20 Years of Hubble 67
GPLHost-Thomas writes "The Hubble Space Telescope roared into space 20 years ago to begin a career rewriting what we know about the universe around us: the age of the universe, the composition of galaxies' cores, how planets form, and much more. NASA released some of the most spectacular photos for the event."
Nasa? (Score:1, Offtopic)
Did you by any chance mean NASA?
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
No, Nasa. Martin Nasa who lives a few miles from me released the photos.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Some overseas news sources, such as the BBC, use a style guide that does make it "Nasa" not "NASA".
Re:Nasa? (Score:5, Funny)
Then shouldn't that be the Bbc?
Re:Nasa? (Score:4, Informative)
Then shouldn't that be the Bbc?
No. NASA is an acronym; BBC is an initialism. Some style guides treat them differently, capitalizing only the first letter of the former but all letters of the latter. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbreviation#United_Kingdom [wikipedia.org].
Re:Nasa? (Score:4, Informative)
Hmmm... So NASA would be an acronym and BBC would be an initialism, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Nasa? (Score:5, Informative)
No. According to the BBC style guide, if an acronym is commonly spoken as a word, e.g. LASER, NASA, RADAR, then it is spelt as a normal word; laser, Nasa, radar. However, if the acronym is spoken as a acronym, as a sequence of letters, then it is spelt using all capitals, e.g. BBC, CNN, NSA.
Of course, the is a BBC/UK style guide. Americans do things differently when it comes to acronyms. American organisations often carry acronyms to excess(GE has an internal acronym dictionary), frequently structuring the original description to fit a premade acronym rather than the other way around. The most notorious example of this is the USA PATRIOT Act(yes the USA is part of the acronym). Since they are tailored to be like words, Americans tend to use acronyms as words, but still use upper case(go faster stripe) spelling in many documents. Hence they would write NASA and not Nasa.
As someone who grew up using the UK style, but who spends a lot of time on the US-centric internet I've tended to notice these differences as time goes by. Also, I am no longer able to discern which spelling must be used for countless words in English, which I imagine is the case for a lot of people. It's strange to think that when Hubble launched these kinds of confusion did not really impact on daily life so much.
Re: (Score:2)
No. According to the BBC style guide, if an acronym is commonly spoken as a word, e.g. LASER, NASA, RADAR, then it is spelt as a normal word; laser, Nasa, radar. However, if the acronym is spoken as a acronym, as a sequence of letters, then it is spelt using all capitals, e.g. BBC, CNN, NSA.
So, is it Mr. Mxyzptlk or Mr. MXYZPTLK?
Sorry, couldn't help it. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Well using the DC style guide.. (note DC would be DC using the BBC style guide).. You would have to pronounce "Klit" "Pez" "Yaxm" to determine the proper spelling.. If that doesn't work, we'll try agoin later in 90 days.
Klaatu barada nikto
Re: (Score:2)
At least "Beeb" is always available, I guess...
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
TBH lately I've become quite partial to expanding it to Big Brother Corporation...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just amusing; I still like BBC probably most out of all mass media.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No. BBC is an abbreviation; Nasa is an acronym in that it has become a word (cf. radar).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I prefer it straight up, initially. ;-)
But after a few, it seems I cant rite, and cant left*hic!* I mean leave....
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Technically this should apply to NATO as well, but fuck it, that's the English language for you.
The BBC and other British news organizations do in fact refer to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization as Nato, not NATO.
Enhancements (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
+ exposures lasting a long time, to capture the minute amounts of photons. Eye would often see...well...mostly black.
Can't wait for the full scope of results from Herschel, Kepler and upcoming JWST. Just too bad the "second Hubble" wasn't built from spares and sent using expendable booster, it probably wouldn't add that much to what Hubble has already cost (especially considering servicing missions)
Re:Enhancements (Score:5, Insightful)
What's your point? If we didn't have equipment, we couldn't see the rings around Saturn. We couldn't see Uranus let alone Neptune.
Once you accept that we can use equipment to see things that are beyond the ability of our naked eye, you'd be an idiot to limit said equipment to our eyes' limited range of the electromagnetic spectrum.
