04-12-2017, 08:11 PM
Really quick astronomy lesson. There are "double stars" and there are "binary stars". Double stars are just stars that look to be close together but could be hundreds of light years apart and have no connection to each other. They just look close from our perspective.
Binary stars, on the other hand, are extremely common, and in fact, most stars in the Galaxy are binaries, it's just that often their companions are so close to the other star or too faint for us to see. There are even triple or quadruple star systems. Our sun is quite unusual in that it does not appear to have a companion star. This might be to our benefit, as life may not have been able to form here if there was one.
I don't know which Pluto documentary you saw, but using old technology in spacecraft is normal. Even the space shuttle, when it was still operating, used 1980s technology in its computers. The reason being that you don't want to spend billions of dollars sending something into space using technology that hasn't been thoroughly tested before. It'll cost billions of dollars more to go up there and fix the problem when it fails, and in the case of the Hubble's successor (the JWST), will be beyond our reach anyway.
This is one of the major advantages of ground-based telescopes like those on Mauna Kea. You can test new technologies, but if something goes wrong you don't have to call NASA. You send up your engineers, technicians and scientists to fix the problems and they can go back home in the evenings.
Binary stars, on the other hand, are extremely common, and in fact, most stars in the Galaxy are binaries, it's just that often their companions are so close to the other star or too faint for us to see. There are even triple or quadruple star systems. Our sun is quite unusual in that it does not appear to have a companion star. This might be to our benefit, as life may not have been able to form here if there was one.
I don't know which Pluto documentary you saw, but using old technology in spacecraft is normal. Even the space shuttle, when it was still operating, used 1980s technology in its computers. The reason being that you don't want to spend billions of dollars sending something into space using technology that hasn't been thoroughly tested before. It'll cost billions of dollars more to go up there and fix the problem when it fails, and in the case of the Hubble's successor (the JWST), will be beyond our reach anyway.
This is one of the major advantages of ground-based telescopes like those on Mauna Kea. You can test new technologies, but if something goes wrong you don't have to call NASA. You send up your engineers, technicians and scientists to fix the problems and they can go back home in the evenings.