And btw, Hubble most definitely WAS designed to be upgradeable - hence the reaosn all of Hubble's original imaging instrumens are now history (the FOC was the last of them, replaced by the ACS we've talked about). Had the HST not been designed to be updated as new technologies emerged, it would've been out of service by now.</strong><hr></blockquote>
but like i said before, its sposed to be out of service by now. since it was such a success they decided to try to keep it around longer. it wasnt originally intended to last this long, and thus it wasnt intended to be ugradeable. maybe they allowed for it to be upgradeable in the basic designs, but it wasnt intended to be built for that purpose.
they basically are just trying to salvage the shell of the most successful telescope ever built. why start over when u have such an instrument already at yer disposal now?
<strong> since it was such a success they decided to try to keep it around longer. it wasnt originally intended to last this long, and thus it wasnt intended to be ugradeable. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Errr...not to be argumentative, but you're wrong there. From the outset it was designed to use modular imaging and data management instrumentation, so that when said instruments became obsolete, they could simply be removed and replaced with newer technologies by a Space Shuttle crew. If you read the astronaut comments that I linked to, you'll get a feel for this.
But my reason for knowing is because there are several books I have which detail the same - the modularity, etc. This is all by design. They've known for some time about this current mission, and for some time that 2010 was the projected shut-down date, and start of the NGT project. NASA has had it all figured out for quite a while.
Errr...not to be argumentative, but you're wrong there. From the outset it was designed to use modular imaging and data management instrumentation, so that when said instruments became obsolete, they could simply be removed and replaced with newer technologies by a Space Shuttle crew. If you read the astronaut comments that I linked to, you'll get a feel for this.
But my reason for knowing is because there are several books I have which detail the same - the modularity, etc. This is all by design. They've known for some time about this current mission, and for some time that 2010 was the projected shut-down date, and start of the NGT project. NASA has had it all figured out for quite a while.
my professor, who works for NASA and actually uses the hubble, said that its original termination date has already come and passed. the original life expectancy wasnt 2010. yes, maybe thats been the date for sometime, but as i said, the ORIGINAL date has already passed. read my posts carefully. sometimes, little words can mean something, so dont skip over them.
Hmm. Well, I don't want to argue with an astronomy prof who uses Hubble. I guess perhaps back in the mid-90's they revised the timeline for Hubble's EOL. But at a minimum it was designed to take new instrumentation as it became available. But as you say that doesn't preclude a revised EOL timeline from some point in the past.
I'm just excited to see some new images. Gonna be great! Hey, if I give your prof a particular galaxy to shoot, think he'd download a snapshot for me?
I'm just excited to see some new images. Gonna be great! Hey, if I give your prof a particular galaxy to shoot, think he'd download a snapshot for me?
JK of course, but it's a nice thought.</strong><hr></blockquote>
haha, yeah i wish that was the case. as it is, i dont know how limited he is--being that hes gonna be working w/ one of the most incredible pieces of technology in existence. but thats not gonna stop me from tryin to get him to let me in on the action. <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
With the wider field of view and greatle enhanced resolution, I can imagine some fairly dumbfounding images of galaxy clusters, nebulae and the like. No longer will all the galaxies appear to be indistinct, glowing masses on the page - we should be able to make out distinct aspects of each galaxy (shape, color, density, etc.), even if there are dozens of them in a single photo. It's going to be awesome.
Comments
<strong>Done!
<a href="http://sm3b.gsfc.nasa.gov/mission-updates/chronicles-latest.html"; target="_blank">http://sm3b.gsfc.nasa.gov/mission-updates/chronicles-latest.html</a>;
And btw, Hubble most definitely WAS designed to be upgradeable - hence the reaosn all of Hubble's original imaging instrumens are now history (the FOC was the last of them, replaced by the ACS we've talked about). Had the HST not been designed to be updated as new technologies emerged, it would've been out of service by now.</strong><hr></blockquote>
but like i said before, its sposed to be out of service by now. since it was such a success they decided to try to keep it around longer. it wasnt originally intended to last this long, and thus it wasnt intended to be ugradeable. maybe they allowed for it to be upgradeable in the basic designs, but it wasnt intended to be built for that purpose.
they basically are just trying to salvage the shell of the most successful telescope ever built. why start over when u have such an instrument already at yer disposal now?
<strong> since it was such a success they decided to try to keep it around longer. it wasnt originally intended to last this long, and thus it wasnt intended to be ugradeable. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Errr...not to be argumentative, but you're wrong there. From the outset it was designed to use modular imaging and data management instrumentation, so that when said instruments became obsolete, they could simply be removed and replaced with newer technologies by a Space Shuttle crew. If you read the astronaut comments that I linked to, you'll get a feel for this.
But my reason for knowing is because there are several books I have which detail the same - the modularity, etc. This is all by design. They've known for some time about this current mission, and for some time that 2010 was the projected shut-down date, and start of the NGT project. NASA has had it all figured out for quite a while.
[ 03-08-2002: Message edited by: Moogs ? ]</p>
<strong>
Errr...not to be argumentative, but you're wrong there. From the outset it was designed to use modular imaging and data management instrumentation, so that when said instruments became obsolete, they could simply be removed and replaced with newer technologies by a Space Shuttle crew. If you read the astronaut comments that I linked to, you'll get a feel for this.
But my reason for knowing is because there are several books I have which detail the same - the modularity, etc. This is all by design. They've known for some time about this current mission, and for some time that 2010 was the projected shut-down date, and start of the NGT project. NASA has had it all figured out for quite a while.
[ 03-08-2002: Message edited by: Moogs ? ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
my professor, who works for NASA and actually uses the hubble, said that its original termination date has already come and passed. the original life expectancy wasnt 2010. yes, maybe thats been the date for sometime, but as i said, the ORIGINAL date has already passed. read my posts carefully. sometimes, little words can mean something, so dont skip over them.
I'm just excited to see some new images. Gonna be great! Hey, if I give your prof a particular galaxy to shoot, think he'd download a snapshot for me?
JK of course, but it's a nice thought.
<strong>
I'm just excited to see some new images. Gonna be great! Hey, if I give your prof a particular galaxy to shoot, think he'd download a snapshot for me?
JK of course, but it's a nice thought.</strong><hr></blockquote>
haha, yeah i wish that was the case. as it is, i dont know how limited he is--being that hes gonna be working w/ one of the most incredible pieces of technology in existence. but thats not gonna stop me from tryin to get him to let me in on the action. <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />