P
PaulCsouls
- Jan 1, 1970
- 0
-
Categories
-
Platforms
-
Content
J
Jim Thompson
- Jan 1, 1970
- 0
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
J
John Larkin
- Jan 1, 1970
- 0
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.
Let's dump the useless Space Station while we're at it, and spend the
money on real science.
John
T
TCS
- Jan 1, 1970
- 0
Bullshit. The only way terresterial light telescopes could have superior
resolution is if they were put out of the atmosphere.
S
Steve Taylor
- Jan 1, 1970
- 0
Not with the rapid advances in adaptive optics. Terrestrial AO isTCS said:
already providing results the match for Hubble in limited wavebands.
Steve
J
John Larkin
- Jan 1, 1970
- 0
Optical adaptive telescopes are now better than Hubble, admittedly in
wavelengths the atmosphere doesn't absorb. In its remaining days,
Hubble should work in the uv/ir wavelengths that it's best at, and
leave the press-release visible stuff to ground-based telescopes.
Synthetic aperture radio telescopes are down to milli-arc-second
resolution, hundreds of times better than Hubble.
John
T
Tim Auton
- Jan 1, 1970
- 0
TCS said:
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
P
PaulCsouls
- Jan 1, 1970
- 0
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
M
Mac
- Jan 1, 1970
- 0
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
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.
Mac
T
Tom Del Rosso
- Jan 1, 1970
- 0
In Jim Thompson typed:
Does the magnetic coupling across the gap impart any vibration to the
mirror?
Does the magnetic coupling across the gap impart any vibration to the
mirror?
J
John Larkin
- Jan 1, 1970
- 0
Telescopes in space are perfectly sensible, lots of them, especially
ir/uv/gamma ray things. But one shuttle repair mission costs more than
one or two expendable telescopes, and kills astronauts now and then,
too.
John
K
Kevin Aylward
- Jan 1, 1970
- 0
Mac said:
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.
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.
Kevin Aylward
[email protected]
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
"That which is mostly observed, is that which replicates the most"
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html
"quotes with no meaning, are meaningless" - Kevin Aylward.
J
Jim Thompson
- Jan 1, 1970
- 0
As I understand it, it will remain functional for at least another
decade without any on-site maintenance.
...Jim Thompson
J
Jim Thompson
- Jan 1, 1970
- 0
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
I
Ian Stirling
- Jan 1, 1970
- 0
Tim Auton said:
And then look at http://www.eso.org/projects/owl/
An overview of a design for a 100m mirror telescope.
For under around a billion euros/dollars.
There are reasons to put telescopes into space.
Other wavebands are a major one.
AO is not perfect, it has problems with looking close to bright objects,
so the OWL for example would not be great to search for planets.
There are a few designs for planet hunting space scopes that
interferometrically null the light from the star, to make them able to
pick up planets better.
I
Ian Stirling
- Jan 1, 1970
- 0
Significant failure seems likely in well under a decade, and reentry
is almost certain before then.
A quick google (http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=9911)
revealed that as of last july, 4 of 6 gyros were functional.
The hubble may reenter as soon as late 2012, in which case continued
science is unlikely
If no reboost is performed, it's likely to come down around late 2013.
A decade is unlikely.
The chance of 3 gyros being available (needed for pointing) falls below
50% at only the end of 2005, and is down to only 30% in the middle of 2006.
2 gyro mode is planned, but is only expected to work for a year or two,
as another failure is likely.
K
Keith R. Williams
- Jan 1, 1970
- 0
That's the whole point. We don't have the technology. It would
be daft to do something already done, like sending a man to the
moon for a weekend.
What are you worried about, it's not like it's your tax Euro.
The problem is that it usually takes a *difficult* problem to
come up with a brilliant solution. "Giving money to 10,000
companies" and asking for "technology" is like handing money to
10,000,000 welfare mothers and asking that they "get off the
welfare roles". The money is down the rat-hole, never to be
seen.
Like Mars, getting to the moon was a hard problem. Remaining on
the moon is likewise a hard problem. Mars is no more of a
"hard" problem.
J
Jim Thompson
- Jan 1, 1970
- 0
Done almost twenty years ago at Sperry/Honeywell Aerospace under
security clearances. I have NO copies of the work :-(
I'm not sure how much I can remember now. Most of my remembrances at
Sperry/Honeywell concern a 4000 pound satellite spun from a gantry in
a laboratory, driven by my spin/launch drivers (MOSFETS). I was so
scared I stood behind a building column in case the thing came loose
;-)
...Jim Thompson
T
Tom Del Rosso
- Jan 1, 1970
- 0
In Jim Thompson typed:
So I guess the data is transmitted optically?
So I guess the data is transmitted optically?
S
Steve Taylor
- Jan 1, 1970
- 0
Jim said:
Jim,
Do you have some more details about what you were doing ? It sounds
fascinating.
Thanks
Steve
Similar threads
