"Lucky" Camera Technology Blows Away Hubble

[Borodog]

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.

[Arp220]

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])

[Arp220]

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

[Borodog]

[ 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 ]

[Arp220]

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]

[vhawk01]

[ 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.

[Arp220]

[ 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.

[Borodog]

[ 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.

[Borodog]

[ 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.

[superadvisor]

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.