Mount Palomar space images now twice as clear as HST

[signalhill]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><br />Not that it will matter but IMO, this line of reasoning misses one important point. Would Apollo have been considered a folly if there had been 115 Apollo missions which almost certainly would have increased the probability of more fatal accidents?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Space travel is often akin to the realm of the test pilot: Danger at any moment. Death is potentially and constantly possible at the instant of every passing second. <br /><br />The waste is such that we sacrificed astronauts in a program that effectively kept our species exactly where we are right now, on the Earth. The Shuttle's orbit is so relatively low that it is virtually on the Earth. Had 14 died on Mars, that would be every bit as sad and terrible but would have at least been on the frontier to outer space. Not to go in circles for 25 years. <br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><br />Keep in mind...the shuttle came into existence precisely because in the early 1970s, it was considered folly to continue with Apollo because of the cost. Apollo with 11 missions total...was estimated at $25 B dollars in 1970 or so. Take those 1970 dollars and convert them to 2005 dollars and you get about $130B dollars. Of course, this includes 11 flights and development of Apollo but the shuttle had 115 flights at $179B dollars and its a folly? <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Yes it is a folly. 115 flights to keep us <i>going nowhere for 25 years.</i> <br /><br />We have gone <i>absolutely nowhere in 25 years.</i> The cost? <i>Going nowhere.</i> That is far greater than any amount of money. We cannot get the time back. Sure, future generations won't care. They're not even alive now. But we are cheated out of 30 years of outer travel. <br /><br />There was never a paralleling manned program to the Lunar surface or Mars with LEO research in this time. And it could have been done. Apollo rendezvous capsules are exactly desig

 

[signalhill]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><br />In case you haven't noticed...there are parts of ISS that only the shuttle can take to orbit, most of which were taken to orbit prior to the Columbia disaster. I love it when critics of the shuttle use this example...it never occurs to them that the Soyuz can have accidents too.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />You assume the tack as Shuttle apologist and I am baffled as nothing good has come of it that couldn't have been developed in an alternative fashion. The ISS was designed to be the burping babe in arms beholden to the Shuttle's mother breast. <br /><br />Change the paradigm and the ISS could have existed regardless. <br /><br />Insofar as accidents, it is a foregone conclusion that such events can occur at any time, anywhere, in space or not. The Shuttle is a living fossil of bureaucratic myopia and self-sustenance of a massive corporate welfare state that has kept us from far more important pioneering ventures off of our planet. <br /><br />

 

[anthmartian]

Do not forget the Shuttle came about at a time when it was believed a huge construction project lay ahead and was needed to go to Mars.<br /><br />Robert Zubrin's plan if you agree with it in part, or at least some details of it. Have kind of changed the landscape. Also the realization that we will not be venturing to Mars any time soon in huge ships. They could be launched directly from Earth. I suspect the eventual manned Mars missions will have elements of Mars Direct within. We will certainly send stuff on ahead, we will certainly "live off the land" to some extent. We will not leave Earth in a Starship Enterprise sized ship carrying absolutely everything we need. No construction will happen over years in Earth orbit that's for sure.<br /><br />The Shuttle is a orbital cargo carrying, work horse ( probably a badly designed, and far more costly one than anybody could ever imagine. ) designed for a future that never really came. lets also not forget how behind schedule the space station is. I suspect NASA had thought the Shuttle would have done its bit by now. Retiring it is not anything to be ashamed of, it did its job, and more. It is the replacement that is late, behind schedule, you cannot really blame the Shuttle for trying to do a job beyond its life span.<br /><br />Diverting off an envisaged course will happen time and time again in the future of space exploration. Things will not pan out the way people thought. many vehicles, ideas, and plans will be scrapped. the big difference here is no money was around to replace it, and bring about a craft suitable for currant thinking and able to operate today as everybody would like. Hopefully lessons have been learned, and more thought will go into future projects.<br /><br />Saying we should have bit the bullet and halted Shuttle flights long ago, bank the money saved and bring a new vehicle into the picture is a whole other story.<br /><br />People though have mentioned already how stupid they looked relying on old Soyuz <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em>"Traveling through hyperspace ain't like dusting crops, boy! Without precise calculations we could fly right through a star, or bounce too close to a supernova and that'd end your trip real quick, wouldn't it?"</em></font></p><p><font color="#33cccc"><strong>Han Solo - 1977 - A long time ago in a galaxy far far away....</strong></font></p><p><br /><br />Click Here And jump over to my site.<br /></p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

<font color="yellow"> Saying virtually no important science has resulted is not only wrong, it is IGNORANT. </font><br /><br /><i>I really don't appreciate being insulted. I am really disappointed in you Jon that you believe insulting people who disagree with you is acceptable behavior.</i><br />You are right, I don’t believing in unsulting those who disagree with me. But I do believe in the truth. If someone says something that shows that have no understanding of an issue, then they are ignorant. It is not an insult, simply a statement of fact. I myself am ignorant of many things. Your opinion that virtually no important science has resulted from the Shuttle program is completely wrong and has no basis in reality and can only be excused by ignorance.<br /><br />Secondly, if you are going to quote me, do so correctly. I did not type “IGNORANTâ€, I did not use capitals and I was not shouting.<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> Hubble, along with the other Great Observatories Chandra, Compton, and Spitzer, have revolutionised our understanding of the universe. Magellan mapped Venus, Galileo Jupiter, Ullysses the Sun, SRTM the Earth's topography. </font><br /><br /><i>Agree completely, but with the exception of servicing Hubble, all of those satellites could have been launched much cheaper with conventional rockets. Indeed, Hubble could have been serviced much cheaper with conventional capsule rockets carrying astronauts. Shuttle should get NO credit for any of that science. And if the shuttle did not exist, more money could have been spent on numerous additional wonderful programs like these.</i><br /><br />It is completely irrelevant that these mission could have been flown unmanned. They weren’t and these discoveries are part of the Shuttle program. Guess as to what the money might have been spent on without the Shuttle program is also irrelevant, we are dealing with historical realities not “what if†speculation.<br /><br /><font color="yel</safety_wrapper"></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

*mod hat on*<br /><br />Okay, folks, I think it's time to end this vituperative tangent about whether or not the Space Shuttle is a good use of funds, or the ISS a good vehicle, or whatever. This thread is about Mount Palomar's remarkable acheivement in adaptive optics.<br /><br />Let's return to the topic, please.<br /><br />*mod hat off* <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>

 

[silylene old]

I am thrilled that Mt Palomar with its venerable telescope is getting fantastic results.<br /><br />I just want to point out that the "Lucky System" process they are using is very similar to multiple short exposure image selection, stacking, and processing which was originally developed and optimized by amateur astronomers over the last decade. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><em><font color="#0000ff">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -</font></em> </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><font color="#0000ff"><em>I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function.</em></font> </div> </div>

 

[anthmartian]

Silyene : That's right, i believe they take a series of images, throw away the duff ones due to atmospheric disturbance, then stack the good sharp ones.<br /><br />Exactly what amateurs have been doing for a while with AVI video captures in free software titles such as "Registax" an awesome software tool btw, which i use a lot. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em>"Traveling through hyperspace ain't like dusting crops, boy! Without precise calculations we could fly right through a star, or bounce too close to a supernova and that'd end your trip real quick, wouldn't it?"</em></font></p><p><font color="#33cccc"><strong>Han Solo - 1977 - A long time ago in a galaxy far far away....</strong></font></p><p><br /><br />Click Here And jump over to my site.<br /></p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

Whatever happened to speckle interferometry that much was made of spome years back?<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[rybanis]

My oh my, I came in here to read about telescopes, and I see shuttle bashing going on. Is no place safe? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

That's why Callie stopped it, and quite right too.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>