Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Hubble Space Telescope's Sixteenth Anniversary

CowboyNeal posted more than 8 years ago | from the eye-in-the-sky dept.

66

An anonymous reader writes "This week marks the sixteenth anniversary of the launch of Hubble Space Telescope. 'To celebrate [...] NASA and the European Space Agency (ESA), are releasing this image of the magnificent starburst galaxy, Messier 82 (M82). This mosaic image is the sharpest wide-angle view ever obtained of M82. The galaxy is remarkable for its bright blue disk, webs of shredded clouds, and fiery-looking plumes of glowing hydrogen blasting out of its central regions.' Wired News also has some nice additional images."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

As a gift... (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15217925)

...it'll be de-orbited.

Hubble Ultra Deep Field (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15217928)

Cute picture, but still nothing compares to this [hubblesite.org] . It will make you feel insignificant real quick.

Re:Hubble Ultra Deep Field (3, Informative)

helioquake (841463) | more than 8 years ago | (#15218109)

Yes, indeed.

And M82 is truly a bad example of what the Hubble can really do.

Why?

Because you can get a picture of M82 from the ground just as well
as the Hubble does. See here [subarutelescope.org] for example.

The true advantage of the Hubble can be realized when you are looking at
a smaller object, like V838 Mon or the finer details of the Helix Nebula.

Re:Hubble Ultra Deep Field (3, Informative)

Rothron the Wise (171030) | more than 8 years ago | (#15219068)

Because you can get a picture of M82 from the ground just as well as the Hubble does.

Your example (866x972) hardly compares to the massive 9500x7400 pixel hubble image, which has fewer artefacts and far more background detail, but I agree that the ultra deep field image is way cooler, and also quite impossible to take without a space telescope.

Re:Hubble Ultra Deep Field (5, Funny)

xSauronx (608805) | more than 8 years ago | (#15218177)

I love how my dad, a fundy christian, looks at the deep field, and says to me "and people think there isnt life elsewhere out there, in all of that, there *has* to be", and then sees me reading "the origin of species" and tells me "you know, thats just called the theory of evolution."



somehow he manages to believe in aliens halfway across the known universe, and that god created the earth and everything on it in 7 days. /rant over

Re:Hubble Ultra Deep Field (2, Insightful)

UOZaphod (31190) | more than 8 years ago | (#15218200)

I really don't see a contradiction. Presupposing the creation of earth by an omnipotent God, I would be more suprised if there *weren't* similar acts of creation all over the universe. If you read popular fiction nowadays though, the prevailing attitude is that an alien landing on earth would somehow "shut up" all the theists. I doubt it would.

Re:Hubble Ultra Deep Field (3, Interesting)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 8 years ago | (#15218373)

I wonder what they'd think if the alien said "Oh yeah, and all those Creationists of yours are absolute retards. Five thousand zloklor ago our scientists and politicians agreed that Creationists were the worst kind of intellectual ingrates, and held official Mock A Creationist Days, and that's why we're landing on your planet instead of you on ours!"

Re:Hubble Ultra Deep Field (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15218595)

It would if they didn't look like us - remember that whole "God created Man in his own image" crap.

funny... the capcha to post this is "believes"

Re:Hubble Ultra Deep Field (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15218771)

"I believe that, if a triangle could speak, it would say, in like manner, that God is eminently triangular, while a circle would say that the divine nature is eminently circular. Thus each would ascribe to God its own attributes, would assume itself to be like God, and look on everything else as ill-shaped." Spinoza, 1670

They read this stuff at seminary, and are aware of the issue.

Re:Hubble Ultra Deep Field (2, Interesting)

xSauronx (608805) | more than 8 years ago | (#15219607)

the contradiction is that he believes there are aliens, not because god put them there, but because space is so vast. he has some weird infatuation with alien sightings and such, as well, and never brings up god when he talks about any of it.

dinosaur fossils are there because of the devil, aliens are there because we dont know what the shiny lights were.

Just a theory (0, Flamebait)

amightywind (691887) | more than 8 years ago | (#15220048)

"you know, thats just called thetheory of evolution."

Why is that not an accurate statement? Is there something that sets it apart from other physical theories?

Re:Just a theory (1)

wanerious (712877) | more than 8 years ago | (#15220774)

It's not that the statement isn't literally accurate, but that, reading in context, his father was using the word "theory" in a diminutive sense and not as scientists use it.

