Still conducting science and making observations. In fact there was a study recently that combined Hubble (visible) data with Webb (infrared) data to capture more than either was able to do alone: [https://www.nasa.gov/missions/webb/nasas-webb-hubble-combine-to-create-most-colorful-view-of-universe/](https://www.nasa.gov/missions/webb/nasas-webb-hubble-combine-to-create-most-colorful-view-of-universe/).
There's still a lot of value to Hubble, it just can't gather as much light and isn't the new thing.
This is like half way through the movie when the two guys fighting each other realize they are actually on the same team and team up to do ridiculous stuff.
Pretty much the same sort of things it's always done.
Big space missions always lead with their major objectives, but telescopes don't really work like that in practice. Instead the way they work is science teams around the world will book time on them to make observations they need, and then the telescope will perform those observations and send them the data.
Point being, this means there's a disconnect between the operations of the telescope and the science being performed, so while the science is always evolving, the telescope's operations don't change much.
Worth mentioning that JWST is not the "new" Hubble. Hubble detects visible light and JWST detects infrared light, they do different kinds of observations.
yeah this, I do agree with the idea that JWST is the "new Hubble" in terms of how significant it is to the field. But I think a lot of the science journalists aren't really taking the time to make that distinction, they just heard someone mention Hubble and JWST in the same sentence and ran with it.
Kind of disappointing to see that because of this a lot of people thought Hubble was being "replaced" by JWST when no, both are operating and both are still contributing to the field in unique ways. In fact, combining data from both of them is a pretty exciting thing to look forward to now that the primary targets are getting worked through.
The Nancy Grace Roman Telescope has two instruments, both visible and infrared survey instruments. So, it not only surveys large sections of the sky, rather than narrow field detail like Hubble and JWST, it does so at wavelengths not covered by HST, and fails to cover any UV emission, an essential part of Hubble's remit.
There is no true Hubble replacement yet. Roman will have visible light coverage but it is a wide angle survey instrument with lower maximum resolution compared to Hubble, so it's an apples to oranges comparison.
nope, it will not be. it still won't cover the same broad wavelength range (especially in the UV), and also has worse resolution due to the pixel scale of its detectors.
It’s slowly running out of gyroscopes, which has been a problem since it launched. Moving parts don’t do so great long term in space. This makes it harder to aim at a target and keep it pointed in the right direction.
There was a lot of redundancy in the original design, and for 20 years it could be physically maintained and repaired, but that is no longer an option, and gyros can no longer be replaced.
34 years are starting to show themselves on that platform.
It’s not in the endgame quite yet, but like the ISS, It’s definitely in its twilight years.
It’s still doing active science, and is still an immensely capable platform. Its optics, along with modern data processing, are actively pumping out some awesome science.
Hubble can theoretically run on a single gyro.
[https://science.nasa.gov/mission/hubble/observatory/design/hubble-one-gyro-mode/](https://science.nasa.gov/mission/hubble/observatory/design/hubble-one-gyro-mode/)
Hubble is still our best telescope for high resolution UV and short wavelength visible astronomy. So lot of science is still being done with it.
They have an entire UV initiative, since no other current telescope will be able to do what it can do after it finally breaks to the point of not being usable.
Everyone always asks what hubble is doing and not how :( on a serious note, still chugging along and making science make more sense. That thing is like my dad's old work truck. Been around since before I was born, and will probably still be going after I'm gone.
I'm a lay person - I've got no effin clue what "A Legacy Far-Ultraviolet Spectral Atlas of Extremely Metal-Poor O Stars" means. (Nor can I click on it for an explanation, for that matter)
OP is intellectually curious and people are climbing all over him. ffs this subreddit.
Legacy-old
Far ultraviolet-UV light that's really, really far away
Spectral atlas-a map of different frequencies of light
Metal poor-pretty young stars, there's still enough fuel for fusion with metal products to be energetically unfavourable.
O stars-the brightest, largest class of stars.
Hope this helped
Legacy in astronomy doesn’t quite mean old. We use legacy to refer to datasets expected to have long lasting and widespread utility. E.g legacy surveys.
Far ultraviolet also doesn’t refer to ultraviolet radiation that’s really far away (in space). It refers to a specific wavelength regime of light which is around 120-200nm, its UV light which is far (in wavelength) from visible light compared to near and mid UV, but its before the defining line for extreme UV.
