Hubble

[steve01]

Hey everyone,<br />any Idea how much it costs to maintain Hubble every year? As a middle class geek with cash to burn i'd rather invest a grand or two a year into a co-op that would run Hubble and get a few hours a year to poke around, than spend it on a small earth-bound telescope! What are your thoughts?

 

[Saiph]

I think each image costs ~$10,000 per image, IIRC.<br /><br />And that's based on the cost to put it up there divided by it's expected life-time (segmented into the average exposure length).<br /><br />or maybe I'm missing a zero... <br /><br />That might be the figure for, say, the Keck Telescopes (and ~40min exposures) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"This is my Timey Wimey Detector.  Goes "bing" when there's stuff.  It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually.  I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[tfwthom]

You can always just rent one of Kitt Peaks, either the 20in, f8.4 Richey-Chretien reflector or the 16in, f10 Schmidt-Cassegrain for $405 a night. CCD camera included.<br /><br />http://www.noao.edu/outreach/nop/advanced/advanced.html<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1" color="#3366ff">www.siriuslookers.org</font> </div>

 

[steve01]

Just a little sentimental I guess, and I'm a firm believer in Murphy's law. . . the day Hubble goes off-line is the day a relatively close star goes supernova and we'll miss the best of it!

 

[steve01]

Do you have any concept of the term "relative"?

 

[kmarinas86]

The supernova that is relatively closer would be one that's closer than another one. However, the word "relative" does not specify a particular distance.

 

[steve01]

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ "But keep your eye on Betelgeuse or Antares, which are quite good candidates for core collapse. An even better candidate is the southern hemisphere's Eta Carinae, which should go within the next million years or so. At their current distances, the explosions of such stars would rival the brightness of a crescent Moon. The blast is so powerful that it if occurred within 30 or so light years, it would probably damage the Earth. Fortunately, no candidate is nearly that close. http://www.astro.uiuc.edu/~kaler/sow/star_intro.html<br />_____________________________________________________________________________________________<br /><br /><br />

 

[CalliArcale]

I think the point was just that you didn't specify what you meant by "relatively close". <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> Not to be funny or anything, but even the word relative is relative. Some people would use that phrase to mean Alpha Centauri, after all. But you've explained what you meant now! <img src="/images/icons/cool.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[odysseus145]

From badastronomy.com: <blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>...a supernova would have to be very close, certainly closer than the nearest possible SN candidate, before doing Hollywood-disaster-movie type damage to us.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> <br />http://www.badastronomy.com/mad/1996/sn.html <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[gregoire]

With the advent of adaptive optics it seems more likely that astronomy will gravitate back to earthbound telescopes for visible light spectrum study.<br />

 

[Saiph]

IIRC SN can give lethal doses of x-rays out to ~50ly. Or maybe that's when it just gives really bad sunburns and skin cancer... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"This is my Timey Wimey Detector.  Goes "bing" when there's stuff.  It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually.  I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[newtonian]

Saiph - Are ( or, were) we protected from this by earth's atmosphere, radiation belts, magnetic field, ozone layer, etc.?

 

[Saiph]

yes, we are.<br /><br />However the SN dumps out a LOT of radiation. Gamma ray bursts have been observed to have very, very minor effects on atmospheric chemistry, but they're also very, very, very far away.<br /><br />Bring them up close and personal (or even a SN) and the results can be pretty extreme. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"This is my Timey Wimey Detector.  Goes "bing" when there's stuff.  It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually.  I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[newtonian]

Saiph - Yes, I agree.<br /><br />Especially with the trouble our ozone shield is in, weakened throughout and with holes.<br /><br />And what with earth’s magnetic field weakening....<br /><br />The solar storm earlier this year had some interesting effects. Northern lights here in south Louisiana! <br /><br />Rather disturbingly, they were blood red here in the Northern sky. Awesome, beautiful and perhaps a warning.<br /><br />Of course, the northern lights actually indicate one of those protective shields!<br /><br />Could a SN (supernova, I assume) depress any of the shields down to earth’s surface? Like earth’s magnetic field influenced by the solar wind, only worse?<br /><br />BTW - I hope Hubble continues to operate longer than presently projected, I really love those images!

 

[alokmohan]

Fix will give Hubble major boost <br />By Paul Rincon <br />Science reporter, BBC News, Austin <br /><br /><br /> HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE <br /> <br />Named after the great US astronomer Edwin Hubble<br />Launched in 1990 into a 600km-high circular orbit <br />Equipped with a 2.4m primary mirror and five instruments<br />Length: 15.9m; diameter: 4.2m; Mass: 11,110kg <br />Nasa has announced details of a challenging mission to "rescue" the Hubble Space Telescope. <br />Without the mission, the multi-billion dollar orbiting observatory is likely to fail in 2010 or 2011. <br /><br />The upgrade will provide a massive boost to Hubble's capabilities, giving it greater sensitivity and a larger field of view. <br /><br />The mission, by space shuttle Atlantis, will make Hubble 90 times more powerful than its original version. <br /><br /><br />It could also extend the telescope's lifetime by more than a decade. <br /><br />The mission was outlined at a meeting of the American Astronomical Society in Austin, Texas. <br /><br />"Hubble will be able <br /> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7164139.stm<br />