How Does Hubble Take Pictures of the Universe?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Andy
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Hubble
AI Thread Summary
Hubble's ability to capture deep images of the universe relies on long exposure times to gather enough light from distant objects, which can be billions of light-years away. The telescope often focuses on a single area for extended periods, such as 80 days, to accumulate photons and create detailed images. This method helps eliminate cosmic ray artifacts and enhances image clarity. Recent advancements, like the use of the Advanced Camera for Surveys (ACS), have allowed for deeper observations than previous projects. Overall, the cumulative effect of prolonged observation is essential for producing high-quality astronomical images.
Andy
Messages
73
Reaction score
14
I read recently on the BBC digital news service that Hubble has taken a picture of the Universe that dates back further than any other and to do this i stayed fixed on one spot of the Universe for 80 days. How is it that, it worked?

Im sure i should know why, but just can't seem to get my head round it.
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
Not sure what your question is Andy.

AFAIK, the deepest Hubble piccie was taken last year, of a small part of the outskirts of M31:
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/2003/15/

This was deeper than the Hubble Deep South and North work, partly because it used the new ACS, rather than the older cameras (now retired).

The Hubble Ultra-Deep Field (UDF) observations are now in progress; they involve accumulating multiple images of the one small region of sky over many, many orbits.
http://www.stsci.edu/hst/udf/index_html

Why don't they just take one piccie, in a single 80-hour 'exposure'? All kinds of reasons! Perhaps the most basic is the need to remove cosmic ray artifacts.
 
I'm sure he's talking about ultra deep field. A more recent release with some teaser photos: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3387919.stm

Long exposures are made because the longer you look at something, the more light you gather - its a cumulative effect. If you are looking at something 14 billion light years away, you need to look at it for a long time to get enough photons to form an image.
 
Yea, i was trying to ask why it is that it needed to be pointed at one spot for such along time, but it i see it clearly now, or more clearer i should say. It took that long to get enough photons to form a detailed image rather than a rough one, which would hav on required a couple of days.

I doubt that helped you either, but rest assured i now know what i set to find out.
 
Another satisfied customer here at PF!
 
I would have been satisfied if i was told to shut up and stop asking stupid questions!

lol.
 
TL;DR Summary: In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect alien signals, it will further expand the radius of the so-called silence (or rather, radio silence) of the Universe. Is there any sense in this or is blissful ignorance better? In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect...
Thread 'Could gamma-ray bursts have an intragalactic origin?'
This is indirectly evidenced by a map of the distribution of gamma-ray bursts in the night sky, made in the form of an elongated globe. And also the weakening of gamma radiation by the disk and the center of the Milky Way, which leads to anisotropy in the possibilities of observing gamma-ray bursts. My line of reasoning is as follows: 1. Gamma radiation should be absorbed to some extent by dust and other components of the interstellar medium. As a result, with an extragalactic origin, fewer...
This thread is dedicated to the beauty and awesomeness of our Universe. If you feel like it, please share video clips and photos (or nice animations) of space and objects in space in this thread. Your posts, clips and photos may by all means include scientific information; that does not make it less beautiful to me (n.b. the posts must of course comply with the PF guidelines, i.e. regarding science, only mainstream science is allowed, fringe/pseudoscience is not allowed). n.b. I start this...
Back
Top