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
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.
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.
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.