\"Lucky\" Camera Technology Blows Away Hubble
 

A new camera technology has exceeded the resolution of the Hubble Space Telescope from the ground, at tiny fraction of the cost, 50,000 times cheaper, in fact (in my opinion vindicating my position that the space telescope is a collosal boondoggle, but that's neither here nor there).

Deploying the new camera technology to larger ground based telescopes should produce even higher resolution images.

http://www.ast.cam.ac.uk/~optics/Luc...eases_0807.htm

The technology relies on a camera taking video through a telescope at 20 frames per second. Because of randomly changing atmospheric distortions, some of these images are clearer than others. The very clearest are sorted out and then "added" using special software to produce the extremely high resolution images.

Re: \"Lucky\" Camera Technology Blows Away Hubble
 

[ QUOTE ]
A new camera technology has exceeded the resolution of the Hubble Space Telescope from the ground, at tiny fraction of the cost, 50,000 times cheaper, in fact (in my opinion vindicating my position that the space telescope is a collosal boondoggle, but that's neither here nor there).

Deploying the new camera technology to larger ground based telescopes should produce even higher resolution images.

http://www.ast.cam.ac.uk/~optics/Luc...eases_0807.htm

The technology relies on a camera taking video through a telescope at 20 frames per second. Because of randomly changing atmospheric distortions, some of these images are clearer than others. The very clearest are sorted out and then "added" using special software to produce the extremely high resolution images.

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems a bit like comparing a laptop now with a supercomputer from twenty years ago!

Re: \"Lucky\" Camera Technology Blows Away Hubble
 

[ QUOTE ]
(in my opinion vindicating my position that the space telescope is a collosal boondoggle, but that's neither here nor there).


[/ QUOTE ]

Does not follow. Yes, you can outresolve the Hubble (sometimes) now, but the Hubble was launched 17 years ago. You paid a premium for getting the data that much in advance. Also, the Hubble can image in wavelengths that can't be done (or only done poorly) from the ground.

Re: \"Lucky\" Camera Technology Blows Away Hubble
 

Didn't the advent of adaptive optics a few years back allow ground based telescopes to surpass hubble in many respects? In any event lets see what telescope provides better pictures on a cloudy day/night.

Stu

Re: \"Lucky\" Camera Technology Blows Away Hubble
 

Yes, AO (and other techniques like those described in the article) have allowed ground-based systems to out-resolve the Hubble as long as the seeing wasn't too bad on a given night.

Your point about cloudy nights is a good one! And, lest we forget, unless an observatory is at the equator, it can't see the whole sky. The Hubble can.

That said, I don't think a multi-billion dollar mission to keep the Hubble going is worth the money *now*. The ground-based systems are almost as good at a fraction of the cost as the OP points out. Twenty years ago this was not the case.

Re: \"Lucky\" Camera Technology Blows Away Hubble
 

Who is that screaming guy in your avatar?

Re: \"Lucky\" Camera Technology Blows Away Hubble
 

It outperforms Hubble in terms of spatial resolution, but not in terms of sensitivity (i.e. how faint you can see)

Re: \"Lucky\" Camera Technology Blows Away Hubble
 

Still a bit early but what do people think about the James Webb Space Telescope?

Re: \"Lucky\" Camera Technology Blows Away Hubble
 

[ QUOTE ]
Who is that screaming guy in your avatar?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's "Ogre", one of the jocks from Revenge of the Nerds.

Re: \"Lucky\" Camera Technology Blows Away Hubble
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
(in my opinion vindicating my position that the space telescope is a collosal boondoggle, but that's neither here nor there).


[/ QUOTE ]

Does not follow. Yes, you can outresolve the Hubble (sometimes) now, but the Hubble was launched 17 years ago. You paid a premium for getting the data that much in advance. Also, the Hubble can image in wavelengths that can't be done (or only done poorly) from the ground.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hubble was a gigantic boondoggle no matter how you slice it. By requiring that it be deployed by that other ridiculous boondoggle, the shuttle, HST was stuck in a decaying low earth orbit, necessitating that it be serviced by future shuttle flights, driving costs of launch and maintenence through the roof (not to mention [censored] up the main mirror). A fleet of cheap high orbit telescopes with a much wider range of imaging technologies would have cost a fraction as much and produced vastly more science.

HST is a piece of [censored], and the public has no idea the bill of goods they were sold because they were never told about the alternatives that NASA ditched to save that money pit of a shuttle program.

Re: \"Lucky\" Camera Technology Blows Away Hubble
 

[ QUOTE ]
A fleet of cheap high orbit telescopes with a much wider range of imaging technologies would have cost a fraction as much and produced vastly more science.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why didn't private industry launch them? There's a whole world full of companies and investors and benevolent billionaires out there. It took 17 years and many technological advances to outdo the Hubble, and in the meantime it benefited science and humanity greatly. So your opinion is pretty damn weak and not backed up by any evidence (in fact, contradicted by it). Go figure.

Re: \"Lucky\" Camera Technology Blows Away Hubble
 

[ QUOTE ]
and in the meantime it benefited science and humanity greatly.

[/ QUOTE ]

it did?

Re: \"Lucky\" Camera Technology Blows Away Hubble
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A fleet of cheap high orbit telescopes with a much wider range of imaging technologies would have cost a fraction as much and produced vastly more science.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why didn't private industry launch them?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because they would have been a giant waste of money.

[ QUOTE ]
There's a whole world full of companies and investors and benevolent billionaires out there. It took 17 years and many technological advances to outdo the Hubble, and in the meantime it benefited science and humanity greatly.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol.

[ QUOTE ]
So your opinion is pretty damn weak and not backed up by any evidence (in fact, contradicted by it). Go figure.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol. Way to completely forget (dodge?) the point:

[ QUOTE ]
A fleet of cheap high orbit telescopes with a much wider range of imaging technologies would have cost a fraction as much and produced vastly more science.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: \"Lucky\" Camera Technology Blows Away Hubble
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
and in the meantime it benefited science and humanity greatly.

[/ QUOTE ]

it did?

[/ QUOTE ]

Phil just likes to take the opposite of any position I hold, regardless of what that position might be.

Re: \"Lucky\" Camera Technology Blows Away Hubble
 

Can this technology beat the hubble deep field also known as "The Most Important Image Ever Taken"? No.

If NASA shot down alternatives may I suggest you edit Hubble's wikipedia page? If you know something that the public does not know then surely wikipedia is the best place to educate others. Don't forget your sources though. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: \"Lucky\" Camera Technology Blows Away Hubble
 

[ QUOTE ]
Can this technology beat the hubble deep field also known as "The Most Important Image Ever Taken"? No.

If NASA shot down alternatives may I suggest you edit Hubble's wikipedia page? If you know something that the public does not know then surely wikipedia is the best place to educate others. Don't forget your sources though. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Your snarkiness concerning subjects that you know little about does not impress me.

There are a LOT of people in the community, professional astronmers and astrophysicists, even within NASA itself, who agree with me that the ratio of dollars spent to science produced was far lower than it could have been.

Dozens of space telescopes with widely varying instrumentation technologies could have been put into space, year after year, for the money spent on Hubble, which is closing in on ten billion dollars. Drive to Goddard Space Flight Center and ask them if you don't believe me. I doubt opinions have changed much in the 11 years since I was there.

Re: \"Lucky\" Camera Technology Blows Away Hubble
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
and in the meantime it benefited science and humanity greatly.

[/ QUOTE ]

it did?

[/ QUOTE ]

Phil just likes to take the opposite of any position I hold, regardless of what that position might be.

[/ QUOTE ]

All right. I'll address your points, in more detail. Not to be too confrontational about it, but you're talking crap [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]. Enumerating responses nicely:

1 - The specific comparison between palomar and hubble is not a good one. palomar did achieve better spatial resolution, but theres a few caveats (a) even with good weather palomar cant see as deep as hubble, (2) palomar is located at a pretty terrible observing site generally and so has many MANY cloudy nights, and (c) using laser guide star adaptive optics needs the absolute best possible weather. I would guess that theres maybe 2 weeks worth out of each year where such observations are even possible at palomar.

2 - In my view, HST was not the best use of a few billion, but it certainly was not a 'boondoggle'. It has provided unique and extremely important science, and is still arguably the best optical telescope available as of now. For the first ten years of its life, even in the first year or two when the mirror was uncorrected, it completely blew everything else out of the water. Its scientific impact has been immense.

3 - HST vs a small fleet of high orbit satellites. HST has cost about 6 billion. Roughly. Launching any satellite with a primary mirror of width greater than about a meter, and with good surface accuracy (i.e. the kind of primary that can do optical observations) will cost a BARE MINIMUM of about half a billion. So the cost differential is not particularly big. Plus, if something goes wrong on your little satellite, you're screwed. You can't fix it and it's money down the drain. HST was both fixed and upgraded multiple times. In essence, HST has been two or three telescopes, not one.

Feel free to tell me why I'm wrong, but bear in mind that I'm a professional astronomer, have observed with HST, and have observed at palomar, and have published papers in 'learned journals' using both HST and palomar data [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: \"Lucky\" Camera Technology Blows Away Hubble
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
and in the meantime it benefited science and humanity greatly.

[/ QUOTE ]

it did?

[/ QUOTE ]

Phil just likes to take the opposite of any position I hold, regardless of what that position might be.

[/ QUOTE ]

All right. I'll address your points, in more detail. Not to be too confrontational about it, but you're talking crap [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]. Enumerating responses nicely:

1 - The specific comparison between palomar and hubble is not a good one. palomar did achieve better spatial resolution, but theres a few caveats (a) even with good weather palomar cant see as deep as hubble, (2) palomar is located at a pretty terrible observing site generally and so has many MANY cloudy nights, and (c) using laser guide star adaptive optics needs the absolute best possible weather. I would guess that theres maybe 2 weeks worth out of each year where such observations are even possible at palomar.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not denying that the new technology does not beat Hubble in every category. I just thought it was an interesting article about a fascinating new telescope technology. Dollars spent per science produced, I think the new technology will handily beat Hubble. It was an offhand remark about Hubble that set the Usual Suspects around here off, the ones who disagree with everything I say just for the fun of it.

[ QUOTE ]
2 - In my view, HST was not the best use of a few billion, but it certainly was not a 'boondoggle'.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is pretty much the definition of a boondoogle; taking billions of dollars and spending it on something that is not the best use of it.

[ QUOTE ]
It has provided unique and extremely important science, and is still arguably the best optical telescope available as of now. For the first ten years of its life, even in the first year or two when the mirror was uncorrected, it completely blew everything else out of the water. Its scientific impact has been immense.

[/ QUOTE ]

The classic fallacy of economics. You are only considering what you can see, and not what you can't see, because they are not there, because the money was spent on Hubble.

[ QUOTE ]
3 - HST vs a small fleet of high orbit satellites. HST has cost about 6 billion. Roughly. Launching any satellite with a primary mirror of width greater than about a meter, and with good surface accuracy (i.e. the kind of primary that can do optical observations) will cost a BARE MINIMUM of about half a billion. So the cost differential is not particularly big. Plus, if something goes wrong on your little satellite, you're screwed. You can't fix it and it's money down the drain. HST was both fixed and upgraded multiple times. In essence, HST has been two or three telescopes, not one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hubble is closing in on 10 billion last I heard, but that's neither here nor there. You also don't need to put a scope into HEO, you can use a much cheaper escape orbit for half the cost. So we're talking about dozens of missions, versus the "2 or 3" you claim for Hubble. When the scopes are cheap, it doesn't matter if one or two fail. When Hubble's main mirror was ground wrong it was a COLLOSAL mistake.

[ QUOTE ]
Feel free to tell me why I'm wrong, but bear in mind that I'm a professional astronomer, have observed with HST, and have observed at palomar, and have published papers in 'learned journals' using both HST and palomar data [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for your opinion, but nothing you've said has contradicted anything I've said. You're just crafting apologetics for the numbers. While I have not personally observed with HST or Palomar (I'm an astrophysicist, not an astronomer), I work with people have who observed with HST, and they agree with me, although admittedly their terminology probably wouldn't be as harsh.

Characterizing my opinion as "crap" when you admit that Hubble was not the best use of billions and, by your own numbers, admit that of order 12 missions could have been launched for the price tag of Hubble does not reflect well on you.

Re: \"Lucky\" Camera Technology Blows Away Hubble
 

One last thing. If you think Hubble was not a "boondoogle", divide its total price tag by the total number of refereed papers published based on Hubble data. I just did this. It's about a million dollars per paper if we accept the lower $6B price tag.

Re: \"Lucky\" Camera Technology Blows Away Hubble
 

[ QUOTE ]
The classic fallacy of economics. You are only considering what you can see, and not what you can't see, because they are not there, because the money was spent on Hubble.

[/ QUOTE ]
Which is the greater fallacy:

[ ] discussing the actual worth of what actually existed, in response to a question about hubble's impact/worth

[ ] claiming as absolute fact that an unrealized and untested solution "would have cost a fraction as much and produced vastly more science."

[ ] Pretending your opponent has a position that he never actually held.

I think you have a problem with English. He doesn't appear to be claiming that Hubble was "the best possible telescope of all the possible solutions" (that would be silly), he's discussing the actual worth of hubble compared to other available telescopes at the time, in response to a question of how much it actually impacted science and humanity.

But don't let that stop you from driving the freight train of your opinion over someone's considered thoughts.

Re: \"Lucky\" Camera Technology Blows Away Hubble
 

I guess I'll have to call up all those guys at NASA Goddard who were the ones that first told me what a boondoggle Hubble was and tell them that they're wrong because Phil knows more about it that they do. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

If you don't think it's worth comparing what Hubble has actually produced and at what price to what could have been produced for that price . . . That explains a lot.

Re: \"Lucky\" Camera Technology Blows Away Hubble
 

I characterized your opinion as 'crap', for the simple reason that your opinion is crap. You've never used HST, by your own admission. All you go on is others opinions and what you read in the press. How can you understand the scientific impact of a facility properly if you've never used that facility to do any science?

Anyway:

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

All right. I'll address your points, in more detail. Not to be too confrontational about it, but you're talking crap [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]. Enumerating responses nicely:

1 - The specific comparison between palomar and hubble is not a good one. palomar did achieve better spatial resolution, but theres a few caveats (a) even with good weather palomar cant see as deep as hubble, (2) palomar is located at a pretty terrible observing site generally and so has many MANY cloudy nights, and (c) using laser guide star adaptive optics needs the absolute best possible weather. I would guess that theres maybe 2 weeks worth out of each year where such observations are even possible at palomar.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not denying that the new technology does not beat Hubble in every category. I just thought it was an interesting article about a fascinating new telescope technology. Dollars spent per science produced, I think the new technology will handily beat Hubble. It was an offhand remark about Hubble that set the Usual Suspects around here off, the ones who disagree with everything I say just for the fun of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed, but its fun to watch!

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
2 - In my view, HST was not the best use of a few billion, but it certainly was not a 'boondoggle'.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is pretty much the definition of a boondoogle; taking billions of dollars and spending it on something that is not the best use of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok we can argue over definitions if you like, but to me HST was a good, if not absolutely optimal use of the money. And thats in hindsight. Go back to (say)1985 and ask people if they thought HST was the best possible use of the cash, and most would say yes. To me, a boondoggle would mean a waste of money in absolute terms, which HST certainly has not been. I would say that, even in hindsight, HST was a very good use of the money.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
It has provided unique and extremely important science, and is still arguably the best optical telescope available as of now. For the first ten years of its life, even in the first year or two when the mirror was uncorrected, it completely blew everything else out of the water. Its scientific impact has been immense.

[/ QUOTE ]

The classic fallacy of economics. You are only considering what you can see, and not what you can't see, because they are not there, because the money was spent on Hubble.

[/ QUOTE ]

I cant consider 'what ifs'. Huble was extremely expensive, but had an etremely high scientific impact. It's really that simple.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
3 - HST vs a small fleet of high orbit satellites. HST has cost about 6 billion. Roughly. Launching any satellite with a primary mirror of width greater than about a meter, and with good surface accuracy (i.e. the kind of primary that can do optical observations) will cost a BARE MINIMUM of about half a billion. So the cost differential is not particularly big. Plus, if something goes wrong on your little satellite, you're screwed. You can't fix it and it's money down the drain. HST was both fixed and upgraded multiple times. In essence, HST has been two or three telescopes, not one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hubble is closing in on 10 billion last I heard, but that's neither here nor there. You also don't need to put a scope into HEO, you can use a much cheaper escape orbit for half the cost. So we're talking about dozens of missions, versus the "2 or 3" you claim for Hubble. When the scopes are cheap, it doesn't matter if one or two fail. When Hubble's main mirror was ground wrong it was a COLLOSAL mistake.

[/ QUOTE ]

If memory serves the 10 billion figure counts two as yet to happen servicing missions. I believe the price tag is 6 billion up to now. And theres no guarantee those servicing missions are going to happen. And if they do then we get WFC3 and COS - so effectively, a new telescope [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Having said that, I personally would say HST should be decommissioned now. I see no reason for further servicing missions.

Yes the mirror was ground wrong - but it proved fairly straightforward to correct for this.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Feel free to tell me why I'm wrong, but bear in mind that I'm a professional astronomer, have observed with HST, and have observed at palomar, and have published papers in 'learned journals' using both HST and palomar data [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for your opinion, but nothing you've said has contradicted anything I've said. You're just crafting apologetics for the numbers. While I have not personally observed with HST or Palomar (I'm an astrophysicist, not an astronomer), I work with people have who observed with HST, and they agree with me, although admittedly their terminology probably wouldn't be as harsh.

Characterizing my opinion as "crap" when you admit that Hubble was not the best use of billions and, by your own numbers, admit that of order 12 missions could have been launched for the price tag of Hubble does not reflect well on you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, lets crunch the numbers shall we?

I get about a million dollars per HST paper, if I do a search on ADS. Same as you, in other words.

I get a somewhat smaller figure for Spitzer, and a slightly higher figure for Chandra. So HST is up there with other satellites in terms of 'cost per paper'.

This however is not a good metric for measuring science productivity. Much better is to do what these guys did:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004PASP..116..790M

which shows, using some rather limited metrics so far, that HST has produced by some margin more high impact science than any other facility. I wouldn't call that a waste of money.

By the way, which field are you in? Point me to a paper of yours and I'll point you to a paper of mine (And yes, I will point you to a paper of mine that uses HST data [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img])

Re: \"Lucky\" Camera Technology Blows Away Hubble
 

Oh, and feel free to point your GSFC friends here if they want to debate this...

Re: \"Lucky\" Camera Technology Blows Away Hubble
 

[ QUOTE ]
I characterized your opinion as 'crap', for the simple reason that your opinion is crap. You've never used HST, by your own admission. All you go on is others opinions and what you read in the press. How can you understand the scientific impact of a facility properly if you've never used that facility to do any science?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a silly argument. You can't have an opinion on a project unless you've personally used it? Please.

[ QUOTE ]
Anyway:

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

All right. I'll address your points, in more detail. Not to be too confrontational about it, but you're talking crap [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]. Enumerating responses nicely:

1 - The specific comparison between palomar and hubble is not a good one. palomar did achieve better spatial resolution, but theres a few caveats (a) even with good weather palomar cant see as deep as hubble, (2) palomar is located at a pretty terrible observing site generally and so has many MANY cloudy nights, and (c) using laser guide star adaptive optics needs the absolute best possible weather. I would guess that theres maybe 2 weeks worth out of each year where such observations are even possible at palomar.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not denying that the new technology does not beat Hubble in every category. I just thought it was an interesting article about a fascinating new telescope technology. Dollars spent per science produced, I think the new technology will handily beat Hubble. It was an offhand remark about Hubble that set the Usual Suspects around here off, the ones who disagree with everything I say just for the fun of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed, but its fun to watch!

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
2 - In my view, HST was not the best use of a few billion, but it certainly was not a 'boondoggle'.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is pretty much the definition of a boondoogle; taking billions of dollars and spending it on something that is not the best use of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok we can argue over definitions if you like, but to me HST was a good, if not absolutely optimal use of the money. And thats in hindsight. Go back to (say)1985 and ask people if they thought HST was the best possible use of the cash, and most would say yes. To me, a boondoggle would mean a waste of money in absolute terms, which HST certainly has not been. I would say that, even in hindsight, HST was a very good use of the money.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course you do. Bias much?

[ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
It has provided unique and extremely important science, and is still arguably the best optical telescope available as of now. For the first ten years of its life, even in the first year or two when the mirror was uncorrected, it completely blew everything else out of the water. Its scientific impact has been immense.

[/ QUOTE ]

The classic fallacy of economics. You are only considering what you can see, and not what you can't see, because they are not there, because the money was spent on Hubble.

[/ QUOTE ]

I cant consider 'what ifs'. Huble was extremely expensive, but had an etremely high scientific impact. It's really that simple.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suggest you look up "opportunity costs."

[ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
3 - HST vs a small fleet of high orbit satellites. HST has cost about 6 billion. Roughly. Launching any satellite with a primary mirror of width greater than about a meter, and with good surface accuracy (i.e. the kind of primary that can do optical observations) will cost a BARE MINIMUM of about half a billion. So the cost differential is not particularly big. Plus, if something goes wrong on your little satellite, you're screwed. You can't fix it and it's money down the drain. HST was both fixed and upgraded multiple times. In essence, HST has been two or three telescopes, not one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hubble is closing in on 10 billion last I heard, but that's neither here nor there. You also don't need to put a scope into HEO, you can use a much cheaper escape orbit for half the cost. So we're talking about dozens of missions, versus the "2 or 3" you claim for Hubble. When the scopes are cheap, it doesn't matter if one or two fail. When Hubble's main mirror was ground wrong it was a COLLOSAL mistake.

[/ QUOTE ]

If memory serves the 10 billion figure counts two as yet to happen servicing missions. I believe the price tag is 6 billion up to now. And theres no guarantee those servicing missions are going to happen. And if they do then we get WFC3 and COS - so effectively, a new telescope [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Having said that, I personally would say HST should be decommissioned now. I see no reason for further servicing missions.

Yes the mirror was ground wrong - but it proved fairly straightforward to correct for this.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you consider hundreds of millions of dollars of wasted science funding "straightforward".

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Feel free to tell me why I'm wrong, but bear in mind that I'm a professional astronomer, have observed with HST, and have observed at palomar, and have published papers in 'learned journals' using both HST and palomar data [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for your opinion, but nothing you've said has contradicted anything I've said. You're just crafting apologetics for the numbers. While I have not personally observed with HST or Palomar (I'm an astrophysicist, not an astronomer), I work with people have who observed with HST, and they agree with me, although admittedly their terminology probably wouldn't be as harsh.

Characterizing my opinion as "crap" when you admit that Hubble was not the best use of billions and, by your own numbers, admit that of order 12 missions could have been launched for the price tag of Hubble does not reflect well on you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, lets crunch the numbers shall we?

I get about a million dollars per HST paper, if I do a search on ADS. Same as you, in other words.

I get a somewhat smaller figure for Spitzer, and a slightly higher figure for Chandra. So HST is up there with other satellites in terms of 'cost per paper'.

This however is not a good metric for measuring science productivity. Much better is to do what these guys did:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004PASP..116..790M

which shows, using some rather limited metrics so far, that HST has produced by some margin more high impact science than any other facility. I wouldn't call that a waste of money.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, but you're neglecting the opportunity costs. If I kick aside a 1 carat diamond to pick up a $100 bill, I shouldn't be crowing about how much richer I am.

[ QUOTE ]
By the way, which field are you in? Point me to a paper of yours and I'll point you to a paper of mine (And yes, I will point you to a paper of mine that uses HST data [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img])

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not interested in comparing academic dick size. I'm quite sure you have far more publications than I do, since I left academia for industry, and now that I am back teaching, I don't take grants for public funding of my research. And I'm sure the quality of your scientific work is fine. Unlike you, I would never try to impugn someone's academic credentials simply because they disagree with me on the best use of funds (even though they apparently don't disagree with me that it wasn't the best use of funds). I just think you're completely ignoring the economic side of the debate, and being quite an [censored] about it:

[ QUOTE ]
Characterizing my opinion as "crap" when you admit that Hubble was not the best use of billions and, by your own numbers, admit that of order 12 missions could have been launched for the price tag of Hubble does not reflect well on you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: \"Lucky\" Camera Technology Blows Away Hubble
 

Actually, I was just curious about which field you were in - I'm an extragalactic cosmologist and wondered if you were in something similar.

And I'm not ignoring the economic side at all. You characterize it as kicking aside a 1 carat diamond to get a $100 bill. I would characterize it as picking up a 1 carat diamond and then realising, 17 years later, that if I'd known then what I know now I could have made it a 1.5 carat diamond. Trouble is, I didnt know then what I know now, so the argument is moot.

And you're of course free to have an opinion. But you seemed to be contesting my statement that HST has had a unique and extremely strong scientific impact. Which is crap. And I gave you a link to a study to prove it.

Now, by all means go back to calling me a biased [censored] [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: \"Lucky\" Camera Technology Blows Away Hubble
 

[ QUOTE ]

Actually, I was just curious about which field you were in - I'm an extragalactic cosmologist and wondered if you were in something similar.

And I'm not ignoring the economic side at all. You characterize it as kicking aside a 1 carat diamond to get a $100 bill. I would characterize it as picking up a 1 carat diamond and then realising, 17 years later, that if I'd known then what I know now I could have made it a 1.5 carat diamond. Trouble is, I didnt know then what I know now, so the argument is moot.

And you're of course free to have an opinion. But you seemed to be contesting my statement that HST has had a unique and extremely strong scientific impact. Which is crap. And I gave you a link to a study to prove it.

Now, by all means go back to calling me a biased [censored] [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

So you are sure that there was no way of knowing that the diamond was worth less at the time? Because it seems to be Boro's main point that that is exactly wrong, and that people at the time knew of other options that could have provided more worth.

Re: \"Lucky\" Camera Technology Blows Away Hubble
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Actually, I was just curious about which field you were in - I'm an extragalactic cosmologist and wondered if you were in something similar.

And I'm not ignoring the economic side at all. You characterize it as kicking aside a 1 carat diamond to get a $100 bill. I would characterize it as picking up a 1 carat diamond and then realising, 17 years later, that if I'd known then what I know now I could have made it a 1.5 carat diamond. Trouble is, I didnt know then what I know now, so the argument is moot.

And you're of course free to have an opinion. But you seemed to be contesting my statement that HST has had a unique and extremely strong scientific impact. Which is crap. And I gave you a link to a study to prove it.

Now, by all means go back to calling me a biased [censored] [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

So you are sure that there was no way of knowing that the diamond was worth less at the time? Because it seems to be Boro's main point that that is exactly wrong, and that people at the time knew of other options that could have provided more worth.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying.

Re: \"Lucky\" Camera Technology Blows Away Hubble
 

[ QUOTE ]

Actually, I was just curious about which field you were in - I'm an extragalactic cosmologist and wondered if you were in something similar.

And I'm not ignoring the economic side at all. You characterize it as kicking aside a 1 carat diamond to get a $100 bill. I would characterize it as picking up a 1 carat diamond and then realising, 17 years later, that if I'd known then what I know now I could have made it a 1.5 carat diamond. Trouble is, I didnt know then what I know now, so the argument is moot.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a mischaracterization. There were plenty of misgivings about tying the space telescope to the shuttle, since the shuttle was seen for the boondoggle IT is by the mid 80s, when the promised land of low costs, reusability, and quick turnaround times turned out to be pipe dreams. Creating a LEO platform tied to a half a billion dollar per launch launch vehicle was criticized way back in the 80s.

[ QUOTE ]
And you're of course free to have an opinion. But you seemed to be contesting my statement that HST has had a unique and extremely strong scientific impact. Which is crap. And I gave you a link to a study to prove it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nowhere did I even remotely suggest this. I said, for the dozenth time, that you could have gotten far more science done for the same price. People pointed this out from the start, but because NASA had to justify the hundred billion dollar shuttle program, the integrity of the space telescope project was largely sacrificed. That doesn't mean that Hubble hasn't produced a lot of great science. Duh. It means more science could have been bought for the same price had politics not carried the day.

[ QUOTE ]
Now, by all means go back to calling me a biased [censored] [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

You aren't an [censored] because you're biased.

Re: \"Lucky\" Camera Technology Blows Away Hubble
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Actually, I was just curious about which field you were in - I'm an extragalactic cosmologist and wondered if you were in something similar.

And I'm not ignoring the economic side at all. You characterize it as kicking aside a 1 carat diamond to get a $100 bill. I would characterize it as picking up a 1 carat diamond and then realising, 17 years later, that if I'd known then what I know now I could have made it a 1.5 carat diamond. Trouble is, I didnt know then what I know now, so the argument is moot.

And you're of course free to have an opinion. But you seemed to be contesting my statement that HST has had a unique and extremely strong scientific impact. Which is crap. And I gave you a link to a study to prove it.

Now, by all means go back to calling me a biased [censored] [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

So you are sure that there was no way of knowing that the diamond was worth less at the time? Because it seems to be Boro's main point that that is exactly wrong, and that people at the time knew of other options that could have provided more worth.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, this is exactly the case. The people I spoke with at Goddard when I was there 11 years ago said exactly that.

Re: \"Lucky\" Camera Technology Blows Away Hubble
 

Come on guys, let us go back in time and stop them from launching the Hubble in to space, we can take the saved money and buy lots of land.

Re: \"Lucky\" Camera Technology Blows Away Hubble
 

This is really pretty simple. HST has done science that no other facility has done. Furthermore, it has done science that smaller, cheaper satellites (that could have been built during the 1980s and 1990s, we can of course do better now) could not even in principle have done, even if you launched a dozen of them.

I suspect your friends at GSFC are very competent and good at their jobs and so on, but have never written a science paper based on HST (ie one that goes to ApJ or AJ or whatever). I, on the other hand, have written a bunch of them. And their assessment of the scientific impact of HST, in absolute, relative, and 'what if' terms, is substantially off the mark.

The reason for this is that HST has a 2.4 meter primary. In ground based terms thats small, but in space based terms thats HUGE (for a shorter wavelength telescope). Spitzer, for example, which has cost about a billion all told so far, and which operates in the mid-infrared, has a 0.85m primary. Building and launching a satellite with such a big primary was, and still is, extremely expensive. If you want to launch a satellite for half a billion you simply are not going to get such a big collecting area - and so you're not going to get to do the same science.

Examples of the absolutely unique science HST has done includes:

1 - Sub L* galaxies at z>6
2 - Morphological transformation of galaxies at 1<z<4
3 - Zodiacal dust around other stars

I could list dozens and dozens of examples.

Regarding tying HST to the shuttle - thats a far murkier issue. Its certainly arguable that HST should have been launched on an unmanned rocket into a higher orbit, but then again, if it had, then the mirror could never have been corrected for, new instruments and gyros and so on could ever have been installed... HST would have had a lifetime of about 5 years instead of 17, and would have never lived up to its full potential.

Maybe we're talking at cross purposes here. My contention is that HST has been very good value for money, but that in hindsight we could have done somewhat better with the same money. My perception of your contention is that your saying that HST has been a waste of money, and that this was known for a fact from the beginning and could have been avoided. If this is what you are saying then you really are talking complete bilge - see the paper I gave a link to.

Re: \"Lucky\" Camera Technology Blows Away Hubble
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Can this technology beat the hubble deep field also known as "The Most Important Image Ever Taken"? No.

If NASA shot down alternatives may I suggest you edit Hubble's wikipedia page? If you know something that the public does not know then surely wikipedia is the best place to educate others. Don't forget your sources though. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Your snarkiness concerning subjects that you know little about does not impress me.


[/ QUOTE ]

Snarkiness? I gave you good advice and you get upset. Wikipedia is the best way for you to teach others about Hubble. That page gets tons of hits. I suggest you take my advice because I would love to read about cheaper alternatives. I want my NASA as productive as possible! As for the the deep field image well I merely pointed out that Hubble still holds some records. That was something you seemed to be overlooking when comparing it to the lucky camera.

As far as something I "know nothing about" well I would be a little more careful because you have been very sloppy with your words. Also, you haven't provided any real info on anything. Since you happen to have a Ph.D. in this field you should be just oozing links, sources and details. Right now you've only supplied vague statements of alternatives with no supporting evidence. Outside of the lucky camera link I've learned nothing from your Ph.D. expertise and as you say I "know nothing" about this field. Here is an article from science on the cost of Hubble:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../305/5692/1882

Cheaper options include a simpler effort to deorbit the giant telescope safely, which NASA estimates would cost as little as $400 million. Some researchers and engineers want NASA to build a "Hubble-lite" that would incorporate the new instruments already waiting to fly. Despite their claim that the new mission would cost less than $1 billion, NASA is not seriously considering this option.

There, I "know nothing" about this field yet I have provided more info supporting your claim than a Doctor in Astrophysics that used to work for/at/with NASA has.

Heres another article:
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/hubble-04p.html

[ QUOTE ]
There are a LOT of people in the community, professional astronmers and astrophysicists, even within NASA itself, who agree with me that the ratio of dollars spent to science produced was far lower than it could have been.

[/ QUOTE ]

GREAT! Give me something tangible. The shuttle is a colossal waste of money and is basically an abandoned military operation in disguise. Rockets are obviously cheaper but what were the alternatives to Hubble at the time and their projected costs? What was their names? Details and sources please! You have a related Ph.D. and related work experience you should be able to name dozens of peer-review papers, assessment reports and names of people who were involved in your sleep. A man that "knows nothing" about this is giving more info than you are! That is a sorry state of affairs.

[ QUOTE ]
Drive to Goddard Space Flight Center and ask them if you don't believe me. I doubt opinions have changed much in the 11 years since I was there.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know some people at Goddard. May I ask when and what you did there?

Re: \"Lucky\" Camera Technology Blows Away Hubble
 

[ QUOTE ]
I get a somewhat smaller figure for Spitzer, and a slightly higher figure for Chandra. So HST is up there with other satellites in terms of 'cost per paper'.

This however is not a good metric for measuring science productivity. Much better is to do what these guys did:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004PASP..116..790M

which shows, using some rather limited metrics so far, that HST has produced by some margin more high impact science than any other facility. I wouldn't call that a waste of money.

By the way, which field are you in? Point me to a paper of yours and I'll point you to a paper of mine (And yes, I will point you to a paper of mine that uses HST data [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img])

[/ QUOTE ]

May I ask what your level of education is and in what area? It would be funny if you were a high-schooler teaching a Ph.D. how peer review works.

Ok, now I'm trolling. But you gotta admit it is funny borodog! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: \"Lucky\" Camera Technology Blows Away Hubble
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Can this technology beat the hubble deep field also known as "The Most Important Image Ever Taken"? No.

If NASA shot down alternatives may I suggest you edit Hubble's wikipedia page? If you know something that the public does not know then surely wikipedia is the best place to educate others. Don't forget your sources though. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Your snarkiness concerning subjects that you know little about does not impress me.


[/ QUOTE ]

Snarkiness? I gave you good advice and you get upset. Wikipedia is the best way for you to teach others about Hubble. That page gets tons of hits. I suggest you take my advice because I would love to read about cheaper alternatives. I want my NASA as productive as possible! As for the the deep field image well I merely pointed out that Hubble still holds some records. That was something you seemed to be overlooking when comparing it to the lucky camera.

