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."
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
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.
With all due respect to the families, I am not so sure they know an emergency when they see it, literally.
I would feel better if we did everything we could to keep it in space until a replacement is operational, and then after that as long as it is cost effective. Its kinda what my dad told me about my first car: "Put as little money in it as you can, and drive it until it blows up."
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
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.
The Hubble is not designed to focus on anything even remotely that 'near'. It's not even designed to work to maximum effect on anything within the solar system, but it has been used to that purpose previously. But imaging the Earth? No way. Plus there are already numerous such satellites already in orbit that are designed to do that as their primary job. That would be a big waste.
No, keeping the Hubble in orbit is a great idea, even after the new one goes up - the Hubble can still be used by other astronomers who can't get time on the new one.
One option is to send a rocket to boost HST into a much higher orbit. Effectively mothballed, it could be re-fitted or returned to Earth once a safer shuttle replacement is available. Of coarse this presupposes the shuttle replacement will have a cargo hold large enough to hold it. It would be cool to visit HST in your local science museum in years to come, though.
That's a great idea, although seeing as how I'm not an astro-physicist (IANAAP?) I'm not sure if that would be viable.
I've thought for a while the best way to make a space station useful is to use it as a general settelite hosting platform. Build a dozen of these in geo-synch orbit (like the GPS sattelites), and mount different systems to them, like the aforementioned GPS, communications relays (TV, phone, etc.) and some outward-facing stuff like hubble. Then you can make money by charging people for hosting and upkeep, and keep a crew onboard for occastional maintenance.
This would have the added bonus of consolidating a bunch of the sattelites spinning around the planet, making it safer for further launches. And forget the shuttle, it's too over-engineered and expensive. Stick to simple rockets and capsules, it's cheaper and more reliable. This is how you make money in space.
Then, some day in the long run, you use these stations to assemble and launch real space-ships, ones that don't have to deal with the problems of getting to and from the bottom of a gravity well.
Ahh, dreams...
- sig? who is this sig of which you speak?
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.
Hubble is 375 miles up; ISS is 240-ish. Wouldn't getting from Hubble to ISS just be a controlled reduction in orbital speed to dropped the altitude? Or, reading a bit between the lines, is the real issue that the shuttles don't have any purely manual thrusters that can be operated without the core systems running?
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.
From NASA's about page
Ok, $220 million out of a budget which is projected for 2004 to be $15.47 billion or about 14%. For 3-5 GB of data per day (1.095-1.825 TB/year), this doesn't sound like that bad of a return on investment to me. Any word on how much data the new telescope will collect, and at what cost?
Overrated / Underrated : Moderation
I don't know, but is landing the space shuttle with more weight a good idea?
Sometimes the shuttle bay is filled with things when it comes down, but the hubble is quite a peice of metal. How does it compare to other things it has landed with.
Ohyeah, IANARS (rocket scientist).
Norris/Palin 2012
Fact: We deserve leaders who can kick your ass and field dress your carcass.
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.
Just for kicks, I'd also like to mention the irony that the first star system to be found to have planets outside our own solar system was Pegasus, the same star system the alledged aliens from the famous Betty & Barney Hill (not to be confused with Benny Hill) 1960s abduction indicated they were from... That discovery made me chuckle when I saw it the news report...
"Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
I almost certainly don't know what I'm talking about, but why couldn't NASA pay the Soviets to fire up a couple engineers and the necessary gear to maintain Hubble?
Then the only orbital change would be the one that brings the Soviet vehicle back to Earth.
This has been done; a few years ago, someone thought they saw a planet in orbit around Proxima Centauri (the dwarf companion to the binary Alpha system). But this has apparently not been confirmed. See this link for more information. As far as beaming transmissions at it, I'll bet somebody has done that. And I'll bet that radio telescopes have been pointed at it.
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.
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'
Why cant they just stick a camera on the ISS itself and be done with it?
I heard somewhere that the newer ground-based optical telescope with adaptive optics can equal or exceed the Hubble's resolution.