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 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 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 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 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 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 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?

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.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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

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 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 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 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?

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..."

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)

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?..

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 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".

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

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)

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

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

Wondering why we haven't called home? :(

--
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.

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 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)

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.

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

There is a restaurant next door.

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]

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

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: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.

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.

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

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: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.

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.

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.

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.

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: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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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

Why don't they auction it on ebay ?

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

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.

Slashdot Mirror

Hubble Snaps Farthest / Oldest Galaxy

94 of 265 comments (clear)