What is Digg?Sponsored by Lost University
LOST Season 5 lands on Blu-ray(tm) & DVD for the first time view!
lostuniversity.org/ - Follow the twist and turns of Lost in this 5-disc collection. Perfect gift for lost fans.
80 Comments
- Hassanjamil20, on 05/11/2009, -0/+44Hubble is considered the most valuable astronomical tool since Galileo first designed a telescope in the 17th century.
- dtele, on 05/11/2009, -3/+23I think landing on the moon was a bit more dangerous
- OswaldKenobi, on 05/11/2009, -0/+13Only we never landed a shuttle on the moon. The article says "most dangerous 'shuttle' mission."
- Tom10803, on 05/11/2009, -1/+14, i
- Mithradates, on 05/11/2009, -0/+12One very big lesson to learn from the Hubble is that people back on Earth love being able to see what NASA is doing. NASA sent up a probe in 1998 called Lunar Prospector, an extremely cheap one costing only $63 million (that's extremely cheap for a probe). The problem was that it had no camera because they deemed there would be no scientific value. The result was that only a few people knew there was a probe around the Moon taking measurements, and there was no visual excitement to the mission so it went largely unnoticed. Since NASA is funded by tax money and public interest is critical, it's probably in their best interest to always keep some sort of visual instrument on every craft even if it means slightly less scientific return at the moment.
Japan's lunar probe Kaguya has also sent back a ton of nice visual material and got a lot of press for that. And Hubble has returned so many fascinating images of the universe over its lifespan that everybody knows about it, and many feel very attached to this telescope. - Smokeydabear, on 05/11/2009, -0/+11Go to Mars already!
- apec766, on 05/11/2009, -0/+10I don't see you doing space walks to repair a billion dollar floating telescope.
Do you understand the scope of space exploration at all? - sipsyrup, on 05/11/2009, -0/+9Well, his user name is peabrain... so probably not
- cyrusuncc, on 05/11/2009, -1/+10I have a sneaking suspicion that the astronauts in this pic were superimposed on that background....
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/05/11/article- ... - Arsenard, on 05/11/2009, -0/+7Also to lift it to a higher orbit as it is constantly falling.
Yep, landing on the moon was a lot more dangerous and ... NO rescue was possible there!! - thoughtsonthis, on 05/11/2009, -3/+10Amazing! God speed!
- lennybird, on 05/11/2009, -0/+6I wish them luck
- freezerburn666, on 05/11/2009, -0/+6i'll be watching the launch from work on nasa tv :D
- MrInfallible, on 05/11/2009, -0/+6Looks legit to me.
- CoD4, on 05/11/2009, -1/+5And the least valuable astronomical tool is ms. cleo
- Bloodwine, on 05/11/2009, -0/+4Hubble, from ridiculed to revered. In the end it is definitely one of NASA's most successful projects. I still remember all the Hubble bashing and jokes after its launch and initial problems, though.
- JQP123, on 05/11/2009, -1/+5"... the $7 billion Hubble Space Telescope"
The long and tortured story of Hubble's cost.
Originally, Hubble was only projected to cost about $500 million to build and launch. However, delays in launching due to the Challenger disaster pushed the overall cost up. It cost $6 million per month just to keep the telescope in nitrogen filled clean room storage from 1986 until it was finally launched in 1990.
As of course, it didn't work properly. To date there have been 4 shuttle repair missions to Hubble, each of which cost more than the original telescope itself. Add it all up and we will have spent $8.5 billion on the Hubble after the latest repair attempt and there is a good chance that it *may* not be fully successful.
In comparison, the new James Webb telescope (JWT) is projected to cost less than 1/3 this amount. In other words, we could have replaced Hubble 3 times already and not spent any more money. The difference --- the space shuttle will not be used for JWT. Nothing about the space shuttle has ever made any sense from an economic perspective. - malcolmlo, on 05/11/2009, -0/+3Dugg for interesting reading material after work.
- reddoggie, on 05/11/2009, -0/+3From HubbleSite.org: "No, Hubble cannot take photos of the Apollo landing sites.
An object on the Moon 4 meters (4.37 yards) across, viewed from HST, would be about 0.002 arcsec in size. The highest resolution instrument currently on HST is the Advanced Camera for Surveys at 0.03 arcsec. So anything we left on the Moon cannot be resolved in any HST image. It would just appear as a dot.
Here is a picture that Hubble took of the Moon:
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/1999/14/ " - RogerStrong, on 05/11/2009, -0/+3Fine.
But they've done this mission before. The first shuttle mission would have been the most dangerous.
At least during Apollo, the Saturn V had unmanned test launches beforehand. The Saturn V's first launch would have been fatal if anyone were aboard. - gdo01, on 05/11/2009, -0/+3That's from the intro paragraph. The headline neglects to put the word shuttle.
- chevyorange, on 05/11/2009, -0/+3"We" as in "you and I" never landed on the moon but 12 American astronauts did.
- pstroll, on 05/11/2009, -0/+3In solidarity I will be cleaning my gutters which is my most dangerous endeavor.
- brainflakes, on 05/11/2009, -0/+3I think it's probably much safer now than before the challanger and columbia accidents
- edrodgers731, on 05/11/2009, -0/+2Look! You can even see the stars! Boy, photographic fakery at NASA has sure come a long way! :)
- MaxxusFlamus, on 05/11/2009, -0/+2I think the size of the rover and flag exceed the diffraction limits of even Hubble. You'd need a telescope way bigger and way closer.
- evilregis, on 05/11/2009, -2/+4Good eye!
- asgardshill, on 05/11/2009, -0/+2The headline is flat-out ridiculous. Alan Shepard's Mercury Redstone launch was infinitely more dangerous by a factor of 10. Non man-rated rocket and capsule, untested procedures, booster that was famous for blowing up on the pad if you looked at it funny.
- Bloodwine, on 05/11/2009, -0/+2The crazies still wouldn't believe it.
Maybe, maybe people would believe if another country aimed their satellite at the moon and took pictures.
Still, never underestimate the delusions of conspiracy theorists. - RogerStrong, on 05/11/2009, -0/+2I didn't say the first shuttle mission *to Hubble*. I said first shuttle mission.
- Rhythmix, on 05/11/2009, -0/+2How come I can hear Aerosmith in my head.
- Kossic, on 05/11/2009, -0/+2God Speed Atlantis
- asgardshill, on 05/11/2009, -0/+2Still silly. The first flight of Columbia with Crippen and Young, the Hubble repair missions without a Shuttle standing by to bail them out if something went wrong, even the first few ISS construction missions when the hab wasn't livable yet. The headline is still hyperbolic nonsense.
- NotClever, on 05/11/2009, -0/+21 in 50 shuttle missions have resulted in the deaths of the entire crew. If you are on the space shuttle, then it is a very dangerous mission.
- verkon, on 05/11/2009, -0/+2The flag is to small to be photographed by hubble. The reason it can produce pictures of galaxies millions of light years away is because they are ***** huge.
- majormajor42, on 05/11/2009, -0/+1I like books with pictures in them better too
- majormajor42, on 05/11/2009, -0/+1but just like it is sometimes cheaper to replace the DVD player than repair it, it may be cheaper to send off another telescope than have a manned mission to repair it. that is, if costs and only costs are the determining factor.
- JQP123, on 05/11/2009, -0/+1"... an uber cool factor"
It's "uber cool" in the same way as a teenage kid with a Lamborghini. To other teenagers, it's "uber cool"; to everyone else it's an exhorbitant waste of money. - pathouston22, on 05/11/2009, -1/+2If you had any knowledge of how cameras work (even though Hubble isn't exactly the same thing as a camera), you wouldn't be making stupid posts.
- Greenergrass, on 05/11/2009, -0/+1750 000 images of universe, still some ones until 2014. Go on Hubble!
- inactive, on 05/11/2009, -1/+2You might want to consider taking a basic course in optics.
- UselessTrivia, on 05/11/2009, -0/+1I think what NASA probably means is that it's the most dangerous SHUTTLE mission ever attempted...and i think the standards they are using to calculate mission risk have evolved over time. The major issue with this launch was the risk of a space junk collision.
I'm not sure whether the risk at that altitude actually increased, but the perception of the likelyhood of such an occurence went sky-high ever since that satellite collision. It spewed out a bunch of new orbital debris, but Hubble is in a very high orbit, higher than most satellites I think, but I could be wrong about that. - sbernhardt, on 05/11/2009, -0/+1Boosters away! GO GO GO!
- asgardshill, on 05/11/2009, -0/+1Well, the deal with the James Webb Telescope is, if they screw it up on the ground/***** up the optics/a pigeon ***** on it during launch, there's no way to repair it "on site".
- JQP123, on 05/11/2009, -0/+1"... there's no way to repair it "on site"."
So? Build two. If the first one fails, launch the replacement. This is what the military sometimes does. It's still cheaper than a repair mission using the space shuttle. - sbernhardt, on 05/11/2009, -0/+1And this is more dangerous than previous hubble missions because of more space junk.
- trebor91, on 05/11/2009, -0/+1ya there's a bunch of debris floating around Hubble that's built up over the past 19 years it's been up there cuz of satellites that have collided and other "space junk."
- majormajor42, on 05/11/2009, -0/+1but, if with the Orion or something like it, we are able to get many more people into space, with eventually more frequent, safer and cost effective launches, the reward will be what all those people are able to achieve in space, not how they get there. What good is a space plane looking thingy if the whole point of access to space is limited due to costs and safety.
- vroom101, on 05/11/2009, -0/+1Original NASA photo...
3000 x 2400 pixels: http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle ... (spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-125/hires/sts125-s-002.jpg) via http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle ... (spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-125/html/sts125-s-002.html)
NASA's description: "STS125-S-002 (9 Oct. 2007) --- These seven astronauts take a break from training to pose for the STS-125 crew portrait. From the left are astronauts Michael J. Massimino, Michael T. Good, both mission specialists; Gregory C. Johnson, pilot; Scott D. Altman, commander; K. Megan McArthur, John M. Grunsfeld and Andrew J. Feustel, all mission specialists. The STS-125 mission will be the final space shuttle mission to the Hubble Space Telescope."
The STS-125 astronauts are standing on a photo, snapped from the International Space Station (Expedition 7) on 21 July 2003, of a Pacific Ocean sunset: http://chamorrobible.org/images/photos/gpw-200702- ... (chamorrobible.org/images/photos/gpw-200702-49-NASA-ISS007-E-10807-space-sunset-20030721-Pacific-Ocean-large.jpg) via http://chamorrobible.org/gpw/gpw-200702.htm (#49). More details at http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/scripts/sseop/photo.pl?mis ... (eol.jsc.nasa.gov/scripts/sseop/photo.pl?mission=ISS007&roll=E&frame=10807) - Swarms, on 05/11/2009, -0/+1http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/4759/img0876.jp ...
http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/3839/img0875i.j ...
Pretty weak, but that's the view I got out front. I'm about 3 hours south. -
Show 51 - 83 of 83 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
