Upgraded Hubble To Be 90 Times As Powerful 194
The feed brings us a New Scientist review of the repairs and new instruments that astronauts will bring to the Hubble Space Telescope next August (unless the launch is delayed). The resulting instrument will be 90 times as powerful as Hubble was designed to be when launched, and 60% more capable than it was after its flawed optics were repaired in 1993. If the astronauts pull it off — and the mission is no slam-dunk — the space telescope should be able to image galaxies back to 400 million years after the Big Bang.
Usual editorial fuck up (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Huh, I must have blinked. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Was Hubble worth it? (Score:1, Informative)
Agreed. The money for Hubble would have been much better spent bailing out failing mortgage lenders and paying iraqi insurgents a daily wage to be non-violent. [npr.org]
what "90 times more powerful means" (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Was Hubble worth it? (Score:5, Informative)
-----
"NASA's TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER PROGRAM FOR TEE EARLY DETECTION OF BREAST CANCER", available at ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel4/5216/14105/00646457.pdf?tp=&isnumber=&arnumber=646457
One NASA-driven development has already found its way into clinical use as part of the LORAD; stereotactic needle
biopsy system. The charge-coupled device (CCD) camera used in this system was originally designed and built for use
in the Hubble Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph, and provides a high-resolution, high-contrast image in real time
to guide a physician in the accurate collection of a biopsy sample from suspicious imaged breast lesions. The Hubble
CCD, coupled with a high-speed phosphor screen, gives greatly increased sensitivity, contrast and resolution over
previous methods, The result is a less traumatic, lower cost ($800 vs. $2,500 typically for surgical biopsy), non-surgical biopsy procedure for the more than 500,000 American women who undergo breast biopsies each year.
-------
Here, Hubble directly increased the ability for us to find cancers. When you look at a dollar amount, (2500-800)*500000 gives us $0.85 billion per year. Note that this article was published in 1996; today, mammograms and biopsies are much more common. To keep things simple, if we assume a constant number of patients, the Hubble CCD alone has directly resulted in cost savings of $9.35 billion (let alone lives saved). Also note that the cost of scalpel biopsies is mostly based on labor, and so would not have dropped much beyond the $2500 level; CCD's have become very inexpensive (relative to costs in 1996) and so the savings would actually be significantly larger than calculated here.
Anyone know the true cost of a non-surgical biopsy today?
60% better than the 2002 Hubble, not 1993 (Score:5, Informative)
FTA: "HST will be about 60% more powerful than it was right after the third servicing mission, before ACS and STIS failed."
The 1993 servicing mission generally restored the designed capabilities of the Hubble, the so-called "factor of 90" that the article mentions. Major new improvements and capabilities came with each servicing mission, culminating in the March 2002 servicing mission that installed the Advanced Camera for Surveys (ACS).
The upcoming installation of the new Wide Field Camera 3 (WFC3) and the Cosmic Origins Spectrograph (COS) will improve the combined sensitivity and field of view by 60% over the Hubble as it was after March 2002 (and before ACS died).
To be fair... by the same metric, modern ground-based telescopes with large format CCD and infrared arrays are on the order of 100 times more powerful than they were in 1990 as well. In the near infrared, the gains are closer to a factor of 1000!
Re:Yes, but... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Huh, I must have blinked. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Awesome! (Score:5, Informative)
From the site:
Finished color images are actually combinations of two or more black-and-white exposures to which color has been added during image processing.
The colors in Hubble images, which are assigned for various reasons, aren't always what we'd see if we were able to visit the imaged objects in a spacecraft. We often use color as a tool, whether it is to enhance an object's detail or to visualize what ordinarily could never be seen by the human eye
Re:Was Hubble worth it? (Score:3, Informative)
Its a tiny, tiny amount though. The problem is that the space program has always been blown by the political winds. People remember that once, long ago, it did indeed consume vast amounts of cash, and they assume this continues today. NASA then and NASA now are somewhat different however. Back then they were expanding the frontiers of mankind into space, now they spend their time trying to cope with a lowest bidder built shuttle that, far from being a rapid turnaround cheap delivery system, has to be completely rebuilt each time it lands, and has no chance of *ever* matching the stated aims of the project. That it is more expensive to use than the 'old fashioned' rockets it was supposed to replace is just a joke.
Oh yes, and the ISS is at its current altitude not because NASA wanted it so low, but because they wanted to use the shuttle to service it. So now the ISS is in such a low orbit its subject to drag from the atmosphere and has to be boosted back into orbit periodically. This low orbit reduces the useful science that can be done on board considerably.
Re:Hubble: Right answer to wrong question (Score:5, Informative)
What could we do with an extra $350 million?
We could finance about 7 hours of the war in Iraq?
Re:The REAL Question (Score:3, Informative)
Why yes, but, the real question is... will it blend?
2007 just called, they want their viral marketing Internet meme back.
Re:Hubble: Right answer to wrong question (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Was Hubble worth it? (Score:2, Informative)
According to this page [nationalpriorities.org], we have spend closer to $485 billion so far and the works out to about $275 million per day or $0.92 per day for every man, woman and child in America, versus only $0.003 per day over the life of Hubble.
Re:Hubble: Right answer to wrong question (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Awesome! (Score:3, Informative)
Then you'd have to look at three times as many pictures to get the same amount of information, and none of them would be as pleasing to the human eye.
The convention that NASA seems to use is that they map the lowest-frequency channel to red, the middle to green, and the highest to blue. That's about as consistent as you can get when dealing with multispectral imagery.
If you really want black and white, just use the GIMP or Photoshop to extract one of the colour channels and save it as a greyscale image.