CHAPTER XII.

THE MODERN TELESCOPE.

The gain to astronomy from the discovery of the telescope has been twofold. We have first, the gain to physical astronomy from the magnification of objects, and secondly, the gain to astronomy of position from the magnification, so to speak, of _space_, which enables minute portions of it to be most accurately quantified.

Looking back, nothing is more curious in the history of astronomy than the rooted objection which Hevel and others showed to apply the telescope to the pointers and pinnules of the instruments used in their day; but doubtless we must look for the explanation of this not only in the accuracy to which observers had attained by the old method, but in the rude nature of the telescope itself in the early times, before the introduction of the micrometer. We shall show in a future chapter how the modern accuracy has step by step been arrived at; in the present one we have to see what the telescope does for us in the domain of that grand physical astronomy which deals with the number and appearances of the various bodies which people space.

Let us, to begin with, try to see how the telescope helps us in the matter of observations of the sun. The sun is about ninety millions of miles away; suppose, therefore, by means of a telescope reflecting or refracting, whichever we like, we use an eyepiece which will magnify say 900 times, we obviously bring the sun within 100,000 miles of us; that is to say, by means of this telescope we can observe the sun with the naked eye as if it were within 100,000 miles of us. One may say, this is something, but not much; it is only about half as far as the moon is from us. But when we recollect the enormous size of the sun, and that if the centre of the sun occupied the centre of our earth the circumference of the sun would extend considerably beyond the orbit of the moon, then one must acknowledge we have done something to bring the sun within half the distance of the moon. Suppose for looking at the moon we use on a telescope a power of 1,000, that is a power which magnifies a thousand times, we shall bring the moon within 240 miles of us, and we shall be able to see the moon with a telescope of that magnifying power pretty much as if the moon were situated somewhere in Lancashire—Lancaster being about 240 miles from London.

It might appear at first sight possible in the case of all bodies to magnify the image formed by the object-glass to an unlimited extent by using a sufficiently powerful eyepiece. This, however, is not the case, for as an object is magnified it is spread over a larger portion of the retina than before; the brightness, therefore, becomes diminished as the area increases, and this takes place at a rate equal to the square of the increase in diameter. If, therefore, we require an object to be largely magnified we must produce an image sufficiently bright to bear such magnification; this means that we must use an object-glass or speculum of large diameter. Again, in observing a very faint object, such as a nebula or comet, we cannot, by decreasing the power of the eyepiece, increase the brightness to an unlimited extent, for as the power decreases, the focal length of the eyepiece also increases, and the eyepiece has to be larger, the emergent pencil is then larger than the pupil of the eye, and consequently a portion of the rays of the cone from each point of the object is wasted.

We get an immense gain to physical astronomy by the revelations of the fainter objects which, without the telescope, would have remained invisible to us; but, as we know, as each large telescope has exceeded preceding ones in illuminating power, the former bounds of the visible creation have been gradually extended, though even now we cannot be said to have got beyond certain small limits, for there are others beyond the region which the most powerful telescope reveals to us; though we have got only into the surface we have increased the 3,000 or 6,000 stars visible to the naked eye to something like twenty millions. This space-penetrating power of the telescope, as it is called, depends on the principle that whenever the image formed on the retina is less than sufficient to appear of an appreciable size the light is apparently spread out by a purely physiological action until the image, say of a star, appears of an appreciable diameter, and the effect on the retina of such small points of light is simply proportionate to the amount of light received, whether the eye be assisted by the telescope or not; the stars always, except when sufficiently bright to form diffraction rings, appearing of the same size. It, therefore, happens that as the apertures of telescopes increase, and with them the amount of light, (the eyepieces being sufficiently powerful to cause all the light to enter the eye,) smaller and smaller stars become visible, while the larger stars appear to get brighter and brighter without increasing in size, the image of the brightest star with the highest power, if we neglect rays and diffraction rings, being really much smaller than the apparent size due to physiological effects, and of this latter size every star must appear.

The accompanying woodcuts of a region in the constellation of Gemini as seen with the naked eye and with a powerful telescope will give a better idea than mere language can do of the effect of this so-called space-penetrating power.

With nebulæ and comets matters are different, for these, even with small telescopes and low powers, often occupy an appreciable space on the retina. On increasing the aperture we must also increase the power of the eyepiece, in order that the more divergent cones of light from each point of the image shall enter the pupil, and therefore increase the area on the retina, over which the increased amount of light, due to greater aperture, is spread; the brightness therefore is not increased, unless indeed we were at the first using an unnecessary high power. On the other hand, if we lengthen the focus of the object-glass, and increase its aperture, the divergence of the cones of light is not increased and the eyepiece need not be altered, but the image at the focus of the object-glass is increased in size by the increase of focal length, and the image on the retina also increases as in the last case. We may, therefore conclude that no comet or nebula of appreciable diameter, as seen through a telescope having an eyepiece of just such a focal length as to admit all the rays to the eye, can be made brighter by any increase of power, although it may easily be made to appear larger.

Very beautiful drawings of the nebula of Orion and of other nebulæ, as seen by Lord Rosse in his six-foot reflector, and by the American astronomers with their twenty-six inch refractor, have been given to the world.

The magnificent nebula of Orion is scarcely visible to the naked eye; one can just see it glimmering on a fine night; but when a powerful telescope is used, it is by far the most glorious object of its class in the Northern hemisphere, and surpassed only by that surrounding the variable star η Argûs in the Southern. And although, of course, the beauty and vastness of this stupendous and remote object increase with the increased power of the instrument brought to bear upon it, a large aperture is not needed to render it a most impressive and awe-inspiring object to the beholder. In an ordinary 5-foot achromatic, many of its details are to be seen under favourable atmospheric conditions.

Those who are desirous of studying its appearance, as seen in the most powerful telescopes, are referred to the plate in Sir John Herschel’s “Results of Astronomical Observations at the Cape of Good Hope,” in which all its features are admirably delineated, and the positions of 150 stars which surround θ in the area occupied by the Nebula, laid down. In Fig. 82 it is represented in great detail, as seen with the included small stars, all of which have been mapped with reference to their positions and brightness. This then comes from that power of the telescope which simply makes it a sort of large eye. We may measure the illuminating power of the telescope by a reference to the size of our own eye. If one takes the pupil of an ordinary eye to be something like the fifth of an inch in diameter, which in some cases is an extreme estimate, we shall find that its area would be roughly about one-thirtieth part of an inch. If we take Lord Rosse’s speculum of six feet in diameter the area will be something like 4,000 inches: and if we multiply the two together we shall find, if we lose no light, we should get 120,000 times more light from Lord Rosse’s telescope than we do from our unaided eye, everything supposed perfect.

Let us consider for a moment what this means; let us take a case in point. Suppose that owing to imperfections in reflection and other matters two-thirds of the light is lost so that the eye receives 40,000 times the amount given by the unaided vision, then a sixth magnitude star—a star just visible to the naked eye—would have 40,000 times more light, and it might be removed to a distance 200 times as great as it at present is and still be visible in the field of the telescope, just as it at present is to the unaided eye. Can we judge how far off the stars are that are only just visible with Lord Rosse’s instrument? Light travels at the rate of 185,000 miles a second, and from the nearest star it takes some 3½ years for light to reach us, and we shall be within bounds when we say that it will take light 300 years to reach us from many a sixth magnitude star.

But we may remove this star 200 times further away and yet see it with the telescope, so that we can probably see stars so far off that light takes 60,000 years to reach us, and when we gaze at the heavens at night we are viewing the stars not as they are at that moment, but as they were years or even hundreds of years ago, and when we call to our assistance the telescope the years become thousands and tens of thousands—expressed in miles these distances become too great for the imagination to grasp; yet we actually look into this vast abyss of space and see the laws of gravitation holding good there, and calculate the orbit of one star about another.

Whether the telescope be of the first or last order of excellence, its light-grasping powers will be practically the same; there is therefore a great distinction to be drawn between the illuminating and defining power. The former, as we have seen, depends upon size (and subsidiarily upon polish), the latter depends upon the accuracy of the curvature of the surface.

If the defining power be not good, even if the air be perfect, each increase of the magnifying power so brings out the defects of the image, that at last no details at all are visible, all outlines are blurred, or stellar character is lost.

The testing of a glass therefore refers to two different qualities which it should possess. Its quality as to material and the fineness of its polish should be such that the maximum of light shall be transmitted. Its quality, as to the curves, should be such that the rays passing through every part of its area shall converge absolutely to the same point, with a chromatic aberration not absolutely _nil_, but sufficient to surround objects with a faint violet light.

In close double stars therefore, or in the more minute markings of the sun, moon, or planets, we have tests of its defining power; and if this is equally good in the instruments examined, the revelations of telescopes as they increase in power are of the most amazing kind.

A 3¾-inch suffices to show Saturn with all the detail shown in Fig. 83, while Fig. 84 shows us the further minute structure of the rings which comes out when the planet is observed with an aperture of 26 inches.

In the matter of double stars, a telescope of 2 inches aperture, with powers varying from 60 to 100, should show the following stars double:—

Polaris. α Piscium. μ Draconis. γ Arietis. ρ Herculis. ζ Ursæ Majoris. α Geminorum. γ Leonis. ξ Cassiopeæ.

A 4-inch aperture, powers 80-120, reveals the duplicity of—

β Orionis. ε Hydræ. ε Boötis. ι Leonis. α Lyræ. ξ Ursæ Majoris. γ Ceti. δ Geminorum. σ Cassiopeæ. ε Draconis.

A 6-inch, powers 240-300—

ε Arietis. 32 Orionis. λ Ophiuchi. 20 Draconis. κ Geminorum. ι Equulei. ξ Herculis. ξ Boötis.

An 8-inch—

δ Cygni. γ^2 Andromedæ. Sirius. 19 Draconis. μ^2 Herculis. μ^2 Boötis.

The “spurious disk,” which a fixed star presents, as seen in the telescope, is an effect which results from the passage of the light through the object-glass; and it is this appearance which necessitates the use of the largest apertures in the observation of close double stars, as the size of the star’s disk varies, roughly speaking, in the inverse ratio of the aperture of the object-glass.

In our climate, which is not so bad as some would make it, a 6- to an 8-inch glass is doubtless the size which will be found the most constantly useful; a larger aperture being frequently not only useless, but hurtful. Still, 4 or 3¾ inches are apertures by all means to be encouraged; and by object-glasses of these sizes, made of course by the _best_ makers, views of the sun, moon, planets, and double stars may be obtained, sufficiently striking to set many seriously to work as amateur observers, and with a prospect of securing good, useful results.

Observations should always be commenced with the lowest power, gradually increasing it until the limit of the aperture, or of the atmospheric condition at the time, is reached. The former may be taken as equal to the number of hundredths of inches which the diameter of the object-glass contains. Thus, a 3¾-inch object-glass, if really good, should bear a power of 375 on double stars where light is no object; the planets, the Moon, &c., will be best observed with a much lower power. (See chapter on eyepieces.)

Care should be taken that the object-glass is properly adjusted. And we may here repeat that this may be done by observing the image of a large star out of focus. If the light be not equally distributed over the image, or the diffraction rings are not circular, the screws of the cell should be carefully loosened, and that part of the cell towards which the rings are thrown very gently tapped with wood, to force it towards the eyepiece, or the same purpose may be effected by means of the setscrews always present on large telescopes, until perfectly equal illumination is arrived at. This, however, should only be done in extreme cases; it is here especially desirable that we should let well alone.

The convenient altitude at which Orion culminates in these latitudes renders it particularly eligible for observation; and during the first months of the year our readers who would test their telescopes will do well not to lose the opportunity of trying the progressively difficult tests, both of illuminating and separating power, afforded by its various double and multiple systems, which are collected together in such a circumscribed region of the heavens that no extensive movement of their instruments—an important point in extreme cases—will be necessary.

Beginning with δ, the upper of the three stars which form the belt, the two components will be visible in almost any instrument which may be used for seeing them, being of the second and seventh magnitudes, and well separated. The companion to β, though of the same magnitude as that to δ, is much more difficult to observe, in consequence of its proximity to its bright primary, a first-magnitude star. Quaint old Kitchener, in his work on telescopes, mentions that the companion to Rigel has been seen with an object-glass of 2¾-inch aperture; it should be seen, at all events, with a 3-inch. ζ, the bottom star in the belt, is a capital test both of the dividing and space-penetrating power, as the two bright stars of the second and sixth magnitudes, of which the close double is composed, are exactly 2½˝ apart, while there is a companion to one of these components of the twelfth magnitude about ¾˝ distant. The small star below, which the late Admiral Smyth, in his charming book, “The Celestial Cycle,” mentions as a test for his object-glass of 5·9 inches in diameter, is now plainly to be seen in a 3¾. The colours of this pair have been variously stated; Struve dubbing the sixth magnitude—which, by the way, was missed altogether by Sir John Herschel—“olivaceasubrubicunda.”

That either our modern opticians contrive to admit more light by means of a superior polish imparted to the surfaces of the object-glass, or that the stars themselves are becoming brighter, is again evidenced by the point of light preceding one of the brightest stars in the system composing σ. This little twinkler is now always to be seen in a 3¾-inch, while the same authority we have before quoted—Admiral Smyth—speaks of it as being of very difficult vision in his instrument of much larger dimensions. In this very beautiful compound system there are no less than seven principal stars; and there are several other faint ones in the field. The upper very faint companion of λ is a delicate test for a 3¾-inch, which aperture, however, will readily divide the closer double of the principal stars which are about 5˝ apart.

These objects, with the exception of ζ, have been given more to test the space-penetrating than the dividing power; the telescope’s action on 52 Orionis will at once decide this latter quality. This star, just visible to the naked eye on a fine night, to the right of a line joining α and δ, is a very close double. The components, of the sixth magnitude, are separated by less than two seconds of arc, and the glass which shows a _good wide black division_ between them, free from all stray light, the spurious disk being perfectly round, _and not too large_, is by no means to be despised.

Then, again, we have a capital test object in the great nebula to which reference has already been made.

The star, to which we wish to call especial attention, is situate (see Fig. 82) opposite the bottom of the “fauces,” the name given to the indentation which gives rise to the appearance of the “fish’s mouth.” This object, which has been designated the “trapezium,” from the figure formed by its principal components, consists, in fact, of six stars, the fifth and sixth (γ´ and α´) being excessively faint. Our previous remark, relative to the increased brightness of the stars, applies here with great force; for the fifth escaped the gaze of the elder Herschel, armed with his powerful instruments, and was not discovered till 1826, by Struve, who, in his turn, missed the sixth star, which, as well as the fifth, has been seen in modern achromatics of such small size as to make all comparison with the giant telescopes used by these astronomers ridiculous.

Sir John Herschel has rated γ´ and α´ of the twelfth and fourteenth magnitudes—the latter requires a high power to observe it, by reason of its proximity to α. Both these stars have been seen in an ordinary 5-foot achromatic, by Cooke, of 3¾-inches aperture, a fact speaking volumes for the perfection of surface and polish attained by our modern opticians.

Let us now try to form some idea of the perfection of the modern object-glass. We will take a telescope of eight inches aperture, and ten feet focal length. Suppose we observe a close double star, such as ξ Ursæ, then the images of these two stars will be brought to a focus side by side, as we have previously explained, and the distance by which they will be separated will be dependent on the focal length of the object-glass. If we refer once again to Fig. 39 we shall see that this distance depends on the focal length and on the angle subtended by the images of the stars at the object-glass, which is of course the same as the angle made by the real stars at the object-glass, which is called their angular distance, or simply their distance, and is expressed in seconds of arc.

If we take a telescope ten feet long and look at two stars 1° apart, the angle will be 1°; and at ten feet off the distance between the two images will be something like 2⅒ inches, and therefore, if the angle be a second, the lines will be the 1/3600th part of that, or about 1/1700th part of an inch apart, so that in order to be able to see the double star ξ Ursæ, which is a 1˝ star, by means of an eight-inch object-glass, all the surfaces, the 50 square inches of surface, of both sides of the crown, and both sides of the flint glass, must be so absolutely true and accurate, that after the light is seized by the object-glass, we must have those two stars absolutely perfectly distinct at the distance of the seventeen hundredth part of an inch, and in order to see stars ½˝ apart, their images must be distinct at one-half of this distance or at 1/3400th part of an inch from each other.

We know that both with object-glasses and reflectors a certain amount of light is lost by imperfect reflection in the one case, and by reflection from the surfaces and absorption in the other; and in reflectors we have generally two reflections instead of one. This loss is to the distinct disadvantage of the reflector, and it has been stated by authorities on the subject, that, light for light, if we use a reflector, we must make the aperture twice as large as that of a refractor in order to make up for the loss of light due to reflection. But Dr. Robinson thinks that this is an extreme estimate; and with reference to the four-foot reflector which has recently been constructed, and of which mention has already been made, he considers that a refractor of 33·73 inches aperture would be probably something like its equivalent if the glass were perfectly transparent, which is not the case, and when the thickness of such a lens came to be considered, it was calculated that instead of its being equal to the four-foot reflector, it would only be equal to one of 37¼ of similar construction, and that even a refractor of 48 inches aperture, if such could be made, would not come up to the same sized reflector just referred to in illuminating power.

On the assumption, therefore, that no light is lost in transmission through the object-glass, Dr. Robinson estimates that the apertures of a refractor and a reflector of the Newtonian construction must bear the relation to each other of 1 to 1·42. In small refractors the light absorbed by the glass is small, and therefore this ratio holds approximately good, but we see from the example just quoted how more nearly equal the ratio becomes on an increase of aperture, until at a certain limit the refractor, aperture for aperture, is surpassed by its rival, supposing Dr. Robertson’s estimate to be correct. But with specula of silvered glass the reflective power is much higher than that of speculum metal; the silvered glass, being estimated to reflect about 90 per cent.[8] of the incident light, while speculum metal is estimated to reflect about 63 per cent.; but be these figures correct or not, the silvered surface has undoubtedly the greater reflective power; and, according to Sir J. Herschel, a reflector of the Newtonian construction utilizes about seven-eighths of the light that a refractor would do.

Speaking generally, refractors of sizes usually obtainable are preferable to reflectors of equal and even greater aperture for ordinary work; as in addition to the want of illuminating power of reflectors, the absence of rigidity of the mounting of the speculum militates against its comfort of manipulation.

In treating of the question of the future of the telescope, we are liable to encroach on the domain of opinion and go beyond the facts vouched for by evidence, but there are certain guiding principles which are well worthy of discussion. There are the two classes of telescopes, the refractors and reflectors, each possessing advantages over the other. We may set out with observing that the light-grasping power of the reflector varies as the square of the aperture multiplied by a certain fraction representing the proportion of the amount of reflected light to that of the total incident rays. On the other hand, the power of the refractor varies as the square of the aperture multiplied by a certain fraction representing the proportion of transmitted light to that of the total incident rays. Now in the case of the reflector the reflecting power of each unit of surface is constant whatever be the size of the mirror, but in that of the refractor the transmitting power decreases with the thickness of the glass, rendered requisite by increased size, although for small apertures the transmitting power of the refractor is greater than the reflecting power of the reflector; still it is obvious that on increasing the size a stage must be at last reached when the two rivals become equal to each other. This limit has been estimated by Dr. Robinson to be 35·435 inches, a size not yet reached by our opticians by some 10 inches, but object-glasses are increasing inch by inch, and it would be rash to say that this size cannot be reached within perhaps the lifetime of our present workers, but up to the present limit of size produced, refractors have the advantage in light-grasping power.

The next point worthy of attention is the question of permanence of optical qualities. Here the refractor undoubtedly has the advantage. It is true that the flint glass of some objectives gets attacked by a sort of tarnish, still, that is not the case generally, while, on the other hand, metallic mirrors often become considerably tarnished after a few years of use, and although repolishing is not a matter of any great difficulty in the hands of the maker, still it is a serious drawback to be obliged to return mirrors every few years to be repolished. There are, however, some exceptions to this, for there are many small mirrors in existence whose polish is good after many years of continuous use, just as on the other hand there are many object-glasses whose polish has suffered in a few years, but these are exceptions to the rule. The same remarks apply to the silvered glass reflectors, for although the silvering of small mirrors is not a difficult process, the matter becomes exceedingly difficult with large surfaces, and indeed at present large discs of glass, say of four or six feet diameter, cannot be produced. If, however, a process should be discovered of manufacturing these discs satisfactorily and of silvering them, there are objections to them on the grounds of the bad conductivity of glass, whereby changes of temperature alter the curvature to a fatal extent, and there is also a great tendency for dew to be deposited on the surface.

The next point to be considered is the general suitability for observatory work, and this depends upon the quality of the work required, whether for measuring positions, as in the case of the transit instrument, where permanency of mounting is of great importance, or for physical astronomy, when a steady image for a time is only required. For the first purpose the refractor has decidedly the advantage, as the object-glass can be fixed very nearly immovably in its cell, whereas its rival must of necessity, at least with present appliances, have a small, yet in comparison considerable, motion.

Again, the refractor has the advantage over the other in not being of so large aperture when of equal power, so that the disturbing effects of air currents is considerably less, but the method of making the tubes of open lattice-work materially reduces this objection.

We have mentioned the difficulty of mounting mirrors, especially of large size, but this has now been got over very perfectly. This difficulty does not occur in the mounting of object-glasses of sizes at present in use, but when we come to deal with lenses of some 30 inches diameter, the present simple method will in all probability be found insufficient.

On the other hand the cost of mirrors is of course much less than that of object-glasses, a matter of considerable importance. The late M. Merz, on being asked as to price of a 30-inch object-glass, estimated that, if it were possible to make it, its cost would be between £8,500 and £9,000.

There is one great point of advantage in the use of the reflector in physical work,—the absence of secondary spectrum; but it is by no means certain that stellar photography will not be more easy with refractors.

Footnote 8:

Sir John Herschel, in his work on the telescope, gives the following table of reflective powers:—

After transmission through one surface of glass not in contact 0·957 with any other surface

After transmission through one common surface of two glasses 1·000 cemented together

After reflection on polished speculum metal at a perpendicular 0·632 incidence

After reflection on polished speculum metal at 45° obliquity 0·690

After reflection on pure polished silver at a perpendicular 0·905 incidence

After reflection on pure polished silver at 45° obliquity 0·910

After reflection on glass (external) at a perpendicular 0·043 incidence

The effective light in reflectors (irrespective of the eyepieces) is as follows:—

Herschelian (Lord Rosse’s speculum metal) A. 0·632 Newtonian (both mirrors ditto) B. 0·436 Newtonian (small mirror or glass prism) C. 0·632 Gregorian or Cassegrainian D. 0·399

{ A. 0·905 The same telescopes, all the metallic { B. 0·824 reflections being from pure silver { C. 0·905 { D. 0·819