| Subject: Re: Hubble is ancient history |
| From: fairwater@gmail.com (Derek Lyons) |
| Date: 20/10/2004, 21:02 |
| Newsgroups: alt.astronomy,alt.sci.seti,sci.astro.seti,sci.physics |
Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.rr.RoMeVE.com> wrote:
Is there a rational reason for saving Hubble? In fact, is there a
rational reason for continuing work on its replacement in orbit? Can
the same dollars produce even better earth based telescopes?
No amount of money can produce a better earth based telescope. It's
not about resolving power, nor is it about light gathering capability.
It's about IR and UV astronomy. Those wavelengths don't penetrate the
atmosphere, and the only way to observe in them is to get above it.
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL