Hubble Finds Unidentified Object in Space, Scientists Puzzled

Radiation said:
You do realise we already have such sats up there right?

GOES for one, but all we get is poor resolution infrared black and white images back, at least the ones we see are, i've already said we have them and the many areas of research that can be done and is being done on the earth from a distance, are you also forgetting they can likley zoom to get any close shots they need?

You ask why they would waste millions when theres countless reasons why they would and already do, honestly i find it odd when i get this sort of response to something that is obviously strange, its like some people really don't like even a hint that something isn't quite right so feel the need to play devils advocate and defend it anyway.
Click to expand...



Band with costs? they possibly get more info from the infa-red shots so are using their bandwidth to transmit those, and as for zooming it's cheaper to make a fixed lens with slightly variables then a very adjustable lens.


But instead of saying how suspect it is and asking randoms why don't you email them and ask? if they have any such shots or why they don't take them?

You'll get a right answer then instead of theories we can propose.

Or do you just prefer thinking something is suspect but never confirming it?
 
Combat squirrel said:
Laugh all you want mate, I didnt know they were to place it so far away from earth, however both are well clear of any significant atmospheric interference, and thus its feasible to put James Web at 600km, in fact, why so far away? So far means you have less of a window to use the earth as a sun shield.

They originally planned to bring it back incidentally, however obviously no longer. James web is 6.5 m, while hubble diameter is 2.8m, but longer, it wouldn't be impossible to modify the shuttle payload bay in orbit to accommodate hubble, also you could probably take James web + orbital boost rocket in the shuttle at the same time. Plenty of fairly good ideas, but obviously they wont be done, it could be done though theoretically.
Click to expand...

Surely the hubble would fit into a shuttle fine, that how it was placed in orbit wasn't it?

The James Webb isn't being delivered via the shuttle, it's using an Arian 5 rocket. I don't think it would be possible to fit this in the shuttle with a booster rocket, it's just to big and heavy + I think the shuttles might be retired by then. Also the telescope wouldn't work 600km away from Earth, far too much radiation. This about it, if it were possible why would they put it so far away? At 1.5 million km if anything goes wrong with it however slight there's absolutely no possibility of getting out there to fix it.

Regards it's orbit the telescope is monitoring the infra red and needs to be kept extremely cold in order for it to work properly, in order to do this it has to block any heat sources with a large shield. Since the Earth and the moon will be giving off/reflecting heat the shield needs to be between the telescope and these (as well as the sun obviously). That's why this orbit was selected, a picture will show you why (the telescope will orbit the point marked L2):

my.php


ha, on searching for a good picture I found the following page that explains it all much better then me:

http://www.jwst.nasa.gov/orbit.html
 
Last edited:
VortexA1 said:
"In addition to being inconsistent with all known supernova types, is not matched to any spectrum in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey database."

Surely then it would exclude binary stars...

If it's a binary star it's no binary star that they've ever encountered...
Click to expand...

no, at that distance you would not be able to distinguish if it was one of two stars. Supernova's are known as they "pulse" light for days/hours before hand(maybe long not sure) and they go boom. This increased in light, which is something general a star does when its about to go kaboom. Two stars is another possibility, however with closer stars and longer observation you can see two stars. They haven't said it isn't a supernova, its inconsistant with ones they've seen. Again, spain = basically, infinite, we have not recorded enough supernova's going off to be able to determine what they all look like. We have almost certainly not seen all different types of star going supernova so also, its an unknown.

So far it seems they assume its a single object, which ,being that a binary star system has two, rules it out by that assumption. But the assumption can be wrong and it could be two stars.
 
Tefal said:
Band with costs? they possibly get more info from the infa-red shots so are using their bandwidth to transmit those, and as for zooming it's cheaper to make a fixed lens with slightly variables then a very adjustable lens.

But instead of saying how suspect it is and asking randoms why don't you email them and ask? if they have any such shots or why they don't take them?

You'll get a right answer then instead of theories we can propose.