Metal poor doesn’t necessarily mean young stars, in fact many metal poor stars are very old. The metals formed in a star like our sun itself stay mostly in the core, the metals in the bulk material came from the nebula which formed the star. As generations of stars form and die they release the metals in their cores into the galaxy. Metal poor stars then are often old stars which formed back when there were less metals polluting the nebulae which formed them.
If OP asked what a "Legacy Far-Ultraviolet Spectral Atlas of Extremely Metal-Poor O Stars" was we would be having a different discussion. "What is Hubble doing?", is not nearly the same thing. No one is crawling all over OP. I simply said Google is your friend and provided a link that answered their question.
Also, I wasn't rude. I answered their question, and provided a link to give a factual source of answers (NASA), instead of relying on Reddit users' opinions.
I think they asked a regular question worthy of posting. Sure they could have done research but posting to reddit I think is a form of research. I get it. I would also Google it first. Some days I'd say of course just look it up and others I'm all for asking an audience.
Google is increasingly returning poor results. I did a quick-ref a few hours ago for a post in /shrimptank about someone who lost a ton of their new stock. Tried to find what the upper bound of what water temp was appropriate. I got about as many answers as that OP had shrimp die (20, for reference).
Getting a confirm from reddit, with (mostly) real people answering, is becoming more and more of a go-to in this AI-search-results age because it's, frankly, garbage results compared to 10 years ago.
That's very true. I often find myself googling "topic xyz reddit" so I can get a better gauge on things. The AI answers often answer a different question, and it leads to additional suggestions about other questions I don't have.
>Google is increasingly returning poor results.
Indeed. This is incredibly off topic but I'm diabetic and I was trying to search for nutrition info on a size of, what this restaurant calls, a Syrian pocket which I think is about 12" in diameter but the LARGEST that I could find any info on was 6.5". There was also info on 4" pockets but the nutrition increases by double going from 4" to 6.5". I could've guessed that going from 6.5" to 12" would've been about 4x but I'm not risking my health over a guess. It made me so mad that I once again seemed to have a unique problem. This was also at around 5pm on a Friday so it wasn't like I could ask a dietician/nutritionist and I even called up the restaurant to see if they could give me the info. They couldn't...
Also, apparently Syrian pocket bread doesn't exist outside of this restaurant because the results I was getting were either about military conflict in Syria or pita bread 🤦♂️. I mean absolutely no offense to any Syrian people but at that moment I was only concerned with what I was about to put in my body and how it might affect my blood sugar and health.
Reddit is full of idiots, myself included. Rule 12, straightforward questions belong in the stickied post as a comment. If there was more than a single sentence question that would have been different.
This sub has felt very low quality for a couple years now. Low effort posts like OP, followed by even lower effort comments like the one you replied to. Don’t know why that was the last straw, but it is. Unsubbing
The Hokey Pokey
You put your left leg in, your left leg out
In, out, in, out, shake it all about
You do the hokey cokey and you turn around
That's what it's all about
Also, space stuff.
Still conducting science and making observations. In fact there was a study recently that combined Hubble (visible) data with Webb (infrared) data to capture more than either was able to do alone: [https://www.nasa.gov/missions/webb/nasas-webb-hubble-combine-to-create-most-colorful-view-of-universe/](https://www.nasa.gov/missions/webb/nasas-webb-hubble-combine-to-create-most-colorful-view-of-universe/). There's still a lot of value to Hubble, it just can't gather as much light and isn't the new thing.
Perspective is always useful
There's plenty of life left in hubble. Its time remains booked solid for the foreseeable future.
This is like half way through the movie when the two guys fighting each other realize they are actually on the same team and team up to do ridiculous stuff.
Your mother's name is NASA?!
And each learned a very valuable lesson in the process.
But which one gets the girl?
Neither, they realize they’re better off as friends and don’t let her come between them.
I just imagine all the top scientists getting to use JWST while mid-levels get the hand-me-down Hubble Telescope.
I’d have no issue with hand me down at all.
