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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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'
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