Slashdot Mirror
Saving Hubble
tassii writes "In this article on Space.com, Hubble Space Telescope operators plan to ask Russia for help in keeping the observatory alive and will even consider accepting private donations, which have already been offered. The upgrades are already built, waiting for installation. The Wide Field Camera 3 and the Cosmic Origins Spectrograph cost a combined $167 million and will provide unprecedented peeks into the formation of the cosmos, astronomers say. Maybe there is still some hope for the Hubble."
Let's ask Russia, they have TONS of extra money.
Retrofit the hubble with some rockets. And send the thing sailing out into space. I wonder what kinds of images it would get once it left our solar system. Anyone know how far the hubble can transmit currenty? Or would that also need to be upgraded if we were to send it out into space.
I'm glad to hear this. With Bush's talk lately of putting millions into the manned space program, and the cancellation of a shuttle service mission to Hubble, it was beginning to look like the cash for un-manned "boring" space programs was going to dry up.
Having other countries involved, especially one with decades of expertise like Russia, and encouraging private investments (more like donations really) is exactly what space exploration needs.
We need to focus less on government sponsored, election engineering, military application thoughts and more on collaboration for world betterment. And world betterment can come from scientific discovery, not just decreased drug costs and disposal of cash crop models (though these are high on the list too).
I hope Hubble continues working for decades to come. It's a nice piece of equipment.
My thinking is along the lines of 'one destination=cheaper than two'...
It would be such a shame to let the Hubble burn up in the atmosphere. I think the proposal to park it next to the ISS would be ideal. In fact why not attach it to the station. It could then be repurposed when it has become obsolete. Imagine the ISS as the nucleus of the first interplanetary craft, it's gonna need long range sensors right?
"Saving (Privately?) Hubble"
CNN is reporting that the Spirit rover has failed to transmit data from Mars for 24 hours. At least Hubble is still working.
Do they take pay pal?
Speaking of space - it appears as though the mars rover has died. There's a brief article up on USA Today:
"NASA last heard from Spirit early Wednesday. Since then, it has returned just random, meaningless radio noise -- and only then sporadically, scientists said."
Whaddayaknow? The HST is at about 600km, and the ISS is at about 375km. (God bless Google)
OK, would there be any issues with lowering the HST to join the ISS?
More science out of Hubble would be great. I hope someone will find a way to keep it operational and producing public data, and I don't much care who does it. But if we can't save it for science, we should at least save it for history.
With the shuttles out of the question, we don't currently have the ability to bring it down in one piece... or even safely. It appears that all agree we should send up a robot tug of some sort to gain control of Hubble's orbit and keep it from falling on Topeka.
If we're going to all the trouble of developing and launching a tug, let's push the darn thing up, not down. If I understand correctly, an ion thruster could give Hubble a gentle shove for months and move it very, very slowly to an orbit that would be stable for hundreds of years.
Eventually, if humanity progresses into space, we'll have the capability to bring it down intact as a priceless historical artifact.
With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
The James Webb Space Telescope is destined to go up in 2011.. so its not like losing hubble (eventually) will be the end of the great astrophysical observatories.
The problem with Hubble is its size.. if it comes back into the atmosphere in a de-orbit, the mirror and the titanium ring holding it will probably make it to terra firma in pretty much one piece.
I _REALLY_ dont want that landing on my house!
At the very least, they need to keep nudging the sucker.. or put a controllable burn-pod on it so they can bump it up remotely, rather than doing the catch and release job they have been with teh Shuttles.
The main reason.. according to a couple of sites I read.. is if something fails on the shuttle while it as at the ISS, they can get home in the "lifeboat". If it fails while they are at Hubble, they are skrewed.
man..can you imagine if cars, or trains, or airplanes were held to the same safety measures as NASA is now holding itself to?
You wouldnt be allowed to leave the house without a bubble on.
Maeryk
Feminine Protection? What is that? A chartreuse flame thrower?
Trhubble
\m/
Hubble is going to run out of gyros (you know, the Greek rolled up sandwich) in about 3-4 years. They are looking at ways to conserve them, shut some down for long term storage and such, but other consumables such as batteries have limited life and eventually it will just die. I doubt that a service mission could be done without the shuttle. There are way too many issues with the servicing missions (not to mention the size of the boxes that they want to install in it) that the Russians wouldn't be able to do it for us. It's quite an extensive undertaking. I do object to the cancelation though, I think they should do one more mission and include a pre-orbited return booster so that the final kit of instruments can be used, keep it going till the Webb 'scope comes online, and then splash it. The risk of having astronauts doing the service without the station as a long term refuge appears to be too high for NASA. Marc
Why doesn't NASA just ask for donations? Think about it, I know I am not the only one on /. who would throw in a few greenbacks for Hubble? Even if it does not completley cover the costs at least it is something. Heck make it tax deductable and I am sure a few people outside of /. would begin to take notice...
Soyuz cannot be launched to Hubble because of the low inclination of the later. In other words, Hubble never flies over Kazakhstan where Soyuz is launched. But there are plans to build a launch complex for Soyuz in Kourou, French Guiana. Of course, manned operations would require additional facilities, but the rescue ship can be launched without crew.
- They have no launch facility that can reach Hubble's orbital inclination. (Well, in theory they can, but only if they can get China to allow them drop spent rocket stages on them.)
- Hubble is at an altitude considerably above the maximum achievable by the Soyuz
Both of these can be overcome in time (3-5 years), but only with a great deal of money.The James Webb Space Telescope is one of a set of space telescopes which have mostly non-overlapping capabilities. So it is meant as a compliment, not replacement, for the Hubble Space Telescope. Of course we didn't expect these things to last forever so I can't say they were all meant to be operational at the same time.
NASA has made the point that this WAS NOT a problem of money. The money is there. It is a problem of shuttle safety. There was a review process for the next 2 HST servicing missings. NASA asked the community what it wanted to do about HST in the next 10 years and the astonomy community CLEARLY stated that HST was essential and needed to remain operational AT LEAST until JWST come along. Even that, JWST is not a replacement for HST and HST can produce wonderful observations which cannot be obtained any other ways.
The American Astronomical Society, as well as Senator Mikulski, have just asked for an independent congressional review of this issue. It simply seems wrong to have a single bureaucrat (NASA administrator) calling the shots and prematurely condemning programs as successfull as HST. Please, contact your congressman or woman and voice your opinion.
YOU can help this process and ensure that it is being fair by actively contacting your congressmen and senators. If you do beleive that astronomy is something which unlightens us all then please by all mean do this as soon as possible.
That HST is not being serviced is not the end of astronomy, but to have an administration which decides these things without a due process should not be okay. Not in a democracy!
That wasn't funny. Shut up.
You just think you're soooo smart, don't you? Tell me, Einstein, what would YOU do? Huh?
I bet you can't even get the same number twice when counting your tits. Your MANTITS that is, NERD!
Me an my niggaz no be spendin da doh fo yo hubbo oh no ho ho
Ah murder mahsef
The "decision" by O'Keefe to "dump" it is ill advised, short sighted, and as I will highlight below, quite a flawed one. It is simplistic (overly simple) to decide as they have.
I am quite knowledgeable in the area of Spacecraft, reentry considerations, and thermal protection systems.
Both times the Shuttle has blown up has been due to misoperation! NOT due to inherent flaws in the Shuttle. The first time was due to flying it in TOO cold an environment (the O rings), which NASA WAS aware of. The second time was with ET insulation flying off and hitting the leading edge, which they were also aware of, and ignored as serious!!...
The Shuttle was NOT designed to fly in cold cold weather, and it was ALSO not designed to fly with material/objects hitting it during ascent!
Now, this is NOT rocket science!
You would not drive your car right behind a gravel truck, and expect your windshield to not get a crack. Especially if you SAW pieces of gravel flying over your hood! Maybe you would get by some of the time, but NOT something to count on. However, NASA did have that "gravel truck" and knew insulation was flying off. By chance, it had not yet done significant damage. As we have learned (and which NASA should have assumed!), it CAN cause significant damage. However, NASA took that fact that it didn't cause damage to imply that it COULDN'T cause damage. This was a highly flawed decision.
The CAIB's response was to assume that NASA would continue to do idiotic things. They directed them to fix the insulation problems, AND to figure out ways to repair insulation on orbit. HOWEVER, you really only need to do ONE or the OTHER!!! If they fix the debris field problem, it is perfectly okay to fly a single shuttle, without backup, to the Hubble, and to repair/service the Hubble.
However, O'Keefe is obeying the letter of the law, and NOT the spirit of the directions of the CAIB! The real problem isn't the shuttle, but NASA making stupid assumptions. Really stupid ones.
Now, if you had a kid, and that kid wouldn't wear their glasses at night, and kept crashing the family car.. one response would be to make a rule they couldn't drive at night! However, the sensible one is the have them wear their glasses. If the kid is immature and not to be trusted, you go with the former solution. Which do you think NASA is?
Other options exist, such as having the astronauts sign a waiver saying they ARE aware of flying outside of the CAIB recommendations.
OR we can involve the Soyuz, and do an on orbit fix via rendezvous. The option of retiring the Hubble is not advised!
Sincerely,
Anthony Charles Martin
Boulder CO
"Sen. Barbara Mikulski (news, bio, voting record), a Maryland Democrat, fired off a letter to O'Keefe late last week urging him to set up an independent panel to review and possibly undo his decision. Calling Hubble "the most successful NASA program since Apollo," she urged it not be abandoned "with the stroke of a pen.""