What is Digg?Sponsored by Microsoft
Microsoft responds to the headlines. view!
microsoft.com/everybodysbusiness - Read our developers' points of view on the headlines making news.
22 Comments
- Jektal, on 09/29/2009, -1/+10What happened to just putting the telescopes in space to avoid atmospheric distortion?
- Grandpohbah, on 09/29/2009, -0/+7The new James Webb telescope going up in 2013 (at the earliest) will go in a higher orbit than the Hubble (and be twice as kick-ass as the Hubble too) and be out of easy repair range. If NASA doesn't pull a Hubble and put the wrong mirror on, the new James Webb is going to blow our minds with new insights into the cosmos.
The Hubble was planned in the 60's designed in the 70's and wasn't launched until the 90's, ... so needless to say, James Webb will be a vast technological improvement. - tooker, on 09/29/2009, -1/+5I would imagine orbiting a satellite is pretty darn expensive.
- oriondr, on 09/29/2009, -0/+4"The adaptive optics system of the Gemini Planet Imager will greatly improve scientists' ability to resolve planets in distant galaxies."
lolwut? I think not. - ryan850, on 09/29/2009, -1/+5How long before we can see alien's doing it?
- norman619, on 09/29/2009, -0/+4Orbiting a satelite?
- ckanal, on 09/29/2009, -0/+4That's high tech.
- cuoops, on 09/29/2009, -0/+3source - http://sciencematters.berkeley.edu/archives/volume ...
- AndrewMoyer, on 09/29/2009, -0/+3Sounds like we've gotten our money's worth a few thousand times over then.
/science nerd - oriondr, on 09/29/2009, -0/+3He verbified orbit :P
- norman619, on 09/29/2009, -0/+3How about planets in our own Galaxy? Wouldn't that be a bit easier?
- elfprince13, on 09/29/2009, -1/+4actually, it's $8,000. ;)
http://digg.com/space/Launch_Your_Own_Satellite_In ... - DeskFlyer, on 09/29/2009, -0/+2Alien's what?
- axb156, on 09/29/2009, -0/+2To date, Hubble telescope has racked up around 2.5 billion of combined cost. Initial grand was in the order of 30 million.
- oriondr, on 09/29/2009, -0/+2The atmosphere is the main detrimental factor, thats why the Hubble is so valuable. The problem is you can build a LOT bigger telescopes on the ground than you can in space (obviously with money being the main concern)
In other words, the only reason you'd want something on the moon is maybe for parallax (to measure distances more accurately), but we can already do that with the Earth's orbit around the sun, and that's a much larger radius than the earth and moon. - freezejeans, on 09/29/2009, -0/+2Imagine if we could get a high-powered telescope placed on the far side of the Moon, away from any distortion from Earth. One can dream...
- appleseed1234, on 09/29/2009, -1/+2*Analyzes signal in monitor*
"I declare these 1936 Olympic Games to be open."
O_o - APselfStorage, on 09/29/2009, -0/+1Cool
- axb156, on 09/30/2009, -0/+0Agreed.
- Zareste, on 09/29/2009, -0/+0It has a special lazer that can destroy things up to 130 light-years away
- poppinrice, on 09/29/2009, -1/+1Or reproduce.
- Ferretman, on 09/29/2009, -1/+1Very slick!
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is