build the mirror so that it would be light enough - only one-tenth of the mass of Hubble's mirror per unit area - yet very strong.
answered 1 hour ago
MachavityMachavity
2,58511037
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
fyi I have just asked Where did Herschel Space Telescope go in 2013?
$endgroup$
– uhoh
38 mins ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "508"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f36548%2fwhats-the-largest-optical-telescope-mirror-ever-put-in-space%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
I could only find two real candidates that exist currently, using the following diagram and other sources:
More specifically:
TL;DR:
- Name: collection area / diameter
- Kepler Telescope: 0.708 m**2 / 0.95 m
- Hubble Telescope: 4.525 m**2 / 2.4 m
- JWST (All Mirror): 25 m**2 / 6.5 m
- JWST (One Mirror): Could Not Find, does someone want to share this?
Those, as far as I know, would be the known candidates for a orbital single-mirror telescope (two of which are not single mirror). This leaves us with Kepler and Hubble, which isn't actually a straightforward comparison. Hubble has the larger surface area, however, Kepler is better at resolving exoplanets than Hubble:
Kepler's 115 deg2 field of view gives it a much higher probability of detecting Earth-sized planets than the Hubble Space Telescope, which has a field of view of only 10 sq. arc-minutes. Moreover, Kepler is dedicated to detecting planetary transits, while the Hubble Space Telescope is used to address a wide range of scientific questions, and rarely looks continuously at just one star-field.
It accomplishes this by using improved technology acquired since the launch of Hubble in 1990, as Kepler was launched in 2009. Even James-Webb telescope will not dethrone Hubble (despite it's resolution being a large factor better) because it will have many mirrors all of which are smaller than Hubble's.
However, if you're literally just asking which is physically more massive? Hubble wins.
Feel free to correct any misleading information in my answers, I'm by no means an expert.
answered 7 hours ago
Magic Octopus UrnMagic Octopus Urn
3,55211550
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
"I guess we should have named it the Merely Whelmingly Large Telescope!"
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
7 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I could only find two real candidates that exist currently, using the following diagram and other sources:
More specifically:
TL;DR:
- Name: collection area / diameter
- Kepler Telescope: 0.708 m**2 / 0.95 m
- Hubble Telescope: 4.525 m**2 / 2.4 m
- JWST (All Mirror): 25 m**2 / 6.5 m
- JWST (One Mirror): Could Not Find, does someone want to share this?
Those, as far as I know, would be the known candidates for a orbital single-mirror telescope (two of which are not single mirror). This leaves us with Kepler and Hubble, which isn't actually a straightforward comparison. Hubble has the larger surface area, however, Kepler is better at resolving exoplanets than Hubble:
Kepler's 115 deg2 field of view gives it a much higher probability of detecting Earth-sized planets than the Hubble Space Telescope, which has a field of view of only 10 sq. arc-minutes. Moreover, Kepler is dedicated to detecting planetary transits, while the Hubble Space Telescope is used to address a wide range of scientific questions, and rarely looks continuously at just one star-field.
It accomplishes this by using improved technology acquired since the launch of Hubble in 1990, as Kepler was launched in 2009. Even James-Webb telescope will not dethrone Hubble (despite it's resolution being a large factor better) because it will have many mirrors all of which are smaller than Hubble's.
However, if you're literally just asking which is physically more massive? Hubble wins.
Feel free to correct any misleading information in my answers, I'm by no means an expert.
answered 7 hours ago
Magic Octopus UrnMagic Octopus Urn
3,55211550
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
"I guess we should have named it the Merely Whelmingly Large Telescope!"
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
7 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I could only find two real candidates that exist currently, using the following diagram and other sources:
More specifically:
TL;DR:
- Name: collection area / diameter
- Kepler Telescope: 0.708 m**2 / 0.95 m
- Hubble Telescope: 4.525 m**2 / 2.4 m
- JWST (All Mirror): 25 m**2 / 6.5 m
- JWST (One Mirror): Could Not Find, does someone want to share this?
Those, as far as I know, would be the known candidates for a orbital single-mirror telescope (two of which are not single mirror). This leaves us with Kepler and Hubble, which isn't actually a straightforward comparison. Hubble has the larger surface area, however, Kepler is better at resolving exoplanets than Hubble:
Kepler's 115 deg2 field of view gives it a much higher probability of detecting Earth-sized planets than the Hubble Space Telescope, which has a field of view of only 10 sq. arc-minutes. Moreover, Kepler is dedicated to detecting planetary transits, while the Hubble Space Telescope is used to address a wide range of scientific questions, and rarely looks continuously at just one star-field.
It accomplishes this by using improved technology acquired since the launch of Hubble in 1990, as Kepler was launched in 2009. Even James-Webb telescope will not dethrone Hubble (despite it's resolution being a large factor better) because it will have many mirrors all of which are smaller than Hubble's.
However, if you're literally just asking which is physically more massive? Hubble wins.
Feel free to correct any misleading information in my answers, I'm by no means an expert.
answered 7 hours ago
Magic Octopus UrnMagic Octopus Urn
3,55211550
$endgroup$
I could only find two real candidates that exist currently, using the following diagram and other sources:
More specifically:
TL;DR:
- Name: collection area / diameter
- Kepler Telescope: 0.708 m**2 / 0.95 m
- Hubble Telescope: 4.525 m**2 / 2.4 m
- JWST (All Mirror): 25 m**2 / 6.5 m
- JWST (One Mirror): Could Not Find, does someone want to share this?
Those, as far as I know, would be the known candidates for a orbital single-mirror telescope (two of which are not single mirror). This leaves us with Kepler and Hubble, which isn't actually a straightforward comparison. Hubble has the larger surface area, however, Kepler is better at resolving exoplanets than Hubble:
Kepler's 115 deg2 field of view gives it a much higher probability of detecting Earth-sized planets than the Hubble Space Telescope, which has a field of view of only 10 sq. arc-minutes. Moreover, Kepler is dedicated to detecting planetary transits, while the Hubble Space Telescope is used to address a wide range of scientific questions, and rarely looks continuously at just one star-field.
It accomplishes this by using improved technology acquired since the launch of Hubble in 1990, as Kepler was launched in 2009. Even James-Webb telescope will not dethrone Hubble (despite it's resolution being a large factor better) because it will have many mirrors all of which are smaller than Hubble's.
However, if you're literally just asking which is physically more massive? Hubble wins.
Feel free to correct any misleading information in my answers, I'm by no means an expert.
answered 7 hours ago
Magic Octopus UrnMagic Octopus Urn
3,55211550
edited 7 hours ago
answered 7 hours ago
Magic Octopus UrnMagic Octopus Urn
3,55211550
answered 7 hours ago
Magic Octopus UrnMagic Octopus Urn
3,55211550
answered 7 hours ago
Magic Octopus UrnMagic Octopus Urn
3,55211550
3,55211550
2
$begingroup$
"I guess we should have named it the Merely Whelmingly Large Telescope!"
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
7 hours ago
add a comment |
2
$begingroup$
"I guess we should have named it the Merely Whelmingly Large Telescope!"
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
7 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
"I guess we should have named it the Merely Whelmingly Large Telescope!"
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
"I guess we should have named it the Merely Whelmingly Large Telescope!"
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
7 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The winner (as of 2019) would be the ESA Herschel Space Observatory with a focal mirror of 3.5M/11.5ft.
Optical could include infrared, visible and ultraviolet, but not microwaves.
Herschel covers both far infrared and microwaves (55–672 µm) and so doesn't show up on some lists of optical telescopes, but it counts as far as the current question is defined.
NASA's Hubble Space Telescope would be second at 2.4M/8ft.
If/when the James Webb Observatory makes it up, it will be the largest at 6.5M/21.3ft. While the question excludes JWST, it should be noted that it probably will not be possible with current rocket technology to put a Hubble-esque mirror of that size into space
If the Hubble Space Telescope's 2.4 meter mirror were scaled to be large enough for Webb, it would be too heavy to launch into orbit. The Webb team had to find new ways to build the mirror so that it would be light enough - only one-tenth of the mass of Hubble's mirror per unit area - yet very strong.
answered 1 hour ago
MachavityMachavity
2,58511037
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
fyi I have just asked Where did Herschel Space Telescope go in 2013?
$endgroup$
– uhoh
38 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The winner (as of 2019) would be the ESA Herschel Space Observatory with a focal mirror of 3.5M/11.5ft.
Optical could include infrared, visible and ultraviolet, but not microwaves.
Herschel covers both far infrared and microwaves (55–672 µm) and so doesn't show up on some lists of optical telescopes, but it counts as far as the current question is defined.
NASA's Hubble Space Telescope would be second at 2.4M/8ft.
If/when the James Webb Observatory makes it up, it will be the largest at 6.5M/21.3ft. While the question excludes JWST, it should be noted that it probably will not be possible with current rocket technology to put a Hubble-esque mirror of that size into space
If the Hubble Space Telescope's 2.4 meter mirror were scaled to be large enough for Webb, it would be too heavy to launch into orbit. The Webb team had to find new ways to build the mirror so that it would be light enough - only one-tenth of the mass of Hubble's mirror per unit area - yet very strong.
answered 1 hour ago
MachavityMachavity
2,58511037
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
fyi I have just asked Where did Herschel Space Telescope go in 2013?
$endgroup$
– uhoh
38 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The winner (as of 2019) would be the ESA Herschel Space Observatory with a focal mirror of 3.5M/11.5ft.
Optical could include infrared, visible and ultraviolet, but not microwaves.
Herschel covers both far infrared and microwaves (55–672 µm) and so doesn't show up on some lists of optical telescopes, but it counts as far as the current question is defined.
NASA's Hubble Space Telescope would be second at 2.4M/8ft.
If/when the James Webb Observatory makes it up, it will be the largest at 6.5M/21.3ft. While the question excludes JWST, it should be noted that it probably will not be possible with current rocket technology to put a Hubble-esque mirror of that size into space
If the Hubble Space Telescope's 2.4 meter mirror were scaled to be large enough for Webb, it would be too heavy to launch into orbit. The Webb team had to find new ways to build the mirror so that it would be light enough - only one-tenth of the mass of Hubble's mirror per unit area - yet very strong.
answered 1 hour ago
MachavityMachavity
2,58511037
$endgroup$
The winner (as of 2019) would be the ESA Herschel Space Observatory with a focal mirror of 3.5M/11.5ft.
Optical could include infrared, visible and ultraviolet, but not microwaves.
Herschel covers both far infrared and microwaves (55–672 µm) and so doesn't show up on some lists of optical telescopes, but it counts as far as the current question is defined.
NASA's Hubble Space Telescope would be second at 2.4M/8ft.
If/when the James Webb Observatory makes it up, it will be the largest at 6.5M/21.3ft. While the question excludes JWST, it should be noted that it probably will not be possible with current rocket technology to put a Hubble-esque mirror of that size into space
If the Hubble Space Telescope's 2.4 meter mirror were scaled to be large enough for Webb, it would be too heavy to launch into orbit. The Webb team had to find new ways to build the mirror so that it would be light enough - only one-tenth of the mass of Hubble's mirror per unit area - yet very strong.
answered 1 hour ago
MachavityMachavity
2,58511037
edited 55 mins ago
answered 1 hour ago
MachavityMachavity
2,58511037
answered 1 hour ago
MachavityMachavity
2,58511037
answered 1 hour ago
MachavityMachavity
2,58511037
2,58511037
$begingroup$
fyi I have just asked Where did Herschel Space Telescope go in 2013?
$endgroup$
– uhoh
38 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
fyi I have just asked Where did Herschel Space Telescope go in 2013?
$endgroup$
– uhoh
38 mins ago
$begingroup$
fyi I have just asked Where did Herschel Space Telescope go in 2013?
$endgroup$
– uhoh
38 mins ago
$begingroup$
fyi I have just asked Where did Herschel Space Telescope go in 2013?
$endgroup$
– uhoh
38 mins ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Space Exploration Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f36548%2fwhats-the-largest-optical-telescope-mirror-ever-put-in-space%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
No problem, added a potential solution to that question based on what was said here for you :).
$endgroup$
– Magic Octopus Urn
7 hours ago