Slashdot Mirror
NASA Cancels Hubble Mission, and Other Space Bits
An anonymous reader writes "NASA Watch is reporting that NASA has cancelled Servicing Mission 4 for the Hubble Space Telescope. The reason given is not for budgets, but for safety." ender81b writes "With all the excitement generated by the Mars Exploration Rovers now is a good time to look at future space exploration missions. One of the most exciting is the Kepler spacecraft which will search for terrestrial planets around nearby stars. Other interesting upcoming missions include the New Horizons mission to explore Pluto and the Kuiper belt, Deep Impact which will fire a small impactor into a comet to study the insides, Messenger which will fully photograph Mercury for the first time, and the ESA's Herschel infrared space telescope and Rosetta spacecraft which will land on a comet for the first time. Whew, good time to be invovled in space exploration!" StarWreck writes "Cnet.com is reporting that the Mars Rover uses Java. The same piece of software that lets people around the world play video games on their cell phones is now letting scientists drive the ultimate remote-controlled car across the surface of Mars."
Making NASA stronger == Kill NASA.
Don't Leave Children Behind == Leave them behind.
Healthy Forests == Cut down the forests.
I'm a space fan. I like manned space programs too. But they are going to wreck what NASA does do well, scientific research, for a program they will also not complete.
-pyrrho
And, therefore, make a complete fool of themselves?
I can see the inevitable kneejerk reaction now. "OMG Bush is taking away money from science to fund his reelection he is evil."
Get A GRIP!
This was being considered before Bush's new proposal. It is not the fault of his proposal. And we are going to have a replacement put up. Nothing is being lost here, nothing is being sacrificed on the altar of MTMS, Man To Mars Soonest.
We're spending in the billions for a failure rate that wouldn't be tolerated in any long-term business venture. The program should seek alternative funding, perhaps via advertisement opportunities or by seizing the potential of the universe as a means of solving our garbage crisis, so that we can meet our space exploration goals on a faster timetable and take safety a little more seriously.
The impactor's purpose would not be to destroy the comet, but merely to penetrate the outer shell to see what's inside a typical comet.
I've been a fan of the Space program since I was a kid watching guys in bulky suits bounce around on the Moon. I may have been a fan earlier, but I don't remember much about the space program before Apollo.
Hubble was an amazing piece of hardware, designed to be serviced by the then-existant shuttle fleet. Which, as we all know, isn't what it used to be.
NASA's budget is limited. Always has been, always will be. They've got to make decisions on whether to keep servicing an old scope that, admitedly, is still doing good science, or spend their money on new projects that will arguably jump the state of the art as far ahead of Hubble as Hubble did in its day.
With the quality and light gathering abilities of surface based scopes approacing or surpassing Hubble - thanks to advances in adaptive optics and other fields - the decision to discontinue servicing Hubble is understandable. It was a fantastic instrument, and it will be missed when the mission finally ends. Note that the announcement isn't "Turn it off tomorrow." It's "We're not going to do any more servicing, but we'll let run until it dies of natural causes."
Never attribute to malice what can as easily be the result of incompetence...
I think the apps for stuff on earth are java, the code on the rover is not. If you look at the command center you will see SUNs around, and lots of the engineers sitting around with apple powerbooks, so I can see the apps for it being java.
While a lot of this might be politics, the truth is, Hubble is what it is and has reached a point of where the question is, is it important to spend billions to service Hubble, or do we move on to something better. It would be nice if the space crews could drop by Hubble now and then and clean the bugs off the mirror, charge the battery, change the oil, but the truth is, this will be a task for the antique space junk fanatics of the centuries to come, they can take pictures of them next to it and post them on the Net with their cars with fins. We need to move on.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
first im fairely sure it said "blowing a chunk out" not "blowing up"
second there are a lot of explosives that do not denoated if they crash into objects (nuclear weapons are a good example - they will ONLY detonate if their DETONATION CIRCUITRY initiates a detonation -- and they can be impact-harddened so that if they crash the casing won't even crack -- hell i bet you could shield a nuke enough to let it survive reentery without it leaking any radioactivity let alone detonating)
it's sad when mindless reactionism is modded insightful
If you cannot keep politics out of your moderation remove yourself from the Mod Lottery.. NOW!
I'm assuming that the limited amount of power the rover has access to would forbid the use of Java, would that be right?
Well, J2ME runs on cellphones, right? That is a restricted power environment. The original intent of Java was for small devices. As far as control from the ground, yes that is true, but it's not real time because of the rather long distances... you would certainly want some autonomy in the rover.
NASA doesn't have that much money to play with anymore, and the hundreds of millions needed for another repair mission (even before the backup orbiter issue) was going to seriously screw up the timing of even getting the follow on telescope into the sky, not to mention the other robotic missions they're trying to keep alive.
Luke, help me take this mask off
The messages linked to state that the Hubble service mission was cancelled purely for safety reasons, and that "Only ISS missions will be carried out in the future" out of concern for shuttle inspection procedures. The general purpose space shuttle has been reduced to only being used for one particular type of mission - it's useful life is effectively over.
The space telescope is a science project that has produced a lot of valuable information. There is some risk involved in a mission to service it, but there is not known to be a high probability of failure.
The newly announced mission to mars also has a science component, but is also largely a human exploration project. Without sending people, we could still get great science done by sending robots, especially if we were to spend the same amount of money as we are willing to spend to send humans. Sending people is a feel-good exercise, yet for this we are willing to take on great risks. The chances that some harm (if not death) will come to the astronauts looks very high. Even with the kind of technology we might be able to develop over the next 30 years there are still some serious inherent risks that will not be overcome.
It's an interesting contrast:- for science we are apparently not willing to take any risk, but for the sake of a feel good exercise we are willing to take an enourmous risk.
Its a shell game. Bush announces new space plan: ' I hold a silver dollar in my hand'. Nasa immediately organizes and abandons hubble telescope mission. Nasa decides to abandon space station after completing it. Nasa decides to abandon shuttle replacement because the US wont be using the station after completing it and retiring shuttle Expect the following: To go the moon will require reinventing a rocket similiar to saturn 5 but at least twice the capacity. Money wont be found for this and that will kill the moon lander and mars landers. Nasa gets reduced by 1/2 or 2/3rds and will only launch small robotic vehicles to moon and mars. After awhile Nasa can't get budget for even those, because we've been there and done that. End of Nasa. End of US space program. Year 2012.
Canceling Hubble might be a good idea in the long run, but I think it's a shame that it's being done in the name of safety. NASA is basically saying that Shuttle is not reliable enough to return people from orbit. But it will be a long time before any other vehicle approaches a 99% success rate (Russian capsules excluded).
I think a lot of the changes being made in wake of Columbia make sense, such as inspections at the station and using our much-improved imaging capabilities to inspect STS. These changes basically looked at the whole program history, and asked, "What can we do to make shuttle better & more reliable based upon advances in technology." On the other hand, bagging non-ISS trips entirely (or setting such high hurdles that they are no longer feasible) seems short-sighted and a little bit cowardly.
If it's no longer cost-effective to run Hubble, then let it come down. Otherwise, let's not put unreasonable requirements on shuttle and keep Hubble running. The shuttle had dozens of flights before ISS was built, and it's safer now than it was then.
This administration has no interest in science, mostly because they lack intellectual curiosity, as do most religious types, I might add.
Putting a man on the moon! I guess he got this Vision Thing from his Dad.
Help fight continental drift.
It seems like it is just an excuse from the head of NASA, who was a beancounter, alone. Perhaps the most tragic thing was that Columbia was lost while on a purely-for-science mission.
The thing is, bang for bucks, Hubble must be at least two orders of magnitude above the ISS in returning scientific data. It would not have costed above 10billion, compared to the hundreds of billions the ISS sucked up, and it had given us little, or next to nothing scientific data. No permanent scientific crew, the Destiny science module not being put to good use because the barebone crew of two is too preoccupied running it. All it stands for is an ego booster - we have a permanent manned presence in space, albeit a skeletal crew stuck for years in low Earth orbit, forever tied down doing endless plumbing just to keep it there.
I am starting to doubt if we will see a Hubble successor. And the sad fact is that we will not be fully realising the potential of Hubble, a good piece of hardware that had inspired and impressed so many of us at such a bargain price of under the cost of a B2 bomber.
We're thinking of sending someone to mars, but that Hubble thing--WAY too dangerous!
"he drew his sword Ringil that glittered like ice... and he wounded Morgoth with seven wounds..."
The space race was a race, and in the 60's people new race was a risk that people took, was not safe, it was a balance between safety and cutting edge... It's a calculated gamble. You balance the risk with the will to win.
In this day of safety latches and plastic electrical covers for "child safe homes," and McDonald's lawsuits over hot coffee being too hot, is it any wonder that NASA is failing?
When I was a kid, I stuck a fork in an electrical outlet and LEARNED MY LESSON, I put my hand on the stove and LEARNED MY LESSON. I also have been burned by hot coffee in a McDonald's Styrofoam (not environmentally friendly) coffee cup.
Did I sue? Did I blame society? NO. That's just life lesson, things hurt, knifes are sharp and carving a pumpkin can result in injury... THAT WAS LIFE.
