Don't underestimate adaptive optics (AO). It can make a temendous improvement in the quality of immages. Here's a good demonstration of what it can do.
http://cfao.ucolick.org/~max/289C.old/
Space based telescopes have a few very good benefits. They don't have to deal with atmospheric distortions (twinkling), light pollution, or bad weather. This allows for very sharp images and operations nearly 24/7. On the other hand, they are extrodinarily expensive to build, and maintain. Hubble cost about 1.5 billion to make and launch as well as 250 million a year and has a relatively small 2.4 meter diameter mirror.
The article says a billion dollars could build a 30 meter diameter terestrial telescope with AO and run it for several years. It's imaging capability would be at least as good as the hubble on a good night, and it would gather about 12 times more light allowing astronomeres to view very faint objects.
A grate deal of astronomy is spectroscopy, which is usually far more tollerant of atmospheric distortions. Astronomers doing spectroscopy would almost universally preffer a large terrestrial telescope to a smaller space based one.
Possibly the greatest benefit of terrestrial tellescopes is that they are easy to repaire and upgrade. New instruments are developed for existing telescopes quite frequently. Deimos, and interferometry are a couple of the most recent developments for the 10m Keck telescopes.
http://www2.keck.hawaii.edu/
One last note, Hubble is not the only orbiting telescope, it just one of the 4 Greate Observatories that nasa has put into space.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't underestimate adaptive optics (AO). It can make a temendous improvement in the quality of immages. Here's a good demonstration of what it can do.
r oo m/cosmic_reference/greatobs.html
http://cfao.ucolick.org/~max/289C.old/
Space based telescopes have a few very good benefits. They don't have to deal with atmospheric distortions (twinkling), light pollution, or bad weather. This allows for very sharp images and operations nearly 24/7. On the other hand, they are extrodinarily expensive to build, and maintain. Hubble cost about 1.5 billion to make and launch as well as 250 million a year and has a relatively small 2.4 meter diameter mirror.
The article says a billion dollars could build a 30 meter diameter terestrial telescope with AO and run it for several years. It's imaging capability would be at least as good as the hubble on a good night, and it would gather about 12 times more light allowing astronomeres to view very faint objects.
A grate deal of astronomy is spectroscopy, which is usually far more tollerant of atmospheric distortions. Astronomers doing spectroscopy would almost universally preffer a large terrestrial telescope to a smaller space based one.
Possibly the greatest benefit of terrestrial tellescopes is that they are easy to repaire and upgrade. New instruments are developed for existing telescopes quite frequently. Deimos, and interferometry are a couple of the most recent developments for the 10m Keck telescopes.
http://www2.keck.hawaii.edu/
One last note, Hubble is not the only orbiting telescope, it just one of the 4 Greate Observatories that nasa has put into space.
http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/cosmic_class