Re:Hubble Ultra Deep Field (1)

VinB (936538) | more than 8 years ago | (#15221375)

somehow he manages to believe in aliens halfway across the known universe, and that god created the earth and everything on it in 7 days. And, so what's your point? I love how kids view their parents like they need to be taught. Try listening to your dad before you publicly mock him. You might have second thoughts.

Re:Hubble Ultra Deep Field (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15218233)

yay!! hubbles FINALLY allowed to drive that new moon rover

Re:Hubble Ultra Deep Field (3, Insightful)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 8 years ago | (#15218357)

I love that picture -- it's one of my desktops -- but it doesn't make me feel insignificant at all. It makes me feel pretty damn proud to be a member of the species that can not only see things like that, but make at least a good attempt at understanding them.

Re:Hubble Ultra Deep Field (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15218603)

Good Point! You know, sometimes I get so caught up trying not to be an arrogant ass about the so-called divinity of human life, that I forget how ridiculously lucky we really are.

Re:Hubble Ultra Deep Field (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15218397)

I remember seeing the Deep Field images right after they were released. After seeing them, I walked around for weeks with the lingering sense of how enormous, magnificent, and beautiful our universe truly is; a deeply humbling experience. Our galaxy, an ordinary spiral galaxy, is home to approximately 200 million stars. There are billions of galaxies. The universe itself is about 14 billion years old, and many cosmologists argue that it is at least 100 billion light years across. These numbers may seem hard to fathom, but I think everyone should ponder these things at least once in their lives. They may begin to see their own lives and the world around them from a new, and perhaps more enlightened perspective.

Re:Hubble Ultra Deep Field (2, Interesting)

ModExec (970413) | more than 8 years ago | (#15218655)

The universe itself is about 14 billion years old, and many cosmologists argue that it is at least 100 billion light years across.

Please bear with my ignorance as to physics, but isn't that impossible?

If the speed of light is supposed to be the fastest speed at which matter can travel is the speed of light, shouldn't the universe at most be 28 billion light years across?

Or is it that the threshold between this universe and that which lies beyond can travel faster than the speed of light? and if that's the case, why would it only be limited to ~4c?

/sorry to threadjack
//just curious
///hopes Hubble won't go looking for my car keys.

Re:Hubble Ultra Deep Field (3, Informative)

hde226868 (906048) | more than 8 years ago | (#15219846)

You ask a few good questions that merit a longer answer.

First of all, it is important to note that Einstein, in his theory of general relativity, showed that space can be curved. It is only because of this that one can even talk about something like the "diameter" of the universe. In simple GR, and using some fairly broad assumptions about the properties of the universe, there are three principal "shapes" for the universe: the universe can have a "positive curvature" and a finite volume, it can have an infinite volume and be "flat", or it can have a "negative curvature" and an infinite volume.

In three dimensions, these spaces are very difficult to imagine for us humans, but a 2d analogy might make things clearer: The analogy in 2d for a positively curved space is the surface of a sphere, for a flat space it is a plane, and for a negatively curved space a hyperboloid, and the "volume" would be the respective surface area. Note that locally, e.g., for small ants living on a huge sphere (or humans living on the Earth), it is very difficult to distinguish between these three possibilities. For example, it took 1000s of years for humans to realize that the Earth was not a flat disk, just because our Earth is so tremendously big that in our everyday life, its curvature just does not matter to us (unless you are an airline pilot that is...).

In the past 20-30 years, we were able to develop methods that allowed us to infer in what type of universe we live. Essentially, these methods boil down to measuring the amount of gravitating stuff in the universe, which is summarized in a parameter we astronomers call "Omega". If Omega<1, the universe is infinite and open (has an infinite volume), for Omega equals 1 it is flat and open, and for Omega>1 it has a finite volume.

Several measurements, using the Hubble Space Telescope, the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, X-ray data from galaxy clusters measured with ROSAT, XMM-Newton, and Chandra, data taken with balloon experiments etc. have allowed us to build what is called the so-called concordance model of cosmology, i.e. the baseline model that most of the astronomicical community agrees with. This model has an age of around 14 billion years and has Omega=1. This means that in this model the universe is flat and infinite in size. Therefore, giving the "diameter" of the universe for the concordance model, as quoted by the original poster, does not make sense in this model.

Now, astronomers often are sloppy people, and this is especially true for the people who write press releases for NASA, because they have the incredibly difficult job to summarize a piece of very complicated physics in a 1-2 minute sound bite. What is often meant when you read something like "the universe is 100billion light years across" is a statement about that part of the universe that is visible to us. So, consider a photon that was emitted shortly after the big bang. This photon happily moves through space for about 14 billion years, and is eventually detected by us. So, the distance traveled by the photon was 14 billion light years. However, while the photon traveled, the Universe expanded, i.e., it increased in volume. This means that the distance that the source of light has from us now is much larger. It is this distance which is often quoted as the "size of the universe". How far it is depends on the model assumptions one makes, i.e., the expansion history of the universe, but one can get values which are much larger than cT, where c is the speed of light and T the age of the universe.

So much for my very simplified answer of what proves to be far more complicated questions than one might think. I hope it clarified matters a little bit, if you want a little bit more detail, a good WWW page to check out is Ned Wright's cosmology tutorial (http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_03.htm [ucla.edu] ).

Re:Hubble Ultra Deep Field (2, Interesting)

sunwukong (412560) | more than 8 years ago | (#15218683)

I prefer this [stsci.edu] for feeling insignificant.

Well maybe not insignificant, but at least well aware of what the universe thinks of our place in it ...

Re:Hubble Ultra Deep Field (1)

gareth.fletcher (855305) | more than 8 years ago | (#15219604)

Don't forget http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html [nasa.gov] (Some by Hubble) That image archive has a 10 year history (go to Calendar), absolutely stunning! I can't wait for the successor to Hubble, The James Webb Space Telescope... should be up by 2013 http://www.jwst.nasa.gov/ [nasa.gov]

Re:Hubble Ultra Deep Field (1)

hey! (33014) | more than 8 years ago | (#15219682)

Cute picture, but still nothing compares to this. It will make you feel insignificant real quick.

It's amazing, but in sixteen short years, people have forgotten what it was like before Hubble. Mark my words: when Hubble is gone, we'll be importing cheap South Asian humility.

Ah, well. We'll always have that blue marble "Earthrise" photo.

Re:Hubble Ultra Deep Field (2, Interesting)

iamlucky13 (795185) | more than 8 years ago | (#15223189)

Astronomers estimate there are on the order of 100 billion galaxies in the universe with an average of 100 billion stars each. That gives us roughly 10^22 stars (10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) stars in the universe. If somebody wrote an almanac with a one page article about each of those stars, it would be about 25 times as thick as the distance between Earth and Alpha Centauri.

The largest nuclear bombs detonated by humans have released an energy of approximately 400 quadrillion joules. This is about 20,000,000 times the energy expended by a Saturn V rocket, one of humanity's most impressive feats of engineering. In comparison, the time it takes our sun alone to generate the same amount of energy as that 100 megaton bomb is a single billionth of a second, almost long enough for a crew capsule propelled at top speed by that Saturn V to travel the thickness of a layer of saran-wrap!

Insignificant, yes, but the only life we know of with the ability to recognize that fact. When I think about God creating all this, awestruck doesn't even come close (hey, if people are going to keep getting modded up for flying spaghetti monster wisecracks, it seems fair to share my perspective, too).

Re:Hubble Ultra Deep Field (1)

Xilman (191715) | more than 8 years ago | (#15277811)

The largest nuclear bombs detonated by humans have released an energy of approximately 400 quadrillion joules. This is about 20,000,000 times the energy expended by a Saturn V rocket, one of humanity's most impressive feats of engineering.

Something is wrong there.

A Saturn V was loaded with a few kilotons of chemical explosives. The largest thermonuclear explosion was a few tens of megatons TNT equivalent. To a good enough approximation, all chemical explosives are about as powerful as TNT.

I suggest that you mean 20 thousand times the energy, not 20 million.

Paul

Re:Hubble Ultra Deep Field (1)

iamlucky13 (795185) | more than 8 years ago | (#15280186)

My values were based on a value of energy in a megaton of 4 gigajoules (if I remember right) and a really loose number tossed out in Lost Moon that a Saturn V produced enough energy to lift everyone in the US 1 foot off the ground (in the 60's). I made some assumptions about the number of people and their weights in the 60's and compared that to a 100 megaton bomb, although I think the largest every detonated was actually 50 megatons.

Let's try looking at it from your method. A Saturn V weighed about 3 kilotons. If 2.5 kilotons are fuel, then 100,000 kt over 2.5 = 40000 times...hmm. Something's wrong somewhere. Oh well...the point still stands. This is a big freaking place.

Happy Birthday Hubble Space Telescope! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15218013)

Boldly peering deeply where no human has looked before!

