Hubble Finds Unidentified Object in Space, Scientists Puzzled

He never said alien ship, the only thing really relating to alien ships was the reference to tin foil hats, which was only a joke and its what 'people say' when these thing's spring up.

I'm reading between the lines, from his previous threads and posts. Unless I got the wrong poster.
 
This kind of thing is always hyped up and then turns out to be nothing, Nasa have a history of doing it.
Nope - it's always something - it's just that they always hype it to death and then it usually turns out that that something is of little or no interest to anyone other than science nerds.
 
Those reasons are poor at best, i understand they often use filters for higher resolution and layer them under RGB channels which is fine, however they also often use infrared for red and manipulate them giving a false impression of what it really looks like, and lol at looking through a telescope.

Whether you find them poor or not doesn't matter, they're the actual reasons!

Radiation said:
Hmm let me think, countless reasons, research on any number of things, weather for one, those weather ones are in geostationary orbit most of the time so they can easily see the whole earth but all they do is keep a zoomed view, what about aurora monitoring sats and what not, they must have a wide angle view of the poles, in fact i know of one or more sats that do view the whole earth but the problem is that they're in infrared black and white low resolution stills that update every hour or so, again lol at being able to see very old pictures, seriously!?

You seem to have somehow missed the point and got it at the same time. The satellites used to monitor weather etc will quite likely not be using a visible light camera designed to show the Earth as it would look to a human eye. They'll use what ever technology is available that will provide the most accurate measurements of whatever they are looking for, this is very unlikely to come from visible light monitoring.

You are aware we have astronauts in space now aren't you? It's not just very old pictures you see.
 
Sorry but that made me laugh quite a lot. The James Webb Telescope will be in an orbit 1.5 million km away from Earth, the Hubble is only 600km.

It's quite doubtful they'll bring the Hubble back because to do so would require a separate shuttle mission, it's a massive expense that would purely be for sentimental reasons.

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.
 

There are sats up there though, im really only talking about full earth shots here, not ground scanning and weather sats, i understand why they're zoomed in its just why can't i find a full high resolution updated images on the internet?

We have so many sats and not one is watching the earth from a distance with these capabilities? Im not even asking for a video stream just images every minute or so, there are none, closest i found was GOES and its really poor like i said.
 
We have so many sats and not one is watching the earth from a distance with these capabilities?

Why would you need one?:confused:


Satalites and their launches are expensive they need to justify their existence, and a wide angle visual spectrum image of the earth is worthless for anything other than publicity shots.

There plenty of photos from the applo missions during their runs between the moon and earth, and there's the famous earth Africa shot.

Exactly why do you think it's suspicious?


Give us a justification for spending several million pounds on getting a few rather worthless photographs.
 
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.

Isn't the james webb telescope going to be purely infrared?

It's great when you hear they're making such a large telescope then they go disappoint like that.
 
Why would you need one?:confused:

Satalites and their launches are expensive they need to justify their existence, and a wide angle visual spectrum image of the earth is worthless for anything other than publicity shots.

There plenty of photos from the applo missions during their runs between the moon and earth, and there's the famous earth Africa shot.

Exactly why do you think it's suspicious?

Give us a justification for spending several million pounds on getting a few rather worthless photographs.

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.
 
There are numerous good reasons why we don't get high resolution true colour unprocessed images back from Mars.

  • Hardware used onboard the satellites/rovers is inherently old. More modern kit isn't space-hardened, and also component density makes it more susceptable to cosmic ray damage. Yes, NASA do sometimes use high-resolution cameras, and in some of those cases sensor degradation became apparent very quickly.
  • Onboard storage. For similar reasons, the typical onboard memory seems to be 128MB flash-based devices. Wouldn't take much to fill that up with high-resolution images. With power at a premium I doubt there's the CPU horsepower onboard to deal with image processing either.
  • Low data rate. I don't know what the actual data rate between Mars and earth is, but a dial-up modem would probably be a reasonable comparison. Might be a few times that possibly, but certainly not the broadband we're all addicted to now.
  • And, probably most importantly, both for Mars and Earth observation, true colour actually isn't particularly useful scientifically, or at least is too limiting. For example, most digicam sensors are oversensitive to IR and have to use filters to cut this back (otherwise it would degrade the image). Scientists, on the other hand, want to use filtering to obtain the images they need to do their science. When you have limited weight, time, and budget constraints, shipping up and dedicating resources to cameras specifically to produce good eye candy isn't very high up the list of priorities - in fact I doubt it even makes the list at all.
 
Back
Top Bottom