"Look and think before opening the shutter. The heart and mind are the true lens of the camera." -Yousuf Karsh
Every time you shine light through a lens or reflect it off of a mirror, no matter how good it is, a portion of your light gets lost. Today’s largest, most powerful telescopes don’t even simply have a primary mirror, but secondary, tertiary, even quaternary or higher mirrors, and each of those reflections means less light to derive your data from. As CCDs and other digital devices are far more efficient than anything else, why couldn’t we simply replace the primary mirror with a CCD array to collect and measure the light?
It seems like a brilliant idea on the surface, and it would, in fact, gather significantly more light over the same collecting area. True, CCDs are more expensive, and there are technical challenges as far as applying filters and aligning the array properly. But there’s a fundamental problem if you don’t use a mirror or lens at all that may turn out to be a dealbreaker: CCDs without lenses or mirrors are incapable of measuring the direction light is coming from. A star or galaxy would appear equally on all portions of your CCD array at once, giving you just a bright, white-light image on every single CCD pixel.
It’s a remarkable idea, but there’s a good physical reason why it won’t pan out. For the foreseeable future, we still need optics to make a telescope!
- Log in to post comments
There are new tech I think you don't know about:
What about mixing incoming photons with laser light and recording the interference pattern? I mean, a whole-sky hologram.
"Placing a CCD array at the prime focus .... a technique that's been in use for well over 100 years.".
Perhaps a little less than that. The CCD was invented in 1969.