• 1 Post
  • 1.17K Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: October 6th, 2023

help-circle





  • I heard it, it was pretty crazy. It was raining lightly and we were like… “That was… not… thunder”.

    Unlike thunder it was a short boom (not rolling), it had a concussive aspect to it, it shook the house. I assumed it was local, perhaps a transformer blowing or something. But then someone told me there was a news alert about it saying it was heard across Eastern Mass. At that point I was like oh wow… then it had to be a meteor!

    In retrospect, it could have been the sonic boom we heard (my initial assumption was that it must have been the airburst that we heard).








  • I have models of both Hubble and Chandra telescopes hanging in my room. 😃

    It’s a great telescope, it made a whole slew of discoveries possible. But yeah, digital imaging has improved a lot over the last 27 years, do you remember what digital cameras were like in 1998?

    What we have is great, and what we’ve managed to do with it is astonishing. But… I believe we are doing ourselves a disservice by not updating these space observatories more frequently and by not building enough of them for all of the observations we want to make. Because we could, but we aren’t.


  • Oh absolutely! But why not more?

    Why are scientists around the globe competing for small chunks of time on the jwst when we could have several more telescopes like it? Or perhaps even a few slightly less advanced telescopes. I know designing it was a huge challenge, but even with the design complete, just constructing it presented a number of serious challenges. Given that the jwst was such a complex project, I wonder if a series of telescopes with optics and instruments still significantly more modern than Hubble would still be useful to astronomers as well as much easier to produce than the jwst.


  • Honestly, Hubble is old, very old. It was based on a spy satellite that the US developed in the 70s, we built 5 of them. There were essentially 5 hubbles looking down at the earth and only 1 looking up.

    But those spy satellites were retired years ago, they’re 4 generations old now. Since then, we’ve gradually launched 14 other spy sats to replace them.

    All that is to say, why are we still content with our 1 ancient Hubble telescope? Clearly there is a budget for more. If the military can point 19 satellites down at the earth, surely we should be able to point 5 upward, right?

    Yeah, the Hubble is struggling up there in LEO, but this isn’t a hubble problem, it’s a US prioritization problem. You get what you pay for, and apparently we’re only willing to pay for war.






  • I mean, we could do it again. There’s kind of no reason not to, we could put more advanced instruments on them, we could send larger probes with more instruments, more experiments longer lived power sources…

    Well, I said there’s no reason, but actually there are a few reasons we aren’t doing it currently. First, everything costs money, NASA’s budget keeps getting cut, and we have other important missions already planned. I certainly don’t want any new projects to jeopardise missions like dragonfly for instance. Also, we’re running out of available nuclear fuels… I believe the Voyager probes used plutonium 238 for their RTGs, but we have these nuclear proliferation treaties with Russia and long story short, we haven’t been making that stuff for the last 70 years and there’s not much left.