Planet-Hunting Observatory Being Assembled 13
Default.cfg writes: "The telescope system for NASA's Space Infrared Telescope Facility arrived February 20 at Lockheed Martin Space Systems Co., Sunnyvale, Calif., where it will be integrated with the spacecraft. The system, called the cryogenic telescope assembly, contains the telescope, liquid helium cooling tank and three science instruments. It was shipped on February 19 from Ball Aerospace & Technologies Corp., Boulder, Colo., where it was built.
The Space Infrared Telescope Facility, scheduled to launch on January 9, 2003, will study the early universe and hunt for planet-forming regions in dust disks around nearby stars. It will also detect objects by looking for the heat they emit in the infrared portion of the electromagnetic spectrum.
The Space Infrared Telescope Facility is the fourth and final mission under NASA's Great Observatories Program, which includes the Hubble Space Telescope, the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory and the Chandra Advanced X-ray Observatory. The observatory is also the first new mission of NASA's Origins Program, which will study the formation of galaxies, stars, planets and life, and seek to answer the questions: Where did we come from? Are we alone?"
Hubble Upgrade (Score:1)
I'm also curious how much detail Hubble would show if it was pointed down at Earth.
Re:Hubble Upgrade (Score:2)
1) Spy satellites are the size of Hubble. So quit wondering and check out what the satellites can do. Things are classified, but the wisdom of the net can't be far off the capabilities.
2) Hubble doesn't have adaptive optics, so if you pointed it down you'd have lousy pictures.
3)Keck in orbit: check out the next generation space telescope. It is supposed to be launched in 2009.
I don't get it (Score:1)
-JB
Re:I don't get it (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I don't get it (Score:2, Insightful)
These things are expensive to figure out. I think it would be sad if we used that as an excuse to remain ignorant, though. Trust me, this is nowhere near the top of list of wasteful spending exercises. There are enough resources in the world to eliminate poverty *and* spend a lot on stuff like this.
Re:I don't get it (Score:1)
This may be mostly wishful thinking, but I want human civilzation to go interstellar in my lifetime. Heck, who am I kidding - it won't happen; maybe my grandkids (I am as yet unmarried at 32) will live to see the very beginings of a space-based human civilzation. But, just because it is such a long way off is no reason to give up - it is a noble and worthy cause.
Consider what sorts of developments would be required for a space-based civilization: improved materials technology, virtually total recycling, cheap energy from Solar Power Satellites, cheap launch costs from Earth, vastly better understanding of ecologies and effective conservation, and more.
Consider also the various potential advantages of a space-based civilization: Cheap exotic (rare earth, Ni Pt group elements, etc) materials, a wide variety of space based habitats to choose from (with hundreds of social experiments - new types of economies, governments, services, etc), increased security from world shattering catastrophes / terrorist acts, vastly more resources and room to live, and much more.
Most folks don't seem to think about Space-based civilization - and some seem to think that any investment in space is wasteful; but we've gotta crawl before we can sprint - even if that means tiny, futile looking, expensive baby-steps.
I love the Origins program (and the Breakthrough Propulsion Physics program) because nothing could possibly serve as a better call-to-arms than finding another habitable (or inhabited) planet nearby. Somethings gotta light a fire under (in my case the US) taxpayers butt - or nothing will continue to happen in space.
Re:I don't get it (Score:1)
This was my reason for bringing up the point I made (one that has been thought of before, of course.) Colonising another planet makes little sense when we can't even terraform our own deserts/wastelands into habitable land.
This would be the best place to start, in my opinion. This would give a benifit to desolated/desert areas that aren't self productive (lots of Africa, India, Australia, Greenland, etc), as well as teaching scientists how hard the given task at hand would be.
If you speak in terms of "a long way off" (which you are) then perhaps bringing back alien minerals, etc to earth may be feasable. It's still unlikely though. For the same reason that colonisers don't simply head out into a desert and set up a colony - it's just too hard to gather the resources that would last long enough to make the colony self sustaining. If you take the time of travel to that which it would take to traverse to Mars, and the amount of equipment and supplies that could be sent, and the cost of sending those supplies, then you end up with an equation that "doesn't lend itself" to a viable colony ever being set up.
The same problem would exist on the Moon, however I would have to hazard a guess that an attempt at this will be made some time in the not too distant future (considering they're working on the international space station, the Moon would be the next step).
A "lot of people" (unquoted statistic) generally hold a belief that with enough time, resources, and brain power, humankind can solve any problem. This is an often too strongly desired fallacy. Of course! But common sense still has a place in a scientifically enlightened community. So the question I raised, "why bother", was an attempt to emphasise this point of view.
"Why bother" does not in any way indicate any finality in my point of view. I'd just like to see some thought go in to the structure of when these things become "appropriate". Also a difficult task to acheive, since there are so many people involved.
I'll stop now, as I'm sure I've said enough! I hope you don't get offended by my seemingly narrow point of view. I'm a "round" thinker. I tend to thing of things as if they are inter-connected with a particular "order", and if that way is followed as closely as is feasable then the greatest amount of successful acheivement can be obtained. Does that make any sense? I hope so!
JB
Re:I don't get it (Score:1)
However, please note that I wrote about 'a space-based' civilization - this does NOT require colonizing Mars (or even the Moon). Dr. Gerald O'Neill made excellent argument for the contsruction of orbital habitats with existing technology - and that was in the 1970's! As I noted, launch costs are a barrier - but not nearly as large as some would have you believe.
First; as to the "lets make more of Earth habitable first" point of veiw, I must most vehemently disagree. 'Terraforming' the Sahara desert destroys the environment - there is already a perfectly functional desert biome in place, with all of its own species, cycles, and unique beauty and value.
Secondly; I am an elitist bastard - I'd rather spend to advance mankind as a whole instead of creating vicious cycles of dependance (on free food, etc.) amongst populations that may simply expand to consume as much of any budget that you can devise. Helping the poor and starving might better be accomplished by showing them ways out of their current situation - including reproductive control, education, employment, credit, and the ability to MOVE.
Thirdly; I only speak of a space-based civilization as being a long way off because I am a cynic. We could have habitats in orbit (capable of housing and employing hundreds or thousands) within ten years; the technology isn't really a problem - BUT humans suck, and any big project is going to attract pork-barrel politics, activist talking heads, beaureucrats, naysayers, doomsayers, freeloaders, con-men, and enough associated sleaze to basically kill it. In witness whereof, the ISS - one of the designs considered was (I believe - need to do some fact checking) a Bernal sphere (a pretty good design, fairly small, and cheaply built from lunar or NEO resources) but we got stuck with the current white elephant instead. Why? Politics - Bah! I recommend spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com - it is a listserve of space colony discussions; fairly amusing.
Fourth; as to "why bother"; I think a space-based civilization offers many substantial and fundamental benefits - not least of which is much cheaper energy. Of all the ways of measuring quality of life, energy available per day has long struck me as the most elegant. More and cheaper energy = better quality of life.
To some degree I do agree that acomplisments build on one another, and that pursuing a particular advance now is more advantageous that some other choices, BUT we can never know in advance which advances are most worthwhile, so all need to be pursued. Even if you were to prioritize advances along a time line, I think that we have really dropped the ball in space; we should have had a lunar mining base by the late seventies. We should at least try to catch up....
Hope I managed to make some decent points without seeming too bull-headed.
Re:I don't get it (Score:1)
Brown dwarfs and other almost-stars. (Score:3, Interesting)
Some models of dark matter say that much of it is in the form of "MAssive Compact Halo Objects", of which brown dwarfs would be one type. While a brown dwarf is the next best thing to undetectable at visible wavelengths, a brown dwarf might have a detectable heat signature from warming processes similar to those at work within Jupiter. A big IR telescope could help determine if there are enough brown dwarfs to account for some of the missing mass.
An IR telescope would also be good at finding stars that are masked by dense dust clouds. Starlight would heat up the clouds near the star.
And if anyone's built a Dyson sphere, that will have a pretty obvious heat signature too [unlikely, but we'd certainly see it].