This, of course, leaves us with a dilemma - how do we visualize something that we cannot see with our naked eye? If we just display pictures using the actual wavelengths, we can't see anything. So we use false colours.
Re:Enhancements (Score:5, Insightful)
I think he meant that you couldn't even take a space ship to some point in space and see the same thing, while with Saturn's rings you could fly to some specific distance from Saturn and see it in it's entirety, while the pillars of creation from almost any point in space would look like mostly empty space.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but you can't possibly get to see something like the Pillars of Creation [wikipedia.org] without equipment, no matter where you go.
First of all the structure is too large to see up close. That'd be like trying to figure out the shape of an ocean by standing on one shore. And it's probably close to impossible for our eyes to see space dust. We'd need to have it blocking some light source, and then we're back to trying to deduce the shape of something that is so massive.
And even then - how in the world does a space shi
Re: (Score:2)
I think the idea was that spaceships only alter our vantage point, not the light coming into our eye or a conversion of non-visible light into something visible. It's the difference between a fire tower and a pair of binoculars. Nobody would claim them to be the same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but it's still a silly argument to make. What exactly are we supposed to do with data that we cannot visualize otherwise? Just ignore it? Pretend it's not there?
The false colour images we, the public, get aren't just PR meant to drum up support. They still have scientific value.
Re: (Score:2)
I think he meant that you couldn't even take a space ship to some point in space and see the same thing,
You could if the viewport of the spacecraft had an augmented reality overlay that enhanced the the surroundings with false color. Or, for that matter, if you had an implanted eye that could see multiple wavelengths that the human eye cannot see. If we are talking about space travel, I get the feeling that a lot of technology is going to come a long way before we fly out to these places. I mean, hell, you can already use your iPhone or Droid for augmented reality applications.
Re: (Score:2)
What's your point? If we didn't have equipment, we couldn't see the rings around Saturn. We couldn't see Uranus let alone Neptune.
You probably mean we couldn't see the rings around Jupiter instead of Saturn. Saturn's rings are quite visible from any decent backyard telescope.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If we're going to overcome gravity to get to the vicinity of those objects, we certainly should be willing to overcome the limits of the visible spectrum to experience them to the fullest...
Re: (Score:2)
"but it's not what you would see if you were positioned to look without equipment."
Without equipment, you'd see nothing at all.
That's sort of the point in building telescopes.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that Hubble produces poster-ready photographs (real color or not) you can stare at pleasantly in a bong-fueled haze is ancillary, but still goddam cool.
Nice pix (Score:1)
I wish they didn't use the star filters though.
Re:Nice pix (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Guess I forgot the smiley.. Sorry
Re: (Score:2)
Ultra Deep Field View (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
i'm hoping this is meant to be some poor quality joke...
A joke, yes. Quality, of course, is subjective.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Think about the return on investment.....all of the miniturization and science driven by the space program. ROI is staggering.
Didn't you forget mind-blowing photos of the heavens as hmm.. a significant part of the return on investment? Of course revealing more of the celestial vault isn't measured in $$$, so yeah you can probably omit them.
Re: (Score:2)
We americans put a giant telescope into space.
I wonder what the ESA has to say about that, what with Hubble being a joint ESA venture and the largest space telescope being the Herschel Space Observatory (another ESA project).
Re: (Score:2)
You sure did say "we" a lot. You didn't put it in space. You didn't figure out the trouble and go and fix it. Your only effort was paying tax - a few cents of which went into paying for it, all without your input. Why are you so desperate to cling to the successes of others? Is it some vain attempt to improve your own perception of yourself? Are you really that insecure as a human being that you have to judge yourself by the actions of others that you are connected to only by some arbitrary, artificia
Hubble 3D (Score:2)
There's an IMAX movie out right now called Hubble 3D [imdb.com] which details the repairs of the Hubble as well as some discoveries and has some fun effects. It was rather inspiring. I definitely loved it and plan to take the kids.
-l
Hubble (Score:1)