Hubble Snaps Farthest / Oldest Galaxy

Good Promo for Hubble by mphase · 2004-02-15 22:10 · Score: 5, Interesting

Hubble needs this sort of thing to keep it serviced. This is very interesting and in my mind at least partially justifies Hubble.

--
vampirical

Re:Good Promo for Hubble by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-15 22:26 · Score: 5, Informative

The picture. This site has bigger versions of the image as well as a more in-depth story.
On an unrelated note, they also have an awesome wallpaper gallery.
Re:Good Promo for Hubble by MasterSLATE · 2004-02-15 22:29 · Score: 5, Informative

I don't think it matters though.. Didn't NASA already make the decision to cut Hubble?

wired article

--

[sig]www.masterslate.org[/sig]
Re:Good Promo for Hubble by danheskett · 2004-02-15 22:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

Hubble needs this sort of thing to keep it serviced. This is very interesting and in my mind at least partially justifies Hubble.

A better space telescope is in the works, and it is scheduled for launch as early as 2007.

Why risk 50% of our remaining space shuttle fleet, another human crew, and untold billions to repair Hubble at this point?

A few years gap won't kill science or the stars. I mean... for all of human history except for the 14 years that Hubble has been in service we had no equivalent of Hubble. What's another 3-4 years when we've already missed 11.2 billion years?
Re:Good Promo for Hubble by 22mcdaniel · 2004-02-15 22:49 · Score: 5, Informative

If you're refering to the James Webb telescope, a supplemental page to the one you linked says a launch date isn't scheduled until August of 2011.
Re:Good Promo for Hubble by RevRigel · 2004-02-15 22:58 · Score: 5, Insightful

James Webb doesn't cover the same spectrum that Hubble does. Visual and UV will be completely ignored by it. No replacement for Hubble is in the works, and UV coverage can't be obtained from Earth-based telescopes. This has been well-covered before -- please inform yourself before you recklessly cast aspersions on a space project in typical sissy fashion.
Re:Good Promo for Hubble by dafoomie · 2004-02-15 23:14 · Score: 5, Informative

The James Webb space telescope, if it is not cancelled, was intended to augment Hubble, not replace it. They detect two different things, the Webb for mostly infrared, and the Hubble for mostly short wavelengths, visible to humans. Also, it is very hard to get even a little time on the Hubble. Having both would allow for twice the exploration. The current 6 year gap between Hubble going out of service and Webb operating is not the issue at all.

And you are massively overblowing the risks involved. First of all, we have 3 space shuttles, Atlantis, Endeavour, and Discovery. How do we risk one and a half space shuttles? The only thing that makes it 'riskier' than going to the ISS, is that you can't go from Hubble to the ISS. This is not exactly a suicide mission. And I bet the astronauts would be more than willing to go.

It would only cost 500 million to service the Hubble. Allowing the Hubble to burn up in the atmosphere would waste the billions that we've already invested in it.
Re:Good Promo for Hubble by danheskett · 2004-02-15 23:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

Atlantis, Endeavour, and Discovery Discovery is being overhauled, is it not? "Overhauled" as in, virtually permantely overhauled, right?

And I bet the astronauts would be more than willing to go.
You could find qualified astronauts to go on a mission with 99-to-1 change against coming back. Let's get real. Astronaut willingness is not a valid indicator.

The cost of another lost shuttle to NASA would be enormous. The loss of funding, support, and interest would likely end manned space flight for decades.
Re:Good Promo for Hubble by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-15 23:29 · Score: 0

no, I read that also.
Re:Good Promo for Hubble by dafoomie · 2004-02-15 23:31 · Score: 4, Interesting

Discovery is being overhauled, is it not? "Overhauled" as in, virtually permantely overhauled, right?

Discovery is fine. It was scheduled for a mission in summer 2003 before the Columbia accident.

You are vastly overblowing the risk of a mission to the Hubble. We have had 113 shuttle missions since 1981. We have lost two. Both could have been prevented and should not have happened. NASA is more safety concious than ever now and will not allow a similar situation to happen again. This is not safety issue. It's a money issue. They don't want to spend the money. If they don't want to spend the money on this, what makes you think they'll spend more money on the Webb telescope?
Re:Good Promo for Hubble by digitalamish · 2004-02-15 23:54 · Score: 1

Why risk 50% of our remaining space shuttle fleet, another human crew, and untold billions to repair Hubble at this point?
Because it'll cost us untold billions to replace it. It's up, it's working, and it's producing results. Based on that it's better than anything NASA has sitting on the ground.
Re:Good Promo for Hubble by Docrates · 2004-02-16 00:22 · Score: 5, Insightful

You can't have it both ways.

Listening to O'keefe on a press conference about a month ago, when he addressed the Hubble issue in detail, it all became clear to me: It's pure politics.

After the CAIB, he was blasted, questioned and doubted to no end, so what does a skilled polititian do? cut your losses and move on. Well, he did just that. So now he's gonna follow the CAIB like it's the road to salvation. To the letter.

The CAIB puts forward a number of requirements for shuttle flights, including the ability to service the Shuttle via ISS if something goes wrong...among a host of other "inconvenient" requirements.

O'keefe decided to follow the CAIB to the letter so that means that going to the hubble will "break the laws" of the CAIB (Hubble is in an entirely different, incompatible orbit...still you'd think that being the thing called SHUTTLE it shouldn't be an issue, but it is)

So servicing the Hubble will violate his mandate to play it safest and thus it won't happen because it's "too risky" according to the CAIB mantra.

--

There are two kinds of people in the world: Those with good memory.
Re:Good Promo for Hubble by CrackedButter · 2004-02-16 00:35 · Score: 1

There is a fourth space shuttle called "Enterprise" btw.

--
Jonathanjk.com
Re:Good Promo for Hubble by dafoomie · 2004-02-16 01:06 · Score: 1

Yeah, but I didn't count it in my argument since it was the prototype and is not used. But yes, there are 4. If you want to count the two that the Russians made, then there are 6. Kazakhstan owns them now, but I think they've been rotting for so long that they are unusable.
I wish they would/could use Enterprise but I don't think its possible anymore. If only to hear on the news, "The Starship Enterprise has docked with the International Space Station..."
Re:Good Promo for Hubble by CrackedButter · 2004-02-16 01:09 · Score: 1

It is a pity they don't upgrade and make it a valuable addition to the fleet. I wonder why they never used it in the first place? I'm sure it is space worthy.

--
Jonathanjk.com
Re:Good Promo for Hubble by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-16 01:15 · Score: 2, Interesting

The James Webb space telescope, if it is not cancelled, was intended to augment Hubble, not replace it. They detect two different things, the Webb for mostly infrared, and the Hubble for mostly short wavelengths, visible to humans.

That's very true.

But if you want to look very far back in the universe (as was done in this case), then what you need is a good infrared camera.

So this particular observation is not actually a good example of why it would be useful for the Hubble to stick around. Although the Hubble is good for this kind of observation right now, the Webb should be much better once it is operational.
Re:Good Promo for Hubble by asdf+101 · 2004-02-16 01:23 · Score: 5, Interesting

Yes, they decided to cut the serice support for Hubble.. then -- in the face of public criticism -- spoke about possibly reviewing their decision.. and have now decided to tank Hubble anyway.

For anybody who wants to toe the current administrations line on Hubble that it is too risky to service -- sorry mate, that theory is bollocks.

Give it a thought and it's clear that this is just an blatant attempt at politicking and penny-pinching -- save a few pennies here and a few there and look we can set up a "courier" service to the moon to fetch us some more moon rocks. I'm all for space-endeavour and for satisfying the human spirit for exploration, but I fail to understand the merit of a kennedyesque initiative that cannibalises a fully functional golden goose.

And if you want to talk about the risk of using the shuttles to service Hubble, the shuttle's terrific performance record itself should be enough to catch you on the wrong foot. Given the high complexity of these missions (we're talking "rocket-science" here right?!), the risk has clearly been marginalised given that only 2 out of 100+ missions have failed -- and those too out of an avoidable complacent attitute to safety at NASA itself.

When Columbia was lost, it was followed by a constant banter about the changing culture at NASA, but if they've changed, it only to now wear their complacency on the other foot. It's apparent that they have graduated from risk aversion to planning short sightedness.

How else can you explain the fact that they are "shying" from spending a few hundred million dollars to extend by a significant percentage the life of a mission that they have initially spend billions to get rolling itself. If NASA had a wife called M@ry, I can just about see M@ry being called upon to bring the shotgun so that her hubby can shoot himself in atleast one foot.

On JWT as a replacement for Hubble, all along JWT was intended to complement Hubble, not to supplement it. And besides, JWT going to be operational only by ~2011. Twiddle-thumbs time then for all the people hoping to have put in research hours on an otherwise fully operational tool.
Re:Good Promo for Hubble by dafoomie · 2004-02-16 01:48 · Score: 2, Informative

It was never equipped for space. It was just the test version. It could have been refitted for space in the early to mid 80s, but they decided it would be cheaper to build new ones. How it was handled since then has made it basicly impossible to ever use in space. The Smithsonian kept it in a hangar from 85-03, and is now being restored and on display in their new air and space museum, with the Enola Gay, an SR-71, a Concorde, and lots of other cool stuff. I'm going to go see Enterprise once its ready, it'll look great. Sure would be nice to see the Hubble in there next to it... One of those Russian shuttles is a resturaunt now... The other had holes drilled in it so it couldn't be used. It's a shame.
Re:Good Promo for Hubble by UndercoverParrothead · 2004-02-16 02:02 · Score: 2, Informative

The Enterprise is also currently missing the leading edges of its wings. They were taken for use during the Columbia inquiry. Have you been to the Udvar-Hazy center yet? It's awesome.

--
Don't mind me; I'm just a karma whore.
Re:Good Promo for Hubble by ckaminski · 2004-02-16 02:10 · Score: 2, Informative

They said the same thing after Challenger.

Lie to me once, shame on you. Lie to me twice, shame on me...
Re:Good Promo for Hubble by ckaminski · 2004-02-16 02:12 · Score: 2, Informative

Because it was a flight test article never designed for the rigors of space. It was heavier (airframe) than all subsequent shuttles, and never had the TPS installed. AFAIK a number of important bits, such as engine hookups and plumbing, where also left off the craft.

In short, it would take just as much effort to make Enterprise space-rated, as it would to finish the X33.
Re:Good Promo for Hubble by Uncertain+Bohr · 2004-02-16 02:23 · Score: 1

I know that many people have pointed this out before but I think that it is very important to understand the following: JWST is NOT a scietific replacement for HST. It provides improved, very sensitive infrared capabilities. On the other hand, HST provides unsurpased capabilities in the optical. In addition, while many peopple claim that what HST can do can be done from the ground it is because there is some serious confusion about how adaptive optics work. Right now, it works in the IR, not the optical. Moreover, the athmosphere is not very transparent at wavelengths > 8000A. JWST should never have been marketed as a replacement for HST. On one hand, JWST will allow people to do science which is not possible right now (in this sense only, it is the worthy succesor of HST which itself had a hufe impact on astronomy). On the other hand, HST, retrofited with the new WF3 and COS intruments would remain one of the very best observatories for years to come.
Re:Good Promo for Hubble by dafoomie · 2004-02-16 03:01 · Score: 1

Yeah, several things have been removed from Enterprise for testing purposes, and the cockpit is also not installed.

I haven't been there yet but I'll go once Enterprise is fully restored. Seeing a space shuttle, an SR-71, the Wright Brothers plane, the Enola Gay, and all the other stuff, in person, has to be something beyond belief.
Re:Good Promo for Hubble by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-16 03:02 · Score: 3, Funny

NASA: Now Afraid of Space Agency

credit to whoever came up with this joke somewhere else in /.
Re:Good Promo for Hubble by NSupremo · 2004-02-16 03:02 · Score: 0

they planned to use the Hubble in tandem with this new telescope

the entire reason there was a planned service mission in the first place

--
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_U.S._Election_co ntroversies_and_irregularities
Re:Good Promo for Hubble by Jonathan+Platt · 2004-02-16 03:36 · Score: 2, Interesting

It really shouldn't cost as much to get in to space as NASA makes it. I bet the Russians could service it for less than half the price.

I tend to think the execs at NASA just sit arround all day thinking up new ways to burn money. The shuttle idea was stupid from the start. It is more dangerous, and less ecconomical. Wings have no possible pourpose in space, and only mean the shuttle has to do the falling leaf thing on re-entry to stop the wings falling apart from the heat.

Nothing was ever wrong with ocean landings, or even the retro rocket thing the Russians are using.

And for an Example of NASA wasting money just look at the tires on the shuttle. They get them specially made, and the specs say they can cope with 6 high impact (as in higher than usual for a shuttle) landings. Now these tires cost millions of dollars per tire. Now the Shuttle has 6 tires I think. So there's a few million dollars to start with, which wouldn't be needed for a pod. I also ask how they manage to make tyres that cost that much, seeing as they are made similarly to other aviation tires (which cost far less). But that isn't really the issue, the best part is that they replace them after each landing. Now I agree they should not be pushed to the limit, but they should at least get 3 landings out of them. Hell that would be a saving of 8 million dollars each flight, assuming by a few million dollars they mean 2, and ignoring all labor and machinery costs.

