The objective lens of the REFRACTING telescope has to be a single gigantic piece of perfect glass.
The light being observed goes all the way through it, so any imperfection anywhere ... on either surface or
anywhere INSIDE it ... can affect the quality of the image. It also has to be totally stable and rigid, since
it can only be supported around the edge.
The mirror of the REFLECTING telescope only has to have a perfect SURFACE. The light hits the surface and
bounces off of it, so nobody cares what happens behind the surface. The mirror can be made of two-by-fours
or old crushed beer cans, and it can be supported by a solid rigging of carpenter's scaffold. Just as long as
it has a perfect front surface, we don't care.
For any large size you want for the objective element ... large enough to be attractive as a muscular
astronomical instrument ... it turns out to be much easier and cheaper to build a parabolic mirror of that
size than to build a perfect lens of the same size.
A reflecting telescope is much easier to build than a refracting telescope and consequently is much less expensive. A reflecting telescope uses a concave mirror to collect and concentrate starlight and send it to your eye, whereas a refracting telescope uses a series of lenses to do the same thing. Optical quality lenses are much more expensive (and heavier) than a well-made mirror. For a given amount of money, much larger reflecting telescope can be built than a refracting. For very large telescopes, the lenses needed would be enormous and next to impossible to make optically perfect. Consequently, most telescopes are reflecting.
There is distortion present in refracting telecopes that is not present in refracting telescopes. Namely, when light is refracted the shorter wavelengths are frefracted more than the longer ones. As a result, the different colors become separated, producing a rainbow effect. This becomes more pronounced at higher levels of magnification and there is a loss of detail in the image. This problem does not occur with reflecting telescopes, so they are able to obtain greater magnification with less distortion.
In general a reflector is shorter because it "folds" the light at least compared to a refractor of the same diameter. A Reflecting telescope is usually cheaper than a refracting scope of the same diameter.
Placing the telescopes in valleys is believed by some people to slightly reduce radio interference, but when radio telescopes are placed in valleys, it is usually because they are so large and the mountains work as supports, to reduce the cost.
Isaac Newton was credited for building the reflecting telescope in 1668. The reflecting telescope design is now very widely used by amateur and professional astronomers, because the cost per square inch of aperture (diameter, the light gathering power) is less than the other designs.
A reflecting telescope is much easier to build than a refracting telescope and consequently is much less expensive. A reflecting telescope uses a concave mirror to collect and concentrate starlight and send it to your eye, whereas a refracting telescope uses a series of lenses to do the same thing. Optical quality lenses are much more expensive (and heavier) than a well-made mirror. For a given amount of money, much larger reflecting telescope can be built than a refracting. For very large telescopes, the lenses needed would be enormous and next to impossible to make optically perfect. Consequently, most telescopes are reflecting.
There is distortion present in refracting telecopes that is not present in refracting telescopes. Namely, when light is refracted the shorter wavelengths are frefracted more than the longer ones. As a result, the different colors become separated, producing a rainbow effect. This becomes more pronounced at higher levels of magnification and there is a loss of detail in the image. This problem does not occur with reflecting telescopes, so they are able to obtain greater magnification with less distortion.
In principle, there's no reason why it couldn't be. But it would be prohibitively expensive, harder to operate mechanically, and tough to match the optical performance of an equal-sized reflector. That's why, bowing to pragmatism and practicality, there hasn't been a larger refractor built since the 40-incher at the Yerkes Observatory was completed in 1895.
In general a reflector is shorter because it "folds" the light at least compared to a refractor of the same diameter. A Reflecting telescope is usually cheaper than a refracting scope of the same diameter.
Placing the telescopes in valleys is believed by some people to slightly reduce radio interference, but when radio telescopes are placed in valleys, it is usually because they are so large and the mountains work as supports, to reduce the cost.
The reason people build larger Telescopes is because smaller telescopes have a smaller power to them, which results in less detail the farther they look. Larger telescopes use much larger lenses to see much farther and with much more clarity.
Optical telescopes are of two types: refractive and reflective. The refractive telescopes have chromatic aberration (huh? different colors are focused in different plains -- huh?). This is less of a problem with reflective telescopes.
The Earth's atmosphere provides interference to optical telescopes because the molecules in the air scatter and disrupt light. Many telescopes are placed at high elevation because the atmosphere is thinner and will cause less interference.
Isaac Newton was credited for building the reflecting telescope in 1668. The reflecting telescope design is now very widely used by amateur and professional astronomers, because the cost per square inch of aperture (diameter, the light gathering power) is less than the other designs.
The smoother the reflecting surface the less the micro-distortion of the reflected image.
In that case, there is less atmosphere to interfere with a clear view to the stars.
Because there is less atmospheric distortion at higher altitudes, and light pollution is avoided.