Slashdot Mirror
Experts Recommend Keeping Hubble Operational
foolishtook writes "
The New York Times is reporting that a panel of experts is recommending NASA to keep the Hubble Space Telescope operating past 2010 when its replacement, the James Webb Space Telescope, is currently slated for launch. NASA had stated that it wanted to bring the Hubble down in 2006 to make room in its budget for the Webb, but astronomers said that it still has a viable future and the launch date for the Webb is likely to be delayed."
I heard a piece on NPR about this yesterday. They said that there were three options, one was to send two more maned space missions to the hubble for repares and to attach a propulsion system to the unit so that it can safely be brought back to earth in 2010. The second was to go along with the current plan, send one more maned mission, that will do some minor upgrades and bring hubble down in 2006. The third option is to not send any more maned missions, and develop a robotic device that could be sent up and would attach the propulsion system to the unit.
NASA said that it was worried about sending more maned missions up to the hubble since it is in a different orbit than the space station and if the mission is botched the shuttle would not be able to reach the station in an emergency.
Visualize the world of wine
Experts Urge a Reprieve for the Hubble Space Telescope By DENNIS OVERBYE he Hubble Space Telescope, astronomy's vaunted time machine, was granted a conditional reprieve yesterday when an expert panel recommended that NASA consider sending a crew of astronauts at the end of the decade to extend its career, rather than dropping it out of orbit, as has been planned.
But the committee said its recommendation should be carried out only if the science to be performed in those additional years was able to beat competing proposals for new NASA science projects.
For the last 13 years, floating above the Earth's murky atmosphere, the telescope has beamed down crisp images of galaxies still forming at the dawn of cosmic time, peering into the hearts of galaxies and quasars in search of black holes, and investigating the mysterious "dark energy" that seems to be wrenching the cosmos apart.
"By any standards the H.S.T. has been a spectacular success -- one of the most remarkable facilities in the entire history of science," said the committee, whose chairman is Dr. John Bahcall of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, in a report posted yesterday on the Web site of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
The committee members and other astronomers pointed out, however, that since the breakup of the Columbia shuttle, the telescope's future has been threatened because it is hostage to the ability of a space shuttle to pay periodic visits for maintenance and to replace old instruments with new ones.
Those repair missions would take the shuttle too far from the orbit of the International Space Station in case of trouble. As a result, the space agency should be prepared for a range of possibilities, the report said, from no more shuttle missions to two.
More is likely to be heard on that score in a couple weeks when the report of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board is released. But ultimately, Dr. Bahcall said, Congress, the White House and the NASA administrator will decide whether the shuttle may visit the telescope.
Dr. Anne Kinney, who is in charge of astronomy and physics in the space agency's office of space science, said that the Bahcall committee's report was "a good report."
"It reminds us that we need to be flexible," Dr. Kinney said. But she added that there was no budget for the extra mission and no precedent for the kind of competition that Dr. Bahcall and his colleagues had proposed.
"It's going to be a challenge," she said.
Astronomers were generally pleased with the report. Dr. Wendy Freedman, director of the Carnegie Observatories in Pasadena, Calif., called it "balanced and thoughtful."
Dr. George Rieke, an infrared astronomer at the University of Arizona, said the idea of a competition was "a sensible way to deal with limited resources."
Dr. Steven V. W. Beckwith, director of the Space Telescope Science Institute, praised the report, saying, "I couldn't be happier."
He added:"Everyone here is tremendously grateful to NASA for its support of the Hubble. We're delighted to have the chance to compete to continue this extraordinary story."
The story of the $1 billion Hubble, launched in 1990, is one of the great comeback stories in modern science. It was designed to take advantage of an orbital vantage point above the Earth's atmosphere, which smears images and blocks some wavelengths of light from reaching ground-based telescopes.
Once it was in orbit, however, astronomers were devastated to discover that the telescope had a flawed mirror.
The flaw was corrected in 1993 by sky-walking astronauts who, in effect, fitted the telescope's instruments with corrective lenses, enabling Hubble to attain the glory for which it was designed.
NASA has long planned to end Hubble's spectacular run and bring it down to make way in the budget for the James Webb Space Telescope, now scheduled to be launched in 2011. But som
The flying hamster of DOOM rains coconuts on your pitiful city.
They should try to park the next one as far away from Hubble as possible. There might be some interesting things we could see with such a huge effective aperture.
JET Program: see Japan, meet intere
Perhaps they should consider selling it to another party. I'm sure there are some companies or non-profit organizations who would be interested and have the resources to take it over.
I saw keep it running as long as possible, then send a shuttle up to bring it back to the Smithsonian.
M@
Krispy Cream is people
Hubble has taken some amazing pictures during its time in space..I for one am hopeful they keep it going, I am in constant need of the desktop wallpapers produced as a result of it.
I hope the images the new telescope (James Webb) acquires won't be as bad as the ones on it's website.
I mean, the Hubble is very sophisticated an capable of aking excellent shots. If they had allocated a bit of the money from the Homeland dept. to the next Hubble (Webb) i'm sure they could have used Huble to take shots of Iran and North Korea.
Proud patriot and republican voter.
if anyone has thought of them sending up a mission and grabbing the telescope, and hauling it to the ISS and attaching it to the station? It could then have maintainance done by the station crew, parts delivered along with the regular flights to the ISS, and would keep on giving us great information for many years to come.
Robert
I didn't see anything on the Hubble page linked above as to what it costs to keep the telescope in orbit. Other than a little maintainence, it can't be that much, can it? I know that a "little" is a relative term, but still. I'd say leave it up there for as long as possible.
Overrated / Underrated : Moderation
NASA had stated that it wanted to bring the Hubble down in 2006 to make room in its budget for the Webb
Don't these scientist realize that in a government bureaucracy, the only way to get additional funding is to make sure the current system is 1)totally broke or 2)not in place?
If NASA keeps the Hubble operational, then it will be a *much* harder sell on Capitol Hill then if no telescope exists! Even those this seems very non-intuitive, this is the way much of government works. These NASA guys aren't that dumb...they just know how the system works
never bring a twinkie to a food fight.
Moving the Hubble involves a little more time, money, and energy than moving the salt across your kitchen table...
HAND
Hubble can't look at the earth because it's too bright. Even the nightside has so much light (human illumination, moonlight, lightning) that the Hubbles photodetectors would saturate and be permanently degraded or destroyed. The Hubble does not have a neutral density filter, just a shutter to block all light during servicing or if the attitude control that keeps it from seeing earth, moon, or sun goes south.
Isn't it amazing the scientists can pretty much say, without a doubt, that the launch of the Webb telescope, which is nearly 7 years away, will likely be delayed?
They know that NASA and the government is so lined with red-tape, and moves so slowly, that a project that is 7 years away won't be launched on time.
It's even more amazing that when most people hear that it will likely be delayed, they aren't surprised in any way.
So they would prefer to spend the money to take it down, then send up another... but if they don't spend money to take it down they can't afford another one?
Man they must burn stacks of $50 bills in a furnace to power the dish on the ground!
I think NASA should stop sending maned missions to space. Yes, its fun watching manes flap in the wind at launch. It gives NASA the fun, excitement and anticipation of the horse races. But manes really don't help the mission at all and cause more friction than they are worth...Not to mention the cost of grooming and shampoo. Unmaned space exploration is a lot more efficient. So I say get out the scissors and cut the manes off.
What in the name of flaming hamsters are you babbeling about?
Posted: Once it was in orbit, however, astronomers were devastated to discover that the telescope had a flawed mirror.
Site Original: Once it was in orbit, however, astronomers were devastated to discover that the telescope had a flawed mirror.
No difference.
The flying hamster of DOOM rains coconuts on your pitiful city.
Not EVERYTHING captured by Hubble is pleasant to look at.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
I am thinking Ants and a Magnifying Glass here.
Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
The full story is also at:
This caught my eye:
The 10-page report released Thursday outlined three options for NASA to choose from to achieve a transition from Hubble to the almost $1 billion James Webb Space Telescope, the planned successor to Hubble currently scheduled to launch in about 2011, aboard a European Ariane 5 booster.Why would NASA (or the US for that matter) allow such an expensive and high profile mission to fly on the worlds most unreliable rocket, when better domestic alternatives are available?
an ill wind that blows no good
I'm sure the idea has come up more than a few times at NASA, and I'd wager that the reason they can't do this is that the Hubble would be subject to more atmospheric interference at the ISS' altitude, limiting the Hubble's usefulness.
Perhaps our next space station (which, hopefully, will be more of a space service station) will be positioned higher up, then they could keep satellites tethered to it for incremental upgrades and maintenance work.
they should just keep the hubble working until it well, cant. dont decommision something that gives us as good pictures as these while it is still working.
-caf
Have you ever been involved in a large project? It's not just the government, its an issue of scale.
Quack, quack.
well sure it will take over with a name like 'X'. i mean, you wouldn't hear about planet 'daisy' destroying our civilization
Here's a link to a white paper (PDF format) prepared by the Space Telescope Science Institute's Scientific Staff with their input to NASA on why they feel Hubble's mission should be extended.
After the dot-com bust, I can understand why NASA is having trouble getting funding for the Space Wide Webb.
Sorry.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
this as close to any of your irrelevant topics as we get.
all these whoreabull greed/fear based attempts to censor/manipulate, is not very helpful. no matter, the tasks will be accomplished.
FYI: The cost to keep the Hubble in orbit and to maintain it is roughly 200 million a year.
I wish I had some text to go with that subject.
The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who cannot read them. - Mark Twain
don't fret, its just some poor training you picked up somewhere. if we had to do everything buy the queen's southern baptist freemason nazi 'rules', you'd be doomed.
These kind of scopes are long and slender and rotate and act like a much larger scope .
Why doesn't NASA sponsor an X-Prize type contest where the first team to recover the Hubble gets to keep it under the same terms as the copyright of a new Disney movie. That would spur private space transportation development, save the Hubble from fiery death, and create pressure to shorten the terms on copyrights.
I know, pie-in-the-sky. But so was Hubble, once.
- Hail to our fearless misleader! Fool speed ahead!
If the Hubble is going to be written off and dumped into the ocean anyway, it seems like this is an opportunity for some high-risk, but high-payoff gamble.
For instance, it could be used to justify the development of an orbital tele-operated robot that would extend the senses and limbs of a repair technician on Earth into low orbit.
Imagine a fairly light, solar powered, tele-operated robot launched into a parking orbit near the Hubble. New equipment and booster rockets could then be launched to the Hubble aboard a fairly low cost ferry rocket. The tele-operated robot would be activated by a remote operator to unpack the equipment from the supply ferry and re-supply the Hubble. Old equipment could be packed back into the ferry and dumped in the ocean. Aftewards, the tele-operated robot would return to it's parking orbit or if small enough simply cling to the side of the Hubble to wait for the next supply mission.
It would be an amazing feat of technology to remotely service a device as complex as the Hubble without actual human presence. This would eliminate the huge overhead incurred by minimizing risk to human life on such missions and conceivably dramatically drive down the cost for maintenance and repair. It would also set precedence for even more complex construction and repair projects using such robots in space close enough where radio propagation delays don't impede operation.
Coming up with a reasonably inexpensive way to keep the Hubble working for another 30 years would be a huge gift to Science, mankind and our children.
It just seems to me that NASA, SETI, and other institutions should be looking at the nearest star systems before looking any further beyond reasonable contact range just in case there is life out there. To me, you'd [any agency] would want to start with Alpha Centari (apologies if it is spelled "Centuri") since its only 4 light years-away. I've never heard any mention whether or not there are any planets in that star system. The closest star system to us [Sol system, Terra] I've heard confirmation of having planets is the Pegasus system, but that is over 50 light-years away. If we sent a formal signal to Alpha Centari, it would only take 4 years to get there; and if there was intelligent life that wanted to accept our collect call, another 4 years to receive a response. Compare that to NASA's wisdom in sending a radio transmission to a star system 10,000 light-years away back in the late 1970s and you can understand why NASA often comes up in conversations as a reference for stupidity. So, with that all said, does anyone know if NASA has used to the Hubble to take a peak at our neighbors in Alpha Centari? Ever???
"Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
Not only do they already have satellites built expressly for this purpose but for visual intelligence work the satellite needs to be in as low an orbit as possible and be in a near polar orbit so it passes over the area in question at approx the same time every day (to allow for height calculations). The Hubble fails on both accounts (plus for reasons others have mentioned).
A plane is the best platform of all.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
Anther satellite that wouldn't work here is the Chandra X-ray telescope (and the proposed Constillation X project) both have to be in very high orbits to get above the background x-ray radiation of the earth's upper atmospheric fringe.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
open4free
No, that's not what the scientists are saying (IAMAS). The thing about rocket launches, is that they never happen on time. They're always delayed. American rockets are not very reliable.
I've been to a couple launches, but have stopped going. A couple times I've been invited to watch a friend's project launch, and most of the time I decline. I can usually only schedule a 3-day window, have airfare and a hotel lined up. But if it gets delayed for a week, what's the point in even going?
Now, there are other things that delay launches. Technology checks and budget problems are sure to affect any schedule where sensitive, expensive equipment is going to be launched into space.
But please do not add to the lame cynicism and uninsightfulness that plagues Slashdot by just blaming the bureaucracy and "red tape."
Thanks.
I seriously therefore doubt all the posts about the Earth, even the nightside of the Earth, being too bright for Hubble to image. Too bright? Reduce your shutter speed !
Also, one poster said the Earth is too close to focus on. Probably also incorrect. Remember the Hubble is ? a few hundred miles up ?. Typically with telescopes or camera lenses, the focus difference between "infinity focus" and "a few hundred miles" is non-existent. Not like the Hubble is exempt from being a telescope. As a matter of fact it's a Ritchey-Cretian telescope just like you can buy here on Earth from these dudes.
"...so what did we just blow up?"
"The Hubble Telescope"
Gotta love Zapp Branagon. I think we should just him take care of this matter.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
They've already got great pictures on the site, they aren't too beautifull (the hubble beats this easily by a big margin, however the focussing problem has already been mentioned here on slashdot). They are funny enough however. Take a good look...
r eO fTheWeek.html
http://www.ngst.nasa.gov/PictureOfTheWeek/Pictu
Warper
Moreover, the Webb is being designed for the infrared wavelengths that very distant galaxies would be emitting as they sped away in the expanding universe, not the visible wavelengths that Hubble sees so exquisitely.
Does that mean that if it goes down the Webb wont be able to provide us with images such as the ones found at the hubblesite archive?
If this is the case, then I hope every effort is made to keep the Hubble up there as long as possible. Perhaps it would be better for astronomy if the Hubble and the Webb would complement each other instead of having one replace the other.
Just my 2 cts.
486s produce less heat, are better tested, survive space radiation and suck less power, while they can still tell an Engine (left, more left, now right...) I figure the Math for that is not THAT complex.
I don't see what's so hard about this.. it's not rocket science..
*rimshot*
This one?
Oh, give me a locus where the gravitons focus
Where the three-body problem is solved,
Where the microwaves play down at three degrees K,
And the cold virus never evolved.
(chorus)
We eat algea pie, our vacuum is high,
Our ball bearings are perfectly round.
Our horizon is curved, our warheads are MIRVed,
And a kilogram weighs half a pound.
(chorus)
If we run out of space for our burgeoning race
No more Lebensraum left for the Mensch
When we're ready to start, we can take Mars apart,
If we just find a big enough wrench.
(chorus)
I'm sick of this place, it's just McDonald's in space,
And living up here is a bore.
Tell the shiggies, "Don't cry," they can kiss me goodbye
'Cause I'm moving next week to L4!
(chorus)
CHORUS: Home, home on LaGrange,
Where the space debris always collects,
We possess, so it seems, two of Man's greatest dreams:
Solar power and zero-gee sex.
--Home on Lagrange (The L5 Song)
(C) 1978 by William S. Higgins and Barry D. Gehm
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Here's a wild thought.... build these space telescopes right on the surface of the moon! They'd be able to make it as gawdawful huge as they wanted, since it would be terrain based, and they could broadcast the pics back to earth just like the Hubble does now. With multiple telescopes in the right places, they could even get a 360 degree view of the sky at any time (ie, they wouldn't have to wait for the moon to rotate into position)
It's not like we don't have the technology to get there.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
If they want to continue paying for Hubble, why not allow private industry to use Hubble at a certain price? For example, charge so many dollars per minute for use of Hubble. NASA gets a clerk who schedules use of Hubble based on what people want to look at with it. Hubble is scheduled for maximum utilization, if at all possible. NASA actually does the work, making sure that nobody fscks up the telescope. When images come in, NASA could sell all kinds of additional services, like image processing.
I know this isn't exactly a compelling business plan for a company like, say, Joe's Dent Repair or something, but think of the possibilities:
bersl2's First Corollary to the Law of Moderation:
When talking about the Hubble Space Telescope, bersl2 will always be modded down.
from the hubble-trouble-kerfuffle dept.
-----
Score 3? For what? Being wrong, at length? - smirkleton
You may be reading some articles stating that the Webb is the replacement for Hubble, but it simply isn't true.
a sp
Here is a quote from "Sky and Telescope":
"Three issues lie at the heart of the debate.
First, Hubble has unique capabilities for ultraviolet and visible-light astronomy that will not be replaced by any other planned mission for 10 to 20 years (Webb is designed mainly for infrared imaging and spectroscopy).
Second, Webb hasn't yet moved much beyond the drawing board and may not be ready for launch until the middle of the next decade, leaving astronomers with no space telescope at all for several years if Hubble shuts down by 2010.
And third, Hubble is more than just a telescope. "HST is widely recognized as an extraordinary scientific, educational, and inspirational national asset," wrote Garth Illingworth (University of California, Santa Cruz) and Michael Shull (University of Colorado). In other words, it is an icon."
Read more at:
http://skyandtelescope.com/news/article_1017_1.
"Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." - John Lennon.
TPF http://planetquest.jpl.nasa.gov/TPF/tpf_index.html l
SIM http://planetquest.jpl.nasa.gov/SIM/sim_index.htm
LISA http://lisa.jpl.nasa.gov/
For those of you who dislike nytimes registration,
9 99 94061
here is the newscientist link:
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns
You mean the cost of operations on the ground of course. Now it's launched, it does cost anything for it to turn around the planet. If Nasa don't want to use it anymore, I'm sure many space agencies around the world would agree to operate it.
People say it should be brought back for a museum, and that the study of micro-impacts on it would be usefull. I wonder if it's worth the cost. The cheapest solution is to let it fall. I bet there is no reentry shield on it and it would burn completly before reaching the ground.
It was a scare tactic. A few weeks later, the UW was enrolling students as usual. NASA is doing the same thing.
"If we don't get enough money, we'll have to abandon Hubble"
I heard somewhere that the newer ground-based optical telescope with adaptive optics can equal or exceed the Hubble's resolution.
I don't know how feasible it would be to attempt to connect two far-apart space telescopes as an optical interferometer. IANA space telescope expert of course, but it seems to me that it'd be extremely complicated to keep two scopes aligned precisely enough.
The previous comment only listed space-based interferometers, though the question may have been in regards to some ground-based ones:
t ml
Keck Interferometer: http://planetquest.jpl.nasa.gov/Keck/keck_index.h
VLTI: http://www.eso.org/projects/vlti/
OHANA: http://www.cfht.hawaii.edu/~lai/ohana.html
Large Binocular Telescope: http://medusa.as.arizona.edu/lbtwww/lbt.html
Or, for a more complete listing: http://olbin.jpl.nasa.gov/links/index.html
I'm not sure what was meant by "Large Interferometer telescope", there are many with names close to that, as listed above, but not exactly. The closest is probably the LBT.
In the previous comment, note that LISA is not a photon detector, but rather gravitational wave detector.
As for status, LBT is under construction, Keck and VLTI have the first results out, I'm not sure about OHANA.
I'm a troll because my opinion hurts, doesn't it? Yeah!
The reason sevicing missions to Hubble are so expensive is that NASA only has one manned spacecraft design: the expensive and not quite safe space shuttle.
The much cheaper Soyuz craft are usually launched from Kazakhstan, thus giving them the wrong *orbital inclination* for a rendezvous with Hubble, but the French launch site at Kourou has a R7/Soyuz-compatible launch pad under construction.
The reason the French are planning to use the Russian R 7 launcher is that the R 7 is extremely reliable, and as cheap per pound to orbit as the space shuttle.
If NASA could put pragmatism before prestige, Souyz missions to Hubble could be launched from Kourou at a fraction of the cost of launching the 2000-ton shuttle/solid fuel booster combination.
If it was necessary to add rockets to send Hubble into a higher "mothballing" orbit, a Progress capsule could be launched with the heavy load that could not be sent along with a Soyuz. This would take two R7 launches (one crewed Soyuz, one unmanned Progress) -still a trivial cost compared to a single shuttle launch.
Also, the Souyz is a thoroughly proven, simple and safe design, so the crew would not be in any danger.
The problem is not technology, but politics: The NASA administrators would rather let Hubble burn in the atmosphere than admit a 35-year old foreign design is better than the shuttle for the job.
Yours Birger Johansson
Lets nuke the SOB and have thousands of years of pretty meteor showers for all the little kiddies of the world!