That's such an insane photo. Like... just. 🤯
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Pretty much the same sort of things it's always done. Big space missions always lead with their major objectives, but telescopes don't really work like that in practice. Instead the way they work is science teams around the world will book time on them to make observations they need, and then the telescope will perform those observations and send them the data. Point being, this means there's a disconnect between the operations of the telescope and the science being performed, so while the science is always evolving, the telescope's operations don't change much.
Worth mentioning that JWST is not the "new" Hubble. Hubble detects visible light and JWST detects infrared light, they do different kinds of observations.
yeah this, I do agree with the idea that JWST is the "new Hubble" in terms of how significant it is to the field. But I think a lot of the science journalists aren't really taking the time to make that distinction, they just heard someone mention Hubble and JWST in the same sentence and ran with it. Kind of disappointing to see that because of this a lot of people thought Hubble was being "replaced" by JWST when no, both are operating and both are still contributing to the field in unique ways. In fact, combining data from both of them is a pretty exciting thing to look forward to now that the primary targets are getting worked through.
[удалено]
The Nancy Grace Roman Telescope has two instruments, both visible and infrared survey instruments. So, it not only surveys large sections of the sky, rather than narrow field detail like Hubble and JWST, it does so at wavelengths not covered by HST, and fails to cover any UV emission, an essential part of Hubble's remit.
There is no true Hubble replacement yet. Roman will have visible light coverage but it is a wide angle survey instrument with lower maximum resolution compared to Hubble, so it's an apples to oranges comparison.
nope, it will not be. it still won't cover the same broad wavelength range (especially in the UV), and also has worse resolution due to the pixel scale of its detectors.
Hubble's detectors extend into the UV too apparently.
Nothing much. Chilling, taking photos, watching the sky. And you?
She's observing Space. Hanging out in orbit. Making science.
[удалено]
Hopefully *not* moisturized...
Typical PEACEFUL ROBOT. Doing PEACEFUL THINGS. In a WORLD AT WAR. -Skynet
Last I heard it was in safe mode, not taking any pics, due to a gyro issue. I heard that like just two weeks ago I think. Has that been resolved?
[удалено]
Oh good! That was quick too, resumed on [April 30th](https://science.nasa.gov/missions/hubble/nasas-hubble-pauses-science-due-to-gyro-issue/)
It’s slowly running out of gyroscopes, which has been a problem since it launched. Moving parts don’t do so great long term in space. This makes it harder to aim at a target and keep it pointed in the right direction. There was a lot of redundancy in the original design, and for 20 years it could be physically maintained and repaired, but that is no longer an option, and gyros can no longer be replaced. 34 years are starting to show themselves on that platform. It’s not in the endgame quite yet, but like the ISS, It’s definitely in its twilight years. It’s still doing active science, and is still an immensely capable platform. Its optics, along with modern data processing, are actively pumping out some awesome science.
Hubble can theoretically run on a single gyro. [https://science.nasa.gov/mission/hubble/observatory/design/hubble-one-gyro-mode/](https://science.nasa.gov/mission/hubble/observatory/design/hubble-one-gyro-mode/)
No matter what, we will never forget **Ultra Deep Field**.
Sorry mate, he's been dead for quite some time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Hubble
Hubble is still our best telescope for high resolution UV and short wavelength visible astronomy. So lot of science is still being done with it. They have an entire UV initiative, since no other current telescope will be able to do what it can do after it finally breaks to the point of not being usable.
Believe me its still alive, it's doing Science and it's still alive.
Did they do a GLaDOS software update?
Everyone always asks what hubble is doing and not how :( on a serious note, still chugging along and making science make more sense. That thing is like my dad's old work truck. Been around since before I was born, and will probably still be going after I'm gone.
Everyone always asks what's Hubble doing, but they never ask *how* Hubble's doing. Poor Hubble :(
You can actually look at what it's currently observing right here https://hubblesite.org/mission-and-telescope/what-is-hubble-observing-now
The same thing it does every night Pinky, floats in orbit over The Earth!
Google is your friend https://hubblesite.org/mission-and-telescope/what-is-hubble-observing-now
I'm a lay person - I've got no effin clue what "A Legacy Far-Ultraviolet Spectral Atlas of Extremely Metal-Poor O Stars" means. (Nor can I click on it for an explanation, for that matter) OP is intellectually curious and people are climbing all over him. ffs this subreddit.
