|
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#22
February 2nd 04, 01:59 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Why Hubble was cancelled, and what to do now
(Greg Kuperberg) wrote:
I think that part of the point of JWST is that its shifted frequency range, which is actually broader than that of Hubble on a logarithmic scale, is more interest to astronomers than Hubble's range. Right. And the Hubble's range is so uninteresting observing time goes begging for users. It doesn't. D. -- The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found at the following URLs: Text-Only Version: http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html Enhanced HTML Version: http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html Corrections, comments, and additions should be e-mailed to , as well as posted to sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for discussion. 
|
|
#23
February 2nd 04, 02:03 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why Hubble was cancelled, and what to do now
(Greg Kuperberg) wrote:
My real point is that research requires new instruments because it's about seeing new things. After you get the new photo one or two times, it's not research any more. Well, in another 100 years when Hubble has actually photographed the entire sky, it's replacement will be due. In every area of science, old instruments are destined to play only a supporting role. Which is why the sampling corers used by oceanographers haven't changed in decades. Ditto for Nansen bottles. For the same reason you can't by a geologists hammer anymore, and no scientist uses visible light microscopes after grammar school. Or, to put it simply, you have no clue about science instruments. D. -- The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found at the following URLs: Text-Only Version: http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html Enhanced HTML Version: http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html Corrections, comments, and additions should be e-mailed to , as well as posted to sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for discussion.
|
|
#24
February 2nd 04, 02:15 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why Hubble was cancelled, and what to do now
In article ,
Derek Lyons wrote: (Greg Kuperberg) wrote: Care to adress my *entire* statement? (restored below) If you insist. (Derek Lyons) wrote: Which is a bit of a dodge... [Hale] only carries a small fraction because it's one of many instruments, looking at only a fraction of the wavelengths of interest to astronomers today. Yet a look at it's Jan 2004 schedule shows that it's booked solid. (http://www.palomar.caltech.edu:8000/calendar.tcl) Matter of fact, it's booked *solid* this scheduling block (1st & 2nd Q 2003) with the exception of four days (Likely because the moon is high in the Palomar sky those four days if I read the schedule right.) Yes, Hale is a valuable telescope that is still booked far in advance. Unlike a space telescope, it's vastly cheaper to maintain it than to build a new one. Like the Empire State Building, it is a lasting feat of engineering, but its newer rivals have completely different designs. -- /\ Greg Kuperberg (UC Davis) / \ \ / Visit the Math ArXiv Front at http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/ \/ * All the math that's fit to e-print *
|
|
#25
February 2nd 04, 03:06 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why Hubble was cancelled, and what to do now
In article ,
Derek Lyons wrote: In every area of science, old instruments are destined to play only a supporting role. Which is why the sampling corers used by oceanographers haven't changed in decades. Ditto for Nansen bottles. From a web page on Nansen bottles: Nansen bottles, invented by the Norwegian oceanographer Fridtjof Nansen, are cylindrical containers that sample sea temperature and salinity. They were typical of tools used in the mid-twentieth century from which data were obtained to model ocean circulation. They have generally been replaced by modern electronic instruments, but measurements are still made from ships in the same manner. ( http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/students/...satellite2.htm ) That sounds like a supporting role to me, at best. Personally I think that mapping satellites are exciting, cutting-edge instruments in oceanography. (E.g. the JASON satellite mentioned at the same web site.) If you like Nansen bottles better, then I suppose you could argue to cut NASA's funding. -- /\ Greg Kuperberg (UC Davis) / \ \ / Visit the Math ArXiv Front at http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/ \/ * All the math that's fit to e-print *
|
|
#26
February 2nd 04, 04:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why Hubble was cancelled, and what to do now
|
|
#27
February 2nd 04, 05:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why Hubble was cancelled, and what to do now
In article ufvTb.37986$F15.843@fed1read06, Chosp wrote:
"Derek Lyons" wrote in message ... (Greg Kuperberg) wrote: My real point is that research requires new instruments because it's about seeing new things. After you get the new photo one or two times, it's not research any more. That is why WFPC 3 and the Cosmic Origins Spectrograph were built. That is why they should be installed on HUBBLE. Almost $200 million worth of state-of-the-art equipment is sitting on the ground waiting. Yes, they are new instruments. Given that the instruments have already been built, and given that they aren't mothballing the space shuttle immediately as they should, it would have been better to go ahead and service Hubble. The scientists, who have to be forward-thinking, adapted as well as they could to the nostalgic astronaut program. But they were still screwed. -- /\ Greg Kuperberg (UC Davis) / \ \ / Visit the Math ArXiv Front at http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/ \/ * All the math that's fit to e-print *
|
|
#28
February 2nd 04, 08:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why Hubble was cancelled, and what to do now
(Greg Kuperberg) wrote:
Yes, Hale is a valuable telescope that is still booked far in advance. Or, to put it simply; your original claim that it only an afterthought, is bunk. Unlike a space telescope, it's vastly cheaper to maintain it than to build a new one. That's a function of our lack of proper space infrastructure, not an intrinsic quality of space based telescopes. Like the Empire State Building, it is a lasting feat of engineering, but its newer rivals have completely different designs. 'Different', not necessarily better. D. -- The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found at the following URLs: Text-Only Version: http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html Enhanced HTML Version: http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html Corrections, comments, and additions should be e-mailed to , as well as posted to sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for discussion.
