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 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 seriously doubt this as a viable alternative. NASA is a US government agency that develops leading-edge space technologies. I do not think they would want to turn over such a highly-sophisticated telescope to anyone else, especially non-US companies.
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.
As I understand it, the problem right now is that without a propulsion system, they have no control over where Hubble will come down. And in its current orbit, it will come down eventually. If they decided to let it come down, putting a propulsion system on it so that it's a controlled descent is just a matter of taking responsibility and making sure it doesn't land on someone's house.
BTW, the original plan was to bring it down in the shuttle and put it in the Smithsonian. But I believe that was dependent on having Columbia around.
Much more about Hubble is available at the Space Telescope Science Institute's web site.
How many companies or non-profit organizations have their own Space Shuttles?
No electrons were harmed creating this post, though some may have been subjected to electrical and/or magnetic fields.
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?
Because in 7 years time, it will either be the most reliable rocket - or it will have been replaced. (Hopefully)
That and ESA is a partner in the project. More Info
The Ariane V crashed not due to the rocket itself being unreliable but due to human error. The Ariane V accidentally got guidance software from its predecessor uploaded into its systems which caused the rocket overcorrect its trajectory, steering it too much off its course too quickly. The resulting forces of a blazing engine pushing against an overtilted rocket did the rest: it ruptured and exploded. Had the Ariane V's construction been at fault, it would have momst likely exploded much sooner. The accident happened approx 30 seconds after ignition. I'm not an expert, but my gut feeling tells me that if a rocket survives its first 30 seconds, its construction is solid.
The software error was easily corrected, so now the Ariane 5 should have no problems as a reliable launch vehicle. If the Ariane IV is anything to go by, NASA will be hard pushed to find a better alternative.
Learn from the mistakes of others. There isn't enough time to make them all yourself.
Compare the amount that weve spent to keep the space station in orbit to the amount weve spent to keep hubble in orbit versus the amount of science generated by those dollars and hubble is looking better and better all the time.
I figure the Math for that is not THAT complex.
Yeah... it's not like it's rocket science or anything. *ducks*
Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
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:
A few years ago, Clementine detected indications of water-ice in some permanently shadowed craters near the southern lunar pole. One of those could make a great place for a telescope, particularly one in the IR-band. The coolant would last a heck of a long time thanks to the permanent shadow. We could even use the water-ice on site to create a closed-loop LOX-cooled telescope perhaps. I'd rather see that project than any one of a number of unneeded DOD projects.
Bush Lies On the Record.