Hubble's afterlife (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15218019)

I hope that NASA will open up Hubble to the public after it has served its scientific life. I for one would like to rent it and take nice pictures of the activities of all beautiful *cough* nude *cough* beaches on mother Earth...

Re:Hubble's afterlife (4, Funny)

NoTheory (580275) | more than 8 years ago | (#15218056)

I hope you realize that NASA is going to use the Hubble until the satellite falls out of space and burns up on reentry. If you can figure out how to use it after that, i'm sure NASA's got a job for you.

Re:Hubble's afterlife (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15218296)

After that, it will be the "Bubble"

Hubble Reentry skid ?! (2, Insightful)

bzdang (819783) | more than 8 years ago | (#15218349)

Check out this photo of parts for a Hubble Telescope Reentry Skid at http://cstcomposites.com/images/NASA.JPG [cstcomposites.com] . No doubt a brainchild of those greedy scheming curators at the Smithsonian. Sending it into the sun would be cool too, but pushing it into the ocean would be cheapest.

Re:Hubble's afterlife (1)

DataCannibal (181369) | more than 8 years ago | (#15219443)

Typical Geek. Why don't you just go there and look?

Sweet Sixteen (0, Offtopic)

Metabolife (961249) | more than 8 years ago | (#15218025)

I wonder why Hubble didn't go on MTV?

What kind of pisses me off... (1, Informative)

PaulBu (473180) | more than 8 years ago | (#15218026)

... Is NASA policy NEVER mentioning the industrial contractors whose engineers designed and whose techs actually build the damn this in their press releases.

I used to work for the company that built Hubble (at the time called TRW, now NGST), and it was considered (from within) one of their greatest achivements in the civilian/scientific spacecraft...

If you google now for "TRW Hubble" you'll find a whole bunch of articles mentioning that TRW was selected to build JWST, "Hubble replacement", but not too many mentioning that we did actually built the original Hubble. But it could be google's fault, after all! ;-)

Paul B.

P.S. I had absolutely NOTHING to do with that program, but it still makes me sad for the guys who did.

Re:What kind of pisses me off... (1)

MoxFulder (159829) | more than 8 years ago | (#15218084)

I sympathize with your point of view...

It seems that the U.S. government doesn't like to acknowledge that some of their most prestigious and widely admired work was actually... *drumroll* done by somebody else!

Re: Giving credit where credit's due (1)

some guy I know (229718) | more than 8 years ago | (#15231524)

It seems that the U.S. government doesn't like to acknowledge that some of their most prestigious and widely admired work was actually... *drumroll* done by somebody else!
Kind of like how Microsoft buys companies and then passes off their software as its own.

Yay, I managed to bash Microsoft in a totally unrelated topic.
How many mod points do I get?

Re:What kind of pisses me off... (5, Insightful)

helioquake (841463) | more than 8 years ago | (#15218127)

I dunno.

If I were the guy who built the original primary mirror, I wouldn't want the world to know...

Re:What kind of pisses me off... (4, Informative)

slashname3 (739398) | more than 8 years ago | (#15218167)

If I were the guy who built the original primary mirror, I wouldn't want the world to know...

Wasn't it Perkin-Elmer that built the primary mirror?

Re:What kind of pisses me off... (1)

helioquake (841463) | more than 8 years ago | (#15218170)

Yes, it was.

Re:What kind of pisses me off... (4, Insightful)

helioquake (841463) | more than 8 years ago | (#15218182)

I went for funny and I got "insightful"...

Man, I suck at funny.

Re:What kind of pisses me off... (4, Insightful)

helioquake (841463) | more than 8 years ago | (#15218535)

Haha, FUNNY, guys and gals.

Re:What kind of pisses me off... (1)

JakartaDean (834076) | more than 8 years ago | (#15218814)

I went for funny and I got "insightful"... Man, I suck at funny.
Twice.

Maybe you do ;-)

Re:What kind of pisses me off... (1)

UnixRevolution (597440) | more than 8 years ago | (#15220438)

Personally, i'd think any time i got a Score 5 *anything* on 2 comments in the same thread i was doing good :)

Re:What kind of pisses me off... (1)

x2A (858210) | more than 8 years ago | (#15218393)

...is apparently the guy responsible for 32% of anorexia cases.

*looks in mirror* "But I -look- fat!"

Re:What kind of pisses me off... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15218268)

Actually, Lockheed was prime contractor for the Hubble. (Not for the primary mirror, to reply to helioquake's "Insightful" post below, which was surely meant to be humorous. That was Perkin-Elmer.) TRW built a number of orbital observatories, but not the Hubble I'm afraid.

A repurposed descendant of the software suite used for integration testing of the vehicle is still in use, and much of my job is in maintaining it. We have a few utilities written in Fortran that haven't been modified for over 20 years.

Re:What kind of pisses me off... (5, Informative)

dfjghsk (850954) | more than 8 years ago | (#15218534)

How did this get modded up? It's completely false.

If you google now for "TRW Hubble" you'll find a whole bunch of articles mentioning that TRW was selected to build JWST, "Hubble replacement", but not too many mentioning that we did actually built the original Hubble.


So either everyone is covering up the work TRW did on Hubble, or you are wrong.. I'm going to go with the latter...

Lockheed was the primary contractor.. they produced the protective outer shroud and the support systems module, and assembled and integrated everything. Perkin-Elmer produced the mirror.

http://www.sciencepresse.qc.ca/clafleur/HST-Histor y.html [sciencepresse.qc.ca]
http://sm3a.gsfc.nasa.gov/messages/78.html [nasa.gov]
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp= fec&ci=14783&rsbci=5&fti=0&ti=0&sc=400 [lockheedmartin.com]

Re:What kind of pisses me off... (1)

PaulBu (473180) | more than 8 years ago | (#15218851)

Ok, OK, OK -- It was Chandra! (The X-ray one, you know...)

Yes, my fault -- keep downmodding me till noone can notice that I was totally wrong!

(And it does not distract from my main point -- that NASA does not like to give any credit to contractors, be it TRW or L-M.)

Paul

Re:What kind of pisses me off... (4, Interesting)

dfjghsk (850954) | more than 8 years ago | (#15219110)

What do you want them to do; mention every contractor who worked on Hubble in every press release, announcement, or mention of hubble?

They certainly aren't trying to hide the fact that Lockheed, Perkin-Elmer, and many other companies worked on Hubble:

A Brief History of the Hubble Space Telescope [nasa.gov]
The following year, design of the telescope began in earnest, with the award of contracts to the Perkin-Elmer Corporation to construct the mirror and optical assembly and the Lockheed Missiles and Space Company to construct the spacecraft and its support systems.

NASA history: Hubble Space Telescope [nasa.gov] :
Page 1, Paragraph 4:
Perkin-Elmer Corporation in Danbury, Connecticut, was chosen to develop the optical system and guidance sensors. Lockheed Missiles and Space Company of Sunnyvale, California, was selected to produce the protective outer shroud and the spacecraft systems for the telescope, as well as to assemble and test the finished product.

NASA Hubble Team Receives International Academy of Astronautics Award (2004) [spaceref.com]

LOCKHEED MARTIN HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE TEAMS RECEIVE NASA HONORS (2005) [lockheedmartin.com]

A DECADE OF DISCOVERY: HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE -- THE DISCOVERIES AND THE PEOPLE (2000) [nasa.gov] :
Lockheed Martin, manufacturer of the Hubble Space Telescope, ...

NOTE TO EDITORS: MEDIA INVITED TO JOIN IN PUBLIC CELEBRATION OF TEN YEARS OF THE HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE (2000) [nasa.gov] :
Lockheed Martin, manufacturer of the Hubble Space Telescope, ...

Google search for "site:nasa.gov lockheed hubble":
Results 1 - 10 of about 14,400 from nasa.gov

Re:What kind of pisses me off... (1)

rufty_tufty (888596) | more than 8 years ago | (#15220116)

While you're at it, Dell didn't build this PC; it was built by XYZ motherboard manufacturer and ABC memory supplier. Oh and don't forget to mention Bob who was subcontracted to work at the canteen...

When Lockhead go out and build a space telescope they can take the credit for it. When Boeing builds a spaceplane off their own back then they can claim the credit and not mention all those who they paid to help build it - including subcontractors!

Re:What kind of pisses me off... (1)

crotherm (160925) | more than 8 years ago | (#15222798)

And here is the Shuttle page for STS-31 [nasa.gov] which launched the Hubble.

I call Shenanigans! (1)

Brett Buck (811747) | more than 8 years ago | (#15218676)

TRW DIDN'T build the Hubble. It was Lockheed, in Sunnyvale. Lockheed was the prime contractor and built the spacecraft systems, and Perkin-Elmer was contracted for the telescope assembly. I saw the damn thing being put together, and it wasn't in Redondo Beach...

