Thanks for the interesting info, Mike.

Originally Posted By: Mike Kremer
***My Thoughts
Hubble is an optical telescope, but it seems that Spectrum-R is a radio telescope
So talking about a resolution being 100,000 times better than Hubble is not really comparing like with like....is it?

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/201...ever-built.html

Yes, in a way it's certainly like comparing apples and pears isn't it, since it's incapable of detecting visible wavelengths. As Bill Gill says, the information received is different, and will complement that of other types of telescope. Still, I think the reference to 100,000x resolution does make sense - if the 'images' were to be transposed to the visible spectrum - e.g., as in TV broadcasts - the stated level of detail should be evident, right?
_______

Hi Bill
Originally Posted By: Bill
The biggest problem of course is that you get amazing resolution, but lose sensitivity, since you can't capture all of a wave front the way you can with a large optical telescope.

That sounds interesting but I don't know what it means. Could you explain it to a non-scientist?

"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler