Slashdot Mirror
NASA Debates How And When To Kill Hubble Telescope
Amy's Robot writes "The Washington Post reports that after 13 years of wear and tear, the Hubble telescope may be on the way out. NASA and some outside scientists have become involved in a heated debate about how and when to end the Hubble telescope program. Keeping Hubble in service until 2020 would require an extra maintenance visit by astronauts at a cost of at least $600 million. Some even worry the batteries could fail by 2010, since the next maintenance visit has been delayed by the Columbia accident and space station priorities. Is it worth maintaining our old friend Hubble, or should NASA let him go out in a blaze of glory?"
Do you want a 12 tons falling on your house?
Instead, NASA's plan now calls for building an unmanned craft, which would be launched on a throwaway rocket and attach itself to the Hubble to steer the telescope safely into the Pacific Ocean -- eliminating any possibility that the 12.5-ton telescope could fall on, say, Mexico City or Miami.
The grass is only greener, if you don't take care of your own lawn.
seems fairly cheap to me, compared to what it would cost to build and launch a new one
Give the "hunk-of-junk" to me... I'm sure I can find many... uses, for it... **cough** SETI@HOME **cough**
Business \Busi"ness\, n.;
A scam in which all people involved perceive as beneficial...
I wonder if they can keep things going for a while by auctioning off time of the telescope? I doubt they could raise 600 million, but I'd bet they could keep things going for a while.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
I think it would be stupid^H^H^H^H^H^Hoverly optimistic to de-orbit Hubble until the new Webb space telescope is launched and fully tested. After all, how dumb would NASA look if it destroyed a perfectly good piece of equipment, and then its replacement fubared because of a mismatched washer or something.
And right now, the plan is to do just that, to bring down Hubble before Webb is even launched, to save a few (million) bucks in Hubble operational costs. And the big debate is that everyone with any sense, and any sense of history, is telling them (NASA penny pinchers) that they're crazy.
"A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush." Something NASA should consider before taking penny-wise, pound-foolish steps.
Cheers!
"The only good windmill is a tilted windmill."
One B-2 Stealth Bomber --> $2.2 Billion USD
15+ more years of Hubble --> $600 Million USD
which would contribute more?
Now I won't claim that the ISS has produced zero science, but I will claim that it's a mighty expensive way to do science. Humans in space may win congressional votes, but they're a pretty expensive way to do research. Remote control machines such as the space telescope, the Mars landers, Voyager, etc. have produced much more science for much less money.
If we let the ISS drop, there's be plenty of money to keep Hubble running, build its successor, send machines to Pluto, and a ton of other stuff. Unfortunately, the political reality is that Congress and the American public aren't particularly interested in the actual science. But we're willing to spend $2.5 billion per year because we think astronauts are cool!
--- Often in error; never in doubt!
Remember Skylab?
Yes, Skylab! It was the first manned space station, and it was american! well, anyway, instead of worrying about TODAY and keeping it operational with TODAY's technology, the pie-in-the-sky nasa engineers decided to wait until tomorrow's technology could save them from poor planning.
Do I see history repeating itself?
MARK MY WORDS: If they allow Hubble to de-orbit, in order to free up cash to build a new replacement, THERE WILL BE NO REPLACEMENT FOR A VERY LONG TIME. Remember, this is Congress, isn't it? And this is a country filled with half-ignoramus who get all their news from Rupert Murdoch.
Cue "Dueling Banjos" - "How come we spend all this money on space monkeys when we don't have no jobs down here?"
Of course, you try to inform these people that NASA has a very small budget - pratically non-existant next to the defense department's big money handout, and that many of the NASA programs are actually at the behest of the Department of Defense, so that their "real budget" for science is very very small.
Cue "Dueling Banjos", again: "But we don't need no science, we need jobs"
Of course, this man is retarded - but he actually represents the majority sentiment.
Now, of course, to you and me, we see the hallmark of a productive society as scientific research. And we are smart enough to know that science for science's sake often has a fantastic impact on everyday lives, etc...
But, this hayseed has a congressman, who also wants to know why you crazy science people want $600 million just to look at the sky.
So, keep in mind - if Hubble fails, their will be no timely replacement.
I appreciate your insistence that the only reason to go into space is for scientific knowledge, but I don't think your premise regarding manned space flight is correct.
All the knowledge we gain (scientific or otherwise) is ultimately tied to the fact that we must eventually leave this world if we are to grow as a species. Eventually, manufacturing, mining, and even our quality of life will depend on this.
I also don't see how burning up an unused/unfinished $13 billion dollar investment is considered a plus for all the people who have paid for it. I also don't see how you can gauge the scientific potential of the ISS before it's finished and has a full crew dedicated to experimentation and science.
I agree that we should find a way to increase NASA's budget. I believe there is no reason to down the Hubble if we can service it and it remains useful. I don't believe the way to accomplish either goal is to abandon manned spaceflight, or cannibalize it for other programs. We spend 400 billion on our military every year, surely we can find a way of cannabalizing THAT boondoggle before picking on any of NASA's current budget?
"Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect."- Steven Wright
Visible light is important. Not as much for deep sky objects, sure. And probably not even for the next generation or two of space telescopes. But we have not even come close to being able to visually look at even our closest neighboring star systems. We rely on gravity wobbles and visual occultation to find other planets. As our resolving power improves, we will begin to make out these details and it will likely be one of the larger discoveries that have been made this century (assuming it happens this century).
Physicists probably won't care much about other star systems while they're struggling to unify special relativity and general relativity, but plenty of other branches of science will. So don't dismiss visual wavelengths.
Random and weird software I've written.