Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Saving Hubble

Posted by michael on from the hubba-hubba-hubble dept.

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."

16 of 69 comments (clear)

  1. Great Idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Let's ask Russia, they have TONS of extra money.

  2. Just do it... by hookedup · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Just do it... by PateraSilk · · Score: 4, Interesting
      why would the images be better when it leaves our solar system?

      Long-baseline parallax observations of stars for more precise mapping of the local spiral arm, for one.

      Possibly long-baseline infereometry, for two (although it might not work in this instance--I'm not so savvy here).

      --
      Danke tres mucho, tovarishch.
    2. Re:Just do it... by mph · · Score: 2, Funny

      Given that it's solar-powered, I don't think that sending it farther from the sun would work out too well.

  3. Common sense revolution by addie · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Common sense revolution by Wintensis · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's a nice peice of equipment, but it's not going to last for decades to come.

      Parts are wearing out (two of the 6 gyros have already failed - and that's AFTER some of them have been replaced on shuttle missions), and it actually uses consumables (like orientation thruster propellant), so it always HAD a limited lifespan. In fact - it's projected life span is just about up.

      There WERE plans to capture it, bring it home, 'refurbish' it, and redeploy, but the shuttle is required for this. It looks like Hubble will limp along for a little, but it's not expected to survive past 2007.

      In fact, NASA has been planning on replacing it for decades - that was always the original plan. I don't know how much the James Webb Space Telescope has been affected by the shake up in NASA, but it's been meant to replace the HST for a while now.

    2. Re:Common sense revolution by CXI · · Score: 2, Informative

      To service Hubble, NASA would need to have 14 astronauts and two shuttles on the pad ready to launch at the same time. For the cost of that, you could launch another Hubble or two. That is the primary common sense reason they decided to cancel the mission, including the fact that a replacement will be available in only a few years.

  4. Preserving hubble by Charles+Dart · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:Preserving hubble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Nice thought but... The ISS is hot (IR), noisy (radio) and so close to earth that optical-QRM elimination would be a nightmare. HST's performance would suffer significantly were it parked next to. If it were attached, there would be the additional problem of vibrations transmitted from the ISS to the HST, blurring images.

  5. Donations by bay43270 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Do they take pay pal?

  6. Re:Altitude of HST & ISS by paranoid123 · · Score: 2, Informative

    I believe that HST and ISS is in a very different orbit angle. Getting one or the other to change would be a huge delta-v (meaning a lot of enery). Not very practical. ISS is constantly losing altitude. It would require a shuttle nudging more often, and with the combined mass of HST and ISS, this would be more difficult. Plus, what would be the point? The cost of maintaining HST is in the support facilities (communications, engineering, science) on the ground, not where its orbit lies.

  7. Re:IANARS, so I wonder... by Wintensis · · Score: 3, Informative

    Um... the LaGrange points?

    A little knowledge is a dangerous thing...

    Check this.

    "They lie at equal distance from Earth and Moon, in the Moon's orbit..."

    The stable L-points are as far away as the MOON!!! L4 and L5 are the stable ones - in that they are 'self-correcting' - put something in L4 or L5, knock it out of position, and as long as you didn't knock it TOO hard, it will return to the L-point. The others are like balancing on a pin. If you 'slip' you keep getting pushed AWAY from the L-point.

    The shuttle program is NOT making spacecraft capable of trans-lunar orbit burns!

    It's really not hard to check these things. Google is an adequate tool to check your facts.

  8. JWST by Maeryk · · Score: 4, Informative

    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?
    1. Re:JWST by moosesocks · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      This gives me an interesting idea... Would it be possible to place a soyuez capsule in orbit right next to the hubble or even attach it to the hubble?

      That being said, it brings up concerns that such a device isn't carried with the shuttle on ALL shuttle missions. The capsule itself is really quite tiny, and would be able to transport the crew back to earth in the event of shuttle problems - plus, all of the crew execpt the pilot could return via. the capsule, preventing another columbia-like disaster.

      Or there's even the option of sending several dozen empy re-entry capsules into varous orbits above earth so that at least one would be able to dock with the shuttle and safely evacuate the crew no matter what orbit the shuttle happened to be in (as mentioned earlier, the ISS is impssible to get to from hubble's orbit).

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    2. Re:JWST by Maeryk · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That being said, it brings up concerns that such a device isn't carried with the shuttle on ALL shuttle missions. The capsule itself is really quite tiny, and would be able to transport the crew back to earth in the event of shuttle problems - plus, all of the crew execpt the pilot could return via. the capsule, preventing another columbia-like disaster.

      Has there ever been a "space disaster" in which one of these would actually work? I know the two shuttle missions.. there wasnt time to implement it if it HAD been onboard. Challengers explosion was basically instant, and the disintegration of Columbia was fast also.. and they werent even aware they had a problem.

      its _possible_ a strengthened crew compartment or something (which was discussed after Challenger) would have allowed the COlumbia nauts to make it back.. but thats theory only. Retrofitting the birds like that is impossible.. though the designs for the Delta Clipper involved something much like that.

      Its NASA being paranoid that another loss of astronauts would shut them down, basically.

      They are trying for every eventuality, but theres nothing they can really do about an explosion or sudden breakup. Especially at like.. mach 17.

      Maeryk

      --
      Feminine Protection? What is that? A chartreuse flame thrower?
  9. Hubble Service Missions by mknewman · · Score: 3, Informative

    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