|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Sad news re Hubble !
Can I throw a spanner in the works and ask why you wish to keep Hubble?
The Gemini telescope has started producing images of Hubble quality already and at a fraction of the running costs. Will it be long before ground based telescopes are producing even better quality images than Hubble can? If losing Hubble by the end of the decade means a new, better space telescope that surpasses ground based telescopes can be launched, and we have better than Hubble by the end of the decade anyway, then in my eyes, so be it. We would all mourn the loss of what has proved to be an unmitigated disaster and a fantastic success, but what about progress? All I hope is that when it is de-comissioned, it could be brought back down in one piece. don's flame-proof jacket and braces himself! Darren |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Sad news re Hubble !
David Harris wrote in
: html mike r Dear Mike, and anyone else who feels offended by my inadvertant HTML posts of recent times..... I'm sorry ! No-one else bothered to tell me until today and I am not bloody psychic .... so a BIG thanks to Pete who had the common decency to do the right thing and tell me I was being a prat. I wasn't aware of any problems, until Pete pointed it out to me. I have been posting to NGs for several years (yes, bloody years) and no-one has ever moaned before today .... However, it *should* now be OK, and should stop any further whining, if not, tough. Check my post above; nice folks don't like to moan, I just sort of hope it would be noticed; OTOH you'd get flamed mercilessly in some groups for it (and for top posting, which you *don't* do!) m r |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Sad news re Hubble !
David Harris wrote in
: html mike r Dear Mike, and anyone else who feels offended by my inadvertant HTML posts of recent times..... I'm sorry ! No-one else bothered to tell me until today and I am not bloody psychic .... so a BIG thanks to Pete who had the common decency to do the right thing and tell me I was being a prat. I wasn't aware of any problems, until Pete pointed it out to me. I have been posting to NGs for several years (yes, bloody years) and no-one has ever moaned before today .... However, it *should* now be OK, and should stop any further whining, if not, tough. Check my post above; nice folks don't like to moan, I just sort of hope it would be noticed; OTOH you'd get flamed mercilessly in some groups for it (and for top posting, which you *don't* do!) m r |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Sad news re Hubble !
"Darren" wrote:
Can I throw a spanner in the works and ask why you wish to keep Hubble? The Gemini telescope has started producing images of Hubble quality already and at a fraction of the running costs. Will it be long before ground based telescopes are producing even better quality images than Hubble can? The problem with top flight telescopes is not enough time for all the demands made on them. Just because the best is now second best doesn't mean it can't or won't continue to provide top grade facitilities for top grade research. So its all a question of Money. Does maintaining Hubble take so much money that it prevents a second generation Hubble from getting off the ground or six or seven ground based super scopes being built? I can't answer these questions and nor should anyone else on grounds of sentiment or opinion: it economics, economics, economics. It was sentiment that led to the disasters of British astronomy post Greenwich - the Isaac Newton scarce out of its box before relocating etc. etc. Cheers Martin -------------- Martin Frey N 51 02 E 0 47 -------------- |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Sad news re Hubble !
"Darren" wrote:
Can I throw a spanner in the works and ask why you wish to keep Hubble? The Gemini telescope has started producing images of Hubble quality already and at a fraction of the running costs. Will it be long before ground based telescopes are producing even better quality images than Hubble can? The problem with top flight telescopes is not enough time for all the demands made on them. Just because the best is now second best doesn't mean it can't or won't continue to provide top grade facitilities for top grade research. So its all a question of Money. Does maintaining Hubble take so much money that it prevents a second generation Hubble from getting off the ground or six or seven ground based super scopes being built? I can't answer these questions and nor should anyone else on grounds of sentiment or opinion: it economics, economics, economics. It was sentiment that led to the disasters of British astronomy post Greenwich - the Isaac Newton scarce out of its box before relocating etc. etc. Cheers Martin -------------- Martin Frey N 51 02 E 0 47 -------------- |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Sad news re Hubble !
Will it be long before ground based telescopes are producing even
better quality images than Hubble can? You should add "..at the same wavelength"! Many ground-based telescopes have produced diffraction-limited images Ignore pretty pictures - that just means STSCI put lots of money into public outreach. But I've never understood why ground based telescopes don't do as much public work? (see some CFHT images, for example) - high resolution UV imaging and spectroscopy - high sensitivity wide-field optical imaging Although I am big critic of HST (far too much money for only a little advantage) we have NO other UV observatory! [i.e. there will be shed loads of UV astronomers on the dole in a few years time] For the spiders web telescope (NGST, dead-nasa-admin-guy-who-was-not-even- an-astronomer telescope, whatever you want to call it) to have no UV capability is crazy! Optical & IR can be done perfectly well from the ground for a tiny fraction of the cost. UV can't. Therefore HST is useful. If losing Hubble by the end of the decade means a new, better space telescope that surpasses ground based telescopes can be launched, If....! I'm not convinced the gain is worth an extra billion quid. and a fantastic success, but what about progress? it's a progress vs cost question. We all know we can get better images of mars by upgrading our 4" to a 16"... but we don't, for some reason! detected Earth-sized planets, HST could directly image such a planet if it was equipped with an adaptive coronagraph. Such an instrument The following annoyed me: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3115159.stm "Steven Beckwith, of the Space Telescope Science Institute, pointed to Hubble's successes, including many which had not been predicted when it was being developed. "One of the most remarkable things is extra-solar planets - there were no extra-solar planets discovered before Hubble's launch." How many extra solar planets has HST observed? How many observations has HST made of extra solar planets. Wait for it...!! One. Just one. And you can can detect that at home of you can see a 1% drop in a a 7th magnitude star! But Darwin & TPP are being built for planet hunting. We don't need HST as well! And I dare say both these missions are being built for less than the price it will cost to upgrade HST. could be built and installed in 2010 if a 5th servicing mission happens. At a cost of 500 million quid... The con of money out ways the pro's. That money could be better spent. Actually, at that price, it is cheaper to launch a new observatory! No existing or planned ground-based facilities (not even JWST) can do this. Oh, just wait for the interferometer at ESO (starts foaming at the mouth...!!) Das |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Sad news re Hubble !
Will it be long before ground based telescopes are producing even
better quality images than Hubble can? You should add "..at the same wavelength"! Many ground-based telescopes have produced diffraction-limited images Ignore pretty pictures - that just means STSCI put lots of money into public outreach. But I've never understood why ground based telescopes don't do as much public work? (see some CFHT images, for example) - high resolution UV imaging and spectroscopy - high sensitivity wide-field optical imaging Although I am big critic of HST (far too much money for only a little advantage) we have NO other UV observatory! [i.e. there will be shed loads of UV astronomers on the dole in a few years time] For the spiders web telescope (NGST, dead-nasa-admin-guy-who-was-not-even- an-astronomer telescope, whatever you want to call it) to have no UV capability is crazy! Optical & IR can be done perfectly well from the ground for a tiny fraction of the cost. UV can't. Therefore HST is useful. If losing Hubble by the end of the decade means a new, better space telescope that surpasses ground based telescopes can be launched, If....! I'm not convinced the gain is worth an extra billion quid. and a fantastic success, but what about progress? it's a progress vs cost question. We all know we can get better images of mars by upgrading our 4" to a 16"... but we don't, for some reason! detected Earth-sized planets, HST could directly image such a planet if it was equipped with an adaptive coronagraph. Such an instrument The following annoyed me: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3115159.stm "Steven Beckwith, of the Space Telescope Science Institute, pointed to Hubble's successes, including many which had not been predicted when it was being developed. "One of the most remarkable things is extra-solar planets - there were no extra-solar planets discovered before Hubble's launch." How many extra solar planets has HST observed? How many observations has HST made of extra solar planets. Wait for it...!! One. Just one. And you can can detect that at home of you can see a 1% drop in a a 7th magnitude star! But Darwin & TPP are being built for planet hunting. We don't need HST as well! And I dare say both these missions are being built for less than the price it will cost to upgrade HST. could be built and installed in 2010 if a 5th servicing mission happens. At a cost of 500 million quid... The con of money out ways the pro's. That money could be better spent. Actually, at that price, it is cheaper to launch a new observatory! No existing or planned ground-based facilities (not even JWST) can do this. Oh, just wait for the interferometer at ESO (starts foaming at the mouth...!!) Das |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Sad news re Hubble !
Das wrote in message
m... The following annoyed me: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3115159.stm "Steven Beckwith, of the Space Telescope Science Institute, pointed to Hubble's successes, including many which had not been predicted when it was being developed. "One of the most remarkable things is extra-solar planets - there were no extra-solar planets discovered before Hubble's launch." How many extra solar planets has HST observed? How many observations has HST made of extra solar planets. Wait for it...!! One. Just one. And you can can detect that at home of you can see a 1% drop in a a 7th magnitude star! No, it has observed 4 extrasolar planets. HST has observed HD209458b on several occasions, and directly detected sodium in the planet's atmosphere, something which you can't detect at home and which the 10-m Keck attempted to do but failed. HST also observed the Gliese 876 system and obtained the first and only astrometric measurement. Now that the technique has been proven, more planets will follow. See: http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/category/star/star%20with%20planet/ (TMR-1C turned out to be a star reddened by dust.) |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Sad news re Hubble !
Das wrote in message
m... The following annoyed me: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3115159.stm "Steven Beckwith, of the Space Telescope Science Institute, pointed to Hubble's successes, including many which had not been predicted when it was being developed. "One of the most remarkable things is extra-solar planets - there were no extra-solar planets discovered before Hubble's launch." How many extra solar planets has HST observed? How many observations has HST made of extra solar planets. Wait for it...!! One. Just one. And you can can detect that at home of you can see a 1% drop in a a 7th magnitude star! No, it has observed 4 extrasolar planets. HST has observed HD209458b on several occasions, and directly detected sodium in the planet's atmosphere, something which you can't detect at home and which the 10-m Keck attempted to do but failed. HST also observed the Gliese 876 system and obtained the first and only astrometric measurement. Now that the technique has been proven, more planets will follow. See: http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/category/star/star%20with%20planet/ (TMR-1C turned out to be a star reddened by dust.) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Robots to rescue Hubble? | Steve Dufour | Policy | 20 | May 6th 04 09:15 AM |
Sky & Telescope's News Bulletin - Jan 23 | Stuart Goldman | Amateur Astronomy | 3 | January 24th 04 04:44 AM |
Close down the ISS; NOT Hubble!!! | [email protected] | Amateur Astronomy | 16 | August 13th 03 03:25 AM |