Tribute to the Great Hubble Tele

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
To All Seems we do have a telescope on the drawing board. Detecting
infrared is the best way to go. Can we put a telescope in orbit the
same way we put our satellites in orbit,or does it take an astronaut
to fine tune it . 2011 is 7 years from now and I can't see shuttles
being around for that length of time.(hope not) It was also posted
that shuttles can't go that far out. I have a gut feeling
there is a con game going on. Bert

In message , David Knisely
writes

Much of the cutting work in Astronomy today is done in the infrared
(including that done by many of the largest ground-based telescopes).
Objects like extrasolar planets, forming planetary systems, and stellar
coccoons aren't easily seen in visible light, so infrared is again
used to look for and study them. Even the most distant objects in the
universe are often better studied in the infrared. A second reason is
that it is easier to construct and align a segmented mirror system at
infrared wavelengths than it is for the visible part of the spectrum
(and lighter metallic materials can be used). Most of the new
super-large (mirrors larger than 10 meters) ground-based telescopes
which are being proposed for the next decade are being optimized for
the infrared, so JWST isn't alone in that regard. Check out the
following: http://www.jwst.nasa.gov/ for more information. Clear skies to you.

One of the more interesting astronomical discoveries so far this year
(oxygen and carbon in the atmosphere of the extrasolar planet
HD 209458b) could apparently only have been made using the UV capability
of Hubble, and wasn't easy even so. Are there any plans for UV
astronomy?
--
Save the Hubble Space Telescope!
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 02:37:35 -0600, David Knisely wrote:

Dat's Me wrote:

You can hardly call the "JWST" a "Hubble II".

No, its a larger instrument designed to take advantage of the infrared
wavelenghs at a resolution which is 2.7 times that of HST and a light

Yeah! The only problem is: It operates (almost) exclusivly in the infrared. While
those frequency ranges may be important & interesting, it is also a very
limited range. I'm sure the universe isn't _only_ visible in infrared.


All up, imo, to anyone not _expressly_ interested in infrared, the JWST
is an inferior scope.

You missed (or ignored) the emphasis on the word "expressly".

You might want to visit the JWST web site and read the FAQ. HST has a big
advantage for the ultraviolet, produces some very pretty pictures for the
public, and has made important discoveries, but the JWST is definitely not
an "inferior" telescope at all. Although it is being optimized for the
near and mid infrared wavelengths, JWST will be usable to at least some
extent in the red portion of the visible spectrum (0.6 nanometers). There

In (and of) itself, the JWST is sure to be a fine telescope but, since
some people have been touting it as the Hubble II, the comparison I made
is fair, the JWST _is_ inferior. It is blind in (basically) all but
sensing heat. Scientifically, that information is important but, so is the
information to be gleaned from other frequencies.

Something to remember though, the Hubble is more likely to attract the
public's attention and keep their attention on space research, because of
the nifty pictures it can provide. With the public being more interested,
the pollies are more inclined to spend money on research. Anyone with
advertising smarts will almost certainly tell you: "Don't belittle the
public's fascination with pretty pictures". In case you haven't noticed
they use that same fascination (& sex of course) to sell just about
everything.

I am truly amazed that NASA/USGov want to toss the Hubble, it seems
incredibly wasteful to me, I doubt it is incapable of being used for
scientific research. Ifthe orbit is such a big problem, why not put a bit
brains behind coming up with a way of giving it a _gentle_ nudge into a
more suitable one.

for the next decade are being optimized for the infrared, so JWST isn't
alone in that regard. Check out the following: http://www.jwst.nasa.gov/
for more information. Clear skies to you.

Same url I quoted from yesterday.

On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 14:49:19 +0000, Dave wrote:

Dat's Me wrote:
On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 15:07:05 +0000, Dave wrote:

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
the Hubble. We have no new Hubble 2 in the making. We have no new safe
space craft in the making.

Not quite true Bert, take a look at

http://ngst.gsfc.nasa.gov/



DaveL

You can hardly call the "JWST" a "Hubble II".


Perhaps I could been clearer, I never meant to imply it was an exact
replacement for the Hubble.

Exact: no, I'll bet you do think of it as a replacement though.

I have problems with the concept of calling a telescope that can only see
(whether better or not) - what, a third? - of the spectrum of the one its
replacing, a replacement. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against the
JWST itself. It can, I think, best be considered complimentry which, of
course, infers that Hubble should be kept flying//maintained.

All up, imo, to anyone not _expressly_ interested in infrared, the JWST
is an inferior scope.

If you're only interested in pretty pictures, then try the following link:
http://ngst.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/NGC891.html

:-)

Saw it awhile ago, not bad - JWST will have to do better than that to
match Hubble though.

Also, see the response below by the senior project scientist on the JWST.
Other than that, David Knisely puts things more succinctly than I could in
his response.
Q: Why will JWST concentrate on the infrared part of the spectrum?

A: The main aim of JWST is to observe the light from the first luminous
objects in the universe. This light is shifted to longer wavelengths by
the expansion of the universe, so that light that was originally visible
and ultraviolet will be seen as infrared. For objects closer to home, JWST
will be able to observe visible light at wavelengths as short as about 0.6
micrometers, which has a color between yellow and red. While shorter
wavelength coverage would be desirable, it is not yet affordable for a
telescope as large as the JWST.

All the more reason to keep maintaining Hubble.

Dat's Me posted:

Yeah! The only problem is: It operates (almost) exclusivly in the infrared. While
those frequency ranges may be important & interesting, it is also a very
limited range. I'm sure the universe isn't _only_ visible in infrared.

A *limited* range??!! The range is *HUGE*. It runs from 0.6 microns all the
way down to 28 microns. Again, if you look at the current literature, much of
the universe shows its true characteristics *best* in the infrared and that
is where much of the cutting edge research is going. Visible light can yield
some science, but for many of the tasks which Astronomers really want to do,
the infrared is the "happy hunting ground". Distant objects like galaxies and
quasars have huge redshifts, so viewing them in the infrared makes perfect
sense. Hubble's NICMOS infrared camera can only go from 0.8 to 2.5 microns.
HST also goes down to 0.2 microns in the U.V. and includes the visible, but
that coverage of 0.2 to 2.5 microns is paltry compared to what JWST should
provide. Astronomers were asked about what kind of space-based telescope was
needed as a follow-on to HST, and the opinion was that to do the *science*
which the Astronomical community wants, a larger telescope optimized for the
infrared region of the spectrum was the instrument of choice.

In (and of) itself, the JWST is sure to be a fine telescope but, since
some people have been touting it as the Hubble II, the comparison I made
is fair, the JWST _is_ inferior.

No, the comparison is not at all fair or reasonable. Its like saying that the
Queen Mary is an inferior bicycle! Both vehicles are designed to transport
someone, but comparing the two makes little sense. JWST was *never* designed
to access the visible and ultraviolet wavelengths. HST was, but can't go as
far into the infrared as JWST will. You can compare two different instruments
designed to access the same spectral region and judge them against each other,
but the comparison between two instruments with vastly different observing
goals to the point of stating that one is "inferior" is illogical.

Something to remember though, the Hubble is more likely to attract the
public's attention and keep their attention on space research, because of
the nifty pictures it can provide.

Then you haven't been looking at too many of the beautiful color images in SKY
and TELESCOPE magazine lately, have you? Many are multi-spectral images taken
in the infrared, and show spectacular sights which would be invisible to any
telescope if it looked in the the ultraviolet or visible portions of the
spectrum. JWST would be able to provide similar if not better "pretty
pictures", although its the important science which is the key reason for its
existance.

I am truly amazed that NASA/USGov want to toss the Hubble, it seems
incredibly wasteful to me, I doubt it is incapable of being used for
scientific research. Ifthe orbit is such a big problem, why not put a bit
brains behind coming up with a way of giving it a _gentle_ nudge into a
more suitable one.

I too was vastly disappointed in the decision (it was the head of NASA who
made the decision, and it is not at all universally supported in either the
science community or at NASA). If the foam impact issue is corrected, the
risk of the flight to HST for servicing is no more than it was before Columbia
flew its last mission.
As for the orbital problem, the problem isn't altitude (which is easy to
correct), its inclination. HST currently orbits at about a 28 degree angle of
inclination. It takes a *huge* amount of impulse to change orbital planes
significantly, so much so that we would have to use a good-sized rocket in
orbit to both grab HST and secure it, as well as man-handling it not so gently
into an orbital inclination of 57 degrees, which is the same as the
International Space Station. We don't really have that kind of orbiting
rocket+manipulation tool, and we don't have an easy way to lock onto HST in a
way that would allow a gentle long-term push to a new orbital inclination.
Maybe a way could be found to do this, but I don't think it would be cost
effective. I think the thing to do is make the single exception to launch a
shuttle to HST for the final upgrading and attaching of a de-orbit rocket for
the time when the instrument has reached the point where it can no longer
function. Clear skies to you.



