A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » History
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Hubble: We Don't Need No Stinking Glasses



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old March 2nd 05, 01:55 AM
OM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 18:28:01 -0600, Doug...
wrote:

Sometime early on (I want to say in the second season) they moved the
whole thing over onto computers, but kept the animation look and style
from the original.


....They're doing it all on Maya these days, which from what I hear has
Maya's creators reportedly working on a stripped-down version that
will render faster and be far easier to use for animators, and will
reportedly export directly to efficient Flash animation code.

OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr
  #22  
Old March 2nd 05, 02:29 AM
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



OM wrote:

...The problem there is that the design of JWST is flawed in the fact
that it's not intended to work in the visible spectrum, which is where
the "holy ****!!!" pictures are truly born than catch the attention of
Joe Punchclock, Ethyl Soapsjunkie and Hipster Treehugger and make them
go "holy ****!!!' and for a brief time get addicted enough to know
full well you don't **** with your pusher and they should quit
bitching about their tax dollars going to NASA.






Of course the "holy ****" pictures really come out of the NASA photo
labs after the exaggerated and false colors are added to the really
pretty bland Hubble pictures to make them look cool- a process that hit
some sort of apex with this shot, which made it look like the HST was
peering deep into Mordor:
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ima...rglass_big.gif
The public is under the impression that if Hubble had an eyepiece on it
that they could look into like a backyard telescope, they would see
things that looked like this, but although the detail would be there,
the color wouldn't be.


Pat
  #23  
Old March 2nd 05, 02:43 AM
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Doug... wrote:


p.s. -- Too bad you're not interested in much contemporary animation,
Pat. I agree that a lot of what's running on Cartoon Network late at
night is awfully lame (seems to have been written by 12-year-olds), but
Family Guy is a truly innovative and funny show.


I've seen quite a few of The Family Guy episodes; it's just at some
point something in the back of my head asked "Are you learning anything
by watching this, or just tossing away half an hour?" combined with "You
are in your mid forties....this is a cartoon like you used to watch when
you were six years old." and I pretty much gave up on television for
entertainment purposes...I'll still watch some shows if I happen to
notice they are running at the time, but don't go looking for them.
Most of the time I'm either watching news shows or prowling around on
the Discovery and History channels and their offspring.

Pat
  #24  
Old March 2nd 05, 03:07 AM
Damon Hill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

OM om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_researc h_facility.org
wrote in :

...The problem there is that the design of JWST is flawed in the fact
that it's not intended to work in the visible spectrum, which is where
the "holy ****!!!" pictures are truly born than catch the attention of
Joe Punchclock, Ethyl Soapsjunkie and Hipster Treehugger and make them
go "holy ****!!!' and for a brief time get addicted enough to know
full well you don't **** with your pusher and they should quit
bitching about their tax dollars going to NASA.


Those ground based telescopes are producing similarly dramatic
shots (some 'enhanced' for dramatic effect, I'm sure); they're doing
much better than I thought could be possible and they're the
competition. An improved Hubble's got to compete for funding with
that in mind; how much better could it be made without going to a
much larger mirror and much greater cost?

It's an imperfect world.


...And its defeatest attitudes like this which allow things like
Hubble and Skylab to fall from the sky when they're still salvageable.
Just because it's an imperfect world doesn't mean we should accept it
and allow it to **** things up. We should fight to *improve* those
perfections, especially if it flies in the face of those who prefer to
allow those imperfections to limit their lives.


In the short term, fixing up Hubble via a Shuttle mission would
keep the images coming, but it might compete with funding for a
replacement, hopefully significantly improved.

I'd like to have both, of course. What's on the table for future
missions, BTW? We're not the only ones having this debate.

--Damon

  #25  
Old March 2nd 05, 04:41 AM
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Damon Hill wrote:

Those ground based telescopes are producing similarly dramatic
shots (some 'enhanced' for dramatic effect, I'm sure); they're doing
much better than I thought could be possible and they're the
competition. An improved Hubble's got to compete for funding with
that in mind; how much better could it be made without going to a
much larger mirror and much greater cost?



And the ground based ones are far easier to service and modify than a
space-based alternative; one of the most advanced recent telescope
arrays is the Keck twin telescope array in Hawaii. The Keck telescope
cost around one hundred and forty million dollars to build, which is
about the price of two to two and one-half Shuttle flights.
Hubble on the other hand cost around one and one half billion dollars,
plus the cost of the Shuttle servicing missions to it.
Even the proposed OWL (OverWhelmingly Large) telescope plan to build a
scope with a _one hundred meter_ wide mirror is expected to cost less
than one billion dollars. You could lay a couple entire Shuttle launch
stacks on that mirror with room to spare.

Pat
  #26  
Old March 2nd 05, 09:28 AM
Jonathan Silverlight
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In message , Pat Flannery
writes


OM wrote:

...The problem there is that the design of JWST is flawed in the fact
that it's not intended to work in the visible spectrum, which is where
the "holy ****!!!" pictures are truly born than catch the attention of
Joe Punchclock, Ethyl Soapsjunkie and Hipster Treehugger and make them
go "holy ****!!!' and for a brief time get addicted enough to know
full well you don't **** with your pusher and they should quit
bitching about their tax dollars going to NASA.




Of course the "holy ****" pictures really come out of the NASA photo
labs after the exaggerated and false colors are added to the really
pretty bland Hubble pictures to make them look cool- a process that hit
some sort of apex with this shot, which made it look like the HST was
peering deep into Mordor:
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ima...rglass_big.gif
The public is under the impression that if Hubble had an eyepiece on it
that they could look into like a backyard telescope, they would see
things that looked like this, but although the detail would be there,
the color wouldn't be.


But if you look at _any_ photograph of a deep sky object you see it much
brighter than it really is. We don't have colour vision at that light
level, but the colours are there and usually very pure - they are from a
line spectrum.
The colours in pictures are either an approximation to the actual
colours as seen through Hubble's filters, or, more frequently, selected
for aesthetic and technical reasons and "false" in that sense. In
particular, they often use green for the red hydrogen-alpha light.
--
Support the DEC Tsunami Appeal http://www.dec.org.uk/.
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.
  #27  
Old March 2nd 05, 12:38 PM
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Jonathan Silverlight wrote:


But if you look at _any_ photograph of a deep sky object you see it
much brighter than it really is. We don't have colour vision at that
light level, but the colours are there and usually very pure - they
are from a line spectrum.
The colours in pictures are either an approximation to the actual
colours as seen through Hubble's filters, or, more frequently,
selected for aesthetic and technical reasons and "false" in that
sense. In particular, they often use green for the red hydrogen-alpha
light.



Which is odd, as you'd think they'd use red for the red hydrogen-alpha
light.
But this is science, and is therefore not limited to making sense.
Call it what you like, the photos get retouched to improve their
"gee-whizz" quality for public consumption.

Pat
  #28  
Old March 10th 05, 01:33 PM
Daydreamer99
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Rusty wrote:
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 19:45:25 -0500, "a" wrote:

Goodbye Hubble. you served us well. The Hubble Space Telescope

(HST) is
doomed to reenter the earth's atmosphere on a Kamikaze mission a few

years
hence. Its fate was sealed in the FY06 budget just sent to

Congress. I can
yada yada over its history and potential and historic findings, but

the
point of this blog is a question: "Do we actually know what we're

doing
here?" The answer is strikingly simple but all too familiar -

probably not.
We are taking an instrument of historic value - a national treasure

- and
throwing it away like so much rubbish that has the potential to

serve for
many years or even decades in the future. The HST discovered so

incredibly
much in its relatively short life (compare its life to the great

telescope
at Palomar where its namesake did so much of his pioneering work.)

The
corporate whine is that it is just too expensive to keep it in

service.
Okay - it is expensive - but I would strongly argue with "too

expensive".
The fact is, everything is expensive. We are almost certainly making

a
mistake. The very day HST is gone we will go back to astronomical

myopia.
The decision to scrap the HST is like saying that we as a human

species no
longer need our glasses and we are quite content to be nearsighted.

That,
of course is patent foolishness and is, in fact, idiotic. And yet,

alas, we
have decided: we don't need no stinking glasses. The last moron

that said
that was hit by a bus.

===========
From Dennis Chamberland's Blog Quantum Limit
http://QuantumLimit.com

The Ultimate Mars Colony
http://MarsWars.com



There once was a 'scope called the Hubble,
When launched t'was already in trouble.
The end of the Shuttle,
Has led to its scuttle.
It soon will be nothing but rubble.



Rusty



Hi...
In the being of the American space program, failure happen alot. What
was the driving force?...the cold war era. I think that the space
program is could up with a marketing program or something. The shuttle
is a bus no more no less. It is a tool to reach for bigger and better
things. Scuttle the Hubble would be due to **** poor home budget
planning. Use you imagination. We have not advance in the flight
department in 30 years.

  #29  
Old March 11th 05, 02:58 AM
Daydreamer99
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Damon Hill wrote:
We don't _really_ need Hubble.

We can do better, and are. Both in orbit,
and on the ground. Astronomy will not be
seriously impared by Hubble's demise.

But an updated Hubble using that leftover
mirror and updated instruments/systems could
probably be kept rather busy. Launch it on
whatever unmanned rocket and keep options
open for future servicing.

Hubble is dying after having served us so well;
time to put our efforts into a replacement.

--Damon




Damon

Please send my some links of equipment that could replace Hubble.

Thanks,

  #30  
Old March 11th 05, 04:07 AM
Jorge R. Frank
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Daydreamer99" wrote in
oups.com:

Damon Hill wrote:

Hubble is dying after having served us so well;
time to put our efforts into a replacement.


Please send my some links of equipment that could replace Hubble.


I'm not Damon, but here's a link anyway:

http://www.pha.jhu.edu/hop/

HOP would definitely be both cheaper and more likely to succeed than HST
robotic servicing.

An HST shuttle servicing mission would be more likely to succeed than HOP,
and the costs look to be pretty much a wash.
--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
John Hopkins-Led Team Present 3rd Hubble Option [email protected] Astronomy Misc 0 February 3rd 05 01:13 AM
NASA Is Not Giving Up On Hubble! (Forwarded) Andrew Yee Astronomy Misc 2 May 2nd 04 01:46 PM
Congressional Resolutions on Hubble Space Telescope EFLASPO Amateur Astronomy 0 April 1st 04 03:26 PM
Don't Desert Hubble Scott M. Kozel Space Shuttle 54 March 5th 04 05:38 PM
Hubble images being colorized to enhance their appeal for public - LA Times Rusty B Policy 4 September 15th 03 10:38 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:13 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.