I think it means... a high contrast map of stars with low metal counts, and found by aiming ultra violet waves super faraway
Legacy-old Far ultraviolet-UV light that's really, really far away Spectral atlas-a map of different frequencies of light Metal poor-pretty young stars, there's still enough fuel for fusion with metal products to be energetically unfavourable. O stars-the brightest, largest class of stars. Hope this helped
Legacy in astronomy doesn’t quite mean old. We use legacy to refer to datasets expected to have long lasting and widespread utility. E.g legacy surveys. Far ultraviolet also doesn’t refer to ultraviolet radiation that’s really far away (in space). It refers to a specific wavelength regime of light which is around 120-200nm, its UV light which is far (in wavelength) from visible light compared to near and mid UV, but its before the defining line for extreme UV. Metal poor doesn’t necessarily mean young stars, in fact many metal poor stars are very old. The metals formed in a star like our sun itself stay mostly in the core, the metals in the bulk material came from the nebula which formed the star. As generations of stars form and die they release the metals in their cores into the galaxy. Metal poor stars then are often old stars which formed back when there were less metals polluting the nebulae which formed them.
Ah ok thanks for the clarification. I had a basic understanding, and tried to extrapolate my knowledge, but it's extrapolation, and that's a bit nono.
If OP asked what a "Legacy Far-Ultraviolet Spectral Atlas of Extremely Metal-Poor O Stars" was we would be having a different discussion. "What is Hubble doing?", is not nearly the same thing. No one is crawling all over OP. I simply said Google is your friend and provided a link that answered their question.
Fuck how dare someone ask a space related question on r/space
Also, I wasn't rude. I answered their question, and provided a link to give a factual source of answers (NASA), instead of relying on Reddit users' opinions.
Googling it doesn’t exactly promote discussion, literally the point of a social media site.
They made no effort to start a discussion. If they have a question not answered by my link, let's discuss...
I think they asked a regular question worthy of posting. Sure they could have done research but posting to reddit I think is a form of research. I get it. I would also Google it first. Some days I'd say of course just look it up and others I'm all for asking an audience.
Google is increasingly returning poor results. I did a quick-ref a few hours ago for a post in /shrimptank about someone who lost a ton of their new stock. Tried to find what the upper bound of what water temp was appropriate. I got about as many answers as that OP had shrimp die (20, for reference). Getting a confirm from reddit, with (mostly) real people answering, is becoming more and more of a go-to in this AI-search-results age because it's, frankly, garbage results compared to 10 years ago.
That's very true. I often find myself googling "topic xyz reddit" so I can get a better gauge on things. The AI answers often answer a different question, and it leads to additional suggestions about other questions I don't have.
>Google is increasingly returning poor results. Indeed. This is incredibly off topic but I'm diabetic and I was trying to search for nutrition info on a size of, what this restaurant calls, a Syrian pocket which I think is about 12" in diameter but the LARGEST that I could find any info on was 6.5". There was also info on 4" pockets but the nutrition increases by double going from 4" to 6.5". I could've guessed that going from 6.5" to 12" would've been about 4x but I'm not risking my health over a guess. It made me so mad that I once again seemed to have a unique problem. This was also at around 5pm on a Friday so it wasn't like I could ask a dietician/nutritionist and I even called up the restaurant to see if they could give me the info. They couldn't... Also, apparently Syrian pocket bread doesn't exist outside of this restaurant because the results I was getting were either about military conflict in Syria or pita bread 🤦♂️. I mean absolutely no offense to any Syrian people but at that moment I was only concerned with what I was about to put in my body and how it might affect my blood sugar and health.
Reddit is full of idiots, myself included. Rule 12, straightforward questions belong in the stickied post as a comment. If there was more than a single sentence question that would have been different.
This sub has felt very low quality for a couple years now. Low effort posts like OP, followed by even lower effort comments like the one you replied to. Don’t know why that was the last straw, but it is. Unsubbing
[Having gyro problems](https://gizmodo.com/hubble-telescope-put-into-dreaded-safe-mode-due-to-ongo-1851438846)
The Hokey Pokey You put your left leg in, your left leg out In, out, in, out, shake it all about You do the hokey cokey and you turn around That's what it's all about Also, space stuff.
Same as every night Stimpy, trying to take over the world