          Brett

       

Re:What kind of pisses me off... (1)

Quantum Fizz (860218) | more than 8 years ago | (#15218707)

You know, the day the contractors actually took BLAME for the problems that went wrong, i might feel pity for poor old TRW. Everybody loves blaming NASA for problems with metric/imperial conversion when it was the contractors that fucked it up. Everybody loves blaming NASA for spending $200 for a $30 part when it's the contractors that bill the outrageous charges for it.

It's been happening since Apollo, and it's still going on today, with even some of the suppliers for the replacement camera to go up on a hopefully SM4, the contractors fucked up bigtime, made wrong filters, installed them wrong, damaged them, and are charging NASA double for their own fuckups.

As for the guy that responded to you, it was Perkin Elmer who built the mirror. And since you are giving TRW credit for building all of Hubble, and I'm too lazy to Google Hubble's history, I'd tend to believe you're exaggerating by claiming TRW entirely designed and built the Hubble all by themselves (except the primary mirror, of course)

Lockheed Martin built the HST (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15230181)

TRW had nothing to do with the Hubble. Lockheed in Sunnyvale was systems integrator. Perkin-Elmer built the Optical Telescope Assembly from their mirror and Boeing-built composite focal plane structure. Ball did a lot of the instruments, Allied Signal (L3) did the gyros, etc etc.

Some day (3, Interesting)

invader_allan (583758) | more than 8 years ago | (#15218133)

Some day we'll see space mechanics, and they'll bid on the service contract for fixing old out of service equipment. Hopefully the civilian shops will be running soon before Hubble becomes completely useless. Perhaps people will try to buy this thing long into the future, and have to redesign new parts to refurbish it and get it back in working order.

Re:Some day (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15219158)

you must not understand anything about this then if that is your idea. The Hubble will be a burnt core streaming into the ocean before ANY of that can happen.

There's a REALLY good book waiting to be written (5, Insightful)

bobcardone (922176) | more than 8 years ago | (#15218174)

About the concept, design, development, engineering, construction, deployment, repair and usage of this wonderful device.
Let's hope it takes a while before the last chapter is written...

Re:There's a REALLY good book waiting to be writte (1)

Peter Lake (260100) | more than 8 years ago | (#15218923)

There's this 15th anniversary documentary & book [spacetelescope.org] . It is really good, although a bit light on designing and engineering the HST. But the pictures are nice!

FS M82 (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15218247)

Well, you don't need more proof of His Noodliness existance than this [hubblesite.org]

Re:FS M82 (1)

Farmer Tim (530755) | more than 8 years ago | (#15218624)

So is that the primordial bolognese?

Slashdotted: My karma ran over your dogma? (1)

gareth.fletcher (855305) | more than 8 years ago | (#15219633)

Here's a mirror too:
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060425.html [nasa.gov]

Re:Slashdotted: My karma ran over your dogma? (1)

AxminsterLeuven (963108) | more than 8 years ago | (#15219850)

Look at that bright thing on the right. How come a photo of a strong light source often has such a perfect "cross" of light beams, at 90 degree angles? I really would like an explanation from someone who knows about this optics stuff. I seek only to learn...

Re:Slashdotted: My karma ran over your dogma? (1)

wanerious (712877) | more than 8 years ago | (#15220906)

Since stars are basically point-like sources, they are prone to diffraction spikes caused by the telescope hardware itself. It's especially apparent when they are overexposed to enhance background objects. Typically the spikes are diffracted images of the supports for the secondary mirror of the scope.

Re:Slashdotted: My karma ran over your dogma? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15220969)

Mirror? Hubble?

Damn, that should be modded funny.

last anniversary? (2, Insightful)

peter303 (12292) | more than 8 years ago | (#15220902)

The Hubble will probably die by 2010 when too many gyros fail or it sinks too low in the atmosphere. There is a shuttle missile repair kit in mothballs. NASA lacks mission time to do this if it only do oneor two launches a year. Plus the Hubble orbit is too out of sync with the International Space Station to be safe. Should the shuttle get into trouble, it lacks the capacity to change between the two orbits.

No hi- res wallpapers? (1)

vonsneerderhooten (254776) | more than 8 years ago | (#15220974)

I was disappointed to see that they've not made available wallpapers 1600x1200 or for widescreen monitors of this shot. I just got a pretty 20" LCD whose native res is 1600x1200 . Anyone know someplace that has hi- res/widescreen wallpapers? And yes, I know that hubblesite.org has some wallpapers @ 1600x1200.

Re:No hi- res wallpapers? (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15221806)

You can always downsample the 9500 x 7400 [hubblesite.org] full-res version.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?