18 Aug 2017 18:27:19
People get this misconception on what CGI means when NASA are referring to it. The abbreviation is "Computer Generated Image" and given that most telescopes these days are "digital" telescopes, all images will be computer generated.
I think that should also cover the Galileo satellite too.
The telescope will take around 20,000 images of a single piece of sky, the data is sent to the computer and the computer reconstructs the image from the coding used by the telescope.
As for saying that Hubble or any other satellite telescope has never broken is just an outright lie who ever told you that. There have been several "repair missions" since it's launch in 1991. One thing to mention about space, is you don't need any tools to put two bits of metal together. Because space is a vacuum, there is no air buffer between two said bits of metal. Therefore you get a cold fusion reaction which makes the metal stick.
There is a website which tracks all of the space debris and has an almost real time update sequence.
Here is an image:
Yes, it's bloody disgusting to see all that waste out in space!
But this is why you have "launch windows" for space flights, it's not only about the optimal conditions, but it's about where the space debris is also.
The Van Allen belt is a tough thing to get through without issues. But it's not about the amount of radiation, it's about the length of time you spend in said radiation.
Take Chernobyl for example, you can go right up to power station itself in a hazmat suit for around 15 minutes before you start to get sick, or suffer any long term issue's. After that, you'll probably have to spend a lot of time in recovery, as the radiation levels are comparable to an extinction event.
I'm not an astrophysicist either, I just have a very keen curiosity for all things space. I've read multiple theories and multiple scientific journals on lots of different subjects, through this I come to my own conclusion using my own logic and reason.
And by the way, the reason people get mad at the Flat Earth theory is because in their eyes (and mine too) when confronted with evidence such as constellations and time zones (which would be VERY different if the Earth was flat) the theory becomes preposterous.
For example:
Get a flat surface that you can lift up and rotate a torch around it, you'll see that the face of the paper lights up all at once. If the Earth was flat and it takes 7 minutes (approx) for the light to travel 93 million miles to Earth, then why does it take 8 hours for light from the sun to get from the UK to California?
And why do we see different constellations in the Southern Hemisphere to the Northern? This 100% could not happen if the Earth was flat. Those are the two biggest holes in the Flat Earth theory in my opinion.
I would like to say that I don't mean to come across as rude, arrogant or up myself with these statements. I am of the opinion that you are more than entitled to believe what you feel is right, that's total cool. It's just nice to have a counter argument, just in case. As many smart men have said, curiosity is a sign of intelligence.
