Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The 'Humble Space Telescope' Successfully Launched

Posted by michael on from the step-by-step dept.

frank249 writes "CTV News is reporting that Canada's first space telescope was successfully launched into orbit as part of a multiple payload mission from Plesetsk, Russia, on an SS-19 based launch vehicle called Rockot. The MOST (nick named the 'Humble' due to its tiny size) set off Monday on a mission to answer a question common to astronomers, physicists, and those of us who just like to gaze up at the stars: How old is the universe? There was a previous article on Slashdot in Dec 2001 but it is nice to see it finally in orbit especially as today is also Canada Day."

18 comments

  1. I thought it was 13.7 billion years old ... ? by Murphy(c) · · Score: 1

    Reading this a couple of days ago when the article about the timeline of space discorveries came on /. said that :
    In addition, the new portrait precisely pegs the age of the Universe at 13.7 billion years old, with a remarkably small one percent margin of error.

    So I'm not really all that sure what "humble" is trying to find out...

    Murphy(c)

    1. Re:I thought it was 13.7 billion years old ... ? by Bootsy+Collins · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Reading this a couple of days ago when the article about the timeline of space discorveries came on /. said that :
      In addition, the new portrait precisely pegs the age of the Universe at 13.7 billion years old, with a remarkably small one percent margin of error.

      So I'm not really all that sure what "humble" is trying to find out...

      There are different ways of estimating the age of the Universe. We can, for instance, measure the ages of the oldest stars in the Universe, which then sets a lower bound on the Universe's age. Or, we can measure cosmological parameters (such as the Universe's expansion rate, geometry, and energy content) that theory tells us should be related to the age of the Universe in a certain way that one can calculate mathematically.

      None of these, by itself, is adequate for estimating the age of the Universe for the simple reason that we astrophysicists might be wrong. We might be wrong in our understanding of old stars, and thus in our techniques for determining their ages. We might be wrong in our theoretical cosmological models, and thus in our equations relating the age of the Universe to observed cosmological parameters. But if we try several independent approaches, and they all say pretty much the same thing, that makes us more confident that we're on the right track -- not only about the age of the Universe, but about the sets of assumptions that go into the different methods (since then they'd all be either close to correct, or all wrong in just such a way as to produce the same wrong answer for the age of the Universe, which is very unlikely).

      So, despite the fact that cosmic microwave background observations have produced a very precise estimate of the age of the universe, it's still important to look at it from other directions.

    2. Re:I thought it was 13.7 billion years old ... ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      None of these, by itself, is adequate for estimating the age of the Universe for the simple reason that we astrophysicists might be wrong

      Isn't everything inadequate for estimating anything for the simple reason that people might be wrong?
    3. Re:I thought it was 13.7 billion years old ... ? by Christopher+Thomas · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Isn't everything inadequate for estimating anything for the simple reason that people might be wrong?

      That's why multiple completely different methods with different theoretical underpinnings are being used. It is far less likely that all are wrong than that any single approach is.

    4. Re:I thought it was 13.7 billion years old ... ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and besides EVERYBODY knows Jebus' Papa made the Uniberse in 4004BJ... all you sinners pretending ol Jebus' Papa didn't just bury them dinosaur bones...

  2. Humble? by Soul-Burn666 · · Score: 1

    First there was the Hubble space telescope, and now there's the 'Humble' space telescope...

    *grumble*

    --
    ^_^
    1. Re:Humble? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      The Grumble Space Telescope? Is that what you are suggesting?

      BTW. Captain Obvious wants his brain back.

    2. Re:Humble? by Tackhead · · Score: 1
      > The Grumble Space Telescope? Is that what you are suggesting?
      >
      > BTW. Captain Obvious wants his brain back.

      Well, if it's a NASA project and there's metric involved, call it the Fumble Space Telescope, or the Jumble Space Telescope.

      If a chunk of ice falls off the launcher immediately after launch, it'll end up as the Tumble Space Telescope.

      If it's reported on Slashdot, it's the Rumble and Mumble Space Telescope.

      (I had no idea there were that many cool words that ended in "umble". I'm humbled.)

  3. The Humble Space Telescope launched on a Rockot? by Wireless+Joe · · Score: 2, Funny

    Good thing I RTFA; I was about to complain

    1. about Slashdot editor spelling and

    2. about how many old stories are posted here.

  4. Hmm... by danratherfan · · Score: 1

    Doesn't seem like the "MOST" to me.

    Those Canadians have good reason to be "humble"

  5. synthetic apperature interferometry? by js7a · · Score: 3, Informative
    From the MOST project summary ("Detection and characterisation of ... reflected light from giant exoplanets closely orbiting Sun-like stars, to reveal their sizes and atmospheric compositions...."), it would seem that they are trying to break some planet finding ground, but it is unclear to me whether the control and position systems are accurate enough for synthetic apperature interferometry.

    Are they? If so, are they planning cooperation with land-based or other space telescopes?

    P.S. Has anyone noticed that NASA/JPL switched the labels of Earth and Jupiter in this picture on the "What is TPF?" page?

    1. Re:synthetic apperature interferometry? by bwallace · · Score: 1

      The thing here is that MOST will not be able to *image* the planets, but will only be able to detect the reflected light from them. There is a difference.

      Lets look at MOST - each CCD pixel is 3" in size - not enough for seperating planet from star. Further, the light from the star goes through a Fabry lenslet array, which spreads the light over a large (>100) number of pixels. The point of this is to minimize photometry errors due to variations in pixel sensitivity across the CCD - basically the variations average out. Either way, imaging of the planet is right out.

      But the high-precision photometry is what allows for planet detection. MOST will stare at a given star for up to about 7 weeks, and measure the light from the star on a regular basis during that time (the long time series and the precise optical characteristics allow for very good photometric measurements). One can then take that time sequence of light measurements and pass it through a Fourier Transform and look for periodicities (similar in many ways to what pulsar folks do, but pulsar searches have their own headaches to add to this simple picture).

      Some of the periodicities will be due to stellar oscillations (what MOST is sent up to monitor), some might be due to any planets that are around the star. I don't know how they seperate the one from the other, but on the MOST website you reference there is a poster about this - have a look. The important part is that they will thus be able to directly detect the reflected light from the star and thus confirm, refute, or simply muddle previous claims about detected planets around nearby stars.

      Bottom line: No imaging, but can detect reflected light from large planets due to high-precision photometry and long time series' of measurements.

      Hope a) this helps and b) I haven't told too many lies. I am not a mamber of the MOST science team, but I am interested in the MOST mission for other reasons and have given you my best shot at my understanding of this utterly cool, yet low-cost, mission.

    2. Re:synthetic apperature interferometry? by js7a · · Score: 1
      Images are not necessary at this stage.

      Can MOST detect N2, O2, H2O, O3 with reliable temperature information? Or is it limited to gas giants?

  6. student paper by caffeine_monkey · · Score: 3, Informative

    here's an article from the ubyssey, the student paper at ubc. it has some longer quotes from the researcher: http://www.ubyssey.bc.ca/article.shtml?/20010126/p rofLooksToStars.htmlf

  7. More Coverage by frank249 · · Score: 2, Informative

    There is a good article at space.com and more details with pictures at the Eurocket site. The Globe and Mail notes that the mission set a record for having 9 payloads and placing 8 satelites in orbit.

    --

    Today's vices may be tomorrow's virtues.

    1. Re:More Coverage by confused+one · · Score: 1
      Yeah, but they were all micro or pico satellites... The two largest were only 145 and 113 lbs respectively, with the majority of them being less than 10 lbs.

      What's more interesting is that this may lead to "affordable" launches, where any group could conceivably build a small satellite and get it launched.

  8. synthetic aperature interferometry needs 2 MOSTs by js7a · · Score: 1
    Thank you for the pointer to the pertinent poster. I think I know the answer to the question. 2 MOSTs should be able to do very precise synthetic aperature terrestrial planet finding.

    GO CANADA! NASA can't tell Earth from Jupiter.