Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Hubble's Deepest Pictures Yet

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the that's-a-helluva-commute dept.

MrBook2 writes "NASA have just released the Ultra Deep Field (UDF). This image took 800 exposures and clocked in at 11.3 days (!) of exposure time. This image is deeper than the Hubble Deep Field which has yielded a vast amount of knowledge. So, why exactly was it that NASA wanted to scrap the Hubble?"

6 of 416 comments (clear)

  1. Hubble Ultra Deep Field comments by hcg50a · · Score: 5, Informative
    All this info is in the press release, but here is my commentary on it. They haven't had a chance to really study the image yet--it was just released to everyone--scientists and lay people alike.
    ...the million-second-long exposure reveals the first galaxies to emerge from the so-called "dark ages," the time shortly after the big bang when the first stars reheated the cold, dark universe. The new image should offer new insights into what types of objects reheated the universe long ago.

    It goes back to an era quite a bit earlier than the earlier deep-fields--about 400 and 800 million years after the big bang--and they are noticing quite a bit more chaos in the early universe, as the first galaxies were forming:

    In vibrant contrast to the image's rich harvest of classic spiral and elliptical galaxies, there is a zoo of oddball galaxies littering the field. Some look like toothpicks; others like links on a bracelet. A few appear to be interacting. Their strange shapes are a far cry from the majestic spiral and elliptical galaxies we see today. These oddball galaxies chronicle a period when the universe was more chaotic. Order and structure were just beginning to emerge.

    So, they are already seeing oddball things that they didn't see in earlier deep-field images.

    The image as presented is actually a composite of two images, one taken in visible light and one taken in near-infrared. This allows the image to show details that would have normally been obscurred by dust.

    --
    HCG 50a = 2MASX J11170638+5455016
    11h17m06.4s +54d55m02s
  2. Re:Why scrap Hubble by FortKnox · · Score: 5, Informative

    Actually, a congressman from Colorado is trying to get a commitee together to determine the fate of the Hubble, so the decision is not solely on the director of NASA. This could mean life for the Hubble.

    I submitted the 'save the hubble' story a couple days ago and was turned down.

    --
    Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
  3. Scrapping Hubble by UncleBiggims · · Score: 5, Informative

    They are not scrapping Hubble because of cost. The NASA Administrator stated that the reason was due to "the risk to the astronauts on a Hubble mission and President Bush's plans to send humans to the moon, Mars and beyond as the reason for NASA's change of focus." In fact, the planned upgrade has been built, tested and (most importantly) PAID FOR. It's just setting there waiting to be taking to the telescope and installed.

    Are you Corn Fed?

  4. Re:why scrap the Hubble? by Doctor+Fishboy · · Score: 5, Informative
    Because thanks to adaptive optics, it is now possible to get very close to hubble's resolution with Earth-based telescopes. Thus, it is much, much cheaper to use those ground-based scopes.

    ...but you cannot do UV work from the ground, as the atmosphere almost absorbs all UV flux of astrophysical interest. Also, AO is limited to about an arcminute around bright guide stars, and cannot provide good correction for the Earth's atmosphere beyond this radius. Laser projection systems are being developed to provide all-sky coverage, but they're a hassle to run consistently.

    Dr Fish

  5. Maybe we should listen to the experts... by PassiveLurker · · Score: 5, Informative

    You can argue all you please about how Hubble is out-of-date and needs cancellation, but the real experts will disagree with you. Astronomers are quite irate about the Hubble's cancellation, and rightly so. Politicians should not dictate how NASA spends its paltry budget - and doubly so in an election year when your poll numbers are looking grim.

    Sean O'Keefe was picked for the head of NASA precisely because he has a reputation as a budget cutter. The man knows *nothing* about space science.

    But don't take my word for this. The American Astronomical Society - an organization that includes essentially all the professional astronomers in America, and rarely if ever takes a political stand - released a statement pleading to reconsider the cancellation:

    AAS's cancellation statement

    I believe there's a statement from the UK's Royal Astronomical Society there, too.

  6. Re:What they don't tell you about Hubble... by spanklin · · Score: 5, Informative
    but AO renders much of the atmospheric interference moot.

    Please read some of the posts by astronomers (including me) in this story and any other HST story. This is absolutely untrue. Yes, AO does allow ground-based astronomers to take high angular resolution images comparable to the quality of Hubble. However, the science that you can get from AO images does not compare to the science you can get out of Hubble images. AO is still too limited in many ways, and there is no way it will ever overcome some of the limitations. THE FACT IS THAT ULTRAVIOLET ASTRONOMY IS IMPOSSIBLE FROM THE GROUND! No AO telescope can observe in the UV, which Hubble can. This makes impossible many topics in Quasar research, interstellar and intergalactic medium research, hot star research, and a zillion other fields that I can't think of off the top of my head.