<p>It's a large <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflecting_telescope" rel="nofollow noreferrer">reflecting telescope</a>, which is more effective than the more familiar lens telescope.    Also, in space, less stabilization is needed.  As long as the rotation is very close to zero, Hubble will stay pointed at the same tiny part of the sky, even as it orbits the Earth.  </p>

<p>It also avoids atmospheric distortion and light pollution because it's outside of the Earth's atmosphere.  In addition to that, a lot of the images taken by Hubble are timed exposure and digitally put together.   It'll looks at the same part of the sky for several hours to get the best possible image.   One of the more clever things they tried with Hubble is they pointed it at empty space, a region where they'd never seen anything and Hubble saw lots of galaxies - <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Deep_Field" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Hubble Deep Field</a>.</p>

<p>It's been in orbit since 1990, so, even if it takes several hours to take many of it's images, it's been operational for nearly a quarter of a million hours and counting.   That works out to a lot of images.   </p>

<p>I invite additions if I skipped over any key points.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-04-11T17:57:26.627Z
Should the telescope    continuously  rotate to point a target or a target region?  How this is achieved?
Alchimista
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-04-11T17:59:35.867Z
@Alchimista Continuous rotation is only needed on a planet that is rotating with respect to the sky. Since Hubble is in space, it doesn't have to worry about that.
Donald.McLean
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-04-11T18:03:49.210Z
But hubble does orbit Earth. Obviously it cannot pinpoint even a far fixed object if not adjusted. It makes an orbit in something about 90 minutes @Donald.McLean◆
Alchimista
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-04-11T18:18:25.980Z
Hubble orbits the Earth, Earth orbits the sun and the sun flies through the Milky way, but all of those motions work out to being largely irrelevant because the things it points at are so far away.   It's like driving in a car and looking at a mountain in the distance.   The mountain doesn't move much.   What matters is eliminating rotation.   Motion isn't a problem.
userLTK
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-04-11T17:08:50.397Z
2018-04-11T18:01:42.757Z
2018-04-11T18:01:42.757Z
userLTK
<p>Any idea about  the design of new better telescope having small length of diameter and having more resolving power.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-04-11T16:26:49.983Z
This is a very unclear question.
ProfRob
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-04-11T18:19:43.823Z
Please see [Hubble Deep Fields (spacetelescope.org)](http://www.spacetelescope.org/science/deep_fields/) and then edit your question to ask about specific topics needing more explanation.
Mike G
<telescope><space-telescope><newtonian-telescope>
About bigger resolution of telescopes
Saif KhAn
# About bigger resolution of telescopes

(Asked by: username_0 on 2018-04-11)

Any idea about the design of new better telescope having small length of diameter and having more resolving power.

**Tags:** telescope, space-telescope, newtonian-telescope

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: This is a very unclear question.  
> **username_2**: Please see [Hubble Deep Fields (spacetelescope.org)](http://www.spacetelescope.org/science/deep_fields/) and then edit your question to ask about specific topics needing more explanation.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2018-04-11. Score: 2

It's a large [reflecting telescope](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflecting_telescope), which is more effective than the more familiar lens telescope. Also, in space, less stabilization is needed. As long as the rotation is very close to zero, Hubble will stay pointed at the same tiny part of the sky, even as it orbits the Earth.

It also avoids atmospheric distortion and light pollution because it's outside of the Earth's atmosphere. In addition to that, a lot of the images taken by Hubble are timed exposure and digitally put together. It'll looks at the same part of the sky for several hours to get the best possible image. One of the more clever things they tried with Hubble is they pointed it at empty space, a region where they'd never seen anything and Hubble saw lots of galaxies - [Hubble Deep Field](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Deep_Field).

It's been in orbit since 1990, so, even if it takes several hours to take many of it's images, it's been operational for nearly a quarter of a million hours and counting. That works out to a lot of images.

I invite additions if I skipped over any key points.

> **Comments:**
> **username_4**: Should the telescope    continuously  rotate to point a target or a target region?  How this is achieved?  
> **username_5**: @username_4 Continuous rotation is only needed on a planet that is rotating with respect to the sky. Since Hubble is in space, it doesn't have to worry about that.  
> **username_4**: But hubble does orbit Earth. Obviously it cannot pinpoint even a far fixed object if not adjusted. It makes an orbit in something about 90 minutes @username_5◆  
> **username_3**: Hubble orbits the Earth, Earth orbits the sun and the sun flies through the Milky way, but all of those motions work out to being largely irrelevant because the things it points at are so far away.   It's like driving in a car and looking at a mountain in the distance.   The mountain doesn't move much.   What matters is eliminating rotation.   Motion isn't a problem.  

---

