James Oberg on the Hubble

1. It isn't going to fall out of the sky, yet. It should be good
for a few more years.
2. It is now outdated. Current technology allows ground-based instruments
to exceed Hubble in terms of magnitude grasp and detail capture, thanks
to adaptive optics and other technologies.
3. Hubble's much large successor should be the "next big thing" but
the rapid advance of Earth-based telescope size/technology may exceed the
new, larger Hubble before it gets into orbit.

-Rich

I agree. The problem is that the public doesn't see the "great
pictures" made by ground observatories because they are busy doing
science. Perhaps beautiful shots of the Ring Nebula and subsequent
public release isn't necessarily the best use of observing time and
limited reseach dollars? But, yes, I too love such pictures.

I only wonder if the public outcry will be so great when each of the
other NASA Great Observatories reach end of life.

The Hubble has been/is great, wonderful and all that. But reasonable
people in places of authority have decided that the possible cost in
lives and dollars for another servicing mission is not justified.

---
Michael McCulloch

I agree. The problem is that the public doesn't see the "great
pictures" made by ground observatories because they are busy doing
science. Perhaps beautiful shots of the Ring Nebula and subsequent
public release isn't necessarily the best use of observing time and
limited reseach dollars? But, yes, I too love such pictures.

I only wonder if the public outcry will be so great when each of the
other NASA Great Observatories reach end of life.

The Hubble has been/is great, wonderful and all that. But reasonable
people in places of authority have decided that the possible cost in
lives and dollars for another servicing mission is not justified.

---
Michael McCulloch

On 9 Feb 2004 16:16:23 -0800, Richard wrote:

1. It isn't going to fall out of the sky, yet. It should be good
for a few more years.
2. It is now outdated. Current technology allows ground-based instruments
to exceed Hubble in terms of magnitude grasp and detail capture, thanks
to adaptive optics and other technologies.

So I keep hearing, but can anyone post a link to some pictures
demonstrating this?

3. Hubble's much large successor should be the "next big thing" but
the rapid advance of Earth-based telescope size/technology may exceed the
new, larger Hubble before it gets into orbit.

I don't see how that could be, because the James Webb telescope will be
observing in the near infrared, much of which is completely absorbed by
the atmosphere.


--
- Mike

Remove 'spambegone.net' and reverse to send e-mail.

On 9 Feb 2004 16:16:23 -0800, Richard wrote:

1. It isn't going to fall out of the sky, yet. It should be good
for a few more years.
2. It is now outdated. Current technology allows ground-based instruments
to exceed Hubble in terms of magnitude grasp and detail capture, thanks
to adaptive optics and other technologies.

So I keep hearing, but can anyone post a link to some pictures
demonstrating this?

3. Hubble's much large successor should be the "next big thing" but
the rapid advance of Earth-based telescope size/technology may exceed the
new, larger Hubble before it gets into orbit.

I don't see how that could be, because the James Webb telescope will be
observing in the near infrared, much of which is completely absorbed by
the atmosphere.


--
- Mike

Remove 'spambegone.net' and reverse to send e-mail.

"Mike Ruskai" wrote in message
.earthlink.net...
On 9 Feb 2004 16:16:23 -0800, Richard wrote:

1. It isn't going to fall out of the sky, yet. It should be good
for a few more years.
2. It is now outdated. Current technology allows ground-based
instruments
to exceed Hubble in terms of magnitude grasp and detail capture, thanks
to adaptive optics and other technologies.

So I keep hearing, but can anyone post a link to some pictures
demonstrating this?

Real Soon Now?

Lets have a shootout: best Pillars of Creation wins. Until the groundlings
best it, forget pigs-in-a-poke and keep Hubble and the Shuttle.

We must destroy the current space effort to save it?

Joe

"Mike Ruskai" wrote in message
.earthlink.net...
On 9 Feb 2004 16:16:23 -0800, Richard wrote:

1. It isn't going to fall out of the sky, yet. It should be good
for a few more years.
2. It is now outdated. Current technology allows ground-based
instruments
to exceed Hubble in terms of magnitude grasp and detail capture, thanks
to adaptive optics and other technologies.

So I keep hearing, but can anyone post a link to some pictures
demonstrating this?

Real Soon Now?

Lets have a shootout: best Pillars of Creation wins. Until the groundlings
best it, forget pigs-in-a-poke and keep Hubble and the Shuttle.

We must destroy the current space effort to save it?

Joe

On 02/10/04 09:52 +0900, Michael McCulloch wrote:

I agree. The problem is that the public doesn't see the "great
pictures" made by ground observatories because they are busy doing
science.

The difference is that private observatories don't necessarily
have the mandate -- or resources -- for public outreach. The
Hubble project definitely does. Certainly, however, pro images
not taken by Hubble are out there for those who are interested in
finding them.

I only wonder if the public outcry will be so great when each of the
other NASA Great Observatories reach end of life.

Perhaps, but such matters only count if the observatory is in an
orbit that is reachable for maintenance of the spacecraft. For
the JWST, that will definitely not be the case.

The Hubble has been/is great, wonderful and all that. But reasonable
people in places of authority have decided that the possible cost in
lives and dollars for another servicing mission is not justified.

Hmmm. I'm sure no James Oberg, but given the science potential of
an upgraded Hubble versus tens of flights to complete the ISS,
I'd say that argument is paper thin. There's a lot of great
science left in the Hubble and I'd say that a servicing mission
is money well spent.

IMO, YMMV and all that.

trane
--
//------------------------------------------------------------
// Trane Francks Tokyo, Japan
// Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.

On 02/10/04 09:52 +0900, Michael McCulloch wrote:

I agree. The problem is that the public doesn't see the "great
pictures" made by ground observatories because they are busy doing
science.

The difference is that private observatories don't necessarily
have the mandate -- or resources -- for public outreach. The
Hubble project definitely does. Certainly, however, pro images
not taken by Hubble are out there for those who are interested in
finding them.

I only wonder if the public outcry will be so great when each of the
other NASA Great Observatories reach end of life.

Perhaps, but such matters only count if the observatory is in an
orbit that is reachable for maintenance of the spacecraft. For
the JWST, that will definitely not be the case.

The Hubble has been/is great, wonderful and all that. But reasonable
people in places of authority have decided that the possible cost in
lives and dollars for another servicing mission is not justified.

Hmmm. I'm sure no James Oberg, but given the science potential of
an upgraded Hubble versus tens of flights to complete the ISS,
I'd say that argument is paper thin. There's a lot of great
science left in the Hubble and I'd say that a servicing mission
is money well spent.

IMO, YMMV and all that.

trane
--
//------------------------------------------------------------
// Trane Francks Tokyo, Japan
// Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.

On 9 Feb 2004 16:16:23 -0800, Richard wrote:
2. It is now outdated. Current technology allows ground-based
instruments
to exceed Hubble in terms of magnitude grasp and detail capture, thanks
to adaptive optics and other technologies.

While those particular points are true, it's not the whole story, and the
conclusion that Hubble is outdated is false. I've posted on this in two
other threads recently. Here it is again:

The resolution of HST has been surpassed from the ground at optical
wavelengths but that's just a part of the comparison. AO works only
over a very small field, still requires good atmospheric conditions and
requires a suitable guide star very nearby (or an artificial one, which
has so far proved elusive). It also doesn't work through clouds, and
observing in optical is limited to the daytime. Considering all of the
factors involved in the comparison of space- and ground-based
telescopes, I wouldn't say Hubble has been surpassed by AO, or that it
is likely to be surpassed in the next few years even with the advances
like multi-conjugate AO and tomography. OTOH, I wouldn't say Hubble is
better than an AO-equipped 10-meter telescope, either. I think they're
just different tools.

See the FAQ on the Mount Wilson Observatory web site for more
information:
www.mtwilson.edu

Mike Simmons