Hubble's Deepest Pictures Yet

Why scrap Hubble by scumbucket · 2004-03-09 04:01 · Score: 4, Insightful

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

--
CMDRTACO CHECK YOUR EMAIL!

Re:Why scrap Hubble by EinsteinWasRight · 2004-03-09 04:47 · Score: 5, Insightful

Not true. The point of the article is Ultra Deep Field imagery. Doing this requires focusing on a single point in space for long periods of time (In this case, 11.3 days) While not theoretically impossible to accomplish on earth, this would require building nearly identical telescopes worldwide and then coordinating their exposures to account for the rotation of the earth and then adapting for more variables than I have the patience to explain. For all practical purposes this is not going to happen in our lifetimes

Furthermore this highly unlikely arrangement will never have the resolution, versatility, and usefulness for other types of astronomy as the Hubble.

The horrible truth is that we are simply losing the collective will to achieve great things in the name of achieving cockamamie political boondoggles, both terrestrial and otherwise.
Re:Why scrap Hubble by RodRandom · 2004-03-09 05:48 · Score: 4, Insightful

Overall, the problem with NASA is that it has to keep doing "clowns in space" to maintain its funding. Space Station; manned missions to Mars, space stations on the Moon--there are much cheaper (and far more effective) ways of doing the revolutionary science that is NASA's great legacy.

How ironic that the occasional shuttle mission to service the scientifically invaluable Hubble should be considered too expensive when compared with the continuing Disney extravaganza of manned space exploration that is deemed indispensable.
Re:Why scrap Hubble by Waffle+Iron · 2004-03-09 08:15 · Score: 5, Insightful

Is it worth $1G to service Hubble with a shuttle flight? No
My question is: why service the Hubble with a super-expensive shuttle flight? How much would it cost to build a replacement and launch it on a standard rocket?
We always hear about how much the Hubble cost, but I'm guessing that a lot of that was development costs. They still have the blueprints; how much could it cost to dust them off and build a quick clone?
I would imagine that they could build a shiny new Hubble and launch it on an expendable rocket for less than the cost of a manned service mission to the old one. The key to keeping costs down would be to avoid the strong temptation to spend more money on "improving" the original design.

What's this whining about scrapping hubble by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-09 04:02 · Score: 3, Insightful

So Hubble has given us a lot of cool stuff. But the fact is, maintaining it costs money and that money could be used for new, improved projects with more up to date technology.

Re:What's this whining about scrapping hubble by jridley · 2004-03-09 04:28 · Score: 5, Insightful

True, but the AREN'T PLANNING ANY. The only space telescope on the drawing board is the James Webb scope, and it's an IR scope. There's nothing even in the planning stages for a replacement for Hubble.

The truth is, the Hubble is still very capable, in fact more so than when it was launched. It needs new batteries and gyros, and as long as we're there, some new science instruments, and it'll keep going happily for a long time to come yet.

If new batteries and gyros are put on board, they'll last even longer; the new ones are capable of lasting far longer than the originals.
Re:What's this whining about scrapping hubble by barawn · 2004-03-09 04:51 · Score: 3, Insightful

The only space telescope on the drawing board is the James Webb scope, and it's an IR scope. There's nothing even in the planning stages for a replacement for Hubble.

You're wrong. The JWST will cover some of the optical, just not up through blue. Why?

Because the optical is boring. Scientifically, it's not interesting. Deep-field objects are redshifted, and so naturally a big telescope will concentrate on the longer wavelengths.

Besides, go look at some of the pictures that Spitzer has put out. They look gorgeous. They're fake color, sure, but who cares? In fact a lot of this stuff is redshifted, as I mentioned, so you're not even looking at it in "real" light anyway.

The JWST is a replacement telescope to Hubble. Some features of Hubble's - like the ability to see in the blue band - just isn't that important for science right now.

and it'll keep going happily for a long time to come yet.

This is, of course, naive. Hubble is a space telescope, and it's already pockmarked from space debris. It's just a matter of time until Hubble is damaged beyond repair.

It was never meant to last forever. Let it die.
Re:What's this whining about scrapping hubble by barawn · 2004-03-09 04:59 · Score: 4, Insightful

Also, I have never heard NASA say that the Hubble is just old and worn out. They say it's too risky to go up for another servicing mission.

It's not too risky. They could do it if they wanted to. They'd simply have to recertify the shuttles specifically to do it, and what they're saying is that the excess cost to do that is not worth the limited science that Hubble would do in the remaining years it has left.

In other words, Hubble is too expensive to keep running. That makes it uneconomical now.

The main problem with the controversy is that there are emotions involved, and that makes for very bad decision-making. Any of the advocates for Hubble always push the emotional attachment to Hubble, rather than the simple by-the-numbers math.
Re:What's this whining about scrapping hubble by Agent+Orange · 2004-03-09 05:25 · Score: 5, Insightful

The optical is boring and scientifically uninteresting? Sorry, but you're just plain wrong! Sure, maybe you can't see the most red-shifted "foo" galaxy, but with STIS (the Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph) we can obtain optical/near UV spectra which contain an enormous number of ionised metal transitions. This gives us a heap of information about things like the formation of the milky way, the interiors of white dwarves and many other things. Also, the oversubscription rate of hubble gives a good indication on how valuable scientists think it is.

Of course, I'm completely biased in that part of my Phd work is based on STIS work :-) But then, what is scientifically interesting is a matter partially of opinion and partially of what's "in vogue". Ten years ago nobody cared much about stars or the solar system. Now the stellar crowd is close to finding the first stars formed in the milky way (population III stars) and the solar system kids are in big demand because they know how planets work (extra-solar planets anyone?).

As a cynical thought on JWST, don't underestimate the capacity for de-scoping the mission. It's happened already and is biting big projects (especially space-based ones) quite a bit in recent times. But maybe I'm just too pessismistic...

$AUS0.02
Re:What's this whining about scrapping hubble by Uncertain+Bohr · 2004-03-09 06:18 · Score: 3, Insightful

Moderators need explain how your got rated a 4 for your silly reply.
NGST is most certainly not a replacement for Hubble. And to say that optical is boring shows how very vert little to know of the science which is being done with HST and which will not be able to be done EVER again until another 2m class optical telescope gets put into orbit or optical ground based adaptive optics catches on (which will never happen because of the athmosphereic absorption). JWST was proposed, not as a replacement to JWST, but as the near mile stone. This was assuming that 1) NGST would launch in 2007 (not 2011 as it is now) 2) that HST would be up and going fine until after JWST is launched and a replacement for HST is being build.

HST IS top of the line. I dare you to find any instruments anywhere which are more top of the line right now, inside a space telescope. HST was meant to be serviceable so that it could be kept up to date and equipped with the latest detectors as these are made available. This was done with SM3b and was planned to be done once more with SM4.

As for letting it die... this is equivalent to never changing the oil in your car because you will likely crash it one day, a better one will surely be available at some point in the future, and you just ordered a new boat which is bigger than your car and can therefore surely do everything your car does but better.

It makes absolutely no sense whatsover to let HST die right now. It is mismanagment on the part of NASA and from a small group of people who are more interested in politics than science.

Why scrap the hubble.... by braddock · 2004-03-09 04:17 · Score: 4, Insightful

So that the administration can turn NASA into a more pure multi-billion dollar yearly aerospace industry subsidy without a realistic programme or a significantly increased budget. NASA has always been an aerospace subsidy to some degree, but the Mars plan would probably double the portion of NASA's budget going directly into large aerospace companies for big ticket items, at the cost of stripping the science budgets clean.

Several extra billion dollars a year makes for a happy Boing and Lockheed, the real winners.

Braddock Gaskill

Not fixing hubble because... by parmenio · 2004-03-09 04:18 · Score: 3, Insightful

they want to redirect all available funds to manned missions. Even with the stunning success of the unmanned programs to Mars... It boggles the mind. Must be the thought of China putting men on the moon... I don't know...

Re:Deepest Pictures Ever? by MattHaffner · 2004-03-09 04:24 · Score: 5, Insightful

I think that's a tad misleading. It implies that somehow Hubble is doing something new. The fact is, we're seeing 186,000 miles further every second, because light takes time to get places. A more accurate headline would be we're seeing older things than we've ever seen.

Uh, er, uh. No.

These images are seeing further than we've ever seen before because Hubble is using a more sensitive camera than the previous HDF. It's not because they sat on our butts for a few years and the 'horizon' expanded.

Re:Because. by jridley · 2004-03-09 04:24 · Score: 5, Insightful

It's not broken, it's working fine. I don't know what the hell you're talking about, AFAIK ALL systems on the Hubble are working fine. The batteries are getting shot, they're the original ones.

There's equipment already built and in storage, or in process (was until the news came down) that would make the Hubble better than it ever has been, even though as it is now it's the best telescope we have in the optical range.

They want to scrap the Hubble because we need the money to maintain a space station that's nothing but a publicity stunt, and to fund research into a moon/mars mission that, much as I might wish they were real, will get scrapped as soon as the elections are over.

Also, the risk of a servicing mission is too great. Not the human risk, we're apparently perfectly willing to expend dozens of more spacewalk missions on finishing the ISS (which, again, isn't being used for what it was intended to be used for), but we can't risk one mission to work on the device which puts out more real science every week than the ISS ever has.

Re:Because. by Cecil · 2004-03-09 04:31 · Score: 3, Insightful

Hi Mr. Flamebait.

It's broken, yes. It still works fine, as clearly shown by the fact that it continues to advance scientific knowledge about once a month. How many other scientific instruments can you say that about?

Say you have a limited edition car, like a DeLorian, or a McLaren F1. Even if one of these vehicles gets totalled, the owner will often choose to have it repaired because you can't get another one easily, and you may not ever be able to get another one at all.

The hubble is worth at least orbit-boosting, if not repairing. The the new telescope won't even be going up for several years after they plan to crash hubble, and we could use it to tide us over as it clearly still works 'good enough' despite being broken.

At WORST, if it breaks further, we'll have an ailing piece of junk that some group of scientists will likely kludge into doing SOMETHING useful while they're waiting for their timeslot on the new telescope. At BEST, we'll have a mostly working space telescope still chugging happily along if the new one turns out to be non-functional, which is a possibility most of the 'who fucking cares about hubble' people seem to ignore.

--
Random and weird software I've written.

Flying deathtrap ? by thrill12 · 2004-03-09 04:41 · Score: 4, Insightful

By current knowledge the spaceshuttle is "unsafe", because a very serious accident happened. But by current knowledge your car is "unsafe" too, because in all likelihood, very serious accidents happened with your (model/year) car too.
It's a mere matter of "acceptable risk" and "public opinion". If NASA decides the risk is "acceptable" and the "opinion" is that people would like to see Hubble repaired instead of chances reduced to 0% that there will happen an accident: Hubble will be repaired!
If one thinks of the future, with a more advanced spaceship, there will always be a risk that is accepted, and there will always be public opinion to make that risk a go or no go for launch.

I hope many people will see this picture, and wonder about the question: why not send the Space Shuttle back up now to safe Hubble, instead of waiting 10 years for who knows what ?

--
Slashdot: stuff for news, nerds that matter, matter for news, stuff that nerd

Re:Ok Astronomy guys by jpflip · 2004-03-09 04:47 · Score: 4, Insightful

As far as we understand it, there is no "edge" to the universe - at least not one we're expecting to ever be able to see. The universe as we know it has been around for about 13 billion years since the big bang. During that time, light has only been able to travel a certain distance - 13 billion light years (there are some technicalities with the fact that the universe is expanding as the light is traveling, but that's the gist). So we don't expect to ever be able to see farther than that distance, and most theories predict that the universe inflates (expands really fast) early in its life and so is actually much bigger than that distance. So if there is an edge, it's so far away light hasn't had the chance to get here from there. However, we can't even see that far. Earlier in the universe's history, it was much hotter and denser. Until about 300,000 years after the big bang, it was so hot and dense that it was opaque to light - light from before that epoch isn't able to travel very far without scattering, and can't reach our eyes. We can, however, see the last light that was released from the hot, dense gas just as the universe became transparent - this is seen as the cosmic microwave background. After that, the universe was very dark and homogenous - there were no stars or galaxies, and hence nothing for us to see! This period is called the "dark ages", for obvious reasons. After some hundreds of millions of years, gravity caused gas to clump together enough to produce the first stars and galaxies. These are the earliest things (other than the microwave background) that we could hope to study in a telescope picture. Some theories suggest that these might be weird objects - supermassive stars a hundred times bigger than our sun, bizzare protogalaxies, etc. - and they'll definitely teach us a lot about how galaxies form. So it's not the "edge", but it's probably quite near the edge of what we'll ever see.

Re:What they don't tell you about Hubble... by Mac+Degger · 2004-03-09 04:53 · Score: 4, Insightful

Well, duh; first off, we're dealing with digital photography. There is no 'real/true colour', it's all composites anyway. Secondly, if you where to see only the visible light spectrum, there wouldn't be much to see.

--
-- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?

Re:Deepest Pictures Ever? by FroMan · 2004-03-09 05:00 · Score: 3, Insightful

And that's about it, too. If we'd channelled all the cash that the world puts into nukes, tanks, fighter-jets, aircraft carriers etc... and instead used it to fund space exploration, or heck even undersea, we probably would be a lot farther today.

Actually, I would bet we might be further behind than today. You see, very little cutting edge tech has come out of nations like Iraq. However, Saddam has proven before he would rather annex land than develop a space program. Were we to simpley let men like Saddam continue while all our money is funneled into other programs instead of defense we would be at some point conquered by men like Saddam.

You could claim that Iraq is a small country and would not possibley be able to take over much of the world, but compare its size to Germany pre-WWII. Toss in folks like North Korea and who ever happens to support bin Laden and we have quite a few folks who would love to militarily take over the world and force their world view on everyone.

Now, you see it only takes one side to start a war. Being the biggest and strongest allows one side to end a war. I would rather be the side with the biggest and strongest guns since I know that my freedoms will be defended.

--
Norris/Palin 2012
Fact: We deserve leaders who can kick your ass and field dress your carcass.

NASA and Hubble by retro128 · 2004-03-09 05:05 · Score: 3, Insightful

So, why exactly was it that NASA wanted to scrap the Hubble?"

Probably because they are idiots. But has anyone else noticed that you're seeing Hubble a LOT more in the news since NASA's announcement? Methinks the scientists that operate Hubble are going for positive PR by getting lots of awesome pictures. IMHO, it's a good idea...Before people would probably ask "well, what has Hubble done lately?". Now, by making the public aware of Hubble's merit, they can generate some static for NASA.

--
-R

Re:What they don't tell you about Hubble... by spanklin · 2004-03-09 05:30 · Score: 5, Insightful

Is that most of the images get imaged processed to death. Without Kalman filtering and deconvolution algorithms they would look lame, and these algorithms can be done to images taken from Earthbound telescopes.

For press release images, it is true that they are not all that explicit about the details of the image processing. However, you are absolutely wrong that an image of this quality could be produced by a ground-based telescope. The atmosphere blurs out the light from distant objects and blocks some kinds of light either partially or completely. Sure we apply some image processing routines to the images, but fundamentally there is more information contained in a Hubble image like this than there is in a ground-based image taken by the most powerful telescope on Earth (Keck). On the other hand, there are some things that Keck can do that Hubble can't.

I don't know why some /.'ers seem to think that Hubble is easily replaceable. It isn't. When Hubble's mission ends, some types of observations will be impossible to make with other current instruments.

Hubble was Canceled for Safety Reasons by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-09 06:03 · Score: 4, Insightful

Let me highlight some myths that are in this forum:

1) SM4 was canceled due to cost, we believe SM4 can extend the useful life of Hubble 4 or 5 years. Not True! SM4 was canceled primarily due to safety reasons. Please remember this, SM4 was Not Canceled due to Cost!!

2) Hubble is in 100% working order. Not true! The gyros which point the telescope are slowly failing.

3) Adaptive Optics/Clever Image Processing/Ground based telescope are better than or equal to Hubble. Not completly true! AO can image single objects to better than hubble. But AO has poor field of view! For reference, the UDF images have a field of view of 180 arcseconds square. AO fails above, 30, and degrades quickly above a few. Worst, AO needs a bright star to work. There simply are not enough of these stars! I can't reference this, but experts in the field think that it will take 30 years to get to Hubble's level of performance with AO.

4) Finally, AO will never work in at UV or near/mid IR wavelengths.

I am an astronomer, and I feel it is my duty to inform the public about the benefits of Hubble. HST serves a unique roll to the community. We should all understand exactly what the risk will be to fly SM4 before we lose 4 years of Hubble!

Slashdot Mirror

Hubble's Deepest Pictures Yet

22 of 416 comments (clear)