--
David W. Knisely
Prairie Astronomy Club: http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org
Hyde Memorial Observatory: http://www.hydeobservatory.info/

**********************************************
* Attend the 11th Annual NEBRASKA STAR PARTY *
* July 18-23, 2004, Merritt Reservoir *
* http://www.NebraskaStarParty.org *
**********************************************

"David Knisely" wrote in message
...
near troll like rant snipped
As for the orbital problem, the problem isn't altitude (which is easy
to
correct), its inclination. HST currently orbits at about a 28 degree
angle of
inclination. It takes a *huge* amount of impulse to change orbital planes
significantly, so much so that we would have to use a good-sized rocket in
orbit to both grab HST and secure it, as well as man-handling it not so
gently
into an orbital inclination of 57 degrees, which is the same as the
International Space Station. We don't really have that kind of orbiting
rocket+manipulation tool, and we don't have an easy way to lock onto HST
in a
way that would allow a gentle long-term push to a new orbital inclination.
Maybe a way could be found to do this, but I don't think it would be cost
effective. I think the thing to do is make the single exception to launch
a
shuttle to HST for the final upgrading and attaching of a de-orbit rocket
for
the time when the instrument has reached the point where it can no longer
function. Clear skies to you.
snip

David,

Do we have nothing in our arsenal to toss a couple of astronauts and a
toolbox into orbit? I realize the shuttle is THE vehicle, but I always
figured the technology to launch a crew in a non-reuseable vehicle still
existed.

BV.
www.iheartmypond.com

They really aren't the same thing. It is like owning infrared goggles and
saying they are a good replacement for your 10" scope.

"Dat's Me" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 14:49:19 +0000, Dave wrote:

Dat's Me wrote:
On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 15:07:05 +0000, Dave wrote:

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
the Hubble. We have no new Hubble 2 in the making. We have no new
safe
space craft in the making.

Not quite true Bert, take a look at

http://ngst.gsfc.nasa.gov/



DaveL

You can hardly call the "JWST" a "Hubble II".


Perhaps I could been clearer, I never meant to imply it was an exact
replacement for the Hubble.

Exact: no, I'll bet you do think of it as a replacement though.

I have problems with the concept of calling a telescope that can only see
(whether better or not) - what, a third? - of the spectrum of the one its
replacing, a replacement. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against the
JWST itself. It can, I think, best be considered complimentry which, of
course, infers that Hubble should be kept flying//maintained.

All up, imo, to anyone not _expressly_ interested in infrared, the JWST
is an inferior scope.

If you're only interested in pretty pictures, then try the following
link:
http://ngst.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/NGC891.html

:-)

Saw it awhile ago, not bad - JWST will have to do better than that to
match Hubble though.

Also, see the response below by the senior project scientist on the
JWST.
Other than that, David Knisely puts things more succinctly than I could
in
his response.
Q: Why will JWST concentrate on the infrared part of the spectrum?

A: The main aim of JWST is to observe the light from the first luminous
objects in the universe. This light is shifted to longer wavelengths by
the expansion of the universe, so that light that was originally visible
and ultraviolet will be seen as infrared. For objects closer to home,
JWST
will be able to observe visible light at wavelengths as short as about
0.6
micrometers, which has a color between yellow and red. While shorter
wavelength coverage would be desirable, it is not yet affordable for a
telescope as large as the JWST.

All the more reason to keep maintaining Hubble.

Hi Scott S Why can't it see both white light,and infarred? Why not
give it everything in one basket. All the best EM detectors that are
today's technology has to offer. Bert

BenignVanilla wrote:

Do we have nothing in our arsenal to toss a couple of astronauts and a
toolbox into orbit? I realize the shuttle is THE vehicle, but I always
figured the technology to launch a crew in a non-reuseable vehicle still
existed.

No, the only vehicle other than the shuttle which can be used for putting
astronauts into space is the Russian Soyuz, and it clearly is incapable of
properly servicing the HST or for rescuing the entire crew of a shuttle on an
HST servicing mission. The only remaining Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo
spacecraft which we still have are in museums and are far from flight ready.
We have none of the boosters or equipment to fly crews into space other than
the shuttle. That is one reason for trying to develop some kind of smaller
spacecraft launched on an expendable vehicle like the Crew Exploration Module
ideas being floated now. Clear skies to you.
--
David W. Knisely
Prairie Astronomy Club: http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org
Hyde Memorial Observatory: http://www.hydeobservatory.info/

**********************************************
* Attend the 11th Annual NEBRASKA STAR PARTY *
* July 18-23, 2004, Merritt Reservoir *
* http://www.NebraskaStarParty.org *
**********************************************

"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message
...
To All Seems we do have a telescope on the drawing board. Detecting
infrared is the best way to go. Can we put a telescope in orbit the
same way we put our satellites in orbit,or does it take an astronaut to
fine tune it . 2011 is 7 years from now and I can't see shuttles being
around for that length of time.(hope not) It was also posted that
shuttles can't go that far out. I have a gut feeling there is a
con game going on. Bert

There's no con game, Bert. The L2 point is about 1,500,000 km from Earth.
The HST (and also the shuttle's range) is about 400 km from Earth. JWST will
be launched with a rocket and "set it and forget it" in terms of servicing
(i.e., there will be none planned nor possible).