Because the Hubble Space Telescope was designed for periodic servicing, the items to be replaced are easily accessible. Ranging in size from a shoebox to a telephone booth, most of these items can be removed or installed using special wrenches and power tools.
Within some days of the launch of the telescope, the images taken showed that there was a serious problem with the optical system. Although the first images appeared to be sharper than images taken from ground but the telescope failed to achieve a final sharp focus. After analysis of the flawed or fuzzy images the cause of the problem was discovered that the primary mirror had been fixed in a wrong shape. The error was later fixed by a technique called deconvolution.
No. Hubble was designed to look at things much farther away. Any pictures it took of the moon would turn out as a blurry white mess. Even pictures of Jupiter are fuzzy. The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter will be able to, though, as soon as it refines its orbit and gets its high res camera turned on.
It cannot be seen with the eye but with a powerful telescope it appears as a tiny fuzzy pinpoint of light
No, but I've seen one. Their fuzzy, and quite large.
it have no remote and have knobs and it have fuzzy pictures
The name of a fuzzy yellow caterpillar with black spikes id the American Dager Moth. To find pictures of the American Dager Moth pick up a book on insects from your local library.
because fuzzy wazzy was fuzzy
Fuzzy wuzzy had no hair, fuzzy wuzzy wasn't fuzzy was he.
fuzzy graph is not a fuzzy set, but it is a fuzzy relation.
Herobrine does not exist. Its a myth. Some people claim to have "seen" him, but the pictures are always fuzzy.
If you get a telescope that has been 'aligned' (that means all the mirrors are at the correct angles), then the stars are nice and sharp. They are only blurred if the optics are of poor quality or, of course, if you haven't focused properly.
leaf-cutter. Pictures on google don't show it. But on a site someone put a picture pf a bee with white and black stripes and was very fuzzy and they called it a LEAF-CUTTER.
Yes he was fuzzy because bears don't have hair they have fur. Also; Fuzzy Wuzzy is fuzzy due to his name being Fuzzy
fuzzy wuzzy had no hair... therefore he cannot be fuzzy
Constitution of Fuzzy Peaches
At first, yes, definitely.
Fuzzy wuzzy was a bear But Fuzzy wuzzy had no hair So he wasn't fuzzy, wuzzy?
Fuzzy Wuzzy was a bear Fuzzy Wuzzy had no hair If Fuzzy Wuzzy had no hair Then was Fuzzy Wuzzy really a bear.
The original words to the "Fuzzy Wuzzy" Rhyme are: Fuzzy Wuzzy was a bear. Fuzzy Wuzzy had no hair. Fuzzy Wuzzy wasn't fuzzy, was he? There are variations to the last line: "Fuzzy Wuzzy wasn't so very Fuzzy, was he?" "So Fuzzy Wuzzy was not fuzzy, was he?" Additional Verses: Fuzzy Wuzzy lost his top In the North Pole barber shop, Fuzzy Wuzzy wasn't fuzzy, was he? Now all the seals in Hudson Bay Envied Fuzzy's fuzz But when they took his fuzz away, He wasn't what he used to 'was'
fuzzy logic papers fuzzy logic papers fuzzy logic papers
Salt is not fuzzy.
I think you're thinking of the Monarch Butterfly. Either way, no. The Monarch caterpillar is not fuzzy. The fuzzy orange and black caterpillars are likely from the Isabella Tiger Moth. Google both those species and you should get pictures, see if we're talking about the same thing.
yes, webkinz are still fuzzy they always were and always will be fuzzy
Look up in the sky with a good telescope, and find things that are too fuzzy-looking to be stars. Some of them are nebulas, and a few may be comets - but a lot of them are other galaxies.