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
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
The Hubble was designed (and originally planned) to be returned with a Shuttle. But due to the latest happenings, that's been canned. It's too bad, since there would be plenty of science and engineering learned from reviewing the affects the environement had on the materials of Hubble.
~afniv
"Man könnte froh sein, wenn die Luft so rein wäre wie das Bier"
Richard von Weizs
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.
Hubble Altitude = 370 statute miles
Space Station Altitude = 240 statute miles
Difference = Waaaaay too much.
"A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
GeneralEmergency
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.
FYI: The cost to keep the Hubble in orbit and to maintain it is roughly 200 million a year.
No, this is far from the first mission to the Earth-Sun lagrange points. I know of at least two sat at L1 (between Earth and Sun), SOHO, a solar obervatory, and Genesis, a solar wind collector. There is also at least one at L2 (opposite side of Earth from Sun), MAP, a cosmic background radiation mapper.
All the stories about colonization of the lagrange points are the Earth-Moon points. I don't know if there have been any missions to these points, but that doesn't mean there hasn't been any.
Lots of technical and environmental problems are solved by the application of vast amounts of nuclear power
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.
More specifically (from Celestrak)
Hubble: 28 degrees inclination
ISS: 51 degrees inclination
Exercise for the student: work out the required delta V (here's a useful reference). Compare with the Shuttle's on-orbit delta V. It's cheaper (and lots easier) to land and get a fresh launch.
...laura
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