• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Why not admit that Hubble is lost and gone ?

Malbec, when the ISS was the topic of conversation, you eventually admitted that you had never looked for it yourself.

How about in this case? Have you, personally, ever tried to see if Hubble is up where they say it is? If I thought that something visible had vanished and the disappearance covered up, the first thing I would do is look to see whether or not it is actually there.
 
smartcooky said:
In 2015, a young Nelson high school Third Form student (US 9th Grade) made an unusual entry in that year's Cawthron Institute Science Fair.
Click to expand...

That kid is awesome! :thumbsup: Good on her.

Captain_Swoop said:
Hubble is visible from earth.. If it's gone what can we see?
Click to expand...

It is, of course. Not sure it is visible from the UK, though where Malbec could check personally. ;)

Hubble orbits with an inclination of 28 degrees and doesn't venture too far north or south. This is the default inclination for objects launched from Cape Canaveral and it corresponds to its latitude. Where possible, satellites are launched close to the equator to take advantage of the Earth's rotation and inclinations are not changed, both to save fuel. Earth observation satellites are often put in higher inclinations to allow them to see more of Earth's surface. The ISS has an inclination of 52 degrees to allow for easier resupply from Baikonur. That's why it can be seen well in most inhabited areas.
 
Malbec said:
https://youtu.be/8ItXCzyUt-A
The video is Rob Bassano - a Stamford AI specialist -- in a near monologue to Nick Veronico who has worked on SOFIA for 8 years at their Science Centre .
Rob shows that NASA lost the Hubble telescope , probably around '08 , when they went to service it and tried to catapult it back to around 300 miles altitude from its 200 mile position --- this drop had resulted from orbital decay .
Hubble has no propulsion units and direction is handled by internal gyroscopes .
It could not be stopped and therefore disappeared into space .
Rob indicates that there are no photos in existence of Hubble in situ over 25 years and many servicing missions are not even logged into the FAN data base .
Hubble only had a maximum 5 micron range in the infra red frequency band ( but typically 2.5 ) compared to SOFIA at 250 microns , despite the latter flying at only a max of 45 000 feet , ( ISS ca 220 miles and Hubble at ca 330 miles max . )

Anybody here savvy enough to show that Robs work is incomplete or faulty ?

Remember , the only way you know Hubble exists is if you are assured it does by NASA . There is no other independent evidence over 25 years .
SOFIA can do everything Hubble does / did in terms of distance , albeit infra red rather than optical . And SOFIA has around 100 times more frequency width -- 2.5 vs 250 microns . Same technical specs / mirror size etc
Hubble's replacement -- the James Webb -- has been repeatedly delayed and one wonders what it is supposed to do that SOFIA presently does not already achieve .
I can readily believe that NASA lost Hubble but decided not to admit to a multi billion dollar blunder when it could be covered up .
Unless a Rob Bassano type figure accidentally appeared .
Click to expand...

Malbec you're back and right into proving yet again you need to work on your education - badly.

...lets see 8.5 seconds on google to find information on the last visit to Hubble in 2009 (as mentioned by others), 14 seconds after that to find out who runs its and where they work at - all those people just sit around for years huh - and of course all the science information feed and people around the equator can see it pass over.....

Suggestion learn that people who are flat earthers are NOT a good source for anything but humor.

lol
 
Last night I saw up in the air,
the satellite that wasn't there.
It wasn't there again today;
Oh how I wish it would go away!
 
Can someone would explain to me why anyone would accept that a visible object doesn't exist without first looking for it?
 
AdamSK said:
Can someone would explain to me why anyone would accept that a visible object doesn't exist without first looking for it?
Click to expand...
It would mean going outside and knowing what to look for while he was outside, which would require research other than looking at kooky videos
 
The pissing contest of who has more/better/sufficient qualifications is a quintessential rule 12 breach. Please concentrate on addressing the arguments.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Agatha
 
AdamSK said:
Can someone would explain to me why anyone would accept that a visible object doesn't exist without first looking for it?
Click to expand...

I forget which member it is, bjarne or malbec, but one of them calls themselves a true skeptic and except nothing on face value, authority and because everyone says it's true. The other calls himself a contrarian.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom