NASA wants a 'Super-Hubble' space telescope to search for life on alien worlds

Nov 25, 2019
156
55
10,660
Yes, a negative result is informative. This is what SETI gave us. At one time people thought that if we had a sensitive radio telescope, we would hear a "galactic Internet" where all the civilizations of the galaxy communicate with each other. We now know there is no such thing as that. But there was a time when we did not know, so science advances. We know now that advanced civilization that uses radio is at least extremely rare or it is possible we are the only ones.

It looks like now by the 2040s we will know if life itself is very rare or common.

My prediction: We will find the bacteria-like life is relatively common but more advanced live is very rare and we might be the only example of it. We might know in only 20 or 30 years
 
When we zoom in on a planet, we see what was long ago. It could be broadcasting AM now, and we not know it for hundreds or thousands of years. If ever. It takes much power for long distance radio. A star's worth of power.
 
Jan 17, 2025
1
0
10
With better, and cheaper, access to space now, why not look at repairing Hubble again. It needs it's steering wheels replacing and the camera could be upgraded with better technology. The benefits would be realized quickly while we wait for the HWO - which may be never.
 

Wolfshadw

Moderator
Apr 1, 2020
694
599
5,760
With better, and cheaper, access to space now, why not look at repairing Hubble again. It needs it's steering wheels replacing and the camera could be upgraded with better technology. The benefits would be realized quickly while we wait for the HWO - which may be never.

We no longer have the means of capturing the HST, nor the capacity to deliver and install updates to it.

-Wolf sends
 
We can not detect what is being emitted from a star or galaxy now, at the present time. We have no idea of what this universe looks like at the present time. Only the distant past.

Now is present time. Light is not instant. Actually it’s very slow compared to the distances observed.

This distance barrier can not be broken. Even with light.

For all we know the universe might be very dark at the present time. The only thing we have to suppose with, is our (mis)understanding of light.
 
Apr 18, 2020
138
27
4,610
The problem is that our understanding of events presupposes Absolute Time, that is, the idea that a given moment (like "the present time") occurs instantaneously throughout the universe.
If we observe today the explosion of a star that is 1000 light years away, what event on earth is that explosion simultaneous with?
 
Whatever happened on earth 1000 years ago.

I haven’t read, heard or met a today scientist, who believes in absolute time. That’s why I am not a scientist. And that was 50 years ago. Time is an old argument for me.

For me the absoluteness of time is not like a blanket over the volume of this universe.

For me, time is a product and result of change. And change, is acceleration.

The only physical substance is e. So the RATE of time comes from the acceleration of e.

All objects have this same rate, but objects can be in different phases of that rate. But that phase shift is very limited and is modulated with interaction duration. And quickly synced. Atomic and chemical bonds and structures have the in phase rate of time.

A physical explanation of time. Complete supposition.
 
Aug 26, 2023
14
7
515
We no longer have the means of capturing the HST, nor the capacity to deliver and install updates to it.

-Wolf sends
We do have the parts we need to do this, they're just not all together and some aren't quite there yet. But it's close enough to be a definable problem with plausible solutions.

Hubble has an IDA compatible docking plate left behind on its last service mission for the possibility of Orion or Starliner (I think it was still being called Orion Light then) coming back later. Dragon could dock to this but would block it's EVA port to do so, but a matching plate mounted in the trunk has been proposed to work around that.

The Dragon trunk large enough to carry most of the serviceable parts like gyros. It won't do for a major overhaul like was needed to fix the main mirror but Hubble doesn't need work like that anymore.

Polaris Dawn showed that in principle the vehicle can handle an EVA and the suits can handle the work. The open cycle life support system fell short but isn't meant to be used in a live mission.

Starliner is not EVA capable, Orion will likely never see orbital use like this, and crewed Dreamchaser's (it it ever flies) capabilities aren't known yet - it might end up being perfect or entire unable to even try. But Dragon has a clear path to walk.

Now the wet blanket, to be fair: Polaris Dawn showed that Dragon can handle the work in principle, but also that in practice it is still lacking in key ways that must be solved, and even previously solved problems can carry all kinds of surprises the second time. And Hubble, even on its last legs, is still very important. By no means do I think Hubble should be Dragon's first live service mission, and by no means should the mission be attempted at all until Hubble's successor is already operating, because barely having Hubble is better than having nothing. But even reduced to the third string by James Webb and Nancy Grace Roman, observation time is a deeply limited resource and there will be lines down the street to use Hubble as long as we can keep it going.
 

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts