wrote:
On 3 Sep, 18:42, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:
"jeff" wrote in message

. ..

and instrument:
http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ei...ao2_about.html
I just don't get it.

Hi Wilbur,
I like you. So, I will help you to avoid the extreme embarrassement
that you must feel after displaying the enormous ignorance
which your post exposed.

Why would anybody waste their time and money futzing
around with tiny little amateur lenses taking tiny little amateur deep space
photographs when there are millions of REAL large and detailed photos
available from Hubble alone?

Jeff's photo showed data acquired in x-rays. There is *NO* lens
involved in x-ray photography. Please do not feel stupid
because you did not know this. I'm sure that you are not
alone.


No lens, but like most telescopes it had a mirror, actually I think it
was two sets of three mirrors. They were concentric rings of quartz,
and the x-rays reflected at a very shallow angle to achieve a resolution
of about 1 arc-second.

The first x-ray telescopes I worked on ('75) used bizarre arrangements
of wire or slats that rotated to form an image. Lo res and not very
sensitive, but they were able to locate a few hundred sources. The
research that went into them was use to build the early CT Scanners,
proving that astrophysics does have direct benefits.