Skip to comments.
Nearby Star Smaller than Earth, Massive as Sun
space.com ^
| 12/13/05
| Robert Roy Britt
Posted on 12/13/2005 6:49:40 PM PST by KevinDavis
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-55 next last
To: Batrachian
...the Next Generation Space Telescope, now known as the James Webb Space Telescope... We could have saved money by sending up just one telescope and naming it Webb-Hubble.
To: JohnCliftn
I doubt that the initial optical problem was on the up and up, since the contractors got rewarded for it by being paid to fix it. Your doubts are unfounded. Thousands of scientists and opticians are intimitely familliar with exactly what was wrong with the Hubble. That's why a corrective lens was able to be made and dropped into place. Optics is a very exact and measurable science.
22
posted on
12/13/2005 8:42:44 PM PST
by
MarineBrat
(Talk is cheap because supply exceeds demand.)
To: JohnCliftn
I doubt that the initial optical problem was on the up and up, since the contractors got rewarded for it by being paid to fix it.
If memory serves, the contractor which should have made the optics got screwed out of the winning bid because of some joker in congress claiming that an inferior bidder (in his district) should have won.
23
posted on
12/13/2005 9:00:35 PM PST
by
SunkenCiv
("In silence, and at night, the Conscience feels that life should soar to nobler ends than Power.")
To: Wilhelm Tell
You aren't the only one -- I remember when I turned 8 & 1/2 and looked up at Sirius, thinking "That light left when I was born."
Is the mass of Sirius B that much of a surprise? I mean, we knew it was a white dwarf already. It was just a matter of working out the period & separation of the binary. I guess those measurements couldn't be made w/o Hubble.
24
posted on
12/13/2005 9:10:33 PM PST
by
MikeD
(We live in a world where babies are like velveteen rabbits that only become real if they are loved.)
To: Batrachian
But, you can look forward to the Next Generation Space Telescope, now known as the James Webb Space Telescope, unless it's canceled. It compliments Hubble, not replace it. They "see" in different bands.
25
posted on
12/14/2005 7:01:58 AM PST
by
RadioAstronomer
(Senior member of Darwin Central)
To: clyde asbury; Batrachian; manwiththehands
They don't require servicing as Hubble does.And Hubble has no onboard fuel to prevent deposits on the mirror. Hubble was modular and not only designed to be serviced but upgraded as well. It is a platform like no other. Loss of Hubble will be a great loss indeed.
The Webb cannot replace Hubble.
26
posted on
12/14/2005 7:07:27 AM PST
by
RadioAstronomer
(Senior member of Darwin Central)
To: JohnCliftn
27
posted on
12/14/2005 7:08:34 AM PST
by
RadioAstronomer
(Senior member of Darwin Central)
To: Spirochete
To: Spirochete
Nope. You want different platforms looking in different bands.
29
posted on
12/14/2005 7:09:42 AM PST
by
RadioAstronomer
(Senior member of Darwin Central)
To: manwiththehands
NASA was working on a hybrid of the two technologes, called the Webb Hubbell scope. It died.
30
posted on
12/14/2005 7:18:19 AM PST
by
Doohickey
(If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice...I will choose freewill.)
To: Doohickey
Not that I am aware. Webb is still going strong. However, it was not a hybrid. The Webb looks in the IR. Hubble - UV and visible.
31
posted on
12/14/2005 7:28:36 AM PST
by
RadioAstronomer
(Senior member of Darwin Central)
To: KevinDavis
Nearby Star Smaller than Earth, Massive as SunDoes this sun make my solar system look fat?
32
posted on
12/14/2005 7:29:15 AM PST
by
Lazamataz
(Liberals screwed again: HOLIDAY derives from the words Holy Day. NOW what will they do?)
To: Spirochete
Arrrggg! Finally got the joke. LOL! I am dense today.
33
posted on
12/14/2005 7:29:37 AM PST
by
RadioAstronomer
(Senior member of Darwin Central)
To: RadioAstronomer
Perhaps a compromise could be reached: the Webb Hubble telescope. It's big but can't see any problems in Arkansas.
34
posted on
12/14/2005 7:31:48 AM PST
by
Doctor Stochastic
(Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
To: Doctor Stochastic
35
posted on
12/14/2005 7:35:22 AM PST
by
RadioAstronomer
(Senior member of Darwin Central)
To: manwiththehands
Because it's old and obsolete.
36
posted on
12/14/2005 7:36:19 AM PST
by
frgoff
To: frgoff
37
posted on
12/14/2005 7:38:47 AM PST
by
RadioAstronomer
(Senior member of Darwin Central)
To: manwiththehands
If it's still so useful someone tell me again why we are letting the Hubble die?Because we can get a $35.00 deposit back on the mirror at Piggly-Wiggly.
38
posted on
12/14/2005 7:41:27 AM PST
by
Lazamataz
(Liberals screwed again: HOLIDAY derives from the words Holy Day. NOW what will they do?)
To: frgoff
Monday, December 12, 2005 UA builds world's most advanced telescope Magellan scope would produce images 10 times sharper than those from Earth-orbiting Hubble.
The Arizona republic
39
posted on
12/14/2005 8:04:04 AM PST
by
saminfl
To: Gordongekko909
Volume of Earth, mass of two Sols? That is wicked dense. Mass is nearly that of the Sun. 98%, not 198%... Still wickedly dense...
40
posted on
12/14/2005 10:47:23 AM PST
by
mwilli20
(temporarily tagged out...)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-55 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson