P
PaulCsouls
- Jan 1, 1970
- 0
On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 20:46:18 GMT, PaulCsouls
Is Hubble really worth saving? For the cost of one repair mission, you
could build maybe 10 terresterial light and radio telescopes, each
with superior resolution and decades of lifetime, and the money would
be spent on astronomers and not NASA overhead.
Not with the rapid advances in adaptive optics. Terrestrial AO isTCS said:Bullshit. The only way terresterial light telescopes could have superior
resolution is if they were put out of the atmosphere.
Not with the rapid advances in adaptive optics. Terrestrial AO is
already providing results the match for Hubble in limited wavebands.
Steve
TCS said:Bullshit. The only way terresterial light telescopes could have superior
resolution is if they were put out of the atmosphere.
Because I'm an art lover and the Hubble Telescope has produced betterWhy?
it is a wee bit old... it's time for a new version.
Why? Though I have several circuit designs riding on the Hubble
(magnetic suspension of the mirror; and power supply conveyance across
the gap), it is a wee bit old... it's time for a new version.
Besides, Mikulski is a jerk (and a Demoncrat
...Jim Thompson
Why? Though I have several circuit designs riding on the Hubble
(magnetic suspension of the mirror; and power supply conveyance across
the gap), it is a wee bit old... it's time for a new version.
Read up on adaptive optics. Realise the physical aperture it is
practical for us to put into space. Then shut the **** up.
There are still good reasons to put telescopes into space, but angular
resolution isn't one of them - and hasn't been for a decade or three.
Tim
Mac said:I don't know anything about Mikulski and have nothing against
Democrats as a group, but otherwise, I agree with you. Let's scrap it
and instead, we can spend the money on Mars reconnaissance as a
prelude to manned missions thereto.
Because I'm an art lover and the Hubble Telescope has produced better
art than anyone on earth has with the feces of any species.
So is your computer. Why don't you throw it out and wait a few years
for them to develop a better one. After they replace it we can phase
it out.
Paul
In Jim Thompson typed:
Does the magnetic coupling across the gap impart any vibration to the
mirror?
Tim Auton said:Read up on adaptive optics. Realise the physical aperture it is
practical for us to put into space.
There are still good reasons to put telescopes into space, but angular
resolution isn't one of them - and hasn't been for a decade or three.
As I understand it, it will remain functional for at least another
decade without any on-site maintenance.
Get real dude. This manned Mars stuff is completely daft, with current
technology. Its a one way trip for the astronauts. The mass of Mars is
about 8 times that of the moon.
The idea of spending 400 billion dollars for something of obvious
dubious merit is absolutely insane.
We don't have effect technology yet. Its all spin doctoring to keep
profits up for a few companies and to generate visible political
profiles.
Perhaps.
Just think what that money could do if it was given to a few 10,000
companies to come up with technology that could really benefit us, now.
Jim,
Do you have some more details about what you were doing ? It sounds
fascinating.
Thanks
Steve
The mirror has a re-chargeable battery. Charging occurs while
"docked", though there's still a substantial gap. Split pot cores do
the coupling.
When suspended only data goes across the gap.
Jim said:The mirror has a re-chargeable battery. Charging occurs while
"docked", though there's still a substantial gap. Split pot cores do
the coupling.
When suspended only data goes across the gap.
...Jim Thompson