[ao98]

Thanks for posting this, I was wondering which design of the three designs would be picked.

[sigSEGV]

To isolate the telescope from infrared interference from the Earth and the Sun, the observatory will be launched on an expendable rocket on a three-month journey that will take it to an area 940,000 miles from Earth called L2 for Lagrange Point 2.

I thought lots of dust and meteors collect at the Lagrange Points?

[sleavelessinseattle]

Space Optics Ping!

[Scully]

ping

[Illbay]

NASA said it would build an observatory that would look back into time and space for some of the first light produced in the universe.

Okay, okay, I'm finally going to swallow my pride, and ask the dumb question:

Since all matter in the universe supposedly came from a "protoatom" or whatever, which began expanding at the instant of the "Big Bang" (from which locus I assume the "earliest light in the universe" would also originate); and since all matter has been rushing away from that locus ever since the BBM ("Big Bang Moment"), and further since the speed of travel of that matter--including our own galaxy, containing the solar system, the earth and us--would have been traveling at less than the speed of light, my question is:

How can we then "see" the original light? Wouldn't it have gone "past" us and out into the empty void long, long, long ago? Or does it somehow travel along with us at slower than light speed (because there was no universe to expand into)?

If the latter, doesn't that mean that the light would be traveling at less than "light speed"? Is there then such a thing as "slow light"?

I hope someone can 'splain that to me, because I have always found it a source of confusion.

[fourdeuce82d]

I'm all for pushing the limits of our knowledge, etc..

But I'm struck by a couple of lines-

One way in which the new telescope will be cheaper to operate than Hubble is that it is not designed to be repaired or serviced once launched.

because:

(it will be taken to) an area 940,000 miles from Earth called L2 for Lagrange Point 2.

why the hell don't we develop improved heavy lift/cheap lift launchers/ion/plasma propulsion THAT WILL ALLOW US TO VISIT THOSE AREAS CHEAPLY??

I'm not a rocket scientist (allow I've seen people play them on tv) but why are we using rowboats when we could be using NERVA, laser launch, etc.?

Isn't there some other technology we could/should be developing that would allow us to lift dozens of these scopes (interferometry?) for the same price?

Chastisement/ruler on the knuckles welcomed.

[jwh_Denver]

And the Chinese will do the final inspection for quality control.

[onedoug]

Ping to this & #9.

Thanks again for Freepmailing me the link.

God Bless....

[TheLooseThread]

"We were conscious of this public perception in making our recommendations."

A bit elitist sounding. They poo-poo visible light pictures.

But the point of exploration is to experience the wonder of the unknown. We are humans. To experience it we have to see it.

They have lost sight of why it was important to place a human on the moon, rather than just bring back samples.

WE, not the computers, are the explorers.

[Pagey]

Better than Hubble??? WOW BUMP!!!!