are there plans to map all the ultra deep field ? we should!

[R1]

at least I think we should, I know how long of a process it was for Hubble to get the ultra deep field picture,<br />several months, hundreds of orbits, catching one photon per minute,<br /><br />but we really need to map the whole sky, maybe spending 10% less time per location, to get more time available on other locations.<br /><br />Is mapping the entire ultra deep sky a current plan? or am I the only one who would like to see that done?<br /><br />we really should build another Hubble also, as a matter of fact we should build 2 of them, It's probably<br />less costly per scope to build 2 when one is built, a production line of Hubbles is what we need, they're<br />self proven and useful and long lasting, and I'm not sure how much longer Earth's only Hubble will last,<br />and there's still way too much to map.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[lampblack]

John, the Hubble's Advanced Camera for Surveys -- which they use to do the ultra deep fields -- stopped working in late January. No more deep fields for the foreseeable future.<br /><br />But even if the instrument were working, what you're suggesting would not be practical. Any given Hubble deep field focuses on a tiny, tiny snippet of the sky chosen more or less at random. To map the entire sky in that fashion would require a fleet of telescopes.<br /><br />Even if they could do it, there would be many other, better uses of the telescope time.<br /><br />I do agree that it's neat to think about doing it. Just don't hold your breath waiting for it to happen. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>

 

[R1]

I know what you mean.<br /><br /><br />I thought they fixed that camera, though. I thought it went into self protective hibernation but that<br />it was working once again. Maybe I missunderstood.<br /><br />well, now that they're working on the Webb telescope, I would like to argue a similar point:<br />they should actually be making 2 or 3 or more of them, although I don't think the Hubble model is outdated by any means(it's more self proven reliable in fact) . A whole fleet of them, like when they made the space shuttles.<br /><br />A 2nd and 3rd telescope is just as important to astronomy just as<br /> a 2nd and 3rd shuttle was important to the space program, <br /><br /> and a maintenance mission could include more than one telescope on a single trip. If Hubble's 2 camera needed replacing, Hubble 1's could still be used,<br />If Hubble 1 needed a new gyroscope, a single mission could fix the camera on 2 and gyroscope on 1.<br /><br />If a meteor or flying debris totally destroyed Hubble 1, we wouldn't have to wait 15 years to continue<br /> the telescope time, we would simply launch another one off the production line if it wasn't already in orbit. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[brellis]

bbc article<br /><br /><font color="orange">The US space agency Nasa has unveiled a model of a space telescope that scientists say will be able to see to the farthest reaches of the universe.<br /><br />The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) is intended to replace the ageing Hubble telescope.<br /><br />It will be larger than its predecessor, sit farther from Earth and have a giant mirror to enable it to see more.<br /><br />Officials said the JWST - named after a former Nasa administrator - was on course for launch in June 2013.<br /><br />The full-scale model is being displayed outside the Nasa museum in the US capital, Washington DC. </font>/safety_wrapper> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="2" color="#ff0000"><em><strong>I'm a recovering optimist - things could be better.</strong></em></font> </p> </div>

 

[deapfreeze]

I think they should be moving through the night sky slowly and map everything they can. If it takes more telescopes then they should be built. Before we can have a manned mission to a earthlike planet we need to find them and telescopes is how we do it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="2" color="#0000ff"><em>William ( deapfreeze ) Hooper</em></font></p><p><font size="1">http://deapfreeze-amateur-astronomy.tk/</font></p><p> </p> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Where's the $$$$$? <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[deapfreeze]

That is the issue. It's always the issue and it will continue to be the issue untill the private companies start putting some up. Maybe I will start a collection and when I get to a couple billion I start my own space research company. Then I can build a shuttle and some telescopes and fly them up. HMMM might work. LOL <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="2" color="#0000ff"><em>William ( deapfreeze ) Hooper</em></font></p><p><font size="1">http://deapfreeze-amateur-astronomy.tk/</font></p><p> </p> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Private companies are unlikely to spend money for astonomical research.<br />Where's the profit?<br />That is a task which falls to NASA, ESA, JAXA, and other national space agencies....funded by taxpayers. That's why taxpayers must speak up to get the message across that they want such reserch conducted. Maybe Universities, but with budgets what they are, it will be a while.<br /><br />Private companies will pursue commercial satellites and evenutally human spaceflight, IMHO. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[brellis]

If the U.S. gov't strangles NASA to death, taxpayers should revolt. Many of us are revolting already! <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /><br /><br />How 'bout starting a non-profit organization where people can make tax-deductible donations? It could have some kind of religious name, and be a non-<i>prophet</i> org <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="2" color="#ff0000"><em><strong>I'm a recovering optimist - things could be better.</strong></em></font> </p> </div>

 

[deapfreeze]

How 'bout starting a non-profit organization where people can make tax-deductible donations?<br /><br /><br />This I think is a great idea. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="2" color="#0000ff"><em>William ( deapfreeze ) Hooper</em></font></p><p><font size="1">http://deapfreeze-amateur-astronomy.tk/</font></p><p> </p> </div>

 

[comga]

Your concept has an internal contradiction. It is illogical to do "ultra-deep fields" everywhere. If you do them in all directions, even just those regions where it makes sense, then they are no longer "ultra". You are just arguing for a huge amount of Hubble time. There will never be an very large number of this class of telescope. <br /><br />Choosing which observations are made with limited resources is an arduous task that is being pretty well done. Surely you are not suggesting that everything else should be dropped to get more of any one type of image. That is not realistic and not how science works, even if the photos are astounding.

 

[deapfreeze]

I am not asking anyone to drop anything. I think that if a non-profit group was to start and people had the option to donate to help get some more big telescopes they would. I know I would donate as much as I could. I think it would be a great thing to be part of and I am sure there are others who would also donate just to be a part of space research. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="2" color="#0000ff"><em>William ( deapfreeze ) Hooper</em></font></p><p><font size="1">http://deapfreeze-amateur-astronomy.tk/</font></p><p> </p> </div>