--

VENI, VIDI, VICI, DIXI
Re:Good Promo for Hubble by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-16 03:45 · Score: 1, Insightful

How else can you explain the fact that they are "shying" from spending a few hundred million dollars to extend by a significant percentage the life of a mission that they have initially spend billions to get rolling itself.

It's a cardinal rule of investment, actually: you don't invest in something today just because you sunk a lot of money into it yesterday. You invest because of the promise of future returns. The overall return from a "Hubble's Last Stand" mission may well be less, in NASA's view, than from a new telescope, or Mars effort, or what have you. If so, then scuttling Hubble is entirely justified.

AC.
Re:Good Promo for Hubble by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-16 03:46 · Score: 0

Well podner, we can't have too much of that fancy shmancy science stuff up in the sky, the creationists might take it personally, after all it's their turf.
Re:Good Promo for Hubble by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-16 03:52 · Score: 0

If they don't want to spend the money on this, what makes you think they'll spend more money on the Webb telescope?

Of course, assuming that they spend the money to launch JWST, they'll never be tempted to spend more money on it again. It will have such a distant orbit that it will be, for all practical purposes, unrepairable. I sure hope it works better than Hubble did!

AC.
Re:Good Promo for Hubble by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-16 05:28 · Score: 0

So what? It's still a telescope we can use. The UV and viusal spectrums can wait until 2020 for a new telescope as far as I'm concerned. The universe will be around to study for a long ass time. The same can't be said for NASA if they mess up too many times.
Re:Good Promo for Hubble by MrScience · 2004-02-16 06:26 · Score: 1

It's interesting that the article even points out the Keck, which not only can see the object, but made a more accurate assesment of the galaxy's red-shift. Is there anything the Hubble can do that Keck can't?

--
You quitting proves that the karma kap worked. The most annoying of the whores shut up. --CmdrTaco
Re:Good Promo for Hubble by zoloto · 2004-02-16 06:43 · Score: 1

Was it just me reading that to say Good Porno for Hubble??

Now ron jeremy can be even BIGGER!
Re:Good Promo for Hubble by whereiswaldo · 2004-02-16 09:59 · Score: 2, Interesting

It's just amazing how much space and matter is out there. Seeing these pictures makes me wonder, though, what would the universe look with 1000 times as wide of a picture? What if we could take that massive picture every hour and view it in high speed over a million year timeframe? Is there some much large system that all these galaxies are orbiting around?
Re:Good Promo for Hubble by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-16 15:32 · Score: 0

And what do you think? Does the enola gay have the right to be married?

(sorry, watched too much cnn this week).
Re:Good Promo for Hubble by jward52 · 2004-02-17 01:53 · Score: 1

President Kerry will restore Hubble's funding and reverse the stooopid policies of gwb. A moonbase would be nice, but national healthcare makes much more sense. Just my opinion, folks...
Re:Good Promo for Hubble by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-17 16:31 · Score: 0

Presid-who? Never heard of a president named Kerry. What country is he from?

Oh Joy by Omikr0n · 2004-02-15 22:12 · Score: 5, Insightful

Yay! Even more reasons to keep this guy around! It's a damn shame they want to deorbit Hubble. With this much invested into a telescope that STILL continues to function fine, why not just open it up for other uses rather than deorbit it?

Re:Oh Joy by AlecC · 2004-02-15 22:24 · Score: 4, Informative

Hubble will stop working if it is not serviced. It is not a question of lack of users, it is things like propellant to aim it, replacement gyros for the ones wearing out spinning up there, and so on. Hubble asn't designed to work for ever - it was designed for regular service calls. So many of the bits have finite lives, and will reach the end of those lives in anothr couple of years.

I too vote for a service call. But as I understand it, NASA is not doing it on safety rather than money grounds. New safety rules say that the shuttle needs an external inspection before re-entry to avoud the problems last time. At ISS, that is is easy - look through the windows. And if a fault is found, you can wait at ISS while spares come up by rocket or another shuttle. At Hubble, you would have to do a dangerous EVA to check it. And you would have nowhere to wait for spares if you found damage that could not be repaired with on-board resources (Shuttle's endurance is about 10 days).

--
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
Re:Oh Joy by Platinum+Dragon · 2004-02-16 01:47 · Score: 1

New safety rules say that the shuttle needs an external inspection before re-entry to avoud the problems last time. At ISS, that is is easy - look through the windows. And if a fault is found, you can wait at ISS while spares come up by rocket or another shuttle. At Hubble, you would have to do a dangerous EVA to check it.

That pretty much eliminates everything but ISS missions--which, from what I understand, is exactly what has happened.

The upshot is, I have no idea where NASA is going to find the money for:

1) Keeping the ISS crewed
2) Keeping the ISS useful
3) Getting the James Webb Telescope ready
4) Preparing facilities for a new space vehicle--for the moment, I assume the costs for R&D of the CEV will somehow come out of military or discretionary budgets, because I don't see any of the usual contractors doing this for free
5) Preparing for new Luna and Mars missions.

An extra $12 billion over the next decade somehow does not strike me as nearly enough to pull all of this off, and I also can't quite see the Bush administration following through if push comes to shove. IIRC, space did not rate a single word during the State of the Union address.

If only our species spent as much on exploration as we do on war...

--

Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.

Shuttle repair mission... by case_igl · 2004-02-15 22:12 · Score: 5, Interesting

I can't recall how many hundreds of times I have seen Hubble in the headlines over the last few years. The waiting list for Hubble time is insane, and the science has been among the best that NASA has ever done.

It's amazing to me that this "it's too risky" reasoning for the cancellation of the repair missions to Hubble is still being floated.

It's franky disappointing to me as American that we are such a nation of wimps now. I personally think it's more of a risk to send people to the space station in regards to the scientific return.

While I have seen hundreds of "discovered by Hubble this week" I have not seen one discovery in the news come from the station. It's usually fighting with the Russians or announcing it's going to cost ten times more than we thought to do one twentieth the science.

Yes, I am off-topic. But I'm mad as hell and not going to take it anymore!

Re:Shuttle repair mission... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-15 22:15 · Score: 0

it is too risky, why do it when they're going to send up another hubble thats better
Re:Shuttle repair mission... by fufighter · 2004-02-15 22:23 · Score: 0, Troll

I have to agree, this nation has gotten too soft.
Re:Shuttle repair mission... by Surlyboi · 2004-02-15 22:25 · Score: 5, Interesting

it is too risky, why do it when they're going to send up another hubble thats better

Maybe. Or maybe they'll pull the plug on sending the next one up due to lack of funding. Nothing's certain in these days of $87 billion war costs. Hubble is being killed not because it's too dangerous to service but because it doesn't fit into the current administration's space agenda.

--
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine...
Re:Shuttle repair mission... by Ubi_NL · 2004-02-15 22:27 · Score: 5, Insightful

While I have seen hundreds of "discovered by Hubble this week" I have not seen one discovery in the news come from the station. It's usually fighting with the Russians or announcing it's going to cost ten times more than we thought to do one twentieth the science.

I'm sorry but this is just nonsense.
I am personally involved with some experiments conducted in ISS, and I know there is a lot of important research going on there.

Just because ISS does not have a PR department that hypes up every other little discovery as is happening for hubble, and because it doesn't give you pretty pictures but complex scientific output, you have no argument for saying there is no research going on in that place

--

If an experiment works, something has gone wrong.
Re:Shuttle repair mission... by 0mni · 2004-02-15 22:31 · Score: 1

Well as I recall every EVA is incredibly risky, and to do repairs on hubble a few of them need to be done each time. How much science is worth a human life?
Re:Shuttle repair mission... by Drakin · 2004-02-15 22:33 · Score: 5, Insightful

Why doesn't the ISS have a PR department, or at least some form of publicity for the research that's going on.

Well, other than the fact that a lot of scientists are getting their shit in knots over the idea that someone may steal thier research data and put it to a practical use before they can.

You want to keep the public's eye on the benitits of the station, rather than the cost, or the latest stupid problem.
Re:Shuttle repair mission... by AhBeeDoi · 2004-02-15 22:35 · Score: 1

While I have seen hundreds of "discovered by Hubble this week" I have not seen one discovery in the news come from the station. It's usually fighting with the Russians or announcing it's going to cost ten times more than we thought to do one twentieth the science.
How about they've discovered another leak/problem in the space station this week?
Re:Shuttle repair mission... by danheskett · 2004-02-15 22:38 · Score: 4, Interesting

Because, in a representative republic it is assumed that our elected, educated, informed representatives will fund things despite PR offensives.

And so far, they have funded the ISS. Which by most accounts (like the above) is doing some spiffy if not complex science.
Re:Shuttle repair mission... by Drakin · 2004-02-15 22:54 · Score: 4, Insightful

Yeah, but who considers most of the representatives informed?

It's not for the preresentatives that the PR is needed, it's for the public. it's easy for them to dismiss the ISS, because they know very little of what is being done up there. And the public, should have some weight with thier representative... at least if the representative wants to sit in his comfy chair past next time the election rolls around.
Re:Shuttle repair mission... by Alan+Partridge · 2004-02-15 23:03 · Score: 3, Insightful

That's up to the owner of the life in question. If astronauts are happy to do it, we should be happy to let them.

How much OIL is worth a human life?

--
That was classic intercourse!
Re:Shuttle repair mission... by 0mni · 2004-02-15 23:07 · Score: 0, Flamebait

A desert full is worth as many as you can get a hold of...............
Re:Shuttle repair mission... by Ubi_NL · 2004-02-15 23:14 · Score: 2, Informative

Let me put it this way:

the Hubble PR department publishes in the 'West Hawaii today' and 'Mercury News'. ISS results are generally published in peer reviewed journals like 'Cell' and 'Nature'. I suggest you base your conclusions after doing a bit more research.

The fact that you only consider newspapers and TV a valid source of information is rather disturbing.

--

If an experiment works, something has gone wrong.
Re:Shuttle repair mission... by Ubi_NL · 2004-02-16 00:24 · Score: 1

I'd rather have they spend their money on the science than on some dorky animation like NASA tends to do for its mars expeditions. It is ridiculous to demand that the government jumps through hoops to keep you informed what's going on in ISS just because you are too lazy to look it up yourself.

--

If an experiment works, something has gone wrong.
Re:Shuttle repair mission... by Drakin · 2004-02-16 01:18 · Score: 2, Insightful

It doesn't need to be a dorky animation like the mars mission. Heck, more good press has been gained from the actual images that the rovers have sent back than the silly animations. The public I think is tired of those already.
Something as simple as NASA's "Image of the Day" can bring a lot of attention to the project, as it gets picked up by the media if the subject matter is deamed "of interest". Thier little blurbs about what's bening seen are much easier for the public to read and understand.
in contrast, most of the stations experiments you get an overview of, with no actual data of the findings to read though, even in a techincal sense.
It's easier to see a benifit in the Hubble for most people, even if they don't value knowing more about space, than it is to see value in a tin can that's gota few people floating around in it.
Read the status reports for ISS.
Meanwhile Foale spent more than three hours gathering and organizing clothing, some of it from previous crews, and stowing it in the Station's Unity node.

I don't have anything against the ISS. I think it's valuable, although extreamly costly.
Re:Shuttle repair mission... by RayBender · 2004-02-16 01:31 · Score: 4, Insightful

the Hubble PR department publishes in the 'West Hawaii today' and 'Mercury News'. ISS results are generally published in peer reviewed journals like 'Cell' and 'Nature'.
Bullshit. HST is among the most productive astronomical facilities ever, measured in publication and citation count ( analysed here). HST data is typically used in more than 150 peer-reviewed papers a year. These are papers in journals such as Astrophysical Journal, Science, and of course Nature. A simple seach of the Science archives show 68 original research publications with "Hubble Space Telescope" in the text since 1995. A similar search for "International Space Station" returns ZERO hits. A search of the Nature website returns an interesting article: " Biologists recommend scrapping NASA's research on crystals" (Nature394, 213 (16 Jul 1998)) that starts out: "A panel of US biologists has called for an end to protein crystallography experiments in space -- one of the highest-profile research activities..."
The fact that the general public is fairly deluged by pretty HST pictures is in addition to the fact that the astronomical community is using HST very actively; it's not an artefact of some PR department.
Don't get me wrong - I think manned spaceflight, and the space station are good things, and should be funded. But let's be honest here; HST blows ISS out of space when it comes to publications and scientific impact.

--
Human genome = 3 billion base pairs = 6 GBit. Windows + Office = 20 Gbit. Which is more impressive?
Re:Shuttle repair mission... by RayBender · 2004-02-16 01:44 · Score: 1

I am personally involved with some experiments conducted in ISS, and I know there is a lot of important research going on there.
Please, can you list it? I'm honestly very curious as to what is being done on the station; there is not much reported in the litterature that I can find, so I'd like to hear first-hand...

--
Human genome = 3 billion base pairs = 6 GBit. Windows + Office = 20 Gbit. Which is more impressive?
Re:Shuttle repair mission... by Lumpy · 2004-02-16 01:50 · Score: 3, Interesting

you know what... as a scientist you became one to further the human condition and advance science..

not to discover,patent and get farking rich.

money grubbing in science has always pissed me off and these people are NOT scientists that do this, they are privateers with an education... nothing more.

Hubble is about science that benefits EVERYONE on this planet, not about making one person rich, or one company more profitable.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Re:Shuttle repair mission... by Uncertain+Bohr · 2004-02-16 02:27 · Score: 1

OK, how about a full number of papers published from ISS "science"? How does it compare to HST? Let's get this discussion done to the end since you think that ISS is a great scientific instrument.
Re:Shuttle repair mission... by internic · 2004-02-16 02:42 · Score: 2, Interesting

You know, it's funny, but when I worked at NASA, all the scientists I knew (who worked on neither Hubble nor ISS), thought Hubble produced good science and ISS was a waste of time. All the physicists I know at my University seem to think the same. Take it for what you will.

--
"You call it a new way of thinking; I call it regression to ignorance!" -- Operation Ivy
Re:Shuttle repair mission... by Naito · 2004-02-16 02:52 · Score: 1

Nothing worthwhile is ever accomplished without great risk
Re:Shuttle repair mission... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-16 02:57 · Score: 1, Interesting

Maybe. Or maybe they'll pull the plug on sending the next one up due to lack of funding. Nothing's certain in these days of $87 billion war costs. Hubble is being killed not because it's too dangerous to service but because it doesn't fit into the current administration's space agenda.

At least a dictator was toppled with the $90 billion war. (Hopefully we will not screw things up so that a worse government takes his place...)

But over the years the Shuttle program has pissed away at least this much money.

To pick just one: $4 billion was spent to build a Shuttle launch complex at Vandenberg AFB.

Vandenberg was supposed to have its own fleet of two Shuttle orbiters having 20 launches per year. But because the Shuttle turned out to be much more expensive and much less reliable than NASA had promised, it was decided that it would be better to launch the Shuttle only from Cape Canaveral. It was just too bad that the launch complex had already been built, and $4 billion almost completely wasted!
Re:Shuttle repair mission... by fuck_this_shit · 2004-02-16 03:05 · Score: 1

Well, now is your chance to step forward and tell us about some of the exciting experiments and discoveries which are made on the ISS each day which make the ISS worthwhile compared to the Hubble as far as the money / knowledge-gain ratio goes. Actually, you should have included some examples in your above comment as it to me just looks like hot air so far.
Re:Shuttle repair mission... by wass · 2004-02-16 03:31 · Score: 1

The fact that you only consider newspapers and TV a valid source of information is rather disturbing.
Are you seriously comparing the Hubble PR publications with ISS's microgravity scientific research publications?
Hubble data is used in publications all the time in Nature, Science, and of course Ap. J. and many other publications. But I guess you are right, astrophysicists don't publish in Cell, therefore ISS does more important research.
Yeah, of course ISS does microgravity research, some people here in my physics departement are interested in looking at phase boundaries between complex fluids in absence of gravity. But 1-2 orders of magnitude more scientists make use of Hubble. But then again, I'm biased because STScI is right across the street. But wait, I'm biased the other way too because nearly the rest of campus here at Johns Hopkins does bio research and is more interested in your Cell microgravity stuff then hard astrophysics.
But anyway, back to your ridiculous point, why would you compare the audience that the PR office reaches for? This is Public relations, that implies the general public, not the specialized scientific community. Because if you get off your high hourse and "base your conclusions after doing a bit more research" as you quoted in your post, you'd see that astronomers and physicists make heavy use of Hubble data and do publish in the most prestigious scientific journals as well.

--
make world, not war
Re:Shuttle repair mission... by Orne · 2004-02-16 04:05 · Score: 1

I think you meant to say, nothing is certain in these days of $534 billion Medicare Drug Benefit Plan... The $134 billion bloat in 1 year is more than the entire cost of the 2nd gulf war plus 50%.
Re:Shuttle repair mission... by Surlyboi · 2004-02-16 04:14 · Score: 1

Not to go too far offtopic, but yeah, that too. Especially if you consider the fact that the plan puts more money in the hands of the drug companies. Special interest pork runs rampant.

--
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine...
Re:Shuttle repair mission... by sdedeo · 2004-02-16 07:55 · Score: 1

Bzzzzt! Wrong. Astronomers are no more protective of their own research, and yet the PR still works very well. HINT: it is the public that pushed for science funding. Hubble has done more to encourage public interest in pure science (not the gadgets and gizmos applied stuff) in the last ten years than almost anything else. Astronomers often release photos ahead of time; there is a one year "time out" after which your data *has* to go public. What about the ISS?

--
Protect your liberties. Donate to the ACLU

Someone tell me again... by ShadowBlasko · 2004-02-15 22:15 · Score: 5, Interesting

WHY are we just letting the Hubble die again?

Oh yeah, thats right, NASA says that it costs too much to maintain, and it's getting close to its estimated end of life date.

Guess we better junk it because it seems we aren't getting any good science out of it. Whats that? oldest known galaxy huh? Cool! .. lets study it to learn more about the origins of the galaxy! Oh, we can't lease any more time on the Hubble because we're junking it remember?.

Once again, I think NASA really needs to learn a very old saying that you don't junk something until you have a replacement. When the JWT is operational and snug in its lagrange point, then we can talk about whether or not to scrap the Hubble. Until then, I think its worth perhaps *outsourcing* a maintinence mission to another country (or private company) who thinks they can get the job done.

Who says we *have* to use the shuttle? Or is there something I am missing about the shuttle being the only craft that can work on the Hubble?

Then again, I can't think of anyone else that can get there at the moment either. And if they can, I suppose they would probably be more apt to put their own agenda's ahead of a NASA maintinence mission.

Oh well.

--
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order- Ed Howdershelt Via Tass

Re:Someone tell me again... by Kierthos · 2004-02-15 22:21 · Score: 5, Funny

Not just that... it's because Bush wants to put a man on Mars, and NASA only has so much money, so something has to get cut.

Now I'm wishing I hadn't sent that e-mail about there being oil on Mars...

Kierthos

--
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
Re:Someone tell me again... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-15 22:27 · Score: 0

I think NASA really needs to learn a very old saying that you don't junk something until you have a replacement.

Apparently, so do you. I don't recognize that as a very old saying.
Re:Someone tell me again... by MasterSLATE · 2004-02-15 22:48 · Score: 2

RTFA's

NASA said NOTHING about the costs... They said it is TOO risky to fix it. Also, they never said there wasn't good science coming from it.

And what are you talking about other crafts? The space shuttles are the main crafts that go to speace.

nasa shuttles
wired article that tells about hubble and reasons its not being fixed.

--

[sig]www.masterslate.org[/sig]
Re:Someone tell me again... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-15 22:50 · Score: 0

Perhaps they could send a Saturn V. Hey joe, where did youput those blueprints;-)

Seriously though, I would have thougth the rocket technology that the russians have been using with the MIR and ISS would be OK for servicing the hubble. If they are prepared to send a millionaire tourist into space I wonder how much they would want to send a telescope service technician?

I think the sum would not be out of reach of an "astranomical" whip round of hubble supporters and users.
Re:Someone tell me again... by danheskett · 2004-02-15 22:54 · Score: 1, Informative

WHY are we just letting the Hubble die again?
We have 2 space shuttles. We've lost two recently. If we lose one more, that's effectively the end of the shuttle program. We need the shuttles for (1) contingency, (2) the ISS, and (3) future satellite/instrument launches. It is risky to send up 50% of the fleet for a single mission.

On top of that, a replacement will be ready sometime in 2007. The replacement will need a shuttle to launch. Now, if we send up a mission to repair Hubble, and buy it another 3-4 years, what good does that do if we can't launch the sucessor because the shuttle exploded on return to Earth?

Guess we better junk it because it seems we aren't getting any good science out of it.
They never said. You made it up. It's a tough choice, which the NASA administrator admits.

Until then, I think its worth perhaps *outsourcing* a maintinence mission to another country (or private company) who thinks they can get the job done.
No country would be able to fill that contract without spending billions more than a replacement would cost. Dozens of billions probably. The Hubble is big. Real big. It weighs 11,000kb. The Russian rocket classes can handle somewhere between 550 kg to 950 kg, with proposed models that could have handled 4000 kg (into LEO only) scrapped for financial reasons. A repair payload for Hubble would likely run at least 5000 kg, maybe more.

Other nations are equipped for satellite launching, and most barely at that.

Once again, I think NASA really needs to learn a very old saying that you don't junk something until you have a replacement.
A replacement is on the way. However, this is not "NASA junking" something. That implies active plan to junk something. The Hubble is failing, and requires massive, extraordinary measures to save it. It will in all likelyhood require an EVA to repair. It will require a full manned shuttle mission.

Another failed shuttle with a dead crew would likely lead to a dramatic toll being taken on NASA. Or possibly the end of NASA as it is known. It is too risky to rest that all on a single mission with dubious outcomes.

I think you are ignorant and mal-informed as to what the real reasons behind the NASA decision is.
Re:Someone tell me again... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-15 23:24 · Score: 0

If we lose one more, that's effectively the end

because the shuttle exploded on return to Earth?

Think positive, dude. You sound like the exploration of space is a pain.
Re:Someone tell me again... by azaris · 2004-02-15 23:25 · Score: 4, Informative

We have 2 space shuttles. We've lost two recently.
Is 18 years ago "recently"? And why are there multiple posts claiming that the US has only two shuttles, when it has three ("Endeavour", "Atlantis" and "Discovery")? I know Americans are used to having multiples of everything but surely it should be possible to figure out how many space shuttles you have.
Another failed shuttle with a dead crew would likely lead to a dramatic toll being taken on NASA. Or possibly the end of NASA as it is known.
Uh-huh.
Re:Someone tell me again... by Jugalator · 2004-02-15 23:26 · Score: 1

Guess we better junk it because it seems we aren't getting any good science out of it. Whats that? oldest known galaxy huh? Cool! .. lets study it to learn more about the origins of the galaxy!

No, that's the job of the James Webb Telescope :-)
http://www.ngst.nasa.gov/FastFacts.htm

--
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Re:Someone tell me again... by dafoomie · 2004-02-15 23:43 · Score: 5, Insightful

We have 2 space shuttles. We've lost two recently.

We have 3 space shuttles and have lost two in 18 years.

On top of that, a replacement will be ready sometime in 2007.

The current timeframe is a 2011 launch, and that is expected to be pushed back signifigantly, due to development and technological issues.

The Hubble is failing, and requires massive, extraordinary measures to save it.

The Hubble requires routine scheduled maintenance.

I think you are ignorant and mal-informed as to what the real reasons behind the NASA decision is.

You are the one who is ignorant and mal-informed if you think the real reason behind this decision is anything other than money.
Re:Someone tell me again... by CrackedButter · 2004-02-16 00:38 · Score: 2, Funny

You have a fourth shuttle called Enterprise btw.

--
Jonathanjk.com
Re:Someone tell me again... by mark99 · 2004-02-16 02:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

Astronauts are supposed to risk their lives. That's their job. Just like soldiers or policemen. Anyway, how is sending someone to Mars going to be safer than a quick jaunt to the Hubble to fix some things.

O'Keefe is simply not being candid about his real goals, which is to garner votes for his boss anyway he can.

Your average Joe/Jane can't remember what the Hubble was, but might just recall that Bush wanted to do something cool like send heros to Mars.
Re:Someone tell me again... by ttsalo · 2004-02-16 03:12 · Score: 2, Insightful

The Russian rocket classes can handle somewhere between 550 kg to 950 kg, with proposed models that could have handled 4000 kg (into LEO only) scrapped for financial reasons.
Where did you pull these numbers from? Energia, which they used as their shuttle booster, could lift 95-100 tons to LEO. This flew for the first time in 1987 and they have at least one mothballed, even if there haven't been recent launches. The smaller Proton rockets, used for Soyuz launches, can lift 20 tons to LEO.

--
If the road to hell is paved with good intentions, where does the road paved with evil intentions lead to?
Re:Someone tell me again... by Tyler+Eaves · 2004-02-16 03:16 · Score: 0, Redundant

No we don't.

Enterprise was never space capable. It was only used for the intial air-drop landing tests. It's been sitting in a museum for 20 years.

--
TODO: Something witty here...
Re:Someone tell me again... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-16 04:10 · Score: 0

Is 18 years ago "recently"? And why are there multiple posts claiming that the US has only two shuttles, when it has three ("Endeavour", "Atlantis" and "Discovery")?

People remember that four shuttles were initially built, and two of them have been destroyed. But not everyone recalls that Endeavour was later built to replace Challenger. And yes, 18 years elapsed, but fewer than 100 missions. That counts as "recent", particularly if you look at NASA's previous estimates for the probability of disastrous mission failure.

AC.
Re:Someone tell me again... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-16 05:32 · Score: 0

Correct. One of the shuttles is not fit for space travel. Was used mostly for testing and spare parts.
Re:Someone tell me again... by CrackedButter · 2004-02-16 06:48 · Score: 1

Again another serious post which has been modded funny, this is the third time now! Mods what are you smoking, I don't pull this shit when I mod posts?

--
Jonathanjk.com
Re:Someone tell me again... by Zonnie · 2004-02-16 12:34 · Score: 1

NASA maintenance, dead space stations--of course they'll decommission the Hubble. NASA also likes to make rovers that "sort of work" and then lose them.
I cannot believe that they are trying to save money.

--
Get Lost!
Re:Someone tell me again... by jelle · 2004-02-16 15:40 · Score: 1

"but surely it should be possible to figure out how many space shuttles you have."

I remember seeing a documentary where animal watchers were studying this animal and found that the animal knew when they were in their hideout, twarting their efforts to study the animal. Then they found out the animal could see the difference between one person and more than one person, but it could not count. So they had three people going into the observation post and then two people leaving, after which the animal thought he was not being watched and the study could continue freely...

--
--- Hindsight is 20/20, but walking backwards is not the answer.

And still no sign of Luke or the Empire. by evn · 2004-02-15 22:17 · Score: 4, Funny

It takes light a whole lot of years to make it this far. It sounds like this story should have started with: "A Long Time Ago in a Galaxy Far, Far Away..."

Re:And still no sign of Luke or the Empire. by Takeel · 2004-02-16 00:27 · Score: 1

Pfft. What they *didn't* tell you is that this galaxy was identified by Hubble's imaging of an ice-cold bottle of Colt 45 Malt Liquor.

where are the high-res photos? by 0xfc · 2004-02-15 22:18 · Score: 2, Informative

Only the BBC site had pictures. And a small one at that, that did not expand in opera.. with my settings.

Anyone have some really nice new picture links they are talking about?

Re:where are the high-res photos? by BabyDave · 2004-02-15 22:24 · Score: 5, Informative

Try HubbleSite - their article includes a full-res JPEG/TIFF image.
(N.b. Apologies to their webmasters/hosting company)
Re:where are the high-res photos? by 0xfc · 2004-02-15 22:27 · Score: 0, Redundant

thank you
and these pics are amazing.
Re:where are the high-res photos? by first.last · 2004-02-16 00:18 · Score: 0

Which one is it though?

--
If you're going to mod down, at least have the BALLS to identify yourself; so the same shit treatment can be given to you.

--
Wishing I was a millionaire since 1969.
Re:where are the high-res photos? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-16 04:26 · Score: 0

... or try the newly-launched spacetelescope.org. It has all images ever released to the public, plus videos, wallpapers and background information.
Re:where are the high-res photos? by spanklin · 2004-02-16 13:39 · Score: 1

Ummm... HubbleSite released HST images of Mars when it was at opposition on 8/27/2003 almost in real time. They're *used* to the /. effect when stuff like this gets posted.

Well... by Neko-kun · 2004-02-15 22:22 · Score: 4, Interesting

if NASA is only bitching about not being able to finance the repairs, then why not lease it to another country? With some "creative legalties" we can have the leasing country fix it for us and return it good as new... But how many countries'll fall fall for that one?..

Re:Well... by sadomikeyism · 2004-02-16 02:58 · Score: 1

By all means, lets privatize the Hubble. Surely a consortium of universities can sufficiently fund it, given how much of the research via hubble is being done by university astronomy and physics types. Then, have the Hubble Consortium copyright all of the images and start the merchandizing bandwagon: posters, t-shirts, screen savers.
Information wants to be free.... free enterprise, that is...

--
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves
Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-16 05:35 · Score: 0

I'm american and know very well foreigners have a hard time with working on american engineered machines. You cant just hand over a space telescope and ask someone to service it unless you want a telephone call every 15 minutes with a question about the telescope.
Re:Well... by Gogo+Dodo · 2004-02-16 07:03 · Score: 1

Privatizing Hubble isn't going to help if the thing needs a service mission. How is private enterprise going to service it, hmmm? There's only one game in town for servicing missions: the Shuttle.
And, no, X-Prize stuff and "we'll build something" doesn't count. By the time anything gets off the drawing boards to get a sevice mission up to Hubble, it will probably be too far gone to be worth fixing.
Re:Well... by sadomikeyism · 2004-02-16 09:15 · Score: 1

The Russians have the capacity, and are for hire. If they're willing to baby sit Lance Bass for a couple weeks for $20 mil, they should be able to work on the Hubble pretty cheaply.
They would also jump at the chance to show up the arrogant NASA people, who by all accounts are pretty condescending to the Russian space agency.

--
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves
Re:Well... by Gogo+Dodo · 2004-02-16 15:45 · Score: 1

The Russians have the ability to launch people up to ISS and stick satellites into orbit, but it's another thing to carry people and parts up to Hubble and then service it. Again, the only thing available that can do both at the same time is the Shuttle.

Probably the first of many upcoming PR items by ishmalius · 2004-02-15 22:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

I'm sure the guys in Maryland will probably be coming up with daily or weekly ASTOUNDING DISCOVERIES! in order to keep funding at Johns Hopkins.

What can they do to gather funding from other than government sources? What other countries would like to help?

At one time I expected this telescope to the the most incredible scientific instrument ever built. But my enthusiasm for it was damaged when they neglected to test it before launch. Did the telescope project accept the responsibility for the failure, and cover the cost of the repair mission themselves? No. They went back to the well of public funding again. And they have done it since then again. I think the public has paid enough. Let's launch some new technology.

Re:Probably the first of many upcoming PR items by Uncertain+Bohr · 2004-02-16 02:35 · Score: 1

You got some of the facts strangely confused... The mirror problem you refer to was not caused by the lack of testing. In fact, the mirror was tested using several methods, on quick and simple, and one requiring complicated calibration. The contractor, choosen by NASA, did the tests and choose which one to accept. You seem to think that the telescope was build by a group of astronomer in Baltimore... :-)
Anyway, new technology will not be easier than continuing the maintenance on HST and JWST is far from completed and it still in the very early design stage.
Re:Probably the first of many upcoming PR items by wass · 2004-02-16 03:41 · Score: 3, Insightful

But my enthusiasm for it was damaged when they neglected to test it before launch.
You do realize, though, that the Hubble had the most accurate optics of any telescope ever built? (It was at the time, though since then Chandra probably exceeds it). That's why they were able to correct the spherical aberation perfectly with COSTAR.
Anyway, IIRC, it was the testing equipment that led to the problem with the spherical aberration. Ie, they ground the mirror to a very high standard. They fine-tuned the curvature with testing equipment to get it to the proper shape (talking 10's of nanometers of material to grind away here, not much material at all). It was this testing equipment that was miscalibrated. But it was a systematic error, so they could perfectly undo the aberrations introduced into the mirror.
As far as testing it before launch, I beliebe there were some problems that it couldn't be tested until it was in a microgravity environment. For example, the weight of the mirror in a gravitational field distorts it significantly that it can't actually focus.

--
make world, not war

Is Hubble your love toy? by AmVidia+HQ · 2004-02-15 22:29 · Score: 4, Insightful

I understand the stupidity of de-orbiting Hubble, and I do think NASA should extend its life a little longer by doing the service mission. But don't you think all the sentimental slashdot comments is a little too sentimental? Just maybe Hubble is getting old, and it's time to put up a new telescope for replacement (hopefully or eventually)?

--
VIVA1023.com | Political Fashion.

Re:Is Hubble your love toy? by Angstroem · 2004-02-15 22:49 · Score: 3, Insightful

ust maybe Hubble is getting old, and it's time to put up a new telescope for replacement (hopefully or eventually)?
Well, then how about putting up the new telescope and then discarding Hubble? Otherwise you easily end up in a situation like Germany with the current truck toll nonsense, i.e. with nothing but trouble.
Besides: Just because things get old doesn't necessarily mean they get useless. Always remember: Any Saturn V beats the crap out of any modern rocket in terms of thrust (maybe the Energija plays in the same league). The Voyager probes still do a fantastic job although over 25 years old. If a technology works, don't change and/or discard it until you have something better up and running.
Re:Is Hubble your love toy? by Jason1729 · 2004-02-15 22:55 · Score: 2, Insightful

Even if Hubble is replaced by a newer and better telescope, the demand for time on the instrument is so great that both telescopes can still be put to very good use. Even as the second best telescope, Hubble's usefulness far outweighs the cost to do the service mission.

Regardless, we should not even be thinking of scrapping Hubble until something better is up there.

Jason
ProfQuotes
Re:Is Hubble your love toy? by danheskett · 2004-02-15 23:04 · Score: 2

If a technology works, don't change and/or discard it until you have something better up and running
Would you risk your life to fix the Hubble knowing that (a) your mission may not succeed, (b) you might blow up at any time, (c) a replacement will be ready around 2007, and (d) that if you die during mission, it may be the end of manned space flight for generations to come?

It's crazy and immoral to ask fine Americans (who'd probably gladly accept for the thrill of space flight!) to risk their lives on this basis.

It's too risky.
Re:Is Hubble your love toy? by Angstroem · 2004-02-15 23:20 · Score: 5, Insightful

Would you risk your life to fix the Hubble knowing that (a) your mission may not succeed, (b) you might blow up at any time, (c) a replacement will be ready around 2007, and (d) that if you die during mission, it may be the end of manned space flight for generations to come?
You never know whether space missions succeed or if you're gonna blow up. Nobody expected the shuttle explosions in 1986 and 2003. With your arguments (b) and (d), you better do not risk any manned trip to space ever. The replacement in 2007 might be ready or not. The German toll collect system was announced to be fully operating in Q3/2003. Now they tell something about maybe a small-scale version end of 2004 and the full thing a year later. The replacement might even be ready in 2007 and then the carrier rocket blows up or needs to be destructed. The replacement might even make it up into space and then they'll find out that someone again fucked up the mirrors. Or a solar panel won't open. Or just some piece of junk shreds the whole thing.
Or, the whole project gets canned because the money is rerouted into other projects.
So why again do you think the replacement will be ready around 2007?
Concerning (d): Other nations are also possible to send people into space and even bring them back. And, be sure, they will happily fill the gap, if the US decide to "end manned space flights for generations".
Re:Is Hubble your love toy? by CFBMoo1 · 2004-02-16 00:51 · Score: 1

I'd risk my life and I'm probebly not qualified at all to go up there. The chance to see something never seen before is well worth the risk. Ofcourse thats no excuse for not being cautious. Quite honestly, hubble is returning far more then I ever thought it would initially and it deserves every last bit of umpf to keep it regularlly serviced and working.

So if I blow up on my way back from fixing it atleast a lot of other people, grateful or not, will get the chance to see things never seen before. It's like those fella's who sailed across to a place called Americas.

Besides I'd be one of the few people this day and age lucky enough to see whats above the clouds. That alone makes the trip worth it, I also feel that it's my tax money put to good use.

--
~~ Behold the flying cow with a rail gun! ~~
Re:Is Hubble your love toy? by AlecC · 2004-02-16 01:00 · Score: 1

As I understand it, in the visible wavelengths we have something better down here. New telescopes with actively controlled lenses are claimed to be achieving as good results as Hubble, with all the advantages of ground basing and at a fraction of the cost.

It is in the infra-red, which cannot get through the atmosphere (well, some near-infra-red can) where you need space based telescopes. And while Hubble can do infra-red work, I don't think it is optimised for it. Which is why the Webb telescope will be an infra-red instrument.

A Hubble refit mission would probably cost something $250 million. For perhaps three times that, you could have this, which stikes me as even more exciting.

--
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
Re:Is Hubble your love toy? by liquidsin · 2004-02-16 02:16 · Score: 1

Ok, first off, I think you're just trolling here, since every comment you make is the same thing, over and over again, despite having been corrected on your facts time and time again. But I'll bite anyways. Would you risk your life driving to the store knowing that (a) they may be out of Diet Pepsi, (b) you might get hit by a car in the parking lot, (c) you have groceries in the house now, and (d) that if you get struck by lightning, your friends and family may be scarred for life and unable to go grocery shopping during a thunderstorm ever again? Seriously man - two accidents in the last 18 years, and a hundred plus launches. It's a risky business, and everyone in it knows that. How is it immoral to ask "fine Americans" to do their job? Was it crazy and immoral to send them to war in Iraq too? Is it crazy and immoral to ask construction workers to build skyscrapers, since they'd gladly accept for the thrill of putting food on the table? Please, in the future, make sense or shut up.

--
do not read this line twice.
Re:Is Hubble your love toy? by Jason1729 · 2004-02-16 19:32 · Score: 1

Assuming all your information is right, I still look at it this way:

For $750M, you can have the newer better telescope, or for a mere 1/3rd more, you can have the newer telescope and Hubble.

At the very least, Hubble can take some of the load from whatever new telescope they build so the waiting times won't be as long.

Jason
ProfQuotes

Much better picture. by pointzero · 2004-02-15 22:31 · Score: 5, Informative

If you want to see this thing up close, here's a better link. click me

Re:Much better picture. by Tablizer · 2004-02-16 05:09 · Score: 1

Your link does not show it. It appears the BBC version is somehow enhanced. (It is also at a different orientation).

--
Table-ized A.I.

That's impossible... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-15 22:32 · Score: 5, Funny

...there's no mention of this at Dr. Dino, clearly this is a clever hoax... It's impossible anyhow since we all know the earth (and therefore the universe) is only 6000 years old!

(humor folks, humor)

Re:That's impossible... by first.last · 2004-02-16 00:24 · Score: 0

Figures that dr dino's website would be fu. Tried to submit a comment ;) but it failed. Guess I'll have to call them later to tell them what stupid fucks they are.

--
Wishing I was a millionaire since 1969.
Re:That's impossible... by bramez · 2004-02-16 05:39 · Score: 1

only if there's a restaurant, it really is at the end of the universe.
Re:That's impossible... by BeatlesForum.com · 2004-02-16 12:25 · Score: 1

Of course, no one can prove how old any of this is, so the 6000 year estimate is just as good as anyone else's, right? Wasn't there an article recently where some scientist(s) reformulated their estimate of the age of the universe - a difference of several billion years if I'm correct?

Now I don't agree with the 6,000 year theory but I do believe the Bible and the great deception of the end times. I don't know what that deception will be, but if God can create all this, He can surely let you think it took Him 13 billion years when in reality it took Him only six days.

--
When millions disappear from earth, it's not aliens, it's the rapture.
Re:That's impossible... by Alsee · 2004-02-16 16:29 · Score: 1

I don't know what that deception will be, but if God can create all this, He can surely let you think it took Him 13 billion years when in reality it took Him only six days.

Yep. If you assume a malicious and deceitful God then the universe could be 2 weeks old, the Earth could be flat, and the sun could be a fiery chariot driven across the sky by Apollo.

the 6000 year estimate is just as good as anyone else's, right?

Yep. If you assume deceitful God.

On the other hand if there is a benificenct honest God, or no God at all, then you need to be a real fruit-loop to try to argue for a 6000 year-old universe and creation "science" in general. The only way we could see the things we see is if God is intentionally trying to deceive us.

For example we've measured the speed of light. If the universe is only 6000 years old then either we are being shown a deceitful image of the universe, or everything we see in the sky is all squished into a 6000 light year sphere in a decietful arrangement with deceitful motions. Billions of itsy-bitsy stars in each of billions of tiny galaxies doing all sorts of ludicrous things.

If God really were intentionally trying to make us believe lies about the universe (evolution, billions of years age of the universe, etc.), then shouln't we believe what God is trying to trick us into believing?

scientist(s) reformulated their estimate of the age of the universe

Percentage changes, many orders of magnitude like 6000 years would require. Refining values ss ordinary scientific progress. You start off with estimates with large margins of error and uncertainty. As you do more work and understand things better you start finding six independant methods all converging to the same value. Different methods don't all converge to the same result by coincidence, either it's the right answer or someone is intentionally deceiving you.

-

--
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Re:That's impossible... by BeatlesForum.com · 2004-02-16 22:17 · Score: 1

I don't believe it's deceiving. I believe it's the limits of human understanding.

--
When millions disappear from earth, it's not aliens, it's the rapture.
Re:That's impossible... by Alsee · 2004-02-17 19:36 · Score: 1

I believe it's the limits of human understanding.

I think you underestimate the understanding of scientists. You say "the 6000 year estimate is just as good as anyone else's, right?", but one estimate is NOT as good as another when you do understand the basis for it.

We can calculate ages and distances in valid and understandable ways - just like we can calculate designs for airplane wings and jet engines in valid and understandable ways. Maybe you don't understand those methods and equations, maybe I don't understand all of those methods and equations, but one person's "estimates" are not as good as another's. The plane would fall out of the sky if you tried to use a different "just as good" result.

There are a number of different ways of figuring out how far away stars are and how old the universe is, and those methods are entirely understandable if you have an interest and inclination in the subject. One method that's pretty easy to understand is that we can see how far away some stars are exactly the same way our eyes can see exactly how far away objects are. Exactly the same way those silly red/blue 3D-glasses work. You take two pictures and the difference between them shows you how far away something is. We have taken pairs of pictures like that with telescopes and we can see exactly how many light years away some stars are. If you look at the pictures through red/blue glasses you can actually see with your own eyes how much closer/farther different starts are, though it will look like a difference of inches instead of light-years. If you can understand how two eyes can see and measure distance then you can understand how two photographs of the sky can see and measure distance. That method is only good for measuring the distance to stars within a few light years, just like your eyes are only good for measuring the distance to objects within a few hundred feet or so. But once you can measure the distsance to close stars, there are other just as valid and just as understandable methods to measure the distance to farther stars and galaxies.

Either stars really are thousands and millions and billions of light years away and the universe really is billions of years old, or we are rats inside an elaborate hoax projecting a lie. And not just any lie - a very convincing and understandable lie.

Maybe those galaxies aren't billions of light years away, but if they aren't then someone is projecting an elaborate and understandable movie at us, a movie portraying teh image of galaxies billions of light years away and portraying the image a universe billions of years old. Maybe the sun and other planets really do go around the earth but God is secretly snatching away all of our space probes and feeding us fictional signals from those probes to trick us into thinking we landed rovers on mars. But if God is NOT intentionally tricking us then we really have landed probes on mars, and galaxies really are billions of light years away, and the universe really is billions of years old.

-

--
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Re:That's impossible... by BeatlesForum.com · 2004-02-17 22:24 · Score: 1

I think you underestimate the understanding of scientists.

I think scientists underestimate the power of God, but hey, the Bible says that in the last days scoffers will come - they will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, ungrateful, unholy...

I think these scientists need to look up every once-in-a-while and remember that even though they think they know everything, they really don't.

--
When millions disappear from earth, it's not aliens, it's the rapture.
Re:That's impossible... by Alsee · 2004-02-18 00:06 · Score: 1

I think scientists underestimate the power of God

Nope. As I said things like:

If you assume a malicious and deceitful God then the universe could be 2 weeks old, the Earth could be flat, and the sun could be a fiery chariot driven across the sky by Apollo.

I am not underestimating the power of God. I am merely saying that either all-powerful God is deceiving us (in which case it is pointless trying to argue anything because 2+2 could actually equal 5), or we are not being deceived by God (in which case science is a pretty accurate description of the physical universe).

Science says nothing about God. Science cannot say anything about God.

It is folly to try to make a scientific claim about God, just as it is folly to try to make religious claim about science. Just as it was silly when the Church fought Galileo's heresy that the Earth goes around the Sun. The Earth goes around the Sun and the universe is billions of years old. Neither of those facts conflict with a belief in God.

I think these scientists need to look up every once-in-a-while and remember that even though they think they know everything, they really don't.

Any scientists who claims science says something about God or religion is an idiot. But scientisis DO know about about the physical universe. If God created the universe then He did so such that scientists could figure out how to make an airplane fly. Then He so such that scientists could figure out how far away the moon is and land people there. Then He did so such that scientits could figure out how far away the Sun and planets and stars are. Then He did so such that scientists could figure out pretty accurately how old the Earth and Sun and various stars and galaxies are.

Airplanes work. Nuclear reactors work. Space probes to other planets work. Genetic-engineered bacteria work. If God created the universe then scientists are accurately understanding the physical universe God gave us.

Religion should embrace the scientific exploration and understanding of God's wonderous creation. Instead the Pope throws a hissy-fit when Galileo says the Earth goes around the Sun.

-

--
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.

How many shuttles? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-15 22:42 · Score: 3, Interesting

As I understand it they cannot service hubble because of the danger to astronauts if the shuttle tiles were damaged (unlike the ISS, there is nowhere for the astronauts to "shelter").

How many shuttles are left? If there were two, perhaps one could go to the ISS on a supply mission, and following a test to check the tiles are OK a second could be launched to the Hubble. If the hubble shuttle had problems the ISS shuttle could go to the rescue?

Is this all skyborn 3.14? Yep, I'm sure NASA have analysed all these possibilities, but after wasting so many resources on ridiculous exercises it would be a pity if NASA abandoned the one thing that does a day to day useful job out in space!

Re:How many shuttles? by snake_dad · 2004-02-16 00:51 · Score: 2, Insightful

How is this insightful? If the Hubble maintenance mission is too dangerous because the Shuttle can't reach the ISS from Hubble's orbit, then how could it work the other way around?
Maybe there is a solution, but then that might just as well be applied to the original Hubble mission, so that the Shuttle could reach the ISS.
NASA has also stated that for doing two simultaneous missions (or one on standby on the launchpad) they would need two mission control centers as well. I have no idea if that's true or not, just stating what NASA replied to the two mysterious reports from anymous NASA employees.

--
karma capped .sig seeking available Slashdot poster for long-term relationship.

Old news! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-15 22:49 · Score: 4, Funny

In fact over 13 bilion years old...

Less than 10% more distance to see nothing by gringer · 2004-02-15 22:50 · Score: 5, Interesting

So, we can apparently see [the light from] something 13 billion light years away, and find something 750 million years old, meaning we can see about 95% of the life of the universe.

How long will it be before we can get to the point where the whole universe was invisible?

--
Ask me about repetitive DNA

Re:Less than 10% more distance to see nothing by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-16 01:37 · Score: 0

We can already see fairly well to the farthest we'll ever see: the cosmic microwave background from bang + 300,000yrs.
Re:Less than 10% more distance to see nothing by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-16 01:43 · Score: 0

"How long will it be before we can get to the point where the whole universe was invisible?"

About 6.8 billion years... That is assuming the only points where the whole universe is invisible to you, are the points on the boundary of the universe while you are looking out. Considering that the radius of the universe is about 13.7 billion light years, you need on average only half that many years to get to the current edge of the universe at the speed of light.
Re:Less than 10% more distance to see nothing by BigBadBri · 2004-02-16 05:50 · Score: 1

With my tinfoil hat on, I can now see why NASA are scrapping Hubble -
it's because it will soon be able to see God's face!
Perhaps they have already, and are hiding it, like Cydonia?
/me removes tongue from cheek ;)

--
oh brave new world, that has such people in it!

Is that galaxy... by RyuuzakiTetsuya · 2004-02-15 22:53 · Score: 3, Funny

Wondering why we haven't called home? :(

--
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.

Exactly by yoshi_mon · 2004-02-15 23:04 · Score: 1

Why is the Hubble being scrapped when we don't have anything that can currently replace it?

Politics. Dirty, stinking, no forward looking, get the powers that be to look away from what matters and focus on voting the encumbents in this November, politics.

Am I pissed? Yeah. Am I biased, maybe. Am I right? Definatly.

--

Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!

Re:Exactly by Alan+Partridge · 2004-02-15 23:49 · Score: 1

"Am I right? Definatly."

Apparently not.

--
That was classic intercourse!

Off topic content... by fatgeekuk · 2004-02-15 23:04 · Score: 2, Interesting

Well, it isn't off topic, but It feels that way with all the content about the decommissioning of hubble...

A simple question (note, I have only superficial understanding of astronomy so this is probably a very stupid question.)

This picture/set of pictures shows a galaxy as it was less than a billion years after the bb.

How long does a galaxy take to form?
How long does a galaxy take to rotate (I have not seen the pictures, so do not know if it is a spiral galaxy or not)

Does a galaxy take longer to form (to the point this one shows) than is allowed for by our current estimates of the age of the universe?

Sorry, I will stop the off topic discussion now, and we can get back to talking about de-orbiting and such... :-)

Re:Off topic content... by AlecC · 2004-02-16 01:05 · Score: 2, Interesting

Our galaxy takes 200m-300m years to rotate. Current theories, I think, suggest that they take much the same time to form. But I think that is the sort of question this kind of observation is trying to answer. It may be part of the answer - if galaxies take longer to form than the apparent age of the universe when this one wes formed (which I don't think was the case), somebody's theories need changing. If not, it is another pebble of evidence on the side of current theories.

--
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
Re: Off topic content... by jpflip · 2004-02-16 04:25 · Score: 2, Informative

As a previous poster said, a galaxy like ours takes a couple hundred million years to rotate, and formation times tend to be on that order, also. The fact that this galaxy exists so early is, in some ways, evidence for the existence of Cold Dark Matter (CDM) - a population of heavy elementary particles that we think comprises much of the universe's "missing mass". The argument is that if CDM didn't exist, then galaxies (and more importantly, galaxy clusters) would take a very long time to form - the gas dynamics of the early universe tends to resist their collapse. CDM provides a way out of this - the dark matter isn't affected by any of that, and it can collapse more quickly to form big "seeds" for galaxies to form around once the gas cools down.
Re: Off topic content... by fatgeekuk · 2004-02-16 05:45 · Score: 1

And this is why I read SLASHDOT... :-)
Re:Off topic content... by mbrother · 2004-02-16 06:28 · Score: 3, Informative

While a couple of hundred million years is a reasonable timescale for a galaxy like the Milky Way, it is important to realize that galaxies typically rotate differentially and in the case of ellipticals without a single well defined rotation axis. Spiral galaxies like the Milky Way have "flat" rotation curves such that the velocities are constant no matter the radial distance, so it takes stars at larger radial distances much longer to orbit around than stars closer in. Individual stars in sprial galaxies to not all rotate together with a fixed pattern speed. Galaxy formation is a much trickier business. This particular "galaxy" is very tiny compared to to the Milky Way (think more like the Magellanic Clouds). It may just be a small galaxylet that will, in its future, merge with other similar pieces to form a larger galaxy. In such a heirarchical scenario it can be difficult to define a single time of formation. In some sense the size/mass of the galaxy and the age of the universe provide constraints to test formation models. OK, I shoulf go prepare my real lecture for today on the Doppler effect.

--
Professor of Astronomy, Author of Spider Star & Star Dragon (Tor)

How old? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-15 23:05 · Score: 0

[...] from when the universe was just 750 million years old.

Yeah, I wish I could live for just 750 million years

Re:750 Million years? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-15 23:13 · Score: 0

There's a small but vocal fundie contingent here on /. who probably were responsible for modding you down.

Question by mAineAc · 2004-02-15 23:22 · Score: 1, Insightful

If this shed light when the galaxy was 750M years old, and the galaxy is expanding, this means when the galaxy was 750M years old that galaxy was much closer to where we are now. This would tell me that the galaxy alreay shined light on this segment of space, how is that light still here? How can light shine twice?

Re:Question by SimianOverlord · 2004-02-16 00:22 · Score: 0, Interesting

The light Hubble is picking up was created 750M years ago by this far galaxy. It has taken 750M years to travel to where we are now. That takes into account the expansion of the universe, and the distance change between source and detector during the lights travel.

The galaxy has already shined light on us, but this is irrelevant as it is different photons, not the same light. So that light has passed by, but because the galaxy is still emitting light, we still detect it, 750 million years later. If it exploded now , then it would take 750M years (give or take) before we'd see it exploding.

I think that answers your question, though I'm not totally sure what your question was.

--
Meine Schwester ist sehr, sehr reizvoll - Nietzsche
Re:Question by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-16 00:57 · Score: 0

Actually, the object is 13 billion light-years away. So if it exploded now, it would take 13 billion years for the light to get to us - by which time the Universe might have disappeared and the light ends up floating around with nowhere to go. Or something.
Re:Question by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-16 05:08 · Score: 0

No. You are making the common error of thinking in terms of a big explosion throwing away objects from some center. However, it's the universe ITSELF (spacetime) that expands (and there is no center).

While the light was traveling towards us, the universe kept expanding, and the distance it had yet to travel kept increasing, but just a bit slower than the light made progress.

Had the galaxy been a bit farther away these two (universe expansion and light speed) would be almost in equilibrium, and we could almost see the moment of the big bang (or the inflation phase).

And even farther away the universe would expand the distance yet to travel faster than light makes progress, and we get objects which will never be observable to us (assuming the expansion won't slow down)
Re:Question by mAineAc · 2004-02-16 15:18 · Score: 1

You are saying the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light. I thought that nothing can move as fast as the speed of light.
Re:Question by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-17 00:42 · Score: 0

Yes, some points (or objects on these points to make it coordinate system independent) in the universe recede faster from each other than the speed of light.

And that is perefectly legitimate, since the objects at these points aren't moving so fast that they would escape their lightcone (which is what "faster than the speed of light" means). It's the distance between them itself that expands, without the objects needing to move.

There is no speed limit if you are not talking about how things propagate in spacetime. The classic example is shining a beam of light on a wall. If you move the beam fast enought, the lightspot on the wall can go faster than the
speed of light.

Re:Nah.. nah... nah.. by pandrijeczko · 2004-02-15 23:27 · Score: 5, Funny

I'm all for the "Douglas Adams" approach to the Mars colonization issue...

Convince all the young talentless people that everyone on Earth is going to die from a nasty virus and pack Brittney Spears, Justin Timberlake, Busted and all the Pop Idols on the first colonization ship...

Then the rest of us can enjoy proper music in the mainstream again!

--
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.

Fried by a Grav Lens Magnifying Glass? by G4from128k · 2004-02-15 23:42 · Score: 1

Just how strong can these gravitational lenses be? Caustics would sem to create a potential for extremely high light intensification. I wonder if any exterrestrial civilizations have been accidentally killed by a gravitational lensing event. Fortunately, I suspect that this is extremely unlikely because of the distances involved (a thousand-fold amplification of a galaxy a billion light year s away is no big deal).

Still, I do wonder if an unfortunate alignment of a supernova, blackhole, and an unsuspecting planet (on a scale of a few thousnad light years)could have tragic results.

--
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.

Re:Fried by a Grav Lens Magnifying Glass? by first.last · 2004-02-16 00:29 · Score: 2, Funny

Maybe that's why we don't see any aliens that look like giant ants.

--
Wishing I was a millionaire since 1969.

Re:Al Gore by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-15 23:44 · Score: 0

I thought he personally put the Hubble Telescope during the time he was President from 1985 - 1989.

the farthest? by mafti · 2004-02-15 23:45 · Score: 1, Interesting

Erm, why do we know it's the farthest galaxy??? is there behind that galaxy nothing? or perhaps a sign that says: "no trespassing beyond this marker, there's absolutely nothing behind it"

Re:the farthest? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-15 23:48 · Score: 2, Funny

There is a restaurant next door.
Re:the farthest? by gringer · 2004-02-16 00:26 · Score: 1, Insightful

You must be thinking of The Restaurant at the End of the Universe. That restaurant is at the other end of the Universe.

--
Ask me about repetitive DNA
Re:the farthest? by Foddrick · 2004-02-16 01:04 · Score: 1

Surely we'll be able to see the Big Bang Burger Bar soon.
Re:the farthest? by snake_dad · 2004-02-16 01:05 · Score: 1

In case you're not trying to be funny and really don't know: it's the "farthest/oldest galaxy known" (emphasis mine), as in we have seen no galaxy older than this one...

--
karma capped .sig seeking available Slashdot poster for long-term relationship.
Re:the farthest? by AlecC · 2004-02-16 01:07 · Score: 2, Informative

Journalistic shorthand. It is the furthest galaxy yet discovered. Typical anthropocentricity - like Columbus "discovering" America, as if there hadn't been know to its native inhabitants for 11,000 years.

--
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
Re:the farthest? by SamSim · 2004-02-16 07:18 · Score: 1

a sign that says: "no trespassing beyond this marker, there's absolutely nothing behind it"

This is merely the furthest observed galaxy. I don't know about there being no galaxies beyond it, but the observable universe does have a limit. Since the universe is expanding, a galaxy over a certain distance is "receding from us" (that's a lie, but a useful one) faster than its light is shining back at us. We can't see anything beyond that bounday.

--
qntm.org
Re:the farthest? by zero_offset · 2004-02-17 01:57 · Score: 1

And your response is whining Western apologist shorthand: it is the furthest galaxy yet discovered by humans. Imagine how tedious everything would be if we had to append the most nitpicking disqualifiers to every statement.
Or perhaps I should more properly say: "Imagine how tedious everything would seem (given the assumption that your world-view associates value with convenience and expediency versus the urge to pursue the most thoroughly complete exposition on every topic of discussion), if we human beings, in order to more properly avoid unintentional (or intentional) exlcusion of other better-qualified people (and I use that word in it's most inclusive sense), were required (or perhaps merely "encouraged" -- to avoid infringing on anyone's presumed right to intentionally pursue a contentionsly politically incorrect bent) to add disqualifiers to every statement which might not, in itself, properly represent the utterly complete and true scope of every consideration related to that statement."
Columbus did make a discovery. Just because Party A (hereinafter referred to as "Primitive Screwheads") knew about the Americas doesn't make Party B (hereinafter referred to as "The Permanent Floating Columbus Party Brigade", or PFCPB) any less-deserving of the title "discoverer". The PFCPB was not previously aware of the Americas. Finding it fully satisfies the definition of the term "discovery".
Additionally, your example is not an example of antropocentricity -- unless you're arguing that the Primitive Screwheads were not actually human. Or did I miss some sort of journalistic shorthand?

--
Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005

Re: EVA by neodymium · 2004-02-15 23:58 · Score: 5, Interesting

Don't the astronauts have to do EVA anyway while doing the Hubble service ? I mean, they should be able to spare 10mins for checking the shuttle... No reason for a second EVA.

Ping? by LynXmaN · 2004-02-16 00:01 · Score: 5, Funny

Ping times for that galaxy must be terrible!

--
May the source be with you!

Re:Ping? by Pflipp · 2004-02-16 00:59 · Score: 2, Interesting

The problem is, when you have your reply back, you have no guarantee whatsoever that the galaxy is still up. Who is telling you that it hasn't exploded a million years ago?

--
"We can confirm that Debian does *not* ship the version with the trojan horse. Our version predates it." [CA-2002-28]
Re:Ping? by BigBadBri · 2004-02-16 05:46 · Score: 1

ping abell2218.noname
Pinging abell2218.noname with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from abell2218.noname: bytes=32 time>24by TTL=infinite
Ping statistics for abell2218.noname:
Packets: Sent = 1, Received = 1, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in billion years: Minimum = 24by, Maximum = 24by, Average = 24by
Strictly speaking, of course, we'd never receive the ping reply, because the Sun will have exploded long before.

--
oh brave new world, that has such people in it!
Re:Ping? by buckeyeguy · 2004-02-16 09:12 · Score: 1

Since the distant image is only visible through the gravitational lensing from another galaxy, does that mean the ping will have a hop count of >1?

--
I'd have a personalized plate on my car, but "toxic bachelor" won't fit into 7 letters.

Please (cough)bush(cough) reconsider... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-16 00:08 · Score: 0

Why would someone kill this project?

Very stupid

Re:Please (cough)bush(cough) reconsider... by ikandi · 2004-02-16 00:32 · Score: 3, Insightful

Bush has handed a political stick to his opponents. Kerry would be well advised to promise to revisit the Death of Hubble decision: it will get him a lot of votes. There is no sense in killing Hubble to add 1 or 2% to the Mars / Moon missions that might launch sometime in the 2010's. Webb may be killed for its money as well. NASA is using Hubble as a political lever, and the argument that space is a dangerous place for shuttle nauts does not stand up: remember the burned Apollo crew anyone? Maybe NASA believes Bush wants stuff in orbit that points down and not up.
Re:Please (cough)bush(cough) reconsider... by Overzeetop · 2004-02-16 06:13 · Score: 1

At a cost of (what I've heard) somewhere north of $1x10^12 dollars for a mission to Mars, the cost to keep Hubble working is quite a small sum. In fact, there's nothing I'm aware of which would prevent a lunar-capable vehicle from servicing Hubble for the extended term. Of course, you're not going to get an extra trillion dollars into NASA by tossing in an extra 5% a year, as Dubya has offered in his budget proposal.

Luckily, Barbara Mikulski (Senator MD-D), is the toughest legislator on the hill (inch-for-inch), especially when it comes to protecting projects at the Goddard Space Flight Center, where Hubble's team is located. I hope she wins this time, too.

--
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Re:Please (cough)bush(cough) reconsider... by ShavenYak · 2004-02-16 06:47 · Score: 1

the argument that space is a dangerous place for shuttle nauts does not stand up

Actually, space is perfectly safe for Shuttle astronauts. It's the atmosphere that's a dangerous place!

--

Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!

Re:Nah.. nah... nah.. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-16 00:20 · Score: 0

we just have to remember to not send the telephone sanitisers, we don't want to all die because some one forgot to wipe thier handset down

Shuttling around by maroberts · 2004-02-16 00:28 · Score: 5, Insightful

I'm coming increasingly to believe the space station is a bit of a dead duck and the issues that prevented the location of ISS in a higher orbit should have been addressed, so that it could do something really useful - like being a base where servicing missions can start and end from.

Then one would deliver a true shuttle which would flit between ISS and whatever hardware needed upgrading. Fuel and personel would be delivered to the space station alone as a starting and ending point.

--

Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon

The edge by rotciv86 · 2004-02-16 00:30 · Score: 1, Interesting

Do ya ever think they'll actually be able to see the edge of the universe?

--

My ghEtt0 webpage.

Re:The edge by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-16 01:46 · Score: 1, Informative

You can see the edge of the universe from the edge of the Earth. (I will not be held responsible if you fall off the globe if you go there to look!)
No, the universe has no edge. And the farthest you can see is the cosmic microwave background.
Re:The edge by Baron_Yam · 2004-02-16 02:43 · Score: 2, Insightful

It depends on how you define the edge... if you mean the 'Big Bang', then probably not. If you mean shortly after the end of the 'Dark Ages' when the first luminescent matter appeared, then possibly yes.
Re:The edge by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-16 07:38 · Score: 0

We might be able to eventually see farther than the CMBR using gravitational waves, since matter is more or less transparent to them. Unfortunately, the primordial gravitational wave background is really weak.

This was actually done mostly by the Hawai Keck by pjacobi · 2004-02-16 00:38 · Score: 3, Insightful

From BBC:

"The Hubble data suggested a redshift of 6.6, but follow-up observations with the 10-metre Keck telescopes on Hawaii indicated the new object probably has a redshift closer to 7.0 - a record."

You see, this work can be done from orbit or from earth. There are perfectly valid arguments for keeping Hubble, and even more valid arguments for space telescopes in general, but this particular observation isn't decisive.

Re:This was actually done mostly by the Hawai Keck by AlecC · 2004-02-16 01:15 · Score: 4, Informative

I would guess this is a tradeoff between resolving power and light gathering capacity. The high resolution of the Hubble was needed to observe that the two apparent galaxies were identical and therefore the same galaxy lensed by the intevening cluster. This needs the high resolution of Hubble, unaffected by the atmosphere. But with its relatively small mirror, Hubble cannot gather enougb photons for a good esposure. So you point Keck, with its 10 metre mirror, at the blur which it cannot resolve - and probably give it a longer exposure than you can get time for on the overbooked Hubble. And you get a much better spectrum. But it was Hubble which made the discovery, whaich arguably could not have been made from beneath the atmosphere.

--
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
Re:This was actually done mostly by the Hawai Keck by Uncertain+Bohr · 2004-02-16 02:41 · Score: 4, Insightful

Keck was used for high res spectroscopy. It takes hours to get a single spectrum of something this dim. You could find these efficiently using Keck in a survey mode. Keck and HST complement one another quite while (as does the VLT and Gemini). JWST was meant to work wel with HST/Keck too by allowing yet another wavelength range to be examined at very loew sensitivities.
The mistake made by some politicians and non-scientists is that they think that there must be a "best telescope" one can build to do ALL science. This is wrong.

Measurements...DUH! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-16 00:39 · Score: 0

Like oh say...r a d i a t i o n.

Farthest that we have been able to _RECORD_ yet you silly little turd ball.

Mod this shit back down please!!! DAMN, what do some moderators THINK when they mod idiot shit like this up. This post is as interesting as a log of shit full of corn kernels.

Twits.

Why don't we have a proper international... by CrackedButter · 2004-02-16 00:42 · Score: 3, Insightful

space agency? If all the major nations combined their efforts rather than having a fragmented approach then surely things would get done and benefit everyone. Also it would create debate as opposed to politicains declaring equipment repairs unsafe and EOL them without a good analysis of whats going on.

--
Jonathanjk.com

What, outsource it to India? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-16 00:46 · Score: 0

Maybe they can use it to find some originality in creating their own economy and industry instead of leaching like the parasites they are leaving disease, terrorism, and piss poor uncreative code.

This parent should be modded OFFTOPIC since the article was discussing a photo of the oldest galaxy we have recorded thus far...not Nasa plans to scrap the Hubble.

Interesting...fucking pinheads.

The memories... by Cryp2Nite · 2004-02-16 00:47 · Score: 3, Insightful

What I wouldn't give to be just 750 million years old again...
Life, the universe and everything seemed so simple back then.

NASA Didn't Decide - O'Keefe Did by jmichaelg · 2004-02-16 00:53 · Score: 5, Interesting

The decision was a unilateral decision on O'Keefe's part. He's been called to account by Senator Barbara Mikulski.

In typical cya fashion, O'Keefe called on Harold Gehman, who led the Columbia accident inquiry, to review the decision. It's a bit of neener neener on O'Keefe's part because Gehman's commission nailed NASA for sloppy safety management policies.

What O'Keefe is saying to Gehman is "Look you SOB - you try running an agency that's being pulled 20 different ways and see if you don't start cutting corners."

Problem for O'Keefe is that there are plenty of ideas on how to both service Hubble and adhere to the Gehman's commission's advice. Not surprisingly, NASA management choses to ignore its engineers instead of listen.

Nasa will be well rid of Mr. O'Keefe when he leaves. Next time, maybe the powers that be will appoint someone with an engineering background to run the agency.

Re:NASA Didn't Decide - O'Keefe Did by DebianRcksLindowsLie · 2004-02-16 02:09 · Score: 1

The best way to cya in this case is to announce a NEWER telescope, which is exactly what they did.

--
Sick of people trashing Debian? Me too! Check my sig.

--
Lindows Steals Copyrighted Art and Promotes Porn
Re:NASA Didn't Decide - O'Keefe Did by spanklin · 2004-02-16 13:31 · Score: 1

But what most people don't appreciate is that the JWST (the next generation space telescope they announced) will not have many of the capabilities of Hubble.

Nice by Quantum-Sci · 2004-02-16 00:58 · Score: 0, Troll

Gravetational lensing... marvellous.

--
Campaign finance reform is national security.

Re:And what, end up like Beagle 2? by CrackedButter · 2004-02-16 01:07 · Score: 1

I don't think envy is the word, and the US don't know what they are doing if they are using space exploration as a voting tool. I'm sure the americans got things right first time and every time as well, they never had teething issues and are 100% perfect, they never had their own Beagles to deal with did they?
There are not that good. But you have a point about bringing everybody to a standard... just not a US specific standard like you propose, otherwise the US will stay in control and we the other nations would end up funding them instead of the US citizens.

--
Jonathanjk.com

Settle down, slashy. by fuctape · 2004-02-16 01:14 · Score: 1

That's interesting / exciting!

Resist the pressure by amightywind · 2004-02-16 01:30 · Score: 1

It is certainly another excellent result for Hubble. But even for results like this, is it really worth $700 million to service Hubble(the cost of a shuttle flight and new instrumentation)? That is a fantastically large number. Now that the Bush administration has given NASA clear goals I hope they stick to them and resist the pressure to service Hubble. The James Webb telescope is coming.

--
an ill wind that blows no good

Re:Resist the pressure by ObiWanKenblowme · 2004-02-16 05:02 · Score: 1

$700 million is a lot to you and me, but the way our government is spending money hand over fist, it's a drop in the barrel. It's akin to someone saying "I'm not going to spend $.49 to supersize my McDonald's extra value meal AND buy a 60-inch plasma TV. Since I really want that TV, I'll skip the extra large fries."

--
Obvious exits are NORTH, SOUTH, and DENNIS.
Re:Resist the pressure by amightywind · 2004-02-16 05:48 · Score: 0

The Hubble telescope is perhaps the most successful space science mission of all time. That said, most of the low hanging fruit has been picked. Its best days are behind it. In the next few years while this controversy rages on you can expect to see a steady stream of pretty pictures coming from STI with the purpose of swaying public opinion on this issue. A drop in the barrel you say? Maybe so, but a small leak can eventually sink a large ship.

--
an ill wind that blows no good

Risk by jmichaelg · 2004-02-16 01:39 · Score: 5, Insightful

Why risk 50% of our remaining space shuttle fleet, another human crew, and untold billions to repair Hubble at this point?

You're right, there's risk involved. The question is which projects do you decide to spend the remaining shuttle flights on? Do you continue to pour money down an ISS rat hole that has delivered ZERO peer-reviewed science, has no reason to exist other than pork barrel or do you allocate the flights to maximizing the remaining science?

NASA has already killed Compton, is on its way to killing Hubble and you think O'Keefe and gang will fund Webb? Perhaps you didn't notice, Webb has already been scaled back twice - the ISS money vacuum will continue to wreak its damage. Other posters have already pointed out that Webb and Hubble are not interchangeable - they see different spectrums.The problem is is that NASA will continue to lose public support if its only reason to exist is to fly the Shuttle back and forth between ISS. The ISS has no value other than job creation. Hubble on the other hand, provides both jobs and real science - the kind of science that gets published in Science and Nature. ISS science is the kind of science you find at the local county science fair, i.e., "What color does my dog like?"

Your post and O'Keefe's decision to kill Hubble clearly illustrate how poorly educated this country is. Equating Hubble and Webb and choosing ISS over Hubble are examples of what happens when half our children aren't taught science well enough to know that it takes a year for the earth to circle the sun. The cost of that poor education is you get people like O'Keefe running Nasa and the public doesn't know enough to say boo about it. We've lost the super collider, we're going to lose Hubble, 50/50 Webb will not fly, manufacturing, accounting, customer service and software have been outsourced but we'll have a worthless missile "defense" and plenty of boobies on fark.com. That's the cost of poorly educating people.

Re:Risk by Alsee · 2004-02-16 15:08 · Score: 1

pork barrel

killed Compton

ISS money vacuum will continue to wreak its damage

ISS has no value

lost the super collider

our children aren't taught science well enough to know that it takes a year for the earth to circle the sun

we're going to lose Hubble

50/50 Webb will not fly

manufacturing, accounting, customer service and software have been outsourced

worthless missile "defense"

and plenty of boobies

So overall things are looking good!

-

--
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.

Safety by ericlp · 2004-02-16 01:48 · Score: 2, Insightful

Yeah it is a safety issue. Sloppy attitude is a big part of flight safety. This includes the sustainment management of the craft. The idiots at NASA learned nothing from the first shuttle disaster, except how to act suprised at the revelation of their poor program management Nothing that firing some of the lead management couldn't fix to set a firm example.

Voyeurs! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-16 01:57 · Score: 3, Funny

"Astronomers use gravitational lensing, a magnifying effect caused by the gravity / mass of galaxies, to capture images of the farthest / oldest galaxy known - from when the universe was just 750 million years old. Stories from the BBC, Sign On San Diego, West Hawaii Today, or Mercury News."

So in other words, these astronomers are a bunch of voyeurs peeking at young starlets through big lenses. This is appaling! Young galaxies shouldn't be exploited in this manner, especially at such a fragile time in their existence, when they are just beginning to discover themselves. The galaxies scientists are viewing keep getting younger and younger as they attempt to reach the elusive "Big Bang". To make things worse, they shameless post pictures of their exploits on the Internet.

A little of topic... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-16 02:41 · Score: 0

I was searching the net for an estimate on how many times have all the stars in the universe been "replaced".
Like for example all the cells in a human nose die and are replaced with new ones every 14 days (at least thats what I've heard).
Is there an estimate for the same thing about our universe?
If I'm not mistaken this could be calculated with a formula:
cycles = "age of universe" / "the longest life span of a star"
Any ideas?

ionized is transparent? by lethe1001 · 2004-02-16 02:44 · Score: 2, Interesting

The newly discovered galaxy is likely to be a young galaxy shining during the end of the so - called "Dark Ages" - the period in cosmic history which ended with the first galaxies and quasars transforming opaque, molecular hydrogen into the transparent, ionized universe we see today.

ionized = transparent? i thought it was the other way around: neutral atomic hydrogen is transparent, ionized charged plasma is opaque. am i confused, or is it the article?

Re:ionized is transparent? by whosiwhatsitnow · 2004-02-16 04:15 · Score: 2, Interesting

-note- although I'm a grad student in astrophysics, I still don't know jack. That being said, here we go.
If you were to watch an individual proton in an ionized gas, it wouldn't be a bare proton all of the time.. depending on the density of radiation and protons+electrons, at some average rate a lucky electron would recombine with it and go almost immediately* to hydrogen's ground state (emitting light corresponding to allowed transitions along the way, which isn't capable of exciting ground state electrons -- it escapes the plasma, although it will random walk through elastic scattering w/ p's and e's).
after some more time, a photon with energy above 13.6 eV will get sufficiently close to the hydrogen atom, and ionize it. There are cooling processes that allow the electon to dissipate its excess kinetic energy, and it will soon find another proton to dance with. The process repeats. A similar story holds for photons that merely excite H's energy levels, ie. they can't escape either. So, long story short, only photons with energy above the ionization potential of Hydrogen, and photons that will take you from the ground state of H to some other excited state, are absorbed by the plasma. What's left over is what we see. You can see how this will change once you add in different types of atoms, with their own unique spectra, but there will still be "windows" in the spectrum. So in that sense, and ionized plasma is transparent.
*this requires a quantum mechanical calculation to show
Re:ionized is transparent? by lethe1001 · 2004-02-16 08:13 · Score: 1

and molecular hydrogen is opaque?
Re:ionized is transparent? by whosiwhatsitnow · 2004-02-16 11:23 · Score: 1

Like H, only at certain frequencies. Since it's a diatomic molecule, there are not just electronic transitions, but rotational and vibrational "modes". these modes are also discrete energy levels, but it takes much less energy to excite them than the electronic levels and so H_2 absorbs in the IR as well (from ground).
In general, ionized and neutral gas are neither opaque or transparent. It depends on the density, temperature, the details of the radiation field, and also where an observer is located.
Re:ionized is transparent? by lethe1001 · 2004-02-16 11:40 · Score: 1

In general, ionized and neutral gas are neither opaque or transparent. It depends on the density, temperature, the details of the radiation field, and also where an observer is located.
well sure, in general nothing can be 100% transparent, there are always some wavelengths that it can absorb. diatomic hydrogen can absorb some infrared wavelengths.
but the night sky is fairly transparent to visible light. i assume that this is because the universe is cold enough that the hydrogen is neutral. at a time when the hydrogen ionized, i would assume that most light would get absorbed.
the article says the opposite. do you agree with the article?
Re:ionized is transparent? by whosiwhatsitnow · 2004-02-16 12:58 · Score: 1

The "ambient" hydrogen in the universe is ionized, this is because there are more than enough UV sources (O and B stars, AGNs, quasars, etc. ) to ionize all of the gas not collected into small (several light years across) clouds, such as those in our galaxy.
The article is correct. the "dark ages" aren't really dark.. this is the period at which the gas in the universe was too cool to emit visible radiation. It isn't until the enough UV sources turn on that all of the gas ionizes. At this point, visible light (which isn't in some strong resonance line) can escape to infinity.
Re:ionized is transparent? by lethe1001 · 2004-02-16 18:01 · Score: 1

well, i guess my misconception is based on what i learned about the CMB: it is the light of last scattering at recombination, when the electrons and protons became hydrogen. that is the oldest light we can see, because before recombination, the universe was opaque due to the ionized hydrogen. at least, this is the description of where the CMB comes from that i have heard, and it seems to be contradictory to what you and the article are saying. or else maybe i am just badly confused.
Re:ionized is transparent? by whosiwhatsitnow · 2004-02-17 04:41 · Score: 1

I thought that might be where this was coming from. When you look at the CMB, and ask what's behind it, the answer is: more ionized gas. Not only that, but the gas is thick.. you can't see very far into it (off the top of my head, I think the density is about a billion times higher than the "ambeint" density today). The gas is also in a special state of equilibrium, a state whos spectrum is called blackbody.
This is like looking at the Sun. The surface temperature is 6500K, but at the center it's very hot, almost 15 million degrees. But you only see a uniform 6500K glow, and this is because the photons traveling from the inside of the sun have plenty of time to come into equilibrium with their local surroundings (lots of scattering), so by the time they reach the surface, they're down to 6500K.
Today everything is much less dense, the "ambient" stuff is highly ionized, and since the density is low, recombinations don't happen as often. not only that, but if you kept the density the same, the probability of a photon being scattered in an ionized gas is much lower than in a neutral gas, so we get a clear line of sight.

Now Hubble's gone and done it... by Muad'Dave · 2004-02-16 02:52 · Score: 1, Funny

Hubble Snaps Farthest / Oldest Galaxy

I guess NASA is going to have to send a probe to glue that galaxy back together now, huh?

--
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.

Re:Nah.. nah... nah.. by pandrijeczko · 2004-02-16 02:55 · Score: 2, Funny

"Telephone sanitisers" - presumably another "R&B" band...

--
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.

robots in space by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-16 03:01 · Score: 0

It would be nice to have little robots in orbit to repair/refuel satellites. We could send them the parts each time a rocket is not fully loaded. And they could even repair one another.

Re:robots in space by cavac · 2004-02-16 07:59 · Score: 1

It would make more sense to add some kind of robotic arm to complex satelites and space probes and only dock rockets with spare parts. Especially on space probe Galileo a robotic arm would have been quite usefull. As you might know, the high-gain antenna failed to deploy which couldn't be fixed with on-board tools available (thermo-cycling, speed up rotation of space-craft and such). A simple pull or punch with a robotic arm might have fixed the issue in seconds...

--
Look, this thing is totally safe! Built it myself, you know. You just press that button like this and then turn that lev

a big if, a bigger and, and an enormous but by WormholeFiend · 2004-02-16 03:14 · Score: 4, Insightful

IF we had a permanent base on the moon AND a lunar-based telescope, we'd have exposures of up to two weeks long!

BUT if Bush's plan is only a political game to win votes in Florida and Texas, we might as well try to make NASA change its mind on Hubble.

They could say anything by thehomeland · 2004-02-16 03:43 · Score: 1, Interesting

Is there any way to verify what these Hubble-peekers say about smudges? They could say, "The galaxy in the picture has the highest concentration of the rare giant purple dwarf pulsar blackhole wormhole exitportal star system, mysteriously found only in the astronomical age labeled "XB-66" and likely contains numerous supernovae remnant crystalline class QQQf planets from which all possibility life in the universe is speculated to have originated" and the public would believe it, because they have the degrees and we don't. Looks like a smudge to me.

--
thehomeland(.org)

Cell? by jmichaelg · 2004-02-16 03:58 · Score: 1

,i> ISS results are generally published in peer reviewed journals like 'Cell' and 'Nature'.

Funny. I went to cell online, typed "international space station" in the search box and this is what Cell said:

You Searched For:

Anywhere in Article: "international space station"
From: 1996 To: 2222
Journal: in Cell

Your search retrieved zero articles.

Wow, primal galaxies formed FAST!!! by Thorstein · 2004-02-16 04:14 · Score: 4, Interesting

Only 750 million years after the big bang, this primal galaxy formed!!! That is amazingly quick. Our galaxy is purported to have taken a lot longer for it to form. The implications are immense.

Re:Wow, primal galaxies formed FAST!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-16 04:30 · Score: 0

Good point. I think this will be the most significant revelation from this discovery.

In the news today... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-16 04:15 · Score: 1, Funny

NASA shows off galaxy for free.

SCO claims it made helium which are present in galaxies and thus galaxies belong to them and sure NASA for showing copyrighted picture of their galaxies.

Most Recent Articles by starannihilator · 2004-02-16 04:15 · Score: 4, Informative

Thanks to all those who provided updates since I posted this, when the news broke. I thought I'd add a few more: The news from Hubblesite, The Discovery Channel, Yahoo News, and from Innovations Report

Bush hates science by Doc+Ruby · 2004-02-16 05:36 · Score: 1, Flamebait

If you vote for Bush this November, the only pictures any space telescopes will take "next time" will be closeups of you, like every other Earthbound "suspected terrorist".

--

--
make install -not war

lies by Doc+Ruby · 2004-02-16 05:38 · Score: 3, Insightful

After the unchecked torrent of lies from the Bush administration about everything, what makes you think they'll do *any* of the things they've promised the space program, once reelected in November?

--

--
make install -not war

Re:lies by matrix0f8h · 2004-02-16 11:22 · Score: 2, Funny

Do you have a link to the torrent you mentioned?
Re:lies by Doc+Ruby · 2004-02-16 11:56 · Score: 1

http://www.whitehouse.gov, or even worse, http://www.georgewbush.com.

--
--
make install -not war
Re:lies by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-16 12:05 · Score: 0

Yup. The lies started on www.whitehouse.gov back when Clinton was in office.
Re:lies by Doc+Ruby · 2004-02-16 13:02 · Score: 1

Of course, the lies started before the website. But we can't do anything about old lies, except not believe them. What we can do about new lies is kick Bush out of the White House in November. We get to pick our liars in this country, and I'd much rather hear lies about sex that gets the President some relief, than lies about war that gets Americans killed.

--
--
make install -not war

Instead of de-orbiting Hubble... by EqualSlash · 2004-02-16 05:51 · Score: 2, Funny

Why don't they auction it on ebay ?

Two in One ... by da5idnetlimit.com · 2004-02-16 05:56 · Score: 1

Hubble : nice, powrfull telescope (works best in the dark, placed in orbit)
Nasa : has to make with what they have, go to the moon and take the money everywhere they can...

=> !!!::: NASA MISSION TO PUT HUBBLE ON THE MOON :::!!!

preferably on the dark side thereoff...

=> !!! Nasa gets first permanent installment on Moon !!!
Lol (well, one has to do whith what one have 8)

Otherwise .. Nasa take Hubble closer to Space Station, get outsourced indian tech for doing oil-and-pressure, have it close to cut shuttle-taxi costs... (proximity is dangerous, but what about a 1 mile distance ?)

Yes, plenty of possibility...

now, for this is slashdot, the paranoiac point of view ... They take Hubble and point it BACK ON EARTH... if it is geostationery, they could get the best Territory Observation sat ever, capable of saying how many whiskers you missed this morning 8)

--
It takes 40+ muscles to frown, but only four to extend your arm and bitchslap the motherfucker

Maybe hire Georgia O'Keefe by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-16 07:55 · Score: 0

Oh sure, maybe she has no experience with space, and she is dead.

But compared with the current O'Keefe, she's be a home run. Plus, I think she's a brilliant artist, or rather was.

He should hate science by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-16 07:57 · Score: 0

Science keeps coming up with this proof that god didn't create everything in 168 hours. That in fact, there are plausible reasons why the earth and universe developed as they did, and while God may have had a hand, God likely does not a wave a magic wand.

I realize that upsets a lot of people, including the president, ....

Oh hell, I'd like to bang his daughers, especially the blonde slut.

Yeah? Name one by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-16 07:59 · Score: 0

"and I know there is a lot of important research going on there."

Like?

You don't want to name this research because you know its all BS.

They should deorbit this space station ASAP and stop pouring money into a waste of time and effort.

private initiative by dh003i · 2004-02-16 08:00 · Score: 1

Rather than advocating that NASA steal even more money from the taxpayer, why not create a private initiative to fund for the repair and improvement of Hubble? It's going to be in orbit for 3 more years, right? If enough people really think it's valuable, then that should be plenty of time to raise funds.

--
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen

Sure by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-16 08:02 · Score: 0

The only research being done at the station is purely economic... that is, how many billions can a stupid piece of useless equipment in earth orbit suck up before somebody grows a set of balls and abandons it so that we can do real research in space?

The answer is not clear, but my guess is that its close to "Holy Shit, HOW MUCH????"

maybe this will help by dh003i · 2004-02-16 08:07 · Score: 1, Interesting

On a humerous note, maybe this phenomena of the gravitational lense can be used to help geeks see their penis'.

--
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen

Re:NASA survey confirms: Hubble is Dying by cavac · 2004-02-16 08:14 · Score: 3, Interesting

Hubble might not be able to see that far into space with failed gyros; but before NASA is going to cancel Hubble because of that, they might wanna have a little chat with ESA engineers about operating their joint-venture IUE project without gyros.

To quote from the project page: The IUE is the longest-lived and one of the most productive satellites ever built. It worked non-stop (only one week of program interruption was made in 1985) until it was switched off in September 1996, 14 years later than originally planned., but the paragraphs NASA's engineers should be interested most in is:
The reliability of IUE's operation throughout its 18-year lifetime was staggering. Although the back-up cameras were faulty, the primary cameras remained fully operational. Despite the failure of four of its six gyroscopes, the pointing and slew control remained precise to the last.

When its fourth gyroscope failed in 1985, IUE continued operations thanks to an innovative reworking of its attitude control system by using the fine Sun sensor as a substitute. Targets were acquired blindly by knowledge of their positions and by careful pointing of the telescope. This redesign (the first ever in the history of space) worked well, with the loss of only a few minutes observation time per hour. Even with another gyroscope lost in its last year, IUE could still be stabilised in three axes, with only a single gyroscope, by adding star-tracker measurements.

So, in my opinion, Hubble could stick around a long time, as long as NASA accepts that it can't look into "very deep space" anymore, only into "somewhat deep space". It still can be very usefull to explore nearby stars and our own planets.

LLAP & LG
Rene

--
Look, this thing is totally safe! Built it myself, you know. You just press that button like this and then turn that lev

ISS as telescope platform? by madpierre · 2004-02-16 08:58 · Score: 2, Interesting

Why not just add a space telescope module to the ISS?
Thats what space platforms are supposed to be for, or
isnt the ISS flexible enough a system to handle this?

--
siggy played guitar

Most likely place for ET life. by ninejaguar · 2004-02-16 09:05 · Score: 1

Well, if life existed elsewhere, it would in the oldest galaxy due to the enormous amount of time given for chances of life to occur.

= 9J =

BUT is there life there? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-16 09:19 · Score: 0

BUT is there life there? When they find out, THEN let me know.

Although it probably won't do much help.. by firew0lfz · 2004-02-16 09:45 · Score: 2, Informative

If you guys seriously want to do something from the comfort of your computer, you can:

Sign the Save the Hubble Petition (which is probably useless by now):

http://www.savethehubble.org/petition.jsp

or all of us (including /.ers outside of the US) go to: http://www.moontomars.org/notices/contact.asp and spam the hell out of the website and request that NASA for once get a goal of getting a moon-based observatory up there!(or any other ideas you may have)

It might not do much (I wonder if they really do read the write ins), but maybe if they get a significant amount of requests in, they might pay attention more.

Or you can do it the proper way and write your Congress-critter.

--
Try not to let life get in the way of living.

Maps by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-16 09:53 · Score: 0

They noted this galaxy on the galactic map with a little illustration and a warning: "Here there be dragons."

Seriously, aren't the galaxy that are so much older than our own pretty likely to have intelligent life? And isn't other intelligent life the second greatest threat to humankind? (After humankind, of course.) I think all patriotic americans should support the call for nuking any galaxy more than 10,000 years older than our own. I'm sure our president will support me on this. Not that our current nukes will do much to a galaxy... No, we need to research MUCH MUCH bigger weapons first. A multiple-warhead delivery system with blackhole-creating warheads should do it. If they explode right along the gaseous edge of a star, they should only need to pick up a couple thousand tons of gas in the initial formation to become heavy enough to start slowly consuming the star... It will take a while, but that's the price of inerstellar war.

Wow, I'm rambling. Post Anonymously time.

And yet...... by Keitero-sama · 2004-02-16 10:48 · Score: 1

One of these days, when the hubble or some other high powered telescope finds yet another farther distance, and older galaxy... ummm yeah, something of that extent. but i'll be old by then.

--
-Kids in the back seat causes accidents.- -Accidents in the back seat causes kids.-

They messed up by BhAaD · 2004-02-16 11:32 · Score: 0

They shouldve used image mapping to find pixel 45x68 where the *ACTUAL* farthest galaxy lies.

Dumb question by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-16 11:46 · Score: 0

so how old IS the universe generally supposed to be anyway? is there a figure?

NO Wait a second by thumbtack · 2004-02-16 12:07 · Score: 1

That's a speck of dust..

valuable by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-16 12:42 · Score: 1, Insightful

This one picture is likely more scientifically valuable than anything the space station has done, or probably ever will do. Nonetheless, NASA wants to pour tens of billions more into the space station, and abandon Hubble. Go figure.

Re:And what, end up like Beagle 2? by cavac · 2004-02-16 13:21 · Score: 1

There is a reason American Space Technology works better, performs better, and is the envy of all the other countries on this speck of dust.

Hmm, are you talking about the grounded space shuttles or the only working US space laboratory called SpaceLab that was, according to this article developed by europe's ESA?

--
Look, this thing is totally safe! Built it myself, you know. You just press that button like this and then turn that lev

minor typo... by Alsee · 2004-02-16 16:31 · Score: 1

Should read:
"Percentage changes, not many orders of magnitude like 6000 years would require."

-

--
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.

Re:Al Gore by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-16 19:08 · Score: 0

I thought he personally put the Hubble Telescope...

Put it....

Slashdot Mirror

Hubble Snaps Farthest / Oldest Galaxy

265 comments