Our Lucky Stars

i-699589410a84c69b155cc7ea7bac4d76-luckystars.jpg

A team of astronomers from Cambridge and Caltech recently used a ground-based camera called "Lucky" to take stellar pictures that are much sharper than those taken by the beloved Hubble telescope—and cost 50,000 times less.

The photos above show the famous Cat's Eye Nebula (NGC 6543), 3,000 light-years away from us, as taken by a standard 200-inch telescope (left) and with the Lucky Camera attached to the same telescope (right). The Lucky camera can zoom in on the kots, jets and arcs that make up the Nebula's core.

Ground-based telescopes are usually less than ideal for space photos because the Earth's atmosphere gets in the way, blurring the images. But the Lucky technology—around since the '70s—overcomes this by taking images of the same stars at a super-high rate: 20 frames per second. Because the Earth's atmosphere constantly fluctuates, some of these shots blur less than others. The team used computers to merge the best images into the final product.

Check out the researchers' website for photos of shiny Lucky itself and to read more about its latest gazings.

Images Credit: Caltech's Palomar Observatory/University of Cambridge Institute of Astronomy

Tags

More like this

"The Earth's atmosphere is an imperfect window on the universe... atmospheric turbulence blurs the images of celestial objects, even when they are viewed through the most powerful ground-based telescopes." -John Bahcall There's no doubt that the Hubble Space Telescope has given us some of the most…
What's the application? Producing artificial "stars" to serve as a reference for telescopes using adaptive optics to correct for atmospheric turbulence. This allows ground-based telescopes to produce images that are as good as those from the Hubble Space Telescope. What problem(s) is it the…
"Just as I did some 25 years ago, my graduate student is right now using one of the NOAO telescopes, learning how to do observational astronomy... Closing down one of these observatories in the next few years would likely lead to long term problems with producing adequately prepared astronomers in…
A Pelican in the Swan The Pelican Nebula lies about 2,000 light-years away in the high flying constellation Cygnus, the Swan. Also known as IC 5070, this cosmic pelican is appropriately found just off the "east coast" of the North America Nebula (NGC 7000), another surprisingly familiar looking…

It seems that at that frame rate, there won't be much light collected from faint objects, and averaging such low signal-to-noise results in just more noise. So the Hubble should still win with faint objects that require very long exposures.

It's cheaper that Hubble, yes, but better? As Thad pointed out, there's a lot of fine print behind the Lucky headline. Future funding for both space- and ground-based telescopes depends on policymakers having an accurate understanding of the complementary functions of each, and it's irresponsible to spin Lucky this way. Lucky is a real technological innovation--but it won't be replacing Hubble any time soon.