PDA

View Full Version : Discussion: NASA is Getting More Opinions on ...



Fraser
2004-Jan-30, 05:22 PM
SUMMARY: After receiving complaints, NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe has said he's looking for a second opinion on what to do about the Hubble Space Telescope. NASA had recently announced that it would cancel the next servicing mission for the aging telescope, which will likely fail by 2007. O'Keefe is looking to retired Admiral Harold Gehman, who chaired the independent Columbia Accident Investigation Board. Gehman has yet to say if he'll take up the task of investigating the case for Hubble.

What do you think about this story? Post your comments below.

Nick4
2004-Jan-31, 03:28 PM
:blink: I hope that NASA changes ther mind about leting hubble go. I hope that they still use the great tellescope. :blink:

trey
2004-Feb-01, 10:34 PM
hey,but thats a lot of money to spend on skywatching.if the hubble fails will you be bying a whole new telescope?or will you spend most of your time researching mars?

DippyHippy
2004-Feb-01, 10:50 PM
Not in terms of the entire budget. I can't remember who, but I'm pretty sure it was someone at the Space Telescope Institute said the budget for the HST is something like 1% of NASA's overall budget.

That's hardly going to make a big saving.

Anyway, by the looks of it, NASA's beginning to reconsider...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3444853.stm

Albert
2004-Feb-02, 07:52 PM
This looks to me like a penny wise, pound foolish decision which NASA has taken before, remember apollo 18 to 20.

liam
2004-Feb-03, 12:56 AM
to downgrade and dismiss, and allow the degeneration of the hubble telescope , is a kick in the balls for the millions of amateur budding astronomers around the world, who might someday, be in charge of the positions that these idiots command at the present. their day will come. they will die , hopefully in agony and with their eyes staring to heaven , and may they rot in hell, if there is anywhere so called.

Sphinx
2004-Feb-04, 06:55 AM
I'm one of those amateur astronomers and I have a question about something I need help understanding.

The newest pictures from hubble are from galaxy NGC 1569 which is only 7 million light years away

Now it is my understanding that 1 light year is the distance light will travel in a year
which means that the light emitted from galaxy NGC 1569 took 7 million years to get here. In other words, what we would see now is what NGC 1569 looked like 7 million years ago. So my question is at what point on the line is the hubble looking at? Is it looking at the light that has already reached earth or is it looking at light more closely emitted from this galaxy? And if it is looking at light more closely emitted from this galaxy, how does a telescope take that light and transmit it to earth if it would take 7 million years to get here in the first place? Some obvious gaps in my understanding but in desperate need of as much clarity as possible. :(

Just for fun :D

If light travels at 186,000 miles a second and there are 31,557,600 seconds in a year then light travels 5,869,713,600,000 miles a year or 5.9 trillion miles/per. You take this number and multiply it by 7 million and you get the approximate distance from here to this galaxy. Roughly 4.13 times 10 to the 17th miles. :blink:

Fraser
2004-Feb-04, 08:05 AM
I'm not sure I exactly understand the question, but Hubble is seeing light from the distant galaxy at the same time it's hitting the Earth. We're seeing the galaxy as it looked 7 million years ago. Who knows what it looks like now? (well, probably pretty similar.)

Oh, and the galaxy is 4.11494987 10^19 miles away (6.62236988 10^19 kilometers away for you metric folks).

Faulkner
2004-Feb-04, 08:14 AM
Hubble should definitely be preserved as a "heritage" piece at the very least. If NASA are moving on, maybe it could be handed over to charity - ie amateur astronomers without funding?? Why just "abandon" it? What a waste!

Maybe NASA have their eyes on this forum & have been inspired to re-decide Hubble's fate??? ;)


If light travels at 186,000 miles a second and there are 31,557,600 seconds in a year then light travels 5,869,713,600,000 miles a year or 5.9 trillion miles/per. You take this number and multiply it by 7 million and you get the approximate distance from here to this galaxy. Roughly 4.13 times 10 to the 17th miles.

Sometimes I love to read these stupendous distances in "miles" or "kilometers" rather than "lightyears" and "parsecs"! Thanks, Sphinx!

(Just to be painfully pedantic, tho&#39;, the correct result is = 4.11 x 10<19 miles ( = 6.62 x 10<19 kilometers))&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

Sphinx
2004-Feb-04, 04:05 PM
yeah, that is quite obvious. I had to count the zero&#39;s and I obviously counted wrong. I was using the calculator on my computer and couldn&#39;t figure out how to make it read in scientific notation, sorry about that. 2 zero&#39;s is alot of miles :blink:

Sphinx
2004-Feb-04, 04:40 PM
Ah, there we are. I found my calculator but I&#39;m getting 4.1087995219 with 365.25 days in a year and at 186,000 mps. One of those must be wrong. But that still rounds to 4.1119.

And yes, that did aswer my question. I couldn&#39;t see how a telescope would send present day light more than 7 million light years away without it taking more than 7 million years to get here. :D But at the same time, the idea of looking through a time machine so to speak is quite baffeling as well. If we were there, we would be looking at what earth looked like 7 million years ago. Amazing&#33;&#33; :D See, that&#39;s the kind of information NASA should be sending to kids. I&#39;m 21 and didn&#39;t know that&#33;&#33; It&#39;s very, very fascinating. Isn&#39;t it? :D :D

Fraser
2004-Feb-04, 04:51 PM
Here&#39;s the easy way to do it. Go to Google and type this into the search bar:

7 million light years in miles

That&#39;s how I got the answer. I use this all the time to convert imperial to metric when I&#39;m writing the newsletter. :-)

Sphinx
2004-Feb-04, 04:57 PM
:o why, that&#39;s almost like cheating&#33;&#33;&#33; :lol: i&#39;ll be using that all the time.

Topkatt4@hotmail.com
2004-Feb-24, 06:57 PM
Please do not scrap Hubble&#33; Why can&#39;t you attach it to the space station. It will be easier and less expensive to repair. :)

imported_James
2004-May-25, 04:18 AM
I deplore waste and trashing Hubbell by burning it up in the earth&#39;s atmosphere should be considered criminal. Park unused satellites (including Hubbell) in the Lagrange orbit, put it in orbit of the moon, or even crash it on the moon so it can be recovered as material for space industry. This could be the start of a salvageable stockpile of refined metal that could jump start the whole idea of industries in space. Another thought: Hubbell could be taking close-up shots of the moon as it spirals in for a landing. Perhaps some of those pictures could be of the junk left on the moon (to prove once and for all that the moon landings were really on the moon).

May the future be kind to you
Boycott SPAM

---===---