Okay, and welcome again to the November webinar of the NASA Night Sky Network. Every month we highlight an activity related to the webinar topic. This month we are looking at an important milestone in the history of telescopes in space. There's a related activity called why does not look like the photos, useful in a variety of outreach settings. Here's Dave with the details. All right, hi folks, hello again, just so you know, this is a pretty quick one. And this is one of those, it's a little free form so you can use as much or as little as you want. And it's great for when you're doing daytime observing, of course, or regular outreach event or when you're waiting for the sun to go down. It's a little hard to do this at night, but you can find ways to do that too. But so this activity, there's a variety of different sorts of activities in this particular kit. This is from the telescopes toolkit in particular and from the why doesn't it look like the photos, which is the question that we all get when we're looking at something, especially more dimmer things like galaxies or nebula. Someone looks through your telescope and is like, oh. So this kit is, this activity set in particular is designed to help you sort of introduce that kind of representational color and exposure time to folks. We're not going to do the exposure time part right now. I'm just going to quickly do a very brief overview of the representational color demo, which of course uses a very cute dog named Rusty. And this is Rusty in the optical bandwidth, so to speak, optical light, which is the light we see. Other creatures can see different types of light, too, like UV or infrared. If you have that weird shrimp, you see all kinds of light, the anti-shrimp or something like that. My apologies to the shrimp for not remembering its name. However, if you're, say, another creature or a satellite taking photos of stuff for NASA or the predator, you're going to see Rusty in a different light, say an infrared. And this helps to bring up representational colors. So what you're seeing through your telescope is what it looks like with the NASA photos often add in a lot of different colors to bring out certain scientific details. Like in this case for Rusty, we want to know what's the hottest part of Rusty, which is the great part about infrared. And so that's why this is scaled the way it is. Rusty instead of his cute little button eyes has these fiery yellow eyes indicating that's part of the warmest part of his face, and so on it gets. And you can then go into these maps of the United States, which show, you can start with the satellite image, which you'll see from space. It's in the regular optical sort of wavelength. But then say you want to get some different details that's showing a temperature variation or say you're really in the studying radioactivity on the surface of the Earth. You might want to check out this gamma ray exposures gathered by different detectors, which is a different sort of light and colored representational to indicate how much or how little that exposure is. And we also include a little game, which I've sort of scattered on my desk and I don't know if we can see it's not going to pick it up too well, but we have different cards here. And I'll just do one brief one. We got what you can do is you can kind of put these say you pick a Jupiter, you put these pictures up just on a table, you can pick multiple objects and kind of scatter them around and have people pick them out, you know, say, oh, is this what objects do you think are different wavelengths of the same object or do you think these are all the same object? You know, what light do you think these might be depending on how you want to arrange it. So then you can kind of, once you look at them and kind of see, oh, I think these might all be related. And then you can flip them around and it'll tell you what kind of light these are all in. Jupiter is interesting because nice and around here and the optical or visible, it's all optical in a sense, visible light. And then you've got the X-ray version where you can see some of the aurora and it's holes and then strikingly the radio version where you can actually really make out some of the real wild stuff happening there and, you know, why it's one of the brightest radio sources in the sky. So anyway, it's a brief overview of that. It's sort of a fun card game and some fun pictures to pass around and just sort of discuss why we put telescopes in space like say the orbiting astronomical observatory marker 2 or the Hubble or the web. And with that, Ryan. All right. Thanks, Dave. And now for our featured program, Ginger Butcher is an accomplished award winning science writer and outreach coordinator with over 20 years experience for NASA headquarters and Goddard Space Flight Center. She's authored unique educational products for K-12 audience that are still popular over a decade later, including Echo the Bat, one of my favorite books. She has extensive background translating complex scientific terms for the public and for educators alike. Her undergraduate work was in geography focusing on remote sensing and cartography and has a master's degree in instructional systems development from the University of Maryland. Ginger's parents met at Goddard and her father, Jim Caparian, who we're going to find out a little bit more here soon, started the astronomy program at Goddard in 1959. Please welcome Ginger Butcher. Well, thank you, Ryan. I'm happy to be here. Thanks for the invitation.  Yep. I'm going to kind of give a little preface and Brian, thank you for that introduction. Because my background really is more Earth science than astronomy. So forgive me if I don't get quite the scientific terms with astronomy correct. And you'll have to take that into account when you get to the Q&A part. There's not going to be a lot of that. So I've kept this presentation focused a lot on my father and the work that he did bringing about basically the OAO program and kind of the birth of that astronomy program. This, so this is a photo here of my father in a video you'll see later. That was actually kind of edited down, but the full video is online. Jim, comparing my dad is in the middle and there's Arthur Code is on the right. He's from the University of Wisconsin with the celloscope. No, that was Smithsonian. Wisconsin had the Wisconsin experiment package and then the gentlemen on the left is Dr. Whipple and he was from the Smithsonian Astronomical Observatory that had the celloscope which is that catalog that you were shown earlier. So here let's see. So my story is my parents did meet at Goddard, but my father passed away in 1984 when I was 15. So don't really know much about what he did and what his work was, but I have these things. Like I have a suitcase and some documents, his slide rule. Anyway, so I've been trying to kind of put it put this together. I've noticed that a lot of the history of space telescopes kind of go back to Hubble and rockets and Explorer and so forth and not a whole lot of mention of OEO. So I'm going to try to bring that about and go through it with some of these, these items that we have here on the table. So I can't see my notes on the bottom. Anyway, I can remember. Essentially astronomers have always wanted to get up above the Earth's atmosphere. That's absorbing all of these wavelengths that protect us like our life on Earth, but is not so good for astronomers who want to learn more about hot stars and UV and X-rays coming from solar flares and all kinds of stuff. So I start with this image. I just had this poster scanned and I retouched it and I'm going to hang it up in my house because it's 1958, Rand McNally's map of outer space. And I just think it's really cool that 1958 when NASA started and this was kind of the artist's concept of our solar system and the universe around us. And it's kind of cool. So I'll begin my story with kind of the early IGY back to 1956. Rockets, obviously, we're getting some observations, air be rockets and so forth, getting observations and getting instruments above the Earth's atmosphere. My father worked at NRL with Dr. Herbert Friedman and they had an expedition out in off the coast of California about 400 miles where they were going to launch a raccoon up into the above the atmosphere and do that during a solar flare to see if they could detect X-rays. So this was kind of a pre-IGY type of stuff they did go and present this in Moscow. But this brings me to my first item, the manual of fireworks that was given to my father as a 10th grade prize. So this is how inspiring the young generation translates to IGY. So in Friedman's book, he talks about how they were out there trying to get these raccoons launched. So they'll go up about 100,000 feet on the balloon, the deacon rocket, which is a solid fuel rocket because liquid fuel doesn't work that well. Launches, radio control launches from the off of the balloon. And you can do that quickly and catch a solar flare as opposed to having to ready an AeroV rocket and which takes hours and you'll miss it. So that's why they were using these raccoons. But they had a problem with the igniter. So Friedman writes in his book that the Jim Caperian recalled some juvenile experience mixing salt, Peter and charcoal to make gunpowder in his junior chemistry set. So he volunteered to serve as the pyrotechnics expert on the ship. And with a couple of tries, he actually was able to get the deacon rocket to fire and they were actually able to collect that data, which was basically the first observations of X-rays from a solar flare. So that's kind of a cool little story and always get your kids chemistry sets. So my dad went on to do other high altitude research from rockets. And there were two AeroV rocket launches from White Sands and they put a UV detector on it and they discovered that there were limon alpha emissions in the night sky coming from celestial objects and not just the sun and not just that air glow of the UV exciting hydrogen around the limb of the atmosphere. Again, I'm not an astronomer, but I found this cool picture that what we can see now with the night sky lit up in UV that we weren't able to see back then. But my dad got credited for discovering that and went on to Moscow and presented in IGY 1958. So here he is. So the reason I brought up NRL and he started there was according to Nancy Roman's kind of recollection of NASA history and astronomy that the first activities, astronomy activities that were done at NASA were essentially a continuation of that sounding rocket program. A lot of the folks from NRL came over to Goddard when it was formed about 1959 actually when they came over it was Beltsville Space Center at the time. Herbert Friedman stayed at NRL and continued to do a lot of work there. So as part of that IGY year, the National Academy of Sciences put out a request for proposals and they wanted experiments that could be eventually conducted on satellites in orbit. They received four responses. Code and Whipple, Goldberg and Spitzer. Code and Whipple will go on to be on OAO as well as an experiment from Spitzer. But essentially what they realized was what they were planning kind of the explorer type of rockets. They were too large for that. So they needed a larger platform. So after my dad was at NASA, he started working on the first working group in one of the first two working groups and with Nancy Roman, and he wrote the plan for the orbiting astronomical observatories. And that's what kind of revived some of these IGY proposals. So this is one another little artifact I have is this onion skin carbon copy with little pencil writing which basically is the rationale why we want an orbiting astronomical platform. And so from that paper I read a couple pieces. He writes that I've recently noticed an increasing number of artist conceptions of what would be have been called science fiction several years ago but today are recognized as space platforms. These sketches quite frequently include telescope for making astronomical observations. Now this obviously is an illustration at OAO. I found it in the archives at National, at the headquarters at NASA headquarters, and I just thought it was fabulous this kind of free will and space walk going out. I don't know what that's like a little TARDIS connected to him or something. Anyway, it's I think it's a beautiful image. So essentially, he's making the case that, you know, why are we going to spend so much the sums of money to buy that could buy essentially several observatories on Earth on the surface with 20 inch telescopes on mountaintops. And why don't we do just to get one observatory to orbit around the earth and he goes into talking about the answer lies within the sea of air which blankets the earth bound telescope. And the air glow and the atmospheric absorption and the big thing because I guess he's working a lot in UV and with x-rays is the the whole spectrum short of about 3000 angstroms is hidden by ozone, oxygen and nitrogen. And their observed their absorption of denying the observations of fundamental spectral lines, such as elements of hydrogen helium oxygen and nitrogen, as well as emissions from molecular hydrogen, and obviously far down in x-ray and gamma ray regions, the the clues to the production and the galactic distribution of cosmic rays. While he worked with rockets and a lot of folks were were working with rockets and they were easy to put different experimental packages on them and do multiple versions of them. If you're going to put together a platform like this and send it into orbit, you don't get a lot of chances on that. So there are still useful purposes for putting on rockets up like test flights and advancing the development of the Earth. And the development of the instruments will eventually go on satellites. But the rocket results have just wetted the appetite he says of astronomers providing only five minute peaks at the vast store of new information locked in review the Earth's surface. And you can imagine sending up a rocket and having an instrument on there and as the rocket spinning around it's scanning and mapping the sky. You get it like five minutes. I think it was like out of 15 years of these rocket launches. They had only like three hours of observations. So a satellite observatory orbiting continuous above the atmosphere is excited the imagination of astronomers. And here's the interesting part that these observatories. They all need they all have different specialized observations with radio optical gamma ray specialized telescopes, but they all require similar requirements. They need accurate stabilization with respect to stars they need a reasonable design platform that they could communicate with and send instructions to and get the data back and essentially you could build that once and swap out the experiments. So that's what they propose. There would put together essentially a platform that the initial idea was that NASA would design the the platform all the logistics the hardware and that the experimenters funded through the National Academy of Sciences and so forth. They would have full control of their experiment experiment right on these these platforms. It was it was a good, a good idea, but they did have a little bit of trouble with having the scientists and the engineers, they were kind of keeping them separate and then the scientists wanted to have a little bit involvement with what was going on with some of the engineering decisions. So that was a lot of kind of management stuff that they had to get get through. I kind of talked about this but here's a cool little glass slide I actually had that we scanned that shows the way over with respect to the atmospheric windows. And the quote from John Clark, the director saying that OAA may prove to be a great step forward in astronomy as the invention of the telescope and quote there. So, there was an ambitious start. Some of the early documents describe it is that NASA wanted to take a quantum leap rather than a slow development, putting this together. So they from the initial discussions in January and February having a meeting in Washington for two days to thrash the whole thing out they wanted to get all the requirements, all the systems requirements so they could start putting out a proposal on the street for a company to build the system. So they had that the proposal to NASA. The initial they were going to build six observatories at a cost of 57 million while the first OAA was about 60 million. And then the other ones were like 75 and so forth. So early on, astronomer observatories were more pricey than most the other spacecraft that NASA's been working on and I think that's still true today if you think about Hubble. So by April they had a working group. Then May they had their first meeting and then by the next year they had the RFP for the spacecraft on the street. And I love the schedule they were like we're just going to have this like done in two years, you know, just have the satellite built and launched in two years. So Groma gets a contract. Here's a model 23 million just to build the spacecraft and they were estimating about 32,000 pounds. And they were going to build since they were the same platform essentially and they were going to swap out the experiments they were essentially building the same roughly platform, all at once. And you'll see later we have a photo of like three of them in the clean room. So initially they wanted the launch to be in 1961 when they first started talking about this in 1959, but they scheduled it for 1963. So it was the largest unmanned satellite for 440,000 working parts 30 miles of wiring and almost 4,000 pounds. So one of the technical problems, one of which was that they were trying to develop these TV tubes to be able to measure UV and obviously glass blocks UV so we need to be made out of something like, I think it was quartz or something lithium. Anyway, they still had a lot of trouble putting that together but they delayed the launch to 1966. We're not celebrating the 50th year back in 2016 because that we launched and it basically failed, had a power failure after two days. But what is interesting about LAO and this is a great, another great resource, the New Yorker had a talk of the town article, and they followed them down to launch and they were talking with them. And the story was, so this was in 1966 April, if folks may recall whatever, in November of 1965, there was a big power outage, a power grid outage in New York, New York City and Long Island. So as it was, as OAO was undergoing some testing at the Grumman facility, they just saved it, the wiring from being blown out or affected by this, the currents that came from this blackout. And then in January it was on its way to the Cape and they were driving the truck down and a wheel fell off the truck. And so it got to the Cape and there were four attempts to launch and at one point they had to sit out a tornado, which I, it said at this time anyway was the first one to sit out a tornado on the Cape. I don't know if there's been another one, but so it started getting this OAO, it started getting a little moniker on and on because it was kept going on and on. But then it launched and they had a power failure, so it was on and off as somebody also said. So that's kind of what happened to the first one, a lot of money, but here it is, they were already building the other ones. So they were able to make the case. There was, there was still some functions that were working, they were able to note that the subsystems worked as planned, the stabilization worked as planned. So essentially they were going to, as OAO 2 is fully underway, they're going to try to fix some of those issues, including maybe adding some other capabilities such as a this rate and position sensor and a tape recorder and power status indicators. And they also improved ground operations, they add more ground stations so that there would be less time between the downlink. And also unique about OAO 2 is that there were two instrument packages and they were shooting on either end of the spacecraft. And essentially what they would do is they would turn it and they would let one package look at the sky for a week and then they would turn it in the other package look at the sky for a week and kind of off and on. Here it is in its final checkout at Kennedy, the Star Trekker, the Sunshade. It's interesting, I just watched ISET 2 launch and it's a laser altimeter, Earth Observing Satellite, and it also has this cool little Sunshade door because they don't want any solar radiation to get in there and burn out their instruments. So OAO 2 finally launched December 7, 1968, just about a week after I was born. My dad was at the Cape for pretty much that entire month, I believe the first launch was estimated in the middle of November and it got delayed to December. It was perfect launch, went into orbit, and everything turned on great. And let's see, let me make sure I have my stuff here. Okay. And so there were some technical achievements of, you know, that whole being able to point with accuracy. And one of the, you know, key things about astronomical satellites versus, say, Earth Observing, you need to be able to point with extreme precision to be able to fixate on a star for an extended period of time and get these long exposures. It lasted well beyond its mission lifespan. The Smithsonian experiment, the one that the catalog is from the CELUSFIT scope, I think, it stopped working, but it did catalog over 5000 stars in the UV. And then at that point, the Wisconsin experiment just operated full time because they didn't have to swap it back and forth. And this is where I'm going to say I don't know a whole lot. But I do know that there's folks at the Goddard Space Flight Center and our communications office that are working on an anniversary article about OAO 2 that I'm hoping will go out in December. And they'll have a little bit more about the specific science achievements and the, you know, really where the place that the OAO fit in the world of science for that matter. But it did provide a map of a large portion of the sky. It did find Young Hot Stars. It's the title of my, I think the, one of the, like a New York Times article had that written in there in search of hot young stars, which I thought was kind of fun. Anyway, I have a quick little video that kind of will summarize some of this. And let's see if this works. On which much of the study of Starlight depends. We need a solid platform, hundreds of miles out in space, from which to make our studies, not a rocket, not a balloon, but an orbiting astronomical observatory. And that is what has been developed by scientists at the Goddard Space Flight Center, where undergames the terium had a look at things with stars. To know the stars, we must capture starlight, lightly cut off forever from human eyes on Earth. For that, we need special telescopes. The satellite, the OAO, is the biggest and most complex unmanned satellite in the NASA program. Built by the Grumman Aircraft Corporation, it is basically a shell into which various kinds of telescopes can be mounted. When it has been placed in an orbit 500 miles beyond the Earth, this space observatory will give us eyes to see into regions until now invisible to man, which by a centaur orbit, the OAO sheds its protective fairings in space. The OAO powers itself through solar panels, storing electrical energy derived from sunlight. Once in orbit, it relies on solar sensors and star tractors to stabilize itself. Then it opens its eyes to look through a new window in the universe. With each succeeding year, a new OAO will be orbited. The first one in space carries telescope packages in both ends. From a ground control station, men reach into space 500 miles to point the OAO toward any part of the sky they wish to study. Precision is such that the OAO could fix on the eraser of a pencil 100 miles away. Observations can be stored by magnetic memory and all information flashed to Earth within seconds. Recorded as numerical data, starlight images can be translated into pictures by the trained scientists. The OAO will be another significant advance in astronomy since Galileo aimed the first telescope to prove the Earth was not the center of the universe. So there's actually a longer version of that online and they're going to make all of this stuff available on the SVS, the NASA Goddard's Science Visualization Studio website. They're going to be collecting a lot of the things that are in this presentation and more stuff that I wasn't able to fit in. So back to my memorabilia. Here's a photo of my mom and my dad and my dad got the Exceptional Scientific Achievement Award in the ceremony in 1969. In fact, the entire, you can see OAO is pictured on there, the entire OAO team got an award and a group award. And we also, Nancy Rubin also got an award at this time. But there is a note from at the beginning of this forward for the, this, from the NASA administrator, basically marking that this award ceremony represents a milestone in the continuing effort that has gone into our program to explore space and extend our aeronautical accomplishments since NASA was established a decade ago. The orbiting astronomical observatory spacecraft Stunning Success has opened for astronomers a new era of space sciences with the OAO and others that will follow will gain a new and deeper insight into the universe. We can explore the stars from a new vantage point and remove the blindfold of an obscuring atmosphere from our telescopic eyes. And he adds that I believe Americans now more than ever are interested in the space program and want to see us succeed. And we do not intend to rest our laurels. We continue to go forward as human dedication and willingness permit. And this is 1968. There's a lot of other stuff going on. I don't know, like getting ready to land on the moon. So the, I think the achievements of this program kind of got overshadowed through Apollo, but for those who are interested in looking outward into space, this was really a big step forward. And then last, this is the last bit of a dedication that they wrote in Goddard's research and technology annual port 1984. After he passed away, basically talking about his contributions to this field of science. And from some of the research that I looked at, I thought it was very interesting, his name basically being referenced lots of places, but it's mostly as mentors, acknowledgments, you know, he basically helped people work through their ideas. He worked as kind of that liaison between scientists and engineers, kind of working out some of those management things. And I didn't, I couldn't find the quote but he was quoted as basically talking about how difficult having this type of a orbiting observatory or having a satellite or spacecraft to do astronomy because astronomers as he says are typically loners. They don't work with large groups of people like it takes hundreds of people to put together these these satellites and it's not a typical kind of astronomer experience and it's interesting that both Whipple and Spitzer during the initial developments of this program. They both either through proposals or private conversations with Nancy Roman and headquarters or stuff wanted to wanted to run the program themselves they wanted to take management of the whole program. But as they were questioned a little bit more by Nancy and others, they wanted to do that because they wanted to ensure that their project or their experiment was going to be adequately accommodated and didn't care as much about having the other instruments being accommodated and the whole concept was you make a platform you put a variety of experiments on it. It's kind of a you can you can swap them out and make this a platform for everybody and all different scientists to participate. So that's the close of mine. I think I have one more slide if anyone was interested because those are kind of interesting. There's the all the way to the left is the s 15 that was explorer 11 which was the first gamma gamma ray satellite and my dad developed the orientation system for using sensors that look at the sun and then look at the earth and basically able to orient it that way instead of just based on the angle the sun that was kind of a new thing. So with that, I can stop sharing my screen and That's fantastic. So thank you, Ginger. That's really a I didn't ever do up about all this stuff and it's remarkable looking back. And, you know, I think that we have kind of this All of the graphics that you saw and all of the some of the simulations that were in there, you know, that was state of the art back then and we kind of look at it and think, Oh, look how primitive it was and they didn't know it but they that was cutting edge. So it's remarkable how our, our, I guess our viewpoint changes and when we look at these historical things that were really remarkable. I know I can relate to this because my father worked on the lunar lunar orbiter and that returned the first Earthrise photo not really wasn't the Apollo eight one. There was a first image of Earth from beyond Earth orbit that I had hanging on my wall when I was a kid. So we, we share fathers who did interesting things. So we have a few questions here. And I think that Joe right off the bat asked about whether there was an OAO one and I think you answered that during the course of that field that one was the one that failed. So were there other ones after, you know, you said that they had planned for six and we kind of mentioned about one and two. They had planned for six initially in their initial thinking this through in 1959 when they actually came about awarding the contract and so forth. The plan was for four and the one, I think it's the fourth and final one was named Copernicus and that one was in 1972 and that one worked and the one before that the third one did not work. Okay, great. I'm sorry and asked if there's any way that you could share that scanned image of the poster, the red McNally right issues with that. It's copyright, but I guess friend to friend. We can look into, you know, maybe that's something we could look into see if they still own the copyright to it or maybe they don't care. I thought it was interesting to look at it and we have the images of series and if you note what series looks like in that I don't know if it's our conception had to be this jagged little thing so Well, the there's a whole bottom section that I kind of cut off that had paintings of all the different the surfaces of the different planets like Venus and stuff like that so it is a pretty cool image. So it's kind of an aside we had an opportunity to see a there's a documentary on Chesley Bonestell. Now, which a lot of us that grew up back in the 50s and 60s that was our vision of what was like to go to other planets and so it's it's not quite what we thought so That's a really good question and there's kind of a Darian has another question. These are kind of related. So cook gas and so you might want to think about these together cook gas did OAO to have an impact on the development of HST and then Darian's said Was the precision stellar pointing system that your dad developed for OAO the same that was used on Hubble Yes and no, the much of the subsystems work that went into OAO translated to to Hubble. I think they modified and improve the the pointing, but I think a lot of the basic stuff was there that is something I'm hoping that the The astrophysics communications books that got it when they write the the article in December can cover because they've been writing about these observatories for a long time and they'll have a better idea of like how Hubble runs compared to what we had it with OAO. All right. So let's see we answered that one. Got that one. So did OAO to this is from Brett only see in the ultra violent. Yes, both of the observatories the Wisconsin package and the Smithsonian were UV the Smithsonian was basically to do a UV sky survey it was going to look at the whole thing whereas the Wisconsin package was going to lock on to specific stars and measure their spectrum. Okay, so that's the book here that all sky part. Okay, cool. That makes sense. So, Jeffrey asked OAO to was a great precursor for later space telescopes like Hubble did the results from OAO to and its fellows I guess it's it's other related ones prompt ground based telescopes to look at near UV stellar targets that does reach the ground and that might you know maybe that's outside the. The realm of yours. That is I think that. The challenge was if I can get a little bit of this baby I don't know that the the Lyman alpha line is for I understand like 2200 angstrom or something is like the most prominent line from the sun. So, even if you're ground based and if you can see some of the UV, there's a problem that that UV that's coming from the sun is exciting the hydrogen around the atmosphere. So you get it because the lot of the astronomy was done with photographic plates and you had to keep them exposed for a long time and that glow would fog the plates. So, even if you were looking at UV there were going to be these impacts from the atmosphere. If, even if it's just that you needed to spend a long exposure to get some of these more distant stars. Don't quote me on that. It's, it's never as simple as what it might be so. So, Darian you had a question here about the photo. He did not take it he was just involved in the engineering of the lunar orbiter. And in recent years they did a they went back and they reprocessed all the images and I put the link. moonviews.com and so they reprocessed all the orbiter imagery. And so I guess that comes back that if if there is no imagery other than the UV data for OAO and so I guess we get kind of spoiled we think that the telescope should be providing some imagery in. Yeah, and that certainly is not as sexy as a follow and all that in later Hubble and stuff so when I was trying to find some stuff a lot of it is really spectra, you know plots grass and a lot of them are like really not very clean. So, and if I put one in my, my top I wouldn't be able to explain it anyway so I was going to leave that to the communications. But there really isn't anything that that you could even apply representational colors to to make it relatable I suppose one might say. I think I think what they were looking at or spectra they were trying to get, you know, that you know across the, the, the, the UV spectrum, how much you know the intensity and that type of thing. So, getting, you know, kind of these Hubble or even like, like the W map images where they, you know, show you the, the cosmic background some of it that's, as far as I know that there's nothing like that. And William kind of William noted here and he was speculating or wondering whether or not data that's been created as as you know digital like that. Is it able to be, you know, turned into an image, or is it just these measurements only in it. I think I know what the answer is. Yeah, I don't know because you know I watched that video when they said, you know, oh they're going to get this data down and then the scientists will be able to turn them into pictures and I haven't seen any pictures in the research that I've been doing so. I think it's really just like that catalog that you guys have. It's a lot of numbers. It's better than than reading the, what was that all the handbook of chemistry and physics that there is. Scanning through it real quickly. There is an interesting section when it's looking at a little bit of stars here. Talking specifically about the data processing system. There is some way to reconstruct these observations. But in a very, well, I mean you can see here it's like they take like a comparison of the video camera to this to that for these different levels of UV light so you could do some kind of reconstruction of it but it wouldn't be like how we get it from stuff now. So to speak. The very brief second I've glanced through this it looks like it's more of like a. They're more like plots. They're more like plots, yeah. And that's super, super high-rise either so you know but you can make like a little highlighter on top of an optical image or something to be like oh there's extra UV here. It seems like where maybe you could summarize real quickly Julia. What's the biggest differences between oil and hub on and I think that we've kind of been circling around that but maybe you could kind of summarize with the biggest differences. I think Hubble is. It's a telescope like you would have like a with a mirror and that whole thing where I think I way out of the instruments they put up there were more like they're like photometers they were basically just trying to take these measurements of a star across a particular region. Yeah, again I can't. And I think also Hubble has visible. You know, and a broader broader range along the spectrum so you're not just looking at UV. So that's a huge difference. Yeah, isn't Hubble a little bit into the near ultraviolet as well as visible. Yeah, it's visible plus I mean visible. It's got a little IR it's got a little UV I think I mean yeah I think it's definitely. So you can basically like from Earth from the Earth observation stuff that I know of it's when you take a multiple bands and you take those measurements like in you know the red green and blue or IR or whatever like Landsat we have 11 bands now. You can put together any three and RGB and your computer and you get an image. Well, Hubble works like that because it gets its scans and these different wavelengths full images and then you overlap them into composites. So you get these false color Hubble images where you get like the visible light Hubble image. The way I did not work like that primarily because it was just in the UV and it was more a spectrometer than a camera. Yeah. Okay, so we got one more question and we'll call this we're almost at the top of the hour and so Brett asks, how long did the OAO to operate and where is it now is it still an orbit that it was a de orbited. What happened to it. That's a good question. It did. It did last till 1972, I believe.  That's our mission life. Landsat just reached its five year mission life this past February. And now we go into, you know, continuing but back then it wasn't that long. And and Copernicus, which was the one that wants in 72 lasted for a bit, but I didn't look too much into that one yet. Okay, what'd be interesting to find out do you know whether that not they, the orbit of them and crush them into the ocean or or did they have the ability to do. And I looked up on the NASA website at one point and I looked up oh yeah and it seemed like there was like a plot like they were tracking it but I just couldn't imagine that would still be up there. Who knows, you know what, I'm going to pass those questions along to our folks that are doing the anniversary article and see if they can include some of that kind of the, where are they now. Yeah, that would be interesting to find out what let me know and I'll pass it on to to the nice guy network membership is as well we'll add that to the outreach research. Right. Well, this is fantastic. Thank you so much gender. This is really fascinating. It's always interesting to look back and see where we came from and how we've made progress over the many, many years that we've been exploring. And so that's all for tonight. You'll be able to find this webinar along with many others on the night sky network website in the outreach resources section. Each webinars page also features additional resource activities resources and activities will post tonight's presentation on the night sky network YouTube channel in the next few days by the end for sure. So thank you very much and stick around for the raffle. I have one extra thing. It is still in orbit. I found a satellite tracker. Oh, my. Supposedly it is still in orbit, but you know, that is not confirmed. I would just look at the internet for two seconds. Wow. I wonder if you can see it because it's big. Yeah, no, it's classified as one of on this website. It is classified as one of the brighter satellites. It's supposedly going right over Chile right now waving hello to the observatories today. It must not be lower. That must be a little higher. Yeah, let me see. I just posted the link to the first thing that came up that I was looking at it. So this could all be up in the air, but well, No pun intended. Yeah. I cannot find the altitude at the moment, but yeah, it's got to be higher than a few hundred feet. So my major access 7000 plus miles. Oh, yeah, so it's up there. Okay. Yeah, that's the other would take quite a bit to get it to deorbit from there on its own. All right, well, thanks for finding that out. We caught that. I didn't stop the recording yet. Perfect. I was hoping to catch it right before. Well, thank you so much, everyone.


I'm Shaya and this is Sergei. We're from PolyUp. We just had a talk at the AI for Good Conference. We were talking about how to incorporate AI and artificial intelligence into making education better. So at PolyUp we're an education startup trying to empower a global community of problem solvers. So we have a digital math playground that makes math really exciting and experimental. Students can play around with all the elements of math and it's a ton of fun. I joined PolyUp about two years ago. I love the story. I love the people and I love the mission statement. So I've been managing the international relations ever since and in the last four months with something we called PolyChallenge. We got into 30 countries, more than 100,000 students and we solved more than 20 million problems. So these are our great numbers and we wanted to explain how can AI get advantage of all the data we got from all these problem solvers. And also we wanted to broader our community in a place where the UN is such a big thing.