As far as something I "know nothing about" well I would be a little more careful because you have been very sloppy with your words. Also, you haven't provided any real info on anything. Since you happen to have a Ph.D. in this field you should be just oozing links, sources and details. Right now you've only supplied vague statements of alternatives with no supporting evidence. Outside of the lucky camera link I've learned nothing from your Ph.D. expertise and as you say I "know nothing" about this field. Here is an article from science on the cost of Hubble:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../305/5692/1882

Cheaper options include a simpler effort to deorbit the giant telescope safely, which NASA estimates would cost as little as $400 million. Some researchers and engineers want NASA to build a "Hubble-lite" that would incorporate the new instruments already waiting to fly. Despite their claim that the new mission would cost less than $1 billion, NASA is not seriously considering this option.

There, I "know nothing" about this field yet I have provided more info supporting your claim than a Doctor in Astrophysics that used to work for/at/with NASA has.

Heres another article:
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/hubble-04p.html

[ QUOTE ]
There are a LOT of people in the community, professional astronmers and astrophysicists, even within NASA itself, who agree with me that the ratio of dollars spent to science produced was far lower than it could have been.

[/ QUOTE ]

GREAT! Give me something tangible. The shuttle is a colossal waste of money and is basically an abandoned military operation in disguise. Rockets are obviously cheaper but what were the alternatives to Hubble at the time and their projected costs? What was their names? Details and sources please! You have a related Ph.D. and related work experience you should be able to name dozens of peer-review papers, assessment reports and names of people who were involved in your sleep. A man that "knows nothing" about this is giving more info than you are! That is a sorry state of affairs.

[ QUOTE ]
Drive to Goddard Space Flight Center and ask them if you don't believe me. I doubt opinions have changed much in the 11 years since I was there.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know some people at Goddard. May I ask when and what you did there?

[/ QUOTE ]

I like you. Lets be friends

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: \"Lucky\" Camera Technology Blows Away Hubble
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I get a somewhat smaller figure for Spitzer, and a slightly higher figure for Chandra. So HST is up there with other satellites in terms of 'cost per paper'.

This however is not a good metric for measuring science productivity. Much better is to do what these guys did:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004PASP..116..790M

which shows, using some rather limited metrics so far, that HST has produced by some margin more high impact science than any other facility. I wouldn't call that a waste of money.

By the way, which field are you in? Point me to a paper of yours and I'll point you to a paper of mine (And yes, I will point you to a paper of mine that uses HST data [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img])

[/ QUOTE ]

May I ask what your level of education is and in what area? It would be funny if you were a high-schooler teaching a Ph.D. how peer review works.

Ok, now I'm trolling. But you gotta admit it is funny borodog! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

PhD in astronomy.

Currently a postdoc in astronomy at Cornell. Field is observational cosmology.

70 papers published in refereed journals (mostly ApJ).

I know how peer review works because I've done it.

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: \"Lucky\" Camera Technology Blows Away Hubble
 

[ QUOTE ]

I like you. Lets be friends

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Done. I was thinking the same thing about you earlier. When you posted that Harvard link I literally had to leave the office because I was laughing so hard.

70 papers and only a post-doc? Either you are a paper mill (I mean that in a good way) or it's a magnitude of order easier to publish papers in cosmology than the biological sciences. Either way it's impressive.

Re: \"Lucky\" Camera Technology Blows Away Hubble
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I like you. Lets be friends

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Done. I was thinking the same thing about you earlier. When you posted that Harvard link I literally had to leave the office because I was laughing so hard.

70 papers and only a post-doc? Either you are a paper mill (I mean that in a good way) or it's a magnitude of order easier to publish papers in cosmology than the biological sciences. Either way it's impressive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, only 12 are first author. Getting round to faculty type applications soon though.

You a biologist? Which field?

Re: \"Lucky\" Camera Technology Blows Away Hubble
 

government spent a lot on it, it must be bad. isn't that the point of this post?

Re: \"Lucky\" Camera Technology Blows Away Hubble
 

Yeah, and the private company that screwed up the mirror (costing a fortune) only screwed it up because the government was paying.

Global leaders in technology, such as Perkin-Elmer, make absolutely certain that they only botch very high profile NASA contracts, because doing that to a private buyer would have been bad for their reputation...

Free market FTW

Re: \"Lucky\" Camera Technology Blows Away Hubble
 

OK, after a little more investigation your OP is even more egregiously wrong than I suspected.

Apparently astronomers have been searching for years for a way to overcome the atmospheric distortion in land based telescopes. They have succeeded for infrared but until now not with light. According to the article you linked:

[ QUOTE ]
This technique has only been possible because of a new kind of CCD camera chip

[/ QUOTE ]

So, it took 17 years and massive advances in microchip technology to build this thing. And according to your exact words, this somehow directly vindicates

[ QUOTE ]
my position that the space telescope is a collosal boondoggle

[/ QUOTE ]

Come again?? I'll take logical fallacies for $400, Mr. Trebek. The hubble may well have been a boondoggle, but this new technology <u>in no way at all</u> provides support for your position, let alone vindication.