Re: [OT] Columbia

On Mon, 3 Feb 2003, Brian Burger wrote:

> On Mon, 3 Feb 2003, Indy wrote:
>
> > "laserlight@quixnet.net" wrote:
> > >
> > > I have the opportunity to write an editorial on the benefits of
the space
> > > program (ie "why spending it Up There makes more sense than
putting it into
> > > social programs").  I can wander around the web looking for the
data but I
> > > figured it's likely someone on this List can point me in the right
> > > direction.  Suggestions?
> >
> > The Hubble.
> >
> > That's the best I can do offhand w/out doing a web search myself.
:-/
>
> I'd say that Hubble is a success purely as an asthetic project, a
producer
> of fabulous images, in addition to it's more scientific achivements.
NASA
> has sponsered space art projects in the past, but Hubble should go
down
> as their greatest to date!

I'd have to argue the "purely as an asthetic project" bit. It may not
have given immediately practical things like velcro or pharmacueticals
to the public, but the understanding of the universe surrounding us
has led to a greater understanding of our own planet and environment
(such as understanding weather on Mars and Neptune) and planetary/solar
system evolution. Building blocks for the future. What you've seen come
from the Hubble has only been a fraction of a percent of the information
that it has taken. Most of that information is not in the form of pretty
photos, either.

> My favourite Hubble image is that "deep star view" set - every little
dot
> of light in it is an *entire*galaxy* - and the field of view of that
image
> is about the same size as a grain of sand held at arm's length... wow.
>
> Not scientific, but my $0.02,

*grin*
The Hubble Deep Field. My favorite image right now, as well (though soon
to be replaced). Without going on my usual spiel, there are only 7 stars
in that image that are in our own galaxy (each with the radiating
spikes).
As you stated, everything else is an entire galaxy of stars. And the
research team who first took this image stopped counting galaxies at
3,000 (trivia: 2 years later a similar program was done in the southern
hemisphere and comparable numbers of stars/galaxies were found). I'm
thinking the relatively new image, the Tadpole Galaxy, will replace
the Deep Field as my favorite - because it was taken in 1/12th the
time as the Deep Field (which was done over a period of 10 consecutive
days and is the result of 350 images co-added together), and there are
in excess of 6,000 galaxies in the background.

It's life, Jim, but not as we know it.

Indy