Where Should The Hubble Point? You decide!

SlashParadox writes "The Hubble Heritage Project is allowing internet voters to decide where the Hubble Space Telescope points until June 6. Restrictions and a link to the proposal page are here. "

Re:Planetoids?

[provolt]

That's a big negative. The last thing I read, said the Hubble won't be able to see extra-solar planets. There just wouldn't be enough energy being reflected to see it with the Hubble. The next generation of space based telescopes is supposed to be much more sensitive, so we can hope for pictures then.

provolt

moderators....GRRR

[ChristTrekker]

This was meant as humor!

*sigh*

Re:SETIatHome hotspots?

[mail11325]

Not sure if this has already been done but I think
a lot of good science can be done if the Hubble
surveys the following sections of the sky twice
a year. The sections are the milky way looking
in towards the galactic center.

Reasons include:
Some of these stars are our neighbors (relatively).
Distant galaxies are interesting but unreachable.

Density goes up are you look inwards. More
interesting things may be observed according
to the principle of serendipity (POS).

A periodic survey may be used to compare changes from one period to another. Again using POS,
some discoveries may be made.

Re:UFO nuts say they're afraid to point it at moon

[geekoid]

Although his didn't start as a rant, it seemed to have gotten out of my control so now heres the rant:
YIKES! I can't believe people are still saying there are structures(other then ours(US)) on the moon. This was really big in the 70's as well. I was young then, and my natural curosity and youthfull niavety(sp) led me to 'check out' these claims.
No one could answer the single most important question. Why? Why would NASA hide this, when they could get tons of money to investigate it?
NASA "hey, here are some pictures, and evidence of structures on the moon!"
US Military "Hey, here's a billion dollars, go see what you can find there!"
I mean we would have a base there by now if that was the case. Even if they had a reason to hush it up, they would have someother pretext for still having missions to the Moon.
of course, the moon is pretty much tapped out, so now its that damn 'face' on mars. I ask the same question Why?
Nobody has ever given me a solid reason for this, and I no longer think they can.
end rant. whew, sorry.

Re:*EXACTLY* my thoughts...

[SlashParadox]

Check it out.
If you want to know if a target is acceptable, you can try and submit it. It will tell you if the target is valid, and then if it is, we can start voting for it.
I put the link in the article, but if you missed it, here it is again.

The Hubble Heritage Society [stsci.edu]

Re:Okay :)

[SlashParadox]

If it comes back that it is a valid target, e-mail me, and we will see if we can get a campaign going to vote for it.
[e-mail] [mailto]

Hubble used to "see" Dark Matter

[Cy Guy]

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20000504/sc/missin g_matter_2.html

The astronomers think the missing matter exists as highly charged hydrogen between galaxies. Since such hydrogen is hard to see, they had to seek indirect evidence by looking at oxygen that had been spewed into space by exploding stars. The hot hydrogen heats the oxygen into an excited state that can be observed.

Astronomers found the oxygen by using the light of a distant quasar to probe the invisible space between the galaxies, like shining a flashlight beam through a fog. Quasars are distant, very energetic, stellar objects that can spew X-rays and visible light equal to the brightness of trillions of stars.

With the Hubble Telescope, the astronomers saw traces of the oxygen in the quasar's light, which had crossed through vast distances of space.

Here's a link to the Journal abstract: Intervening O VI Quasar Absorption Systems at Low Redshift: A Significant Baryon Reservoir [uchicago.edu]. (Warning: PhD in Astrophysics required to just to read it)

Planetoids?

[Dolohov]

Does anybody know if any of the (presumed) extra-solar planets would be visible from the Hubble? That'd be pretty cool. ("I can see CowboyNeal's house from here!")

SETIatHome hotspots?

[Cy Guy]

SETIatHome [berkeley.edu] is getting some significant results [berkeley.edu].

I think we should have Hubble to take a look at the source of the hottest signals.

OT: I wish the SETI site would provide a little more discussion of what these apparent hits mean. I think it just means there is a definite source of some sort of signal, but I don't know if it means there is any indication the source is other than a natural phenomenon or errata. The 3/29/00 Newsletter [berkeley.edu] which was published after the latest strong Gaussians was processed says they haven't found any other than "be radio frequency interference, or test signals we inject into the data stream to monitor system, or improperly processed work units" so far. But if that is case, why do they leave them on the statistics page?