Because probes can land on surfaces of planets and moons whereas a telescope can't.
The YOSCO - much better
I think that means Hubble Space Telescope. It was carried into space by the Space Shuttle in 1990.
Because you do not have to look through air, or the atmosphere.
That depends on what you are looking at. Reflectors are great for looking at galaxies close up and are usually cheaper. Refractors are better for seeing color in objects, however some brightness is lost as a result of the two-way mirror the light has to pass through.
if you mean a space probe to be anything launched into space for a scientific purpose then the chandra space telescope is providing an increadible amount of information on other galaxys and bodies including finding planets around diffrent stars
it can see further.
It is a telescope and not a probe, so it doesn't really visit any place.
It is a telescope placed in space (like the hubble telescope). When placed in space the telescope does not have to "look" through the earth's atmosphere so its images are not destorted.
it should be the hubble space telescope because it can see 10 times better than a normal telescope
It is a space artifficial satalite
space probe
the question is wrongfour prob is better than two prob method as it eliminates the effect of wire imbedance as well as contact resistance
space probe,etc.
They don't. All earth bound telescopes, optical or not, must deal with a number of issues. But what do you mean by "better"? A radio telescope is better suited to pick up radio waves than an optical telescope, but an optical telescope is better for visible light. They each serve their purpose better than the other.
A hubble space telescope is a space probe which is in orbit around the Earth so it's a satellite.
Since the Hubble Telescope is in space, it avoids interference from the atmosphere.
To observe a very faint star a large telescope is better than a small one.