Full Version: Hubble Junk
It was recently reported that the administration (you know who) has decided that the Hubble space telescope should not be upgraded, repaired, or maintained, but should be left to drift as useless junk until its orbit decays and it undergoes an uncontrolled re-entry into the Earth's atmosphere.
I had an astronomy professor at OU who had the same opinion 10 years ago
Originally, it's life span was to have expired in 2007, however it is speculated that with a few modifications it could continually operate adequately until (unsure of exact time-frame) 2015.
Do you know if there is a replacement system ready to be put to work or has deep-space exploration come to an end in this era?
Do you know if there is a replacement system ready to be put to work or has deep-space exploration come to an end in this era?
Saving Hubble from extinction
The Hubble Telescope is running out of time, with fading batteries and gyroscopes. Man's eye beyond the sky needs urgent help, as it waits for the return of the shuttle.Could robots save it from extinction?
http://www.euronews.net/create_html.php?page=space&lng=1
14 down from top.
The Hubble Telescope is running out of time, with fading batteries and gyroscopes. Man's eye beyond the sky needs urgent help, as it waits for the return of the shuttle.Could robots save it from extinction?
http://www.euronews.net/create_html.php?page=space&lng=1
14 down from top.
Despite the exquisite resolution of the Hubble Space Telescope or the sensitivity of the twin Keck telescopes, today's powerful observatories can barely scratch the surface when it comes to probing this unseen universe.
The LSST (Large-aperature Synoptic Survey Telescope) is an innovative and radically new dark-matter probe that will infer the presence of dark matter by a phenomenon called gravitational lensing. This will allow scientists to calculate the mass and distribution of dark matter by seeing how it deflects light emitted by luminous objects.
The LSST is a follow-on to the highly succesful Sloan Digital Sky Survey, which will ultimately map one-quarter of the entire sky, dertermining the positions and brightness of more than 100 million celestial objects and distances to more than a million galaxies and quasars.
The LSST (Large-aperature Synoptic Survey Telescope) is an innovative and radically new dark-matter probe that will infer the presence of dark matter by a phenomenon called gravitational lensing. This will allow scientists to calculate the mass and distribution of dark matter by seeing how it deflects light emitted by luminous objects.
The LSST is a follow-on to the highly succesful Sloan Digital Sky Survey, which will ultimately map one-quarter of the entire sky, dertermining the positions and brightness of more than 100 million celestial objects and distances to more than a million galaxies and quasars.
The National Optical Astronomy Observatory's Deep Lens Survey shows incredible detail, but it will pale in comparison with what the LSST has in store.
The LSST will detect thousands of distant supernovae, helping to pin down the accelerating expansion rate of the universe.
The LSST will excel at finding objects that flare up in the darkness of deep space.
The LSST will complete the survey of near-Earth objects larger than a football feild across (like the asteroid Eros), whose impact with earth would create a regional catastrophe far larger than any recently experienced on the planet, including the Asian Tsunami.
The LSST will detect thousands of distant supernovae, helping to pin down the accelerating expansion rate of the universe.
The LSST will excel at finding objects that flare up in the darkness of deep space.
The LSST will complete the survey of near-Earth objects larger than a football feild across (like the asteroid Eros), whose impact with earth would create a regional catastrophe far larger than any recently experienced on the planet, including the Asian Tsunami.
SNAP (Supernova Accelaration Probe) is expected by 2011. It will be a powerful and versatile instrument that will do what a few years ago was deemed impossible - map the entire sky down to 24th magnitude every several nights. That's a threshold so faint that a nightly inventory will number 200 million objects.
There will be about 30,000 galaxies and 3,000 stars per square degree of sky. The resulting image compilation and photometric catalogs will contain roughly 10 billion objects: galaxies, stars, brown dwarfs, comets, asteroids, and energetic explosions in the early universe.
There will be about 30,000 galaxies and 3,000 stars per square degree of sky. The resulting image compilation and photometric catalogs will contain roughly 10 billion objects: galaxies, stars, brown dwarfs, comets, asteroids, and energetic explosions in the early universe.
Without knowledge of cosmic distances, the secrets of the universe would remain hidden.
The James Webb Space Telescope is the planned successor to the Hubble Space Telescope.
http://www.jwst.nasa.gov/
http://www.jwst.nasa.gov/
BASTE (Burst and Transient Source Experiment), onboard the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory, revealed that two or three GRB's occur somewhere in the observable universe on a typival day.
BeppoSax (1996, x-ray spacecraft) built and operated by the Italian Space Agency, was the first satellite to localize GRB's precisely and to discover their x-ray 'afterglows'.
BeppoSax (1996, x-ray spacecraft) built and operated by the Italian Space Agency, was the first satellite to localize GRB's precisely and to discover their x-ray 'afterglows'.
| QUOTE (Dan @ Jan 27, 06:48 PM) |
| I had an astronomy professor at OU who had the same opinion 10 years ago |
The recent report, in Aviation Week, that President Bush "has decided" to abandon the Hubble Space Telescope, should not be confused with opinion.
Hubble is more of a symbol than it is a necessary piece of equipment. It generates pretty pictures and captures the public imagination. The question is, does the money saved (at least some significant portion) still go toward basic astronomical and astrophysical research?
It's still the best telescope in existence. Building JWST hasn't even started yet.
"Saved" money toward research? I seriously doubt it. I think it will go into the rathole of Iraq. Another 80 billion! In California, the Gropenater is quibbling about 4 vs 6 billion for a new Bay Bridge. 80 billion will buy a lot of nice bridges and space telescopes. How about a superconducting super-collider, like the one for 5 billion that was canceled some time ago? No hope for its reinstatement how.
"Saved" money toward research? I seriously doubt it. I think it will go into the rathole of Iraq. Another 80 billion! In California, the Gropenater is quibbling about 4 vs 6 billion for a new Bay Bridge. 80 billion will buy a lot of nice bridges and space telescopes. How about a superconducting super-collider, like the one for 5 billion that was canceled some time ago? No hope for its reinstatement how.
Having gone to school at OU, I vaguely recall the supercollider supercollapse. I wonder what such a premier piece of equipment nearby might have done for the OU high energy physics program. In any case, I see the Hubble snub as mostly symbolic at this point. For the cost of repair, we could employ lots of scientists to do important basic astronomical and astrophysical research using other available equipment. But the 'cost' of letting the bird die is the perception that the government isn't interested in science.
Yes, the "costs" keep adding up. We can be sure the "snub" will not lead to any more funds for scientific work. Quite the opposite: it portends broad cuts for science.
In my view, not maintaining the Hubble for as long as practical is foolish. Spending a little to keep it going is really a bargain considering what has already been (very wisely) invested in Hubble. Astronomers, astrophysicists, planetary scientists, and cosmologists generally regard the Hubble data to be of paramount importance to their understanding of the universe, and losing that datastream in the next few years will shut off that valuable supply. We can count on the "replacement" JWST to slip and slip, given the current administration attitude toward knowledge. It's generally true that if government projects can be slipped long enough, they are then much easier to kill entirely. 2012 will become 2015, 2015 will become 2020, and then it will be easy to just forget about it. The era of American supremacy in science and technology will be over.
In my view, not maintaining the Hubble for as long as practical is foolish. Spending a little to keep it going is really a bargain considering what has already been (very wisely) invested in Hubble. Astronomers, astrophysicists, planetary scientists, and cosmologists generally regard the Hubble data to be of paramount importance to their understanding of the universe, and losing that datastream in the next few years will shut off that valuable supply. We can count on the "replacement" JWST to slip and slip, given the current administration attitude toward knowledge. It's generally true that if government projects can be slipped long enough, they are then much easier to kill entirely. 2012 will become 2015, 2015 will become 2020, and then it will be easy to just forget about it. The era of American supremacy in science and technology will be over.
Would the loss of American supremecy in deep-space exploration (science and technology) be such a bad thing?
Why do Americans have to dominate everything (except for hockey, of course)?
Astronomers, astrophysicists, planetary scientists, and cosmologists will have enough data to pour over, that has been and is being compiled by the Hubble for many years to come. And I'm sure that discoveries are still to be made there within.
Why do Americans have to dominate everything (except for hockey, of course)?
Astronomers, astrophysicists, planetary scientists, and cosmologists will have enough data to pour over, that has been and is being compiled by the Hubble for many years to come. And I'm sure that discoveries are still to be made there within.
The ? is: What would you rather your tax dollars be spent on?
Competition is keen for HST observing time. Only one of every ten proposals is accepted. This unique space-based observatory is operated as an international research center; as a resource for astronomers worldwide.
WMAP (Willikinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe), a NASA orbiting labratory that was launched June 2001 strives to answer some long sought after fundamental questions like: How old is the universe? What exactly does it contain? What is its shape?
WMAP has provided an unprecedented overview of the universe as it was 380,000 years after the Big Bng, just after an opaque soup of atom fragments combined for the first time into actual atoms. That process sent out radiation and the probe measured the faint glow of this radiation, known as the cosmic wave background, across the entire sky.
With this data, the WMAP research team calculated the universe to be 13.7 billion years old (plus or minus 1%) and determined that the first stars appeared 200 million years after the Big Bang., far earlier than most previous estimates.
They also reconstructed the exact proportions of the contents of the cosmos: 4% normal matter, 23% dark matter, and 73% dark energy. Those figures indicate that the universe is flat and will most likely continue to expand forever.
WMAP has provided an unprecedented overview of the universe as it was 380,000 years after the Big Bng, just after an opaque soup of atom fragments combined for the first time into actual atoms. That process sent out radiation and the probe measured the faint glow of this radiation, known as the cosmic wave background, across the entire sky.
With this data, the WMAP research team calculated the universe to be 13.7 billion years old (plus or minus 1%) and determined that the first stars appeared 200 million years after the Big Bang., far earlier than most previous estimates.
They also reconstructed the exact proportions of the contents of the cosmos: 4% normal matter, 23% dark matter, and 73% dark energy. Those figures indicate that the universe is flat and will most likely continue to expand forever.
2MASS
The Milky Way galaxy is so dusty that most telescopes can't get a sharp picture of it. However, the 2MASS (Two Micron All Sky Survey), begun five years ago, has been exploiting the ability of longer-wavelenght infrared light to slip past the debris and create clearer images. In March 2004, a dramatic composite portrait based on millions of images collected by two 1.3 meter telescopes in Arizona and Chile was released.
The Milky Way galaxy is so dusty that most telescopes can't get a sharp picture of it. However, the 2MASS (Two Micron All Sky Survey), begun five years ago, has been exploiting the ability of longer-wavelenght infrared light to slip past the debris and create clearer images. In March 2004, a dramatic composite portrait based on millions of images collected by two 1.3 meter telescopes in Arizona and Chile was released.
Late in 2002, Wolfram Freudling, with the aid of the Hubble Space Telescope, began studying the universe's pristine early days, before exploding stars seeded interstellar space with heavy elements. The results confounded expectations. Less than a billion years after the Big Bang, the cosmos alredy showed notable signs of stellar contamination, meaning that the first stars lit up much earlier than astonomers had previously believed.
The results dovetailed nicely with the WMAP satellite. Together, the two sets of data show that the universe is unexpectantly efficient at building stars.
The results dovetailed nicely with the WMAP satellite. Together, the two sets of data show that the universe is unexpectantly efficient at building stars.
Budget rumours hint at Hubble trouble
18:41 24 January 2005
NewScientist.com news service
Maggie McKee
The future of the Hubble Space Telescope is once again mired in confusion and controversy over media reports that NASA's 2006 budget will not include a mission to repair the ageing instrument.
The reports quote unnamed officials from the White House and US Congress. But NASA will not confirm or deny the reports until 7 February 2005, when the budget will be sent to Congress.
Astronomers and others have campaigned hard to save the productive but ailing instrument, proposing robot- or astronaut-based repair missions. The 14-year-old telescope is expected to fail in 2007 or 2008 unless it receives new batteries and gyroscopes.
But the type of servicing mission sent to Hubble has been the centre of controversy since January 2004. That is when NASA's boss, Sean O'Keefe, cancelled a planned shuttle repair mission, saying it posed too great a risk astronauts in the wake of the Columbia shuttle disaster.
However, a massive public outcry prompted O'Keefe to announce in August that NASA would pursue a mission to repair - and possibly upgrade - the telescope using robots. The controversy re-ignited in December 2004, when a prestigious panel of astronomers and industry leaders backed a plan to send astronauts to fix Hubble. But O'Keefe held firm.
Splash down
Now, the unnamed officials say the White House will not back any type of repair mission - either of which would cost more than $1 billion - in the 2006 budget. They say rising costs, associated in part with returning the space shuttles to flight, may force the agency to focus on a robotic mission with a single task - to safely de-orbit the telescope by sending it splashing into the ocean.
But Bruce Margon, associate director for science at the Space Telescope Science Institute, the agency that manages Hubble observations, says all hope for the telescope is not lost. "We're not enormously concerned by this - it could be a completely false rumour," he told New Scientist. "But if it is correct, I would claim there's a lot less there than meets the eye."
He says specific projects are often not listed explicitly as line items in the agency's budget. Those projects must simply be carved out of the budget once it is approved by Congress.
"It means NASA will have to buckle down and make difficult decisions about where it does take the money from," Margon says. "We always realised any Hubble repair would be financially stressful for NASA - it would be naïve to deny that."
Stop-work orders
Margon adds that $300 million has already been allocated to pursuing a robotic servicing mission in the 2005 budget, and that he would "absolutely know" if the agency had cancelled contracts to develop the mission.
"If they have already decided they are not going to touch Hubble, why aren't they sending stop-work orders to those contractors? That just doesn't seem to be a responsible way to spend $300 million," he says.
NASA spokesperson Susan Hendrix says the agency cannot comment on the budget's particulars until 7 February. But she told New Scientist: "We're still marching forward with a preliminary design review for a robotic mission on 21 March. Unless we're told otherwise, that's what we're doing." The goal of that review is to complete one-third of the planning for a robot mission.
Margon also points out that O'Keefe has resigned from NASA and that his replacement must yet be confirmed by the US Senate, which shows a "high level of bipartisan interest in Hubble".
Indeed, democratic senator Barbara Mikulski of Maryland said on Friday: "I led the fight to add $300 million to NASA's budget last year for a Hubble servicing mission, and I plan to lead the fight again this year." She will hold oversight hearings regarding NASA's budget in February.
18:41 24 January 2005
NewScientist.com news service
Maggie McKee
The future of the Hubble Space Telescope is once again mired in confusion and controversy over media reports that NASA's 2006 budget will not include a mission to repair the ageing instrument.
The reports quote unnamed officials from the White House and US Congress. But NASA will not confirm or deny the reports until 7 February 2005, when the budget will be sent to Congress.
Astronomers and others have campaigned hard to save the productive but ailing instrument, proposing robot- or astronaut-based repair missions. The 14-year-old telescope is expected to fail in 2007 or 2008 unless it receives new batteries and gyroscopes.
But the type of servicing mission sent to Hubble has been the centre of controversy since January 2004. That is when NASA's boss, Sean O'Keefe, cancelled a planned shuttle repair mission, saying it posed too great a risk astronauts in the wake of the Columbia shuttle disaster.
However, a massive public outcry prompted O'Keefe to announce in August that NASA would pursue a mission to repair - and possibly upgrade - the telescope using robots. The controversy re-ignited in December 2004, when a prestigious panel of astronomers and industry leaders backed a plan to send astronauts to fix Hubble. But O'Keefe held firm.
Splash down
Now, the unnamed officials say the White House will not back any type of repair mission - either of which would cost more than $1 billion - in the 2006 budget. They say rising costs, associated in part with returning the space shuttles to flight, may force the agency to focus on a robotic mission with a single task - to safely de-orbit the telescope by sending it splashing into the ocean.
But Bruce Margon, associate director for science at the Space Telescope Science Institute, the agency that manages Hubble observations, says all hope for the telescope is not lost. "We're not enormously concerned by this - it could be a completely false rumour," he told New Scientist. "But if it is correct, I would claim there's a lot less there than meets the eye."
He says specific projects are often not listed explicitly as line items in the agency's budget. Those projects must simply be carved out of the budget once it is approved by Congress.
"It means NASA will have to buckle down and make difficult decisions about where it does take the money from," Margon says. "We always realised any Hubble repair would be financially stressful for NASA - it would be naïve to deny that."
Stop-work orders
Margon adds that $300 million has already been allocated to pursuing a robotic servicing mission in the 2005 budget, and that he would "absolutely know" if the agency had cancelled contracts to develop the mission.
"If they have already decided they are not going to touch Hubble, why aren't they sending stop-work orders to those contractors? That just doesn't seem to be a responsible way to spend $300 million," he says.
NASA spokesperson Susan Hendrix says the agency cannot comment on the budget's particulars until 7 February. But she told New Scientist: "We're still marching forward with a preliminary design review for a robotic mission on 21 March. Unless we're told otherwise, that's what we're doing." The goal of that review is to complete one-third of the planning for a robot mission.
