The Hubble's Fate In Debate at NASA

FortKnox writes: "Well, it looks like NASA is trying to determine what to do with the Hubble. 2004 is supposed to be the last transmission, but NASA might keep'er up till 2010. Also, they are considering maybe putting it in higher orbit. If they are going to retire it, I say we need a replacement. It has really shown the beauty of space, and given scientists closer looks into the cosmos. We can't just let that "die", we need to continue studying!"

Comments

There is also another non interferometer

[jsimon12]

http://www.ngst.stsci.edu/

Re:They fixed it, but

[Frederic54]

it was tested with something like a foucault tester. But it was not "star tested", optically speaking, by mounting it on a structure, point it to the sky, etc

Hubble has SEVERAL proposed replacements

[jsimon12]

The comment about not having a replacement isn't accurate, here are a few of the NGST (Next Generation Space Telescopes), that NASA wants to loft:
http://sim.jpl.nasa.gov/beyond/
http://tpf.jpl.nasa.gov/
http://lisa.jpl.nasa.gov

Re:Hubble has SEVERAL proposed replacements

[bph]

Of course, NONE of these is actually a replacement for Hubble. Each one of these satellites is built to study one problem. The TPF is suppose to look for planets around other stars by monitoring a thousand or so nearby stars. SIM is suppose to measure the positions of stars very accurately using an intereferometer. By measuring the position of a star as the earth moves around the sun, you figure out how far away the star is using simple trig. And LISA is a gravity wave experiment. None of these will ever take picture like Hubble does.

So, to reiterate the artcle, unless the Next Generation Space Telescope flies, there will be no optical telescope in space taking pictures. As a huge amount of good science has come out having an optical/ultra-violet/near infrared imager in space, I hope NASA either keeps Hubble flying, or, better yet, flies NGST.

IAPA (I Am a Paid Astronomer)

Re:They fixed it, but

[Christopher Thomas]

How that thing ever got into orbit without being tested is beyond me.

My understanding was that the mirror was tested - the test was just miscalibrated (one piece of the test optics was a few centimetres out of place). They needed to test the mirror continuously while grinding it.

bring it down on a shuttle, and sell on E-bay

[topham]

Sell parts of Hubble on eBay. I bet they could recover a substantial amount of the cost. Ok, maybe 10%.

Re:They fixed it, but

[Frederic54]

it'S true, myself I have never understood how they send it into space without tested it on earth?!?
There's 100% amateur that polish themselves their 30" mirror in their garage and there are of better quality, and they can do some star test with their dob to correct thing.
How the HST mirro got into space without test is really beyond me either...

Re:They fixed it, but

[Transcendent]

Lets take 400nm (a nice blue, my favorite color) .0000004m or .0004mm i hope im doin this right... .0004mm goes into 1mm 10000 times. multiply that by 4 and you get 40000 1/4 wavelengths..... i think, heh. Correct me if my math is wrong.

Why retire it, it'll remain useful for years

[Rick the Red]

Virtually every "largest ever built" "state of the art" telescope has been superceded, and virtually all of them are still in use, despite light polution from encroaching civilization. The Yerkes Observatory, for example, is over 100 years old and still in use. Astronomers at Palomar, home of the 200 inch Hale telescope, complain about light polution, but they're still in business. Why should Hubble be any different? At least it won't suffer from the light polution problem (well, not until the U.S. Air Force deploys their space-based lasers)

Another idea...

[SIGFPE]

...send a probe out to the focal point of the Sun's gravitational lensing effect (about 550 AU from the Sun) and use the Sun as a *gigantic* gravitational lens to observe distant parts of the universe at super hi res.