Or do you just prefer thinking something is suspect but never confirming it?
Click to expand...

Im not really asking the forum as such, more like posing such questions so others will wonder themselves, often things like this go by without a seconds thought so its good to get it out there a bit so at least its been said and seen, im sure theres a bunch of possible reasons they can give, however i doubt anything but a live stream or time delayed images would go along to fix my suspicions anyway.
 
Radiation said:
Im not really asking the forum as such, more like posing such questions so others will wonder themselves, often things like this go by without a seconds thought so its good to get it out there a bit so at least its been said and seen, im sure theres a bunch of possible reasons they can give, however i doubt anything but a live stream or time delayed images would go along to fix my suspicions anyway.
Click to expand...

yes, thats what consipiricy theory types do, ponder questions and refuse all answers.

As multiple people said, infared will be the best type of sensor for the satelite doing the job. At the end of the day very few people look at pretty pictures of the earth except those doing scientific research, should they send a billion dollar satelite up so you can see one picture and feel great , or should they send up a billion dollar satelite that can send USEFUL information to the scientists doing research that can actually be used.

At the end of the day, i'm sure there are satelites up there taking fairly decent images of things, and I'm sure the governments that launch them don't want to make some of the images public, so the hell what.

If you go up to a UK military base now, and knock on the barb wire fence and ask if you can just have a look around, do they say yes? No they don't, so why do you expect someone to spend billions of dollars to show you pictures of things they don't want you to see pictures of? I'm sure there ARE secret government bases, in lots of different countries, and so what? Is that something people will find out and be shocked about, no. You think they came up with nuclear bombs in a nice little open to public lab in a university lab with students walking in and out? Get a grip on why any of that actually matters to you at the end of the day.
 
drunkenmaster said:
You think they came up with nuclear bombs in a nice little open to public lab in a university lab with students walking in and out? Get a grip on why any of that actually matters to you at the end of the day.
Click to expand...

they built the first nuclear reactor in a university squash court, because there was a strike on at he governments labs :p
 
Radiation said:
Im not really asking the forum as such, more like posing such questions so others will wonder themselves, often things like this go by without a seconds thought so its good to get it out there a bit so at least its been said and seen, im sure theres a bunch of possible reasons they can give, however i doubt anything but a live stream or time delayed images would go along to fix my suspicions anyway.
Click to expand...
And this is why I want to lock all conspiracy theorists in a big room until they either bore each other to death or solve the question of life, the universe, and everything (Hint: 6x7).

Anyway, it appears you've just admitted you're a troll. Time to put the food away, folks. When you have a cogent argument that hasn't been debunked a thousand times over, feel free to prove us all wrong.
 
drunkenmaster said:
...
Click to expand...

So by your examples you obviously seem to also think they may have something to hide? I haven't claimed a conspiracy i just find it genuinely strange we have never seen these images when we know they have all sorts of sats up there monitoring the earth.

Berserker said:
And this is why I want to lock all conspiracy theorists in a big room until they either bore each other to death or solve the question of life, the universe, and everything (Hint: 6x7).

Anyway, it appears you've just admitted you're a troll. Time to put the food away, folks. When you have a cogent argument that hasn't been debunked a thousand times over, feel free to prove us all wrong.
Click to expand...

How am i trolling? i find it genuinely strange and no answers so far seem reasonable to me, im allowed to think that you know.
 
Radiation said:
So by your examples you obviously seem to also think they may have something to hide? I haven't claimed a conspiracy i just find it genuinely strange we have never seen these images when we know they have all sorts of sats up there monitoring the earth.



How am i trolling? i find it genuinely strange and no answers so far seem reasonable to me, im allowed to think that you know.
Click to expand...

What exactly do you think someone would have to gain by preventing a continuous HD live view of the entire Earth being made public?

Reasons for doing it are: it would be pretty cool to look at for a little bit.

Reasons against it: it would probably cost billions to design, build, send it there and keep it running. There's no real scientific gain from having such a thing. Viewing the whole Earth at once means that no detailed observations can be made. Limiting the camera to view only in the visual spectrum just so the image will look natural is going to severely limit it's capabilities.

I'm sure there are more but I think you get the idea. I agree it would be quite fun to be able to log into a site a view a live image of exactly what the Earth looks like but it does seem a bit of a waste of money. I'd rather it was spent on more telescopes to look out into space!
 
OK - just taking the HD idea a little further.

Assumptions:

  • Full HD resolution (1080p)
  • No compression (requires 47.46mbps - i.e. about 10x an average UK broadband connection).
  • Maintain 16x9 aspect ratio.
  • Planet Earth approximates a sphere of diameter 7,900 miles.
We can now do a quick calculation. Each pixel would cover an area of (7900/1080)² square miles - in other words, 53.507 square miles.

Just to reiterate, one pixel is equivalent to 53.507 square miles.

Using the 16mp sensor supposedly going up on the Hubble servicing mission would help a little. Assuming the best case of a square 4000x4000px sensor, one pixel = (7900/4000)² = 3.901 square miles. Unfortunately that would also require 366.2mbps bandwidth to send back uncompressed.

If you were hoping to see any black helicopters, think again. Even the ISS would occupy at most about 1/10th of a pixel.

Convinced now?
 
Last edited:
Berserker said:
If you were hoping to see any black helicopters, think again. Even the ISS would occupy at most about 1/10th of a pixel.

Convinced now?
Click to expand...

LOL, I never even considered that for a reason why someone would think that there wasn't an EarthCam! Please tell me that's not the real reason!!!!
 
Radiation said:
So by your examples you obviously seem to also think they may have something to hide? I haven't claimed a conspiracy i just find it genuinely strange we have never seen these images when we know they have all sorts of sats up there monitoring the earth.
Click to expand...

No you missed the point, I don't "think" they hide some things, we all know they do. As i said, you can't walk up to a military base anywhere on the planet and ask to walk around taking pictures, why would you think anyone would be perfectly happy to run around taking pictures of bases and handing them out, honestly, are you just stupid?

Most of the satelites that are capable of looking at the earth constantly, are actually doing things other than taking pictures, identical to ones we already have, for your amusement, they are out there taking pictures of things they want to know about. IE US satelites are taking pictures of Russian troop movements, and Russia is watching US troop movements.

But who cares, theres nothing strange or weird about it. We know about the CIA, KGB, MI5, we know everyone spys on everyone else, its not news in any way or form. Stop making it into a mystery as it hasn't been a secret we all spy on each other, for the last century.

you tell me, I can't breathe underwater, i say "well du'h"

You tell me governments don't publish every picture they take of earth and might be hiding something, i say "well du'h" .
 
yak.h'cir said:
What exactly do you think someone would have to gain by preventing a continuous HD live view of the entire Earth being made public?
Click to expand...

Berserker said:
OK - just taking the HD idea a little further.

Assumptions:

  • Full HD resolution (1080p)
  • No compression (requires 47.46mbps - i.e. about 10x an average UK broadband connection).
  • Maintain 16x9 aspect ratio.
  • Planet Earth approximates a sphere of diameter 7,900 miles.
We can now do a quick calculation. Each pixel would cover an area of (7900/1080)² square miles - in other words, 53.507 square miles.

Just to reiterate, one pixel is equivalent to 53.507 square miles.

Using the 16mp sensor supposedly going up on the Hubble servicing mission would help a little. Assuming the best case of a square 4000x4000px sensor, one pixel = (7900/4000)² = 3.901 square miles. Unfortunately that would also require 366.2mbps bandwidth to send back uncompressed.

If you were hoping to see any black helicopters, think again. Even the ISS would occupy at most about 1/10th of a pixel.

Convinced now?
Click to expand...

Well its a good thing i wasn't asking for HD video then because i was only on about high resolution images, thats what i meant by streaming, i have a good idea of satellites capabilities which is exactly why i find it odd, they can stream high resolution images one after the other but it may take a up to few minutes as i said time delayed stills and they are out there so...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom