Hubble's triumph!

That is good news,

I understood that the decommisioning was based on budget cuts, and was disappointed because the hubble had so much more to offer.

and my first image........it was kinda blurry.

Yeah I was very upset when I found out they were to just decommission as junk.

I have to confess that my first real picture was also kind of blurred, you have to laugh don't you?

They now plan new equipment including a new type camera and also a rocket docking unit so that when it gets to it's real end of life, they can hook on a rocket to blast it into outer orbit of the galaxy somewhere.

They might even have it collide into something in a controlled manner as to measure the dust plumes contents. That would be a proper goodbye to Hubble in my mind, one last useful task but it is not for the next 10 years or so.

"I have to confess that my first real picture was also kind of blurred, you have to laugh don't you?"

there were alot of red faces when the first pictures came back.

I do not know if you get readers digest (RD). but when they were still polishing the mirrors, RD did an acticle and interviewed the project mananger about how accurate the mirrors had to be, and what painstaking rechecks had to be done.

"They might even have it collide into something in a controlled manner as to measure the dust plumes contents. That would be a proper goodbye to Hubble in my mind, one last useful task but it is not for the next 10 years or so."

that would be a good farewell........kinda like a viking funeral......but not today

Very good news! One question...has the James Webb project been pushed back accordingly or is it still planned to fly as scheduled (mid to late 2013)?

Hi CSM,

I don't know and cannot find any detail about that fact specifically. All looks as if that goes ahead as planned and the JWT will become NASA's new flagship. Don't forget that Hubble's repair is a combined effort between NASA and ESA and will cost them £428 million including the launch.

On this website you can follow the progress and clearly see that manufacturing, planning and testing is going ahead with newsletters from just a few days ago stating positive results from both optical and infra red element tests.

Unfortunately just found out that it may mean that it does put it back as well. See further down in my other reply.

Sorry.

I have to admit I never saw the pictures, until I subscribed to a widget, NASA picture of the day. The option I chose were pictures taken from Hubble. Some were absolutely gorgeous and humbling.

I too was glad to see the extension of Hubble's life. I personally believe that it should be refurbished over and over again until the cost of refurbbishment exceeds the cost of a new telescope!!

A new telescope would only look at a single object. But 2 telescopes can observe 2 objects. The knowledge gained from keeping Hubble alive would be well worth it.

I also saw articles showing the painstaking work re the grinding, polishing and hand finishing of the mirror.

Then the horrible result, because it was out of focus.

My hat still goes off to the ones who designed a work-around, and enabled the finest extra-solar system photos ever seen, from the damaged Hubble telescope.

I'm so pleased it is able to continue, for another season of interesting pictures....

Actually the error was spherical aberration. The making of a large primary mirror requires the making of a null lens so the figure of the mirror can be observed. For Hubble, they had 2 null lenses: one with mirrors and one with lenses. When they switched between the two tests, the spherical was observed. However, management decided to move on and to assume the final null lens was best. It wasn't! The second null lens had a small assembly error, If I remember correctly it was something link 0.010 inch in the spacing between two lenses.

"If I remember correctly it was something link 0.010 inch in the spacing between two lenses."

I don't even think it was that much, as far as management envolved, I wonder what ever became of them

Hello phoenix911,

".......as far as management envolved, I wonder what ever became of them"

In the usual process, the management became promoted.

Had you not noticed over the last several years.

Now those erstwhile managers are Politicians

Kind Regards....

Hubble and the other space telescopes have given us quantum (no pun intended) leaps in our knowledge of the universe. When they are no longer needed, we should preserve these wonders for all time by moving them into stable orbits around the sun. If mankind doesn't destroy itself, someday we may be able to visit and wonder at these artifacts of our distant past.

I think you would rethink that once you read this.

I think that having it collide into an object that we need to research more is far better as it provides more data to process.

In my mind this would be a grand sending off, so to speak, for a telescope that has probably contributed the largest amount of new data to aid our understanding of the universe as a whole.

The Sky Is Falling. A fable that tells the story of Chicken Little who, when struck by an acorn, warned the other animals in the barnyard the sky was falling.

The sky is falling has become a phrase often used to indicate an hysterical or mistaken belief that disaster is imminent.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sky_is_Falling

Kind Regards.....

Just a thought,

If we can equip the Hubble with additional technology, then why not equip it with rockets boosters to propel it toward the edge of our solar system. Also equip it with the ability to transmit it's photographs back to us until its ultimate death, so that we may "see" the edge of our solar system, and just beyond, up close.

I can't say I've seen a more beautiful photograph than the Hubble has produced. My screen savers and background are all Hubble pictures.

All the numbers you can write on paper could never describe those images! We should do all we can to extend the useful purpose of that great endeavor.

Here you can find all details about Hubble including the cost. I have been on forums in the past where there are strange people discussing if it was worth it..., of course it was.

The question now is though, is it worth expanding over the odds costs to re-equip it to go further away and do more work outside of our solar system. The answer is no, it cannot be justified. As all NASA projects are always sold tremendously to senate, congress, government and or people, they always under estimate the costs to begin with. This already means that it is stretching the budgets for other projects as well. Unfortunately I just found out here that this could also put the JWT in jeopardy. Now that would be sad.

Anyway as a Hubble fan yourself, have you found this website?

sounds simple enough, thats why I feel its not that simply

I agree with added reasons,

I do not think mankind should become nostalgic with equipment such as hubble.

hubble will be remembered for its contribution to science (mankind). and when we start putting this object at the level of preservation, to say protect our history. my opinion, it would be an a form of a hypocritical insult to the program. hubble already made history with its discoveries and is already part of it, which we can build off of it.

Its time to move on, when its productive life is over.

I also want to add, I have no quams with preserving mistakes mankind made in history, to keep from repeating them.

What would Hubble see if it were pointed to the "hole" in the CMBR (cosmic microwave background radiation) panorama? I do not know of any, in present time or near, 5-year, future that can, or will, "see" as deep to the far reaches of the cosmos. If what Hubble "sees" is a "hole" in the ultraviolet through e-ray through visual through deep infrared, we may have very likely proof there was no Big Bang. To my knowledge, today, the temperature of the area of the "hole" is not recorded, except that it is colder than the CMBR temperature of 2.7C degrees.

This kind of view, a hole, a column of space, from Earth clear through to the end of what we can detect (observe and measure), does not readily support the theorized single rapidly expanding glob of plasma before electromagnetic radiation could be supported at about 10^-15 seconds. From then to now, there are about 10³² magnitudes of time change. That there is a column of space we have detected a few arcseconds in diameter and about 10²⁶meters long is difficult to reconcile with a single Big Bang. This will be discussed at ColinCWare's TTOE Blog in the near future.

soaralone1

It is an interesting question but pointless. Hubble is far better at doing what it is doing now and so they concentrate on that and improvements in that field.

If you go here, you will find the latest efforts and findings explained (upon further searching of the terminologies mentioned) in the field of background radiation measurements. This probe, flying at 1.5 million Km around earth, is doing exactly that, including the same for the whole of our universe.

Thank you for your link to yet another ttoe blog. I must state that I am somewhat tired of all these people blogging about these new sciences that seem to explain very little if anything while professing to explain it all. Ockam's razor doesn't do it for me I am afraid.

As far back as 1997 scientists have been explaining these perceived variations in the background radiation with compelling theories and evidence. In fact some even predicted them before we knew they were there at all. The background radiation itself was accurately predicted before discovery. For anyone to turn around now and say they are over looking the most basic of errors is a bit far fetched in my mind. This piece here, <<P. Bosch´an & P. Biltzinger: Distortion of the CMB Spectrum by Primeval Hydrogen Recombination >>, explains in detail how we now have the cmbr as we see it. This paper was received in 1997, accepted in 1998 and reconfirmed in Oct 2007.

For as long as I am not as clever as most of these scientists, I will go safely with the most accepted hypothesis or rules. Call me what you like but anybody going against the grain, has a lot of convincing to do.

P.s. the temperature you mentioned should have been 2.7K which is a bit colder than 2.7C. If it were 2.7C we would have had no problem with our "global warming" on earth, we would have been positively roasting.

Yep case491, you caught me at one of my worst. I am a very slow typist? and was in a hurry to make an entry - did not carefully enough check my entry. Thanx for the help! 2.7K is correct.

How about being able to calculate - mathematically calculate - CMBR temp? Interested? Go to ColinCWare's Blog and help me present this possibilty. Your guru comments and help will be very greatly appreciated and very helpful. The Site is still being developed so your comments can make it easier to get around on the Site will help! I am not a computer-phile. Computers do not like me, either! I admit to some shortcomings.

ColinCWare's Site is unique in that it will, with every interested parties help, produce and present the mathematical journey to the scientists' Holy Grail, TOE by way of TTOE, the Tools for finding TOE.

Hi soaralone,

I am afraid that, as stated in my previous reply, I don't consider myself clever enough to contribute meaningfully to anything of that level. As far as I know they already calculate the values anyway, how else could they so accurately predict these variations and then find out about them with a measurement after presenting the values first?

Also I do not rate any of the ttoe blogs. I have seen a few and it is just more of the same. Too much biased assumptions are leading the way, sorry.

case491,

You may be missing an opportunity to be a member of those of us who are preparing an unbiased, logical, absolutely mathematical, in simple undergraduate (even advanced Grade 11 - 12) arithmetical explanation of the Nature of the Universe (NOU) = Tools for finding TOE, TTOE.

Your clever-enough help could prove I am not in a position to develop TTOE. I welcome this opportunity if you do join us at ColinCWare's TTOE Blog.

Hi case491,

I have taken another look at your paragraph

"As far back as 1997 scientists have been explaining these perceived variations in the background radiation with compelling theories and evidence. In fact some even predicted them before we knew they were there at all. ... For anyone to turn around now and say they are over looking the most basic of errors is a bit far fetched in my mind. This piece here, <<P. Bosch´an & P. Biltzinger: Distortion of the CMB Spectrum by Primeval Hydrogen Recombination >>, explains in detail how we now have the cmbr as we see it. This paper was received in 1997, accepted in 1998 and reconfirmed in Oct 2007."

The immediate question I believe will be answered by knowing NOU, the Nature of the Universe. One of the first properties is NOU has been in existence for all time(?). Time is questioned here because Time is man-made -- just for us to use -- no other living possible user.

Starting from this Time, today, going back eons, the CMBR has existed since forever or the conjectured Big Bang. Suppose there is another true physical cause for the apparent expansion/acceleration. I am confident such other cause will be described -- if you stick with the Blog, you will be privy to that disclosure because we will find TTOE, the Tools for finding TOE. And TTOE are the same Tools that define NOU, TNOU.

I add this opportunity for your consideration. There is the possibility that as early as 1877 the equations were available and by 1898 the physical constants where known, the CMBR temperature could be calculated. Equal to 2.7262(?)K.

And your last paragraph

"For as long as I am not as clever as most of these scientists, I will go safely with the most accepted hypothesis or rules. Call me what you like but anybody going against the grain, has a lot of convincing to do."

I call you very clever. I truly appreciate your comments here and, if you should choose, my TTOE Blog.

Hello soaralone1,

There are some things we shall never know, about the fundamental nature of the Universe we live in for such a short time.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't try, because each has an inquiring mind has been given to us, to use and not to shut down.

Eventually each person comes to understand it is not possible to know everything about all things.

That's a far cry from being aged 12 and absolutely certain that one knew far more than his/her parents etc.

Wisdom comes with understanding our physical limitations, and the truths which we shall never actually understand.

Cheers.....

Hi Sparkstation,

Have you visited my Blog? The object is to find now - in our lifetime - the very simplest description of NOU, the Nature of the Universe. That description of NOU should be identical to TTOE, the Tools to find TOE. Certainly we can define, in laymen's terms, what is the world around us.

Where do think the difficulty will be?

soaralone1

Hello soaralone1,

I have had a look at your Blog, but there does not seem to be much there.

I already know much about the nature and structure of the Universe, which is an interesting, temporary, and surprising created special place.

In the earthly lifespan which remains to me, I may find out more, or perhaps not, but I don't worry, because there are far more important things to establish.

Kind Regards....

Hi Sparkstation,

"... does not seem to be much there." as of now; more is on its way with the help of others and you, if you care to. There still are some "rough edges" on the Blog that I am working on.

There are some interesting properties of NOU worth considering. Only some properties are:

NOU is not ethereal; it has matter.

NOU is Real; it is not Imaginary.

NOU has dimensions that we can measure; it is not dimensionless.

NOU has man-made time; the Real properties of Time are not known.

I wager you and other readers can cite more properties. This is the purpose of the Blog: To describe in definitive factual text statements, and ultimately in equally simple mathematical statements, the properties of NOU. Collectively, these definitions are the same statements defining TTOE, the Tools to find TOE.

All definitive contributions are welcome at ColinCWare's Blog.

soaralone1