Margon also points out that O'Keefe has resigned from NASA and that his replacement must yet be confirmed by the US Senate, which shows a "high level of bipartisan interest in Hubble".
Indeed, democratic senator Barbara Mikulski of Maryland said on Friday: "I led the fight to add $300 million to NASA's budget last year for a Hubble servicing mission, and I plan to lead the fight again this year." She will hold oversight hearings regarding NASA's budget in February.
| QUOTE (Unknown @ Jan 27, 11:38 PM) |
| Without knowledge of cosmic distances, the secrets of the universe would remain hidden. |
What secrets would that be?
wussup, Don
Vacation.
People don't seem to be on the cutting edge of today's issues and it's a shame. What am I? A one-man army? Not likely, and the more diverse the topics the wider the intellect will become. So bring it on y'all ( for all you yanks out there<y'all> that is).
If Hubble doesn't get repaired, NASA has agreed to use a robotic spacecraft to steer it into the ocean by 2013.
That would be cool to see this implented, bud a sad day for science and the greater world at large. But human kind will develop something better eventually, whether it's the U.S. or not and life will progress, as it always has , and greater discoveries will be made, etc. etc.
That would be cool to see this implented, bud a sad day for science and the greater world at large. But human kind will develop something better eventually, whether it's the U.S. or not and life will progress, as it always has , and greater discoveries will be made, etc. etc.
Looking on the brighter side, here are some excellent images obtained by Hubble!
http://hubblesite.org/gallery/
Sorry if it's already been posted, (rhymer).
http://hubblesite.org/gallery/
Sorry if it's already been posted, (rhymer).
Simply amazing, these images are.
Thanks Rhymer
Thanks Rhymer
But future telescopes will only bring us more astounding and vivid visual images.
damn don!
youre like....all excited, and stuff
i like it.
tell me the lastest and greatest thing youve heard recently that blew your mind
youre like....all excited, and stuff
i like it.
tell me the lastest and greatest thing youve heard recently that blew your mind
neurotransmission (from 'Cognition and the Visual Arts' Solso, MIT Press 94)
....but here is another link if you are interested dude....
http://www.macalester.edu/~psych/whathap/u...ansmission.html
....but here is another link if you are interested dude....
http://www.macalester.edu/~psych/whathap/u...ansmission.html
....and Michio Kaku's book 'Parallel Worlds'.
et toi?
et vu?
et toi?
et vu?
et toi?
ive been researching black holes. stephen hawkins.
the more we know the less we know
ya know!? oh boy!
ive been researching black holes. stephen hawkins.
the more we know the less we know
ya know!? oh boy!
don...
whats about your take on "life after death"?
whats about your take on "life after death"?
Is their death?
There is only life?
Unless you believe in the mother of all singularities?
There is only life?
Unless you believe in the mother of all singularities?
| QUOTE (knowmad @ Jun 09, 08:19 PM) |
| ....ive been researching black holes. stephen hawkins.... |
Sweet.... then you check out the thread on black holes under the physics and cosmology board.
....also, if you are interested, a book that I found very informative with a specific take was Isaac Asimov's "The Collapsing Universe" 1977.
I found it read smoothly without unnecessary mathematical jargon and incomprehensible equations.
I found it read smoothly without unnecessary mathematical jargon and incomprehensible equations.
Let's hope the decision is in the affirmative for Hubble. It will be nine more years until the replacement telescope (JWST) is ready for launch.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/11/science/...tml?ref=science
.... extending the telescope’s capabilities into new realms of the electromagnetic spectrum.
.... extending the telescope’s capabilities into new realms of the electromagnetic spectrum.
We spend more in Iraq in one year than we have spent on NASA since its inception.
QUOTE(Rick @ Jan 15, 2007, 01:57 PM) 
We spend more in Iraq in one year than we have spent on NASA since its inception.
Yeah that is rediculous..
what did we get from the war? about 59000 civilian casualties.
what did we get from NASA? A man on the moon.
Now Flex.... humanity got alot more than that.
QUOTE(Flex @ Jan 15, 2007, 03:34 PM)
... A man on the moon.
Actually, it was a dozen (and a few cars). Satellite TV? Wireless phones? GPS in your car with satellite radio? Accurate weather forecasting? Early warning of nuclear missile attack? Shoot-down of Scud missiles? Robots on Mars?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.