Skip to comments.
Massive Old Star Reveals Secrets On Deathbed
Gemini Observatory, Hilo, HI ^
| 1/26/04
Posted on 01/26/2004 9:27:15 PM PST by LibWhacker
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-31 last
To: GeronL
Why not move the Hubble to the dark side of the moon?
21
posted on
01/26/2004 10:00:13 PM PST
by
Only1choice____Freedom
(The word system implies they have done something the same way at least twice)
To: Only1choice____Freedom
landing might be tricky
22
posted on
01/26/2004 10:08:01 PM PST
by
GeronL
(miss me?? I've been gone... you mean you didn't even notice?? wwaaaaaaaaaaa!!!)
To: Only1choice____Freedom
I was listening to one of those NASA press briefings the other day and they mentioned the real limiting factor on Hubble's lifespan is the batteries. When those go, thermal control goes and that'll be the end of the telescope. The batteries won't last beyond 2010, tops, and could go as early as 2007. Although they didn't get into it, the implication is that you can't replace the batteries. :-(
23
posted on
01/26/2004 10:08:31 PM PST
by
LibWhacker
(<a href="http://www.michaelmoore.com/">Miserable Failure</a>)
To: Physicist; RadioAstronomer; RightWhale; Cincinatus' Wife; Brett66; ambrose; Phil V.
One-off ping!
24
posted on
01/26/2004 10:20:15 PM PST
by
LibWhacker
(<a href="http://www.michaelmoore.com/">Miserable Failure</a>)
To: LibWhacker
Our own sun will eventually go Super Nova... yet another reason to push on with exploration and colonization of other worlds.
25
posted on
01/26/2004 10:24:44 PM PST
by
ambrose
To: ambrose
Nova, not supernova . . . Not enough mass. However, either way, we're fried! :-)
26
posted on
01/26/2004 10:26:07 PM PST
by
LibWhacker
(<a href="http://www.michaelmoore.com/">Miserable Failure</a>)
To: LibWhacker
There's gotta be a way around this. I just find the loss of hubble to be unacceptable!
27
posted on
01/26/2004 10:29:59 PM PST
by
Phil V.
To: Phil V.
I know, very disappointed about it as well. And the Next Generation Telescope (forgot what they're naming it) that's "replacing" it just won't be the same, since it'll be working in the infrared. Wish we could put up a nice big optical scope, maybe an optical interferometer . . . Guess it'll have to wait though. :-(
28
posted on
01/26/2004 10:34:37 PM PST
by
LibWhacker
(<a href="http://www.michaelmoore.com/">Miserable Failure</a>)
To: LibWhacker
I thought that Marlon Brando was leaving us.
29
posted on
01/26/2004 10:40:22 PM PST
by
Mike Darancette
(Proud member - Neoconservative Power Vortex)
To: LibWhacker
What is still so cool to me is the fact that M74, the galaxy in which this star resides in ~35,000 kly away. This means the events you are "seeing" and, indeed the light from the entire galaxy, left its source 35 million years ago.
You are actually looking at it as it appeared 35 million years ago, assuming you were God and could see the entire galaxy in real-time. The entire galaxy could be gone now and we wouldn't know it for 35 million more years. So cool.......
30
posted on
01/26/2004 10:55:36 PM PST
by
Indie
(Beef. It's what's for dinner.)
To: Only1choice____Freedom
My bet would be to move Hubble to a Lagrangian point like L5..
It would remain there, gravitationally balanced between the earth and moon practically forever, until we decide what to do with it...
31
posted on
01/27/2004 12:50:36 AM PST
by
Drammach
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-31 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