Slashdot Mirror
Hubble Snaps Farthest / Oldest Galaxy
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."
Hubble needs this sort of thing to keep it serviced. This is very interesting and in my mind at least partially justifies Hubble.
vampirical
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!
WHY are we just letting the Hubble die again?
.. 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?.
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!
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
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?..
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!
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
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...
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"
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.
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
Do ya ever think they'll actually be able to see the edge of the universe?
My ghEtt0 webpage.
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.
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]
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?
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)
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.
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
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
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