|
Um...
Apr 18, 2006 16:45:00 GMT -4
Post by Moon Man on Apr 18, 2006 16:45:00 GMT -4
If NASA went to the moon, why don't they place the Hubble telescope deeper in space, since it's sole purpose is to see out as far as possible?
Because NASA can't go higher than 250-400 miles into space, therefore, they won't be able to service it, that's why.
|
|
|
Um...
Apr 18, 2006 17:00:15 GMT -4
Post by sts60 on Apr 18, 2006 17:00:15 GMT -4
You're pulling our legs now. Admit it.
|
|
|
Um...
Apr 18, 2006 17:10:09 GMT -4
Post by james on Apr 18, 2006 17:10:09 GMT -4
I think it's becoming very clear that Moon Man is just trolling. Putting the HST anywhere within our solar system would make no difference.
|
|
|
Um...
Apr 18, 2006 17:35:21 GMT -4
Post by echnaton on Apr 18, 2006 17:35:21 GMT -4
Because it costs much more to go higher in space, so why go higher than necessary.
I agree MM has become a hit and run troll.
|
|
|
Um...
Apr 18, 2006 17:45:17 GMT -4
Post by Fnord Fred on Apr 18, 2006 17:45:17 GMT -4
Considering his previous works of genius, maybe he really doesn't get it.
In any case, it doesn't really matter where you put the Hubble as long as it's outside of the earth's atmosphere and away from any bright light sources or hazards such as asteroid belts, etc. NASA put Hubble where it is because it was easy to put it there and it achieved good results.
The only possible thing I could think of moving the Hubble around for is getting a close up shot of one of the planets. But even then you'd be better off building a probe specifically designed for that.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Um...
Apr 18, 2006 18:24:01 GMT -4
Post by Bob B. on Apr 18, 2006 18:24:01 GMT -4
If NASA went to the moon, why don't they place the Hubble telescope deeper in space, since it's sole purpose is to see out as far as possible? Do you really think moving HST a few million kilometers closer to a galaxy thousands of light years away is really going to make a difference? That's like a person in New York moving a millimeter further west so they can get a better look at Los Angeles.
|
|
MarkS
Earth
Why is it so?
Posts: 101
|
Um...
Apr 18, 2006 18:38:57 GMT -4
Post by MarkS on Apr 18, 2006 18:38:57 GMT -4
...NASA can't go higher than 250-400 miles into space... His point is true (+/- a bit on the precise distance) for a manned vehicle. I think Moon Man is making the case that NASA has no large lift vehicle the likes of the Saturn V fitted with a manned capsule currently contracted in production. In fact, one could well take his post as finally acknowledging the historic truth of the Apollo program. Edited to add word 'contracted.'
|
|
|
Um...
Apr 18, 2006 19:24:15 GMT -4
Post by Moon Man on Apr 18, 2006 19:24:15 GMT -4
If NASA went to the moon, why don't they place the Hubble telescope deeper in space, since it's sole purpose is to see out as far as possible? Do you really think moving HST a few million kilometers closer to a galaxy thousands of light years away is really going to make a difference? That's like a person in New York moving a millimeter further west so they can get a better look at Los Angeles. Of course I think this. Why even put it in space at all then, why not just run it from the earth?
|
|
|
Um...
Apr 18, 2006 19:26:12 GMT -4
Post by Moon Man on Apr 18, 2006 19:26:12 GMT -4
Why has no unmanned satellite with a camera flown by the moon and taken some pictures of the space junk for us?
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Um...
Apr 18, 2006 19:28:35 GMT -4
Post by Bob B. on Apr 18, 2006 19:28:35 GMT -4
Of course I think this. Why even put it in space at all then, why not just run it from the earth? Duh ... how about to get above the atmosphere?
|
|
|
Um...
Apr 18, 2006 19:31:10 GMT -4
Post by Moon Man on Apr 18, 2006 19:31:10 GMT -4
Okay, but why not send it on its way into deep space?
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Um...
Apr 18, 2006 19:34:43 GMT -4
Post by Bob B. on Apr 18, 2006 19:34:43 GMT -4
Why has no unmanned satellite with a camera flown by the moon and taken some pictures of the space junk for us? How does obtaining such pictures justify the expense of sending an unmanned probe equipped with the necessary camera? edit spelling
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Um...
Apr 18, 2006 19:40:21 GMT -4
Post by Bob B. on Apr 18, 2006 19:40:21 GMT -4
Okay, but why not send it on its way into deep space? I don't think you've thought very hard about the question. Why don't you try listing the pros and cons of (a) keeping it in low Earth orbit, versus (b) sending it into deep space. You might answer your own question.
|
|
|
Um...
Apr 18, 2006 20:20:42 GMT -4
Post by Moon Man on Apr 18, 2006 20:20:42 GMT -4
Why has no unmanned satellite with a camera flown by the moon and taken some pictures of the space junk for us? How does obtaining such pictures justify the expense of sending an unmanned probe equipment with the necessary camera? Satellites could do an orbit or two and return to lower earth orbit where they would then remain in a fixed position. It's only a few days return trip.
|
|
|
Um...
Apr 18, 2006 20:29:04 GMT -4
Post by Moon Man on Apr 18, 2006 20:29:04 GMT -4
|
|