Now days, with the world as it is, is there any wonder NASA is failing? What was that famous 60's quote by an Apollo astronaut? Something about "we are sitting in a 10 sq ft cone on 90 tons of explosive fuel, does this feel as crazy to you as it does to me?" Something like that, I wish I had the real quote.. But point is, It's about pushing the limits of what humans can do, not about putting foam safety bumpers on all the sharp corners you could get a bo-bo from.
According to this NY Times article ...$200 million worth of instruments that had been built to be added in the later shuttle mission will also be left on the ground...
It also notes that a service mission costs around $500 million. If we have already invested 40% of the price of a service mission on parts we might want to consider actually using them.
It's not too dangerous to haul more wasted money to that floating albatross in the sky, but it is too dangerous to service the Hubble, which is arguably the most important telescope in the history of astronomy.
Asshats.
The responses you see here aren't really negativism and pessimism. They're anti-Bush hysteria. If Howard Dean had announced the same plan, the same I'm-against-Bush-because-the-man-on-TV-told-me-to crowd would be drooling all over themselves at this brave heralding of man's destiny in the stars.
All employees must wash hands before seeking equitable relief.
That's why I keep reiterating the need for nuclear powered launchers. Development would cost less than building a new Saturn V, and with 6 million pound launch capacity (2 million cargo) we could send an entire space station up in one go!
...
The same nuclear power could take us on round trip excursions to Mars in a fraction of the time it would take a chemical rocket!
Ah, fuck it. No one's paying any attention anyway.
*sigh*
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
NASA is not going to die. Most people seem to forget that NASA stands for National Aeronautics and Space Administration. There's an awful lot more going on than a few robotic probes and shuttle launches.
What is abundantly clear, however, is that Bush's "space initiative" is nothing more than smoke and mirrors designed to boost his approval ratings. Let's crunch a few numbers: Bush's plan set aside an additional $12 billion for developing a "Saturn Mark II" launch vehicle with a capsule capable of landings on both the Moon and Mars. Not only is the number ridiculous, but so is the method for obtaining the funds. Bush claims that $1 billion will be allocated by Congress, and the additional $11 billion will be found by restructuring NASA, including ending shuttle flights. So we'll finish up the station by 2010, auction the shuttles on eBay, and be on the Moon by 2015? Riiiight. First of all, NASA won't have any free funds from ending the shuttle program until at least 2010 when the station is complete, and then that only leaves 5 years for development of a completely new vehicle and support system. Even then, the shuttle's budget is only about $4 billion. The remaining $7 billion will have to be earned by cutting into NASA's remaining $11 billion. So once again, the Aeronautics branch of NASA is getting the shaft in favor of a bloated and fatally optimistic manned space program. Sound familiar? It's the shuttle all over again.
Since the federal government seems to be waffling on what it thinks NASA should be doing, I am in favor of a much less glamorous "bottom-up" approach to space exploration. Let the private entrepreneurs build simple craft to get us barely out of the atmosphere. From there, the craft get slightly more sophisticated, and through the magic of technological evolution from several sources, we end up exploring the solar system in ways we can't even dream of now. We can parallel this growth to that of the internet: it started as a large, well funded government program (ARPANET), but it wasn't until the little guy started to find commercial opportunities that it really took off (Amazon, anyone?) If we had relied on the DoD to create the internet for us, we'd be stuck with an online copy of the Library of Congress, distributed through a huge router the size of a steel factory and transmitting over a 9600 baud connection.
While Bush has his head in the sand, the X-Prize and the X-Prize Cup will be ruling the upper atmosphere! I plan on retiring at the Shady Craters Lunar Resort.
And, to keep this little tirade on topic:
The Hubble Telescope has performed beautifully and well beyond its intended lifespan. There are other, better space telescopes in the works. Let's save the shuttle flight for station hardware and let the telescope retire with dignity.
For security, the MD5 hash of this message and sig is 09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0.
Yes, I agree. Nuclear launchers could be a fantastically efficient way to get people into space and off to Mars.
However, in this world of Tom Clancy movienovels and WMD propoganda, the public has a hard time wrapping its brain around anything involving the words "nuclear," "fission," or "reaction." The space program is nothing without popular support and the populous currently believes the mantra "Nuclear = Evil." Sad, but true.
For security, the MD5 hash of this message and sig is 09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0.
It is a simple trade-off between glory and science, and science is being screwed. I hate to say it, but robots can do the same job cheaper. Humans on Mars would be nice, but if it is good science OR man on Mars, I will go with the first. I want to see clear photos of Pluto's face before I become Earth dust. (And I don't mean the frippen dog.)
Table-ized A.I.
The space program is nothing without popular support and the populous currently believes the mantra "Nuclear = Evil." Sad, but true.
Even sadder is that the space program will go nowhere without nuclear. Of all the propulsion methods that have been theorized, only nuclear powered ones (be it fission, fusion, or matter/antimatter) produce enough power and thrust to make space travel a feasible option.
Not to mention that no other solution provides a way to "live off the land" and create your own fuel from just about any source. A GCNR rocket could conceivably run off of hydrogen, oxygen, xenon, water, CO2, Iron Oxides, or just about anything else that can be cracked into a gas.
I really would give up this crazy crusade if I thought there was another option that was "good enough". Unfortunately, large amounts of energy are just plain scary. There's nothing we can do about that other than to handle that energy with care.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
In other words, real science takes a back burner or is canned as a cost-cutting measure whilst more photogenic and "sexy" manned exploration is pumped full of cash.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
No they cannot. Hubble can get near-UV, ground based cannot.
Hubble can aim at targets for LONG durations, being much more stsable, unlike ground-based telescopes.
And astronomy is much more than photographs, namely spectroscopy. Ground-based spectroscopy, even with adaptive optics, is still limited by atmospheric absorption and emission spectra. Hubble is not.
Keeping it around is really just an exercise in nostalgia for all the great things it has done for us.
As well as fruitful exercises in astrophysical research for the slews of scientists that currently use it, and those that have planned to use it in the coming years.
AAS (American Astrophysical Society), for example, has even had discussions about a future SM5, so the lifetime of Hubble beyond SM4 was being considered by many "real" astrophysicists.
make world, not war
With all due respect to those that died in all of the previous space missions. NASA, The current US administration, and the US public need to get over it and move on. Space travel is currently dangerous business. Every one who engages in it are educated and trained professionals. They know exactly the dangers, better than all of those who second guess them. I don't see the astronauts saying "Hell No I won't get in this craft, it's too dangerous". They realize that for what they are doing the track record is pretty good. Can safety at NASA improve? Of course! Should we stop until it's perfect? No!
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
Wake up and pay attention. This decision has been inevitable since the CAIB released its findings. All future Shuttle flights must be able to access the ISS for safety reasons. Flights to Hubble can't access ISS. End of story.
BTW, science is not the motivation for space travel. Nor are pretty pictures.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
They're anti-Bush hysteria.
t he-man-on-the-radio-told-me-crowd would be drooling all over themselves at the opportunity to blast him for this ludicrous heralding of man's destiny in the stars.
The responses you see here aren't really anti-Bush hysteria. They are pessimism about the feasability of Bush's proposed jaunt to Mars given the meagre budget increase, negativism regarding its severe impact on other NASA projects, and skepticism regarding Bush's motives for proposing such a grand project without giving it nearly enough funding. If Howard Dean had announced the same plan, the All-Bush-critics-are-hysterical-liberals-because-
The Hubble abandonment is a direct result of broader funding cutbacks (which include reduction of Combat and Hazardous Duty pay for our soldiers). The US government has slingshotted from a $450 billion surplus... to a $500 billion deficit, in just three years -- a $1 trillion reversal of fortune. Think about that for a second, because it is very real.
9/11? We're told that that cost 'only' $79bb. So, what happened to the other 871 billion?! Tax cuts for the richest 5% of our population, is what. If you're old enough to remember the Reagan tax cuts of '82, they directly led to the oil and real estate collapse of the late '80's, but at least that time we came out with new buildings. The Tax Act of '86 had to undo the imbalances. So how could anyone imagine that tax cuts without corresponding spending reductions would have any different result today? This time, they cut out the inefficiencies in transfer of wealth (building new buildings), by granting 'relief' directly to the corporation and high net-worth individual. The Party has been tipping up the US Treasury and shaking it empty.
While we're taking off our shoes in airports... almost every shipping container coming into US ports goes unchecked. WTF?
Is this asymmetry solely to convey a message of fear to the populous? To distract us with FUD, from thinking about important matters?
It appears tp me that Repubs do the opposite of what they say: Spend, and Spend, and abridge the Constitution, and Spend.
Campaign finance reform is national security.
Am I the only one excited about the moon annoucement? I mean we went to the moon in the 60s and stopped in the 70s. That was 30 years ago. You would think by now, we'd have people on Pluto. Aren't you people science fiction fans? Doesn't exploring space excite you? Sure, you can look at stuff with a telescope, but why not try to go there and see it for yourself. Or send a telescope there, and get a better view.
And I'd like to see a network of communcation satellites placed thur the solar system, to make it easier for probes to report back to Earth.
And I've always thought it made more since to build a moon base first, instead of going to Mars. I know in the short run Mars looks more attractive. But in the long run, think of all we could learn from a permanet base in outer face. This knowledge could then be used to help other space ventures.
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad