Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Hubble Snaps Farthest / Oldest Galaxy

Posted by michael on from the telephoto dept.

starannihilator writes "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."

6 of 265 comments (clear)

  1. Re:where are the high-res photos? by BabyDave · · Score: 5, Informative

    Try HubbleSite - their article includes a full-res JPEG/TIFF image.
    (N.b. Apologies to their webmasters/hosting company)

  2. Re:Good Promo for Hubble by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  3. Re:Good Promo for Hubble by MasterSLATE · · 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]
  4. Much better picture. by pointzero · · Score: 5, Informative

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

  5. Re:Good Promo for Hubble by 22mcdaniel · · 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.

  6. Re:Good Promo for Hubble by dafoomie · · 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.