Search Tags:

Categories:

Next Generation Space Telescope



Uploaded by: stevebd1
Video Description:
The NGST (now named the James Webb Space telescope) which is due to replace the Hubble Telescope by 2010. Video date February 2002. Source- http://www.esa.int/esa-mmg/mmg.pl?b=b &keyword=ngst&single=y&start=2
'The Hubble Space Telescope has widened our vision of the Universe and has shown us a cosmos that astounds even the scientists. Astronomers from Europe, the United States and Canada are already working on a worthy successor. The Next Generation Space Telescope, NGST, larger and more powerful than its predecessor, is due to be launched around 2009 - just before Hubble will retire after two decades of successful hard work. NGST is expected to shed light on the `Dark Ages of the Universe' by observing infrared light from the first stars and galaxies.'
Blog relating to dark energy- http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view &friendID=120129993&blogID=336082867&Mytoken=AEBE9FCE-5609-48E3-AE7A2B41958BE33F3106235


Tags for this video: dark energy ESA hubble NASA NGST telescope

Find more videos in the "News" category
See more videos uploaded by stevebd1

Related Videos
The story of the Hubble Space Telescope and where we go ...Hubble servicing mission and the next generationHubble Telescope Replacement: The James Webb Space ...
the-story-of-the-hubble-space-telescope-and-where-we-go-.htmlthe-story-of-the-hubble-space-telescope-and-where-we-go-.htmlthe-story-of-the-hubble-space-telescope-and-where-we-go-.html
James Webb Space TelescopeHubble's European successHubble New Generation - Part 1
the-story-of-the-hubble-space-telescope-and-where-we-go-.htmlthe-story-of-the-hubble-space-telescope-and-where-we-go-.htmlthe-story-of-the-hubble-space-telescope-and-where-we-go-.html


Share This Video:       StumbleUpon       del.icio.us       Reddit       digg       Furl       Spurl       Simpy       YahooMyWeb


Comments for this video: Show || Hide
Comments for this video on YouTube
dark matter doesn't ... ( 9 months ago by Mattnesss)
dark matter doesn't make up 90% of the mass of the universe... it only makes up 22%. Our visible matter makes up around 4%. DARK ENERGY (!) is what makes up the most mass (around 74%).
I like this video, but that's a bad mistake to make :P
The video is from ... ( 9 months ago by stevebd1)
The video is from 2002 when the term dark matter pretty much covered the unseen matter/energy that made up most of our universe and dark energy was speculated. Its only with the observation of type 1a supernovae at very high red shifts within the last few years that the existence of a dark energy was confirmed and the term became an accepted phrase in present day cosmology.
oh sorry! I really ... ( 9 months ago by Mattnesss)
oh sorry! I really should read the video descriptions more carefully
I rather suspect ... ( 7 months ago by TitaniumDragon)
I rather suspect dark matter/energy is an error in our current physics rather than a huge portion of the universe.
The thing is that ... ( 7 months ago by Mattnesss)
The thing is that everything we observe fits the idea of dark matter and energy. In fact we directly observed the gravitational effect dark matter has (there's a great picture of the ring of dark matter, it's easy to find) and you couldn't explain the rotation of galaxies without there being dark matter.
We don't really know much about dark energy yet, just that some "energy" must exist. Thus the name dark energy, we don't know what it is, just that it is.
That "ring of dark ... ( 7 months ago by TitaniumDragon)
That "ring of dark matter" is what is more commonly known as a "black hole", but black holes DO NOT make up much "dark matter". We COULD explain the rotation of galaxies without dark matter -with different physics-. That's apparently what you don't comprehend; when everything isn't matching up nearly correctly, it means that our physics are wrong. People just haven't come up with a correct theory yet, probably because it is weirder than relativity.
Oh, THAT. I know ... ( 7 months ago by TitaniumDragon)
Oh, THAT. I know what you're talking about now. The problem with saying "gravity blah blah blah" is that the theory of relativity is probably WRONG; when you can't explain 96% of the universe with your theory, then you've got a major problem, and it isn't that 96% of the universe isn't there, its that your theory breaks down. Basically the map was made from the theory of relativity, so if the theory is wrong, then the map is worthless, which is probable.



Tell a friend:


URL 
Embed Code