<blockquote>
<p>How much are the benefits of installing a telescope in orbit?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In the past the benefits have been <em>astronomical!</em></p>
<p>Sorry, I couldn't help it.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>...our atmosphere acts like a protective blanket letting only some light through while blocking others...</p>
</blockquote>
<p>For visible light astronomy, much of the light above the Earth reaches the ground, but <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_seeing" rel="nofollow noreferrer">astronomical seeing</a> has limited resolution. Bigger telescopes could collect more light, but they couldn't resolve much better than a 15 cm diameter aperture.</p>
<p>So the 2.4 meter diameter <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Space_Telescope" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Hubble Space Telescope</a> delivered by far the highest resolution visible light images ever. Putting that telescope in space is one of the single biggest game changers in visible light Astronomy ever, matched only by the invention of the telescope, okay and photographic plates, and digital imaging...</p>
<blockquote>
<p>How clear, detailed and helpful-to-study are the pictures compared to pictures from ground based telescopes?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Then <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speckle_imaging" rel="nofollow noreferrer">speckle interferometry</a> and especially <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_optics" rel="nofollow noreferrer">adaptive optics</a> were developed that could <em>mostly</em> overcome the atmospheric effects. But adaptive optics is complicated and expensive and needs computers, calibration and often artificial guide stars to work. Until recently it was only working in the near infrared, though it is pushing into the visible spectrum now.</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/14795/7982">Why aren&#39;t ground-based observatories using adaptive optics for visible wavelengths?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/15006/7982">Will the E-ELT use Adaptive Optics at visible wavelengths?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/44503/7982">What (if any) capabilities of Hubble are unique and irreplaceable? What can it do that can&#39;t be done by any other ground or space-based telescope?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/44526/7982">Do point spread functions from large single telescopes using adaptive optics still look like Airy functions for narrow-band filters?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/44526/7982">Do point spread functions from large single telescopes using adaptive optics still look like Airy functions for narrow-band filters?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/26989/7982">How did VLT&#39;s adaptive optics obtain this resolution for Neptune? Is it really working in visible wavelengths?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/34238/7982">Number of actuators in adaptive optics</a></li>
</ul>
<p>As <a href="https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/a/45415/7982">@RobJeffries points out</a> the Hubble also covers some ultraviolet wavelengths that are not accessible from Earth's surface due to atmospheric absorption.</p>
<p>There are many other electromagnetic bands for which we must go to space to receive signals. These include UV through X-rays and most gamma rays. The atmosphere is too absorbing to to receive this radiation on the surface.</p>
<p>For the highest energy <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma-ray_astronomy#Detector_technology" rel="nofollow noreferrer">gamma rays</a> however, astronomers use the Earth's atmosphere to convert the gamma rays to a shower of lower energy photons and particles then use a big array of detectors to record the shower and time the individual particles to reconstruct the direction and energy of the gamma ray.</p>
<p>For charged particle or <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic-ray_observatory" rel="nofollow noreferrer">cosmic ray astronomy</a> (e.g. protons and heavier nuclei) you also must go above the atmosphere to directly measure the particles (low energy) but you can also use the Earth's atmosphere to produce a shower.</p>
<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/cxK55.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/cxK55.png" alt="measuring cosmic ray and gamma ray showers" /></a></p>
<blockquote>
<p>Measuring cosmic ray and gamma ray showers <a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Shower_detection.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer">source</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>For low energy protons and nuclear cosmic rays, there is the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_Magnetic_Spectrometer" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer</a> aboard the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Space_Station" rel="nofollow noreferrer">International Space Station</a>.</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://space.stackexchange.com/q/43930/12102">At what wavelengths and for what particle types have astronomical objects been imaged or at least directionally resolved from the ISS?</a></li>
</ul>
<p>At the other end of the electromagnetic spectrum, starting below 20 or 30 MHz the Earth's ionosphere becomes <em>reflective</em> to low frequencies. This is why short wave radio listeners can hear signals from the other side of the Earth. For these lower frequencies radio astronomers must also get above Earth's atmosphere.</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/34412/7982">What can be learned from low frequency radio astronomy available outside of Earth&#39;s ionosphere?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/43560/7982">Requirements to resolve position of Jovian Whistlers up to magnitude of Red Spot with amateur radio equipment?</a></li>
</ul>
<p>Another advantage of going to space is <em>distance!</em></p>
<p>VLBI or <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Very-long-baseline_interferometry" rel="nofollow noreferrer">very long baseline interferometry</a> is the use of radio telescopes separated by very large distances to make a synthetic aperture for very high resolution. Currently the most famous case is the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_Horizon_Telescope" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Event Horizon Telescope</a> which is &quot;as big as the Earth&quot; and firmly on the ground, but VLBI from space offers even larger baselines.</p>
<ul>
<li><p><a href="https://space.stackexchange.com/q/35642/12102">Has VLBI been done using any space-based receivers besides Spektr-R?</a></p>
</li>
<li><p><a href="https://space.stackexchange.com/q/46490/12102">What's the status and timeline for Millimetron? (Russia's 10m Deployable Antenna cooled to 6 K Earth-Space VLBI)</a></p>
</li>
<li><p><a href="https://space.stackexchange.com/q/54696/12102">Following KRT-10 aboard Salyut-6, have there been any other radio astronomy observations from a space station or crewed capsule?</a></p>
</li>
<li><p><a href="https://space.stackexchange.com/q/33564/12102">What are Spectr-R's major contributions to radio astronomy <strong>that could not have been done from Earth?</strong></a></p>
</li>
<li><p><a href="https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/43532/7982">Why is space-based VLBI scattering sub-structure &quot;Hopefully, a new promising tool to reconstruct the true image of observed background target(s)&quot;?</a></p>
</li>
<li><p><a href="https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/43543/7982">Did the Spectr-R space-based radio telescope use on-board accelerometer to measure non-gravitational acceleration for baseline correction?</a></p>
</li>
<li><p><a href="https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/41209/7982">Current topics on Radio Astronomy and looking for advice</a></p>
</li>
<li><p><a href="https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/30251/7982">Examples of radio correlations over times much longer than interferometric baselines?</a></p>
</li>
</ul>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-09-24T05:47:19.440Z
This is more than my answer, thanks.
Was'
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-09-24T05:51:49.910Z
@WalidSiddik Thanks! it's a lot for sure, but mostly summarizing what's already been written about here. If there's anything specific you feel is still unanswered please feel fee to ask for clarification or post a new question.
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-09-24T00:59:59.280Z
2021-09-24T00:59:59.280Z
uhoh
<p>Space telescopes are expensive. However they have advantages</p>
<ul>
<li>&quot;Permanent&quot; night time, often they use a solar shade to stay dark to observe ambient light</li>
<li>Also the biggest advantage is no atmosphere means no atmospheric distortion</li>
</ul>
<p>But the benefits come at a price. A amateur astronomer can build a telescope for money, homemade setups in the 10-100 thousand dollar range and laboratory grade ones cost millions or billions.</p>
<p>The Hubble Telescope cost 1.5 Billion dollars in 1990 dollars (3.14 in 2021 $).
The replacement James Webb is now pushing 11 billion!</p>
<p>The new &quot;Thirty Meter telescope&quot; will cost only  $1 Billion.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-09-24T07:12:34.700Z
2021-09-24T07:12:34.700Z
LazyReader
<p>I know that our atmosphere acts like a protective blanket letting only some light through while blocking others. We send telescopes to orbit to get a clearer view of space objects.</p>
<p>I want to know that how much is this benefit. How clear, detailed and helpful-to-study are the pictures compared to pictures from ground based telescopes?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-09-23T15:19:37.513Z
@fasterthanlight your edit changed the question.
Was'
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-09-23T15:20:19.663Z
Whoops, that was too much of an edit. Sorry!
WarpPrime
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-09-23T19:12:14.170Z
Are you most interested in the benefits for optical observations (sort-of implied by use of "pictures") vs being able to observe in that part of the electromagnetic spectrum at all ? For example, UV and X-ray astronomy is only possible from orbit as the atmosphere isn't transparent at those wavelengths...
astrosnapper
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-09-23T21:49:43.427Z
How do you define benefits? Achievable image resolution? Up-time?
samcarter_is_at_topanswers.xyz
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-09-24T00:23:22.680Z
@samcarter_is_at_topanswers.xyz "How do you define benefits?" I think that's hoop to jump through too far. Why should the OP, a new user asking a question about a topic they are just starting to learn about have to stop and pre-constrain what "benefits" means and which kinds are allowed, without yet knowing which answers that might exclude. Why not just let answers outline the main benefits for astronomy?
uhoh
<space-telescope>
How much are the benefits of installing a telescope in orbit?
Was'
# How much are the benefits of installing a telescope in orbit?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2021-09-23)

I know that our atmosphere acts like a protective blanket letting only some light through while blocking others. We send telescopes to orbit to get a clearer view of space objects.

I want to know that how much is this benefit. How clear, detailed and helpful-to-study are the pictures compared to pictures from ground based telescopes?

**Tags:** space-telescope

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: @fasterthanlight your edit changed the question.  
> **username_1**: Whoops, that was too much of an edit. Sorry!  
> **username_2**: Are you most interested in the benefits for optical observations (sort-of implied by use of "pictures") vs being able to observe in that part of the electromagnetic spectrum at all ? For example, UV and X-ray astronomy is only possible from orbit as the atmosphere isn't transparent at those wavelengths...  
> **username_3**: How do you define benefits? Achievable image resolution? Up-time?  
> **username_4**: @username_3 "How do you define benefits?" I think that's hoop to jump through too far. Why should the OP, a new user asking a question about a topic they are just starting to learn about have to stop and pre-constrain what "benefits" means and which kinds are allowed, without yet knowing which answers that might exclude. Why not just let answers outline the main benefits for astronomy?  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_4 on 2021-09-24. Score: 3 | Accepted answer

> How much are the benefits of installing a telescope in orbit?

In the past the benefits have been *astronomical!*

Sorry, I couldn't help it.

> ...our atmosphere acts like a protective blanket letting only some light through while blocking others...

For visible light astronomy, much of the light above the Earth reaches the ground, but [astronomical seeing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_seeing) has limited resolution. Bigger telescopes could collect more light, but they couldn't resolve much better than a 15 cm diameter aperture.

So the 2.4 meter diameter [Hubble Space Telescope](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Space_Telescope) delivered by far the highest resolution visible light images ever. Putting that telescope in space is one of the single biggest game changers in visible light Astronomy ever, matched only by the invention of the telescope, okay and photographic plates, and digital imaging...

> How clear, detailed and helpful-to-study are the pictures compared to pictures from ground based telescopes?

Then [speckle interferometry](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speckle_imaging) and especially [adaptive optics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_optics) were developed that could *mostly* overcome the atmospheric effects. But adaptive optics is complicated and expensive and needs computers, calibration and often artificial guide stars to work. Until recently it was only working in the near infrared, though it is pushing into the visible spectrum now.

* [Why aren't ground-based observatories using adaptive optics for visible wavelengths?](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/14795/7982)
* [Will the E-ELT use Adaptive Optics at visible wavelengths?](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/15006/7982)
* [What (if any) capabilities of Hubble are unique and irreplaceable? What can it do that can't be done by any other ground or space-based telescope?](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/44503/7982)
* [Do point spread functions from large single telescopes using adaptive optics still look like Airy functions for narrow-band filters?](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/44526/7982)
* [Do point spread functions from large single telescopes using adaptive optics still look like Airy functions for narrow-band filters?](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/44526/7982)
* [How did VLT's adaptive optics obtain this resolution for Neptune? Is it really working in visible wavelengths?](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/26989/7982)
* [Number of actuators in adaptive optics](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/34238/7982)

As [@RobJeffries points out](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/a/45415/7982) the Hubble also covers some ultraviolet wavelengths that are not accessible from Earth's surface due to atmospheric absorption.

There are many other electromagnetic bands for which we must go to space to receive signals. These include UV through X-rays and most gamma rays. The atmosphere is too absorbing to to receive this radiation on the surface.

For the highest energy [gamma rays](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma-ray_astronomy#Detector_technology) however, astronomers use the Earth's atmosphere to convert the gamma rays to a shower of lower energy photons and particles then use a big array of detectors to record the shower and time the individual particles to reconstruct the direction and energy of the gamma ray.

For charged particle or [cosmic ray astronomy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic-ray_observatory) (e.g. protons and heavier nuclei) you also must go above the atmosphere to directly measure the particles (low energy) but you can also use the Earth's atmosphere to produce a shower.

[![measuring cosmic ray and gamma ray showers](https://i.sstatic.net/cxK55.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/cxK55.png)

> Measuring cosmic ray and gamma ray showers [source](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Shower_detection.png)

For low energy protons and nuclear cosmic rays, there is the [Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_Magnetic_Spectrometer) aboard the [International Space Station](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Space_Station).

* [At what wavelengths and for what particle types have astronomical objects been imaged or at least directionally resolved from the ISS?](https://space.stackexchange.com/q/43930/12102)

At the other end of the electromagnetic spectrum, starting below 20 or 30 MHz the Earth's ionosphere becomes *reflective* to low frequencies. This is why short wave radio listeners can hear signals from the other side of the Earth. For these lower frequencies radio astronomers must also get above Earth's atmosphere.

* [What can be learned from low frequency radio astronomy available outside of Earth's ionosphere?](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/34412/7982)
* [Requirements to resolve position of Jovian Whistlers up to magnitude of Red Spot with amateur radio equipment?](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/43560/7982)

Another advantage of going to space is *distance!*

VLBI or [very long baseline interferometry](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Very-long-baseline_interferometry) is the use of radio telescopes separated by very large distances to make a synthetic aperture for very high resolution. Currently the most famous case is the [Event Horizon Telescope](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_Horizon_Telescope) which is "as big as the Earth" and firmly on the ground, but VLBI from space offers even larger baselines.

* [Has VLBI been done using any space-based receivers besides Spektr-R?](https://space.stackexchange.com/q/35642/12102)
* [What's the status and timeline for Millimetron? (Russia's 10m Deployable Antenna cooled to 6 K Earth-Space VLBI)](https://space.stackexchange.com/q/46490/12102)
* [Following KRT-10 aboard Salyut-6, have there been any other radio astronomy observations from a space station or crewed capsule?](https://space.stackexchange.com/q/54696/12102)
* [What are Spectr-R's major contributions to radio astronomy **that could not have been done from Earth?**](https://space.stackexchange.com/q/33564/12102)
* [Why is space-based VLBI scattering sub-structure "Hopefully, a new promising tool to reconstruct the true image of observed background target(s)"?](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/43532/7982)
* [Did the Spectr-R space-based radio telescope use on-board accelerometer to measure non-gravitational acceleration for baseline correction?](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/43543/7982)
* [Current topics on Radio Astronomy and looking for advice](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/41209/7982)
* [Examples of radio correlations over times much longer than interferometric baselines?](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/30251/7982)

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: This is more than my answer, thanks.  
> **username_4**: @WalidSiddik Thanks! it's a lot for sure, but mostly summarizing what's already been written about here. If there's anything specific you feel is still unanswered please feel fee to ask for clarification or post a new question.  

---

### Answer by username_5 on 2021-09-24. Score: 4

Space telescopes are expensive. However they have advantages

* "Permanent" night time, often they use a solar shade to stay dark to observe ambient light
* Also the biggest advantage is no atmosphere means no atmospheric distortion

But the benefits come at a price. A amateur astronomer can build a telescope for money, homemade setups in the 10-100 thousand dollar range and laboratory grade ones cost millions or billions.

The Hubble Telescope cost 1.5 Billion dollars in 1990 dollars (3.14 in 2021 $).
The replacement James Webb is now pushing 11 billion!

The new "Thirty Meter telescope" will cost only $1 Billion.


---

