Keeping Hubble alive is
Well more useful (scientifically speaking) than going to the moon or Mars. Far cheaper too.
What wonderful stuff it sees out there, and just how much does it cost in comparison to just about anything else?
The Hubble space telescope has captured the first visible-light image of an exoplanet orbiting a star - a body no greater than three Jupiter masses, gravitationally-bound to Fomalhaut in the constellation Piscis Australis. Dubbed Fomalhaut b, the planet lies at 10.7 billion miles from Fomalhaut and 1.8 billion miles inside the …
Oh yesssssss !!! Me too :)
I'll never forget my first assassination contract - my heart was pounding, my palms were sweating. After a while, it became just another way to make credits. The thing was, people didn't want to book a flight with me, something to do with my 'reputation', shrugs.
This post has been deleted by a moderator
Join the fleet of planets of the Pierson's Puppeteers, they're headed in that general direction. On the other hand, you could also let yourself be dropped off at the Ringworld; should be safe now that the stabilizers have been mostly re-installed and a bunch of Protectors are running things there...
It does look like an eye, but I am pretty sure the central part is not "real".
It says in the article it is a corona photo, and the star is a billion times fainter than the star. It means you have to cover the star to be able to expose the photo for the planet -- that's what's "done" during a solar eclipse, when you can photograph the corona, for example. Or it is actually done in telescopes to do it anytime.
Anyway, really cool stuff. Hubble for President!
THIS SYSTEM CAN BE VERY OLD, AND NOT YOUNG!
Interesting news ! Heartiest greetings to the Hubble team & NASA team.
But... the news has contradictions with known theories and it was a prediction 20 years ago from the Universal Matrix Theory. Are there wrong interpretations from Hubble’s collected data? Let’s see the following:
1) It is possible that the body is not a planet, anymore. It is brighter than the expected. It can be a very old planet going to be a pulsar;
2) The excess of dust around the star can be disposable material from an old, dying star, and not about a young star;
3) Maybe the star is not so different from the sun, about long life. The sun can reach 10 billions years. We have a lot of data from the sun. We have few data from that star. Who could authorize us to say there is star living only 1, 2 billion years? Everything is suggesting the star has the same time of life like any other star. Our models are suggesting the star is about 7 billions years old.
The Universal Matrix models ( http://theuniversalmatrix.com ) suggests that old stars produces dust while its combustible is finishing, like any other fire you see at Earth. When the star become old, its planets are old also, they begin to be brighter, till becoming a pulsar. The tiny edge at the dust can be the initial formation of a new black hole, as we can see at the models.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019