|
|
#29
February 2nd 04, 08:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why Hubble was cancelled, and what to do now
(Greg Kuperberg) wrote:
In article , Derek Lyons wrote: In every area of science, old instruments are destined to play only a supporting role. Which is why the sampling corers used by oceanographers haven't changed in decades. Ditto for Nansen bottles. From a web page on Nansen bottles: Well, actually it's *not* a web page on Nansen bottles, but a web page on an oceanography satellites. (Try reading the page, note the "You are exploring OceanWorld Students Satellites" at the top. Also note the *title* of the page "Satellites".) Nansen bottles, invented by the Norwegian oceanographer Fridtjof Nansen, are cylindrical containers that sample sea temperature and salinity. They were typical of tools used in the mid-twentieth century from which data were obtained to model ocean circulation. They have generally been replaced by modern electronic instruments, but measurements are still made from ships in the same manner. ( http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/students/...satellite2.htm ) That sounds like a supporting role to me, at best. That sounds like a page written to explain how satellites and other things have replaced *some* of the functions of Nansen bottles. Oddly enough, that page doesn't even mention the remainder of the functions. Personally I think that mapping satellites are exciting, cutting-edge instruments in oceanography. (E.g. the JASON satellite mentioned at the same web site.) All through this thread you appear to prefer 'exciting, cutting-edge instruments' over existing functional instruments, even to the point of destroying context. If you like Nansen bottles better, then I suppose you could argue to cut NASA's funding. Which would be stupid, because there are some things that Nansen bottles do better, there are some things satellites do better. Cutting NASA's budget however won't effect oceanagraphic birds much, because in the main other people pay for them and other people launch them. D. -- The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found at the following URLs: Text-Only Version: http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html Enhanced HTML Version: http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html Corrections, comments, and additions should be e-mailed to , as well as posted to sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for discussion.
|
|
#30
February 2nd 04, 09:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why Hubble was cancelled, and what to do now
In article ,
Derek Lyons wrote: (Greg Kuperberg) wrote: Yes, Hale is a valuable telescope that is still booked far in advance. Or, to put it simply; your original claim that it only an afterthought, is bunk. What I meant was that the fact that the telescope is still useful is something of an afterthought. Or at least it should be! You shouldn't plan science 50 years out, because it changes too quickly. In fact, out of all science instruments built 50 years ago, the Hale telescope is by far the most useful one. (I don't mean designed 50 years ago, I mean actually built.) It's hard to think of many others that are even remotely useful. Telescope mirrors seem to be the main example. Of course, given that Hale is still useful, booking it is not an afterthought at all. Anyway to get back to Hubble. The shuttle servicing program has been a big distraction from launching better telescope mirrors. Now, for a finale, the shuttle program has jilted Hubble and laid waste to $200 million in new cameras. They are still imagining 28 launches to the space station, but they don't care to spare 1 for Hubble because *that* would be too dangerous. It ought to teach astronomers not to rely on astronauts in the future. -- /\ Greg Kuperberg (UC Davis) / \ \ / Visit the Math ArXiv Front at http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/ \/ * All the math that's fit to e-print *
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
