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

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

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

"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
--------------

"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
--------------

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

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

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.)

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.)