Originally posted by CookieMonster000
a new telescope would be better then the old one i wonder why no only a few people noticed that.......

But that is years away, and the Hubbel can continue to provide alot of data untill the new telescope is launched. I don't think they have even started construction and its funding could be eliminated at anytime

Well if its funding is cut which is very very slim, then we would now why, because all these damn people like old §hit. Sorry if that sounds a little harsh but it has to be said.

When I was a young kid I owned a dog named Rusty, I likes that dog alot but as everything does, it died. These days I have a new dog named Patch, and I like him alot to. The point is "out with the old and in with the new".

Murcielago: Replacing a telescope is a bit harder than getting a new dog... Obviously newer is better, no one is denying that. But we have nothing to replace the hubble with. Hubble was designed to have upgrades every so often, so that it would last for a while. If you read the last article i posted you would have seen that Hubbles replacement won't be launched until 2011, so what should we do until then? Why not upgrade Hubble as was always planned?

Plus from what i know, the James Webb Space Telescope won't be quite as good as Hubble in that it only sees things in the infra red spectrum. Hubble is still the best thing around. Why not upgrade it and make it better?

we have the spitzer. not to mention ground based ones.

Why do people think that a Visible Light Telescope is The Holy Grail.

Infared is better then visible light, it sees more detail and further. It's not limited by the suns light (like hubble). The James Webb can see farther back then anything else in the world.

[edit on 10-8-2004 by Murcielago]

Ahh...but what if this is an elaborate scam?

Say the Hubble's "old and busted", tell everyone it's going dead. Watch the people lament the poor old Hubble and plan a new one to replace it.

In reality, it's in great shape, still being serviced by military shuttles which are still flying without restriction (likely due to the fact that they're much more advanced than NASA's civvie models, and already countermeasured the defective points).

Turn that baby around, point it back at earth, and you've got one of the bitchinest spy satelites ever made ready for service in TWAT.

All mere conjecture from a sleepy mind, but food for thought nonetheless?

It's an interesting theory Q, but with one draw back. Hubble is far sighted. It's designed to look out into the depths of space, where as satillites that point towards Earth cannot look out into space and get an image like Hubble because they are near sighted.

I know one doesn't usually think of something that's hundreds of km above us as being near, but in astronomical terms, that's pretty close

i have red somehwere that they planed to lauch a new telescope. but diferent then this one, like a X-ray/infrared telescope or something like that!, any one knows about it?

thx for the info friend

Originally posted by Murcielago
not to mention ground based ones.

yeah, but ground based telescopes are limited by A LOT of things. namely the earth's atmosphere. particles in the atmosphere, clouds, light pollution, and countless other things. namely though it's the particles which cause the image to shimmer and blur.

It's sad about Hubble! I love to look at the photos that it sends back...which is just awesome. Are they planning any sort of replacement?
R.I.P. Hubble

Please: sit down for a moment... this one will hurt!

» Hubble telescope, will be shutting down permanently, due to the present and future ocurrences out there, specially when it comes to focusing on spots in space, where nowadays people ask for more detailed info.


» Without a big lens to help us, to zoom in the outer space, what could be scientifically prooved in 1 or 2 Years, will continue to be ... away from our eyes.

That's why, my Dear Brothers, i always humbly ask, to make use of your Imagination.
Imagination can be a great support, and a good Ally of Science, helping Men to , Individually, find some pieces of the Puzzle, of Cosmic Creation/ Evolution.

Greetings to all,
HARAK.

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid

Originally posted by Murcielago
not to mention ground based ones.

yeah, but ground based telescopes are limited by A LOT of things. namely the earth's atmosphere. particles in the atmosphere, clouds, light pollution, and countless other things. namely though it's the particles which cause the image to shimmer and blur.

Yes True, But Hubble has being put into the dumbest orbit, LEO, fine for satelites, but no for something that you want to look out aways, by the time they find what there looking for they have about 20-30 minutes to take some pics before the earths rotation makes it so they can't see it antmore.

they need spend more money on bigger rockets and put them in GEO.

This may seem dumb..and Im not saying that I actually believe this but the pitures that came from hubble were so amazing and beautiful it almost makes me think their fake.

Anyone else ever wonder if all the amazing images supposedly produced by hubble were fake??

And if hubble was out dated and we have better ones already in orbit why dont we see even more spectacular images from deep space...They should be even more impressive right??

The images from hubble honestly were so amazing it made me shy away from atheism and realize that the universe is much more amzing than a atheist can fathom...that being said I want to see more amzing pictures from deep space that shows the true glory of the universe..

But i sure hope those pictures were not faked in order to justify extremly expensive spy satellites used on enemy countries ect.

[edit on 11-8-2004 by bigtex007]

Building a new telescope is something that will take many years....I remember when Perkin Elmer was doing the mirror - it was something that seemed so far from launch.

I think the follow-on to the HST is scheduled after 2010..

=-Rich

Originally posted by jra
It's an interesting theory Q, but with one draw back. Hubble is far sighted. It's designed to look out into the depths of space, where as satillites that point towards Earth cannot look out into space and get an image like Hubble because they are near sighted.

I know one doesn't usually think of something that's hundreds of km above us as being near, but in astronomical terms, that's pretty close

A good example onto how extremely farsighted it is would be its unability to take clear images of celestrial bodies in our own solar system.

If hubble was able to do the same quality imaging of closeby locations, as it has been doing and can do of extremely far range objects, we would be spurthing some of the nicest high definition images from the planets and bodies in our own solar system.

There would be no problem in aligning the scope with the moon for instance and take a snapshot of the footprints or lander left by the astronauts. Or aligning with mars and taking a picture of the rovers.

Man that would just rock.

Originally posted by Murcielago
Infared is better then visible light, it sees more detail and further. It's not limited by the suns light (like hubble).

That's not whole truth.
Infrared goes better through dust but it's longer waved than visible light so we need bigger mirror to see same details as in optical "window".

Originally posted by jra
It's an interesting theory Q, but with one draw back. Hubble is far sighted. It's designed to look out into the depths of space, where as satillites that point towards Earth cannot look out into space and get an image like Hubble because they are near sighted.

I know one doesn't usually think of something that's hundreds of km above us as being near, but in astronomical terms, that's pretty close

After some point difference in distance doesn't matter anymore.

And it's not about distances, what matters is the difference in angle which light hits the mirror and after certain distance that difference goes to negligible... or are you saying your camera has to be focused differently for distance of 100 meters, 1 kilometer, 10 kms, 100 kms, 1000 kms...