Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

A Way to Save Hubble?

Posted by timothy on from the whose-money-is-the-question dept.

An anonymous reader writes "The maintenance flight to give the Hubble Space Telescope a few more years has been cancelled, even though everyone agrees that HST does good work. But this article offers a way to save the space telescope, and to give those who think the space program should be privatized a way to prove they can do it."

65 comments

  1. If they don't want it... by kinnell · · Score: 4, Funny

    Why don't they just sell it on e-bay?

    --
    If I seem short sighted, it is because I stand on the shoulders of midgets
    1. Re:If they don't want it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Or maybe they can save some money by outsourcing it to India !! I can see the News-item "HST flight launched using the rope trick" .

    2. Re:If they don't want it... by jo42 · · Score: 2, Funny


      I bid 1,000,000 quatloos!

    3. Re:If they don't want it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think they should convince the Farscape idiots to send them money.

  2. SAVE THE HUBBLE FOUNDATION! by rqqrtnb · · Score: 0

    They do it with whales, don't they?

    Come on, get your placards, dress up like monkeys, and decend upon
    Washington.

    The million monkey march!

  3. Typical and misguided by JackBuckley · · Score: 5, Insightful
    So, as always in America, we turn to privatization as solution for the failure or unwillingness for the government provision of goods and services. "If science is so valuable," the argument runs, "private industry can and should provide it."

    Rather than hope that some small or large corporation agrees that a profit can be made off of Hubble research, the government should take a stand and finance basic science for its own sake, instead of ruminating about a massive aerospace industry welfare program under the cover of an exciting bunch of missions to the Moon and Mars.

    Of course, I'm not so naive as to think that the government actually would change their priorities on this. After all, with all the tax cuts to the rich and a couple of expensive wars to fight, hard choices have to be made, right?

    And we still need our Federal mohair subsidy program, so it's time for Hubble to go!

    (I'm not bitter or anything)

    1. Re:Typical and misguided by kinnell · · Score: 3, Insightful
      the government should take a stand and finance basic science for its own sake

      You're forgetting that the US has a dwindling shuttle fleet. Apart from the cost and safety arguments, they're probably considering whether the scientific grounds outweigh the risks of losing manned access to space for strategic reasons.

      --
      If I seem short sighted, it is because I stand on the shoulders of midgets
    2. Re:Typical and misguided by jabberjaw · · Score: 1

      Exactly, as others have stated O'Keefe is following the CAIB recommendations to the t. Think about it if you were in his shoes, sure a lot of geeks are rather miffed that Hubble is getting scrapped, however I believe he is freaked out about the huge PR disaster that would occur if the U.S. loses another shuttle.

    3. Re:Typical and misguided by Snerdley · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I realize that I'm going to be hammered as a right-wing nutjob for this one, but I really can't let this pass.

      Professor Buckley, I have a big problem with a person such as yourself pontificating about how horrible privitization is, and how terribly the American government is treating scientists and researchers.

      Don't get me wrong: I agree with your line about the mohair subsidies.. and I hope everone here votes out the pork-barrel weasels in their districts.

      However, just once, I wish that a chronic academic such as yourself would realize that the government is not a source of money!

      Before I wrote this, I took a look at your Vitae and confirmed what I suspected: You have always been payed by taxpayers! I found no private sector experience at all!

      Thank you for your service in the Navy! And I don't doubt that your service to your country/state/school/students in your other positions has been admirable. However, from what I have seen on your vitae, you have never:

      • Created Goods/Products
      • Started a business
      • Created a Job
      • Laid off an employee
      • Generated Revenue (other than for yourself)
      • Had to Create/Follow a Budget

      In fact, it seems your primary activity for the past few years has been to do research and write papers about other teachers! All of which has been paid for by either land-grant univerisities or our horribly stingy government.

      The contention that saving the Hubble is "Basic Science" is ludicrous: it is an incredibly expensive project that is nearing the end of its expected duration anyway. I'm certain there is more we can learn from Hubble, but we are talking about billions of dollars to save it for a few years!

      "Billion? With a B?"
      "...Yes, with a B."

      By the way, Professor, just why are you so bitter about this particular item? Have you ever actually used Hubble data during your search for better School Systems? Or are you just like the rest of us: mesmerized and inspired by the amazing and beautiful pictures.

      Professor, the case for saving the Hubble may be strong. I'm not qualified to make that call. However, our elected officials have decided that the massive cost involved in saving it is not something that our tax dollars will be used for. A part of me is delighted! It's the first time in months I've seen them say no to anything! If you have evidence that they're wrong: let's see it.

      Personally, I hope that the approach suggested in the article (you did read it, right?) is followed: let those who find this project crucial and needed say so with their pocketbooks. If they do, I (like most /.'ers) will delight in the images and wish them the best.

      However, I hope that you remember that there are those of us in the audience (even here at /.) whose blood boils when they read a comment such as yours! We aren't protected in our ivory towers: our jobs will go overseas if we don't bust our asses. We aren't rich, but those tax cuts saved many of us our jobs! They let others save more and helped to put their kids through your classes.

      So before you slam the government and therefore your fellow tax-payers, please remember that without them, your resume (oops, I mean Vitae would look pretty bare.

      --Bill
    4. Re:Typical and misguided by geoswan · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Shuttle mission cost half a billion dollars in the past. How much would it cost to build a robot to do the simplest things to extend Hubbles life?

      What exactly would Hubble need to keep working? Boosting to a higher orbit, because its current orbit is decaying? And Hubble's gyroscopes are wearing out, and will need replacing.

      So, how expensive would it be to build a robot that gently grabbed ahold of Hubble, gently boosted it to a higher orbit?

      Would it be possible for a robot like this to use its own gyroscopes to keep Hubble stable?

      Yes, I know there are also new lense modules, and similar, but they would require an astronaut to install them. Well, maybe they can wait until the safer replacement for Hubble is ready.

      Could the robot have enough fuel to move Hubble to orbit next to the ISS?

      There is supposed to be a replacement for Hubble, that may be ready in ten years or so. But it might not be ready. And it might not work. Hubble works. Maybe they should keep Hubble until they know the replacement works...

    5. Re:Typical and misguided by Smitty825 · · Score: 1

      Batteries need to be replaced, too...

      --

      Doh!
    6. Re:Typical and misguided by geoswan · · Score: 1
      Batteries need to be replaced, too...

      Doesn't Hubble use Solar energy?

    7. Re:Typical and misguided by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      The solar cels charge the batteries in much the same way as the alternator in an automobile charges the battery.

    8. Re:Typical and misguided by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Created Goods/Products, Created a Job, Laid off an employee, Generated Revenue (other than for yourself), Had to Create/Follow a Budget

      Every scientist I know does these over and over. The government and taxpayer is our client. Just like a business, they give us money for a service. If you don't privide quality, we never get money again.

      Your budget comment makes me the most angry. Where I work, our budget rules are very complex. We have to follow both federal and state rules and it's quite expensive. See, taxpayers think they can save money by making us spend hours justifying every tiny expense at three different times, but they have to pay people's time to do it. I've heard that a $20 purchase order costs $50 to process.

    9. Re:Typical and misguided by DustMagnet · · Score: 1

      It needs batteries for when it passes through Earth's shadow.

      --
      'SBEMAIL!' is better than a goat!!
  4. At least.. by herrvinny · · Score: 5, Interesting

    At least we should boost Hubble to higher orbit, so when NASA gets additional funding, it can try again to bring it down. Putting it in a museum somewhere would really be a inspiration to many children to go into science.

    1. Re:At least.. by lcde · · Score: 0, Redundant

      I'd agree. Seems like quite a waste to watch it fall in the ocean.

      --
      :%s/teh/the/g
    2. Re:At least.. by barawn · · Score: 3, Interesting


      At least we should boost Hubble to higher orbit, so when NASA gets additional funding, it can try again to bring it down. Putting it in a museum somewhere would really be a inspiration to many children to go into science.

      C'mon, that's crazy. It's like suggesting we should've brought Mir down in pieces in a shuttle or something. Hubble's an old space telescope, and we've thrown many old space telescopes away.

      You could build a replica for a fraction of the cost that it would take to bring it down. That'd be good enough for inspirational purposes.

      The only reason that people are averse to doing it now is because somehow "Hubble" got a lot of public support, but it really doesn't deserve it. It's just an old telescope. Sure, it does good science - but so does any instrument if there are people operating it. The point is "is it worth spending money on something when that money could be better spent on a better replacement?" and the answer to that is "no".

      NASA never should have let Hubble get into the public's eye this much. The pretty pictures can come from pretty much any other telescope (Spitzer put out a few nice ones over the weekend) - there's no reason to keep fawning over Hubble.

    3. Re:At least.. by Jru+Hym · · Score: 1

      Someone should buy it, bring it down, and use it to spy on the girl nexdoor.

      --
      This lobster was alive when it hit the frothy, boiling water.
    4. Re:At least.. by umofomia · · Score: 1
      C'mon, that's crazy. It's like suggesting we should've brought Mir down in pieces in a shuttle or something. Hubble's an old space telescope, and we've thrown many old space telescopes away.
      Yep... and plus, we won't get another chance for a free taco otherwise. :)
  5. M & M by jefu · · Score: 4, Insightful
    This article is really just a piece of propaganda aimed at supporting the Moon/Mars (M&M) drive put forward by the current administration. It dismisses the notion of supporting the Hubble because of the risk involved and only really suggests a private foundation as a straw man.

    I think the important part of the thing is in the next to last paragraph where he says "a permanent presence on the moon will provide a far better platform for a space telescope, and it is likely a telescope will be put there." And he implies it is only ten years off - though putting a permanent presence on the moon is probably 10 years off at best and expanding that to a good astronomical telescope would probably stretch another 10 or 20 years. If it even goes through and is not abandoned after the election. (Any bets on Republican support for such an endeavor if a Democratic president is supporting it?)

    Oddly enough, I can't recall having seen anything in the M&M proposals saying anything about putting a telescope on the moon (though it is an option that I've heard astronomers favor).

    1. Re:M & M by snake_dad · · Score: 1
      Agreed. The article is a whole load of nothing. "We can't save the Hubble. But we could get the money to do what we can't do". I'd rate it lower than the average slashdot comment (reading at -1). The submitter was smart to stay anonymous...

      For once I'll say: don't RTFA! Oh well, you weren't going to anyway, right? :)

      --
      karma capped .sig seeking available Slashdot poster for long-term relationship.
  6. There are alternatives by Pi_0's+don't+shower · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We'd all like the government to provide for science. As an astrophysics student at a government-funded university, I certainly think it should be the government's job.

    But our society doesn't always do that. Back in the 1960's, it wasn't the government that ran the show for science, though. Who discovered the Cosmic Microwave Background? Penzias and Wilson, two Bell-Labs scientists.

    My point is that, if some time ago private industry felt an obligation to science to "give back" to the scientific world that they got rich off of, maybe they ought to be encouraged to do it again...

    1. Re:There are alternatives by clintp · · Score: 2, Interesting
      As an astrophysics student at a government-funded university, I certainly think it should be the government's job.
      As a taxpayer (who subsidises government-funded universities) I think the government's involvement should be limited to perhaps providing small subsidies to private corporation R&D budgets (tax breaks) in exchange for creating technology.

      Let the markets determine where the research should go, but provide encouragement to keep the products of the research in the public domain (or at least cheaply licensed). I'm not expecting Monsanto or ADM to grab at this opportunity wholeheartedly, but smaller companies or divisions of larger ones might grab at the tax break for research that's important but not at the core of their business model.
      --
      Get off my lawn.
    2. Re:There are alternatives by Twylite · · Score: 1

      As a taxpayer who doesn't fund the space program (different country) I think that the public/private argument is a hard one to make from any perspective.

      There is potential for huge amounts of money to be wasted and, let's face it, we have huge problems on earth that need solving a whole lot sooner than GUT. But at the same time the space program has provided a huge number of benefits to humanity.

      Historically we have seen that markets tend to be poor innovators but good at creating markets for new technology. More importantly it would be impossible to convince many small companies to collaborate on a risky venture (with little opportunity for return), and those companies with enough capital tend not to be interested.

      One solution may be for the government to fund a large project, but to "outsource" a lot of the development of component parts to private corporations.

      --
      i-name =twylite [http://public.xdi.org/=twylite], see idcommons.net
  7. Reuse is better than recycle! by NanoGator · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    How about pointing it at Mars and using the Hubble as a giant Pringles can?

    --
    "Derp de derp."
    1. Re:Reuse is better than recycle! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We can open the first McDonalds + pringlers restaurans in mars.

    2. Re:Reuse is better than recycle! by NanoGator · · Score: 2

      Topic: Saving Hubble.
      Post: Reusing Hubble.
      Implication: Humor.
      Moderation: Offtopic.
      Moderator: Clueless.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
  8. on the moon? think again -- by sdedeo · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The first warning sign was that we were being told to listen to someone who uses the word "technopolitical" in his job description. The second was that he was writing for the National Review Online, a magazine that has decided to throw it's lot in with "lie through the teeth" conservatism.

    In the article, the author writes, with all the assurance that this is not just his belief, but rather a fact to be "remembered":

    But it is worth remembering that a permanent presence on the moon will provide a far better platform for a space telescope, and it is likely a telescope will be put there.

    As the slashdot saying goes, "BZZZZZT!" In fact, astronomers and instrumentation people have considered "moon bases," and concluded that there is absolutely no good reason to go all the way up to the moon (a very expensive trip between gravity wells) instead of putting your telescopes in low Earth orbit. The most enthusiastic moon astronomers want to do radio stuff -- not replicate Hubble's optical work.

    Does the Lunar Surface Still Offer Value As a Site for Astronomical Observatories?, by three members of JPL, Goddard and UT, and published in Space Policy (I guess NRO wasn't taking articles then) provides the full story.

    --
    Protect your liberties. Donate to the ACLU
    1. Re:on the moon? think again -- by barawn · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Does the Lunar Surface Still Offer Value As a Site for Astronomical Observatories?, by three members of JPL, Goddard and UT, and published in Space Policy (I guess NRO wasn't taking articles then) provides the full story.

      Hmm, do the authors have a bias for space telescopes, I wonder?

      All of their arguments are correct - for now. The problem is in one word scale. Physically, extremely large telescopes aren't really feasible to send into space - to LEO or to the Moon, regardless.

      However, oddly enough, the moon - being basically made out of the same stuff Earth is - has all the raw materials to make mirrors.

      So the idea isn't to send a telescope from the Earth to the Moon.

      The idea is to build it on the Moon in the first place.

      This would require a lot of R&D, and a lot of work - but that's just R&D, which can be much cheaper than the launch costs of a gigantic telescope (a many-meter telescope).

      The authors also then go to say "why would we want to keep a state of the art instrument around for a long time?" implying, of course, that state of the art changes so rapidly that keeping something around for a long time is meaningless.

      They somewhat fail to see one thing: a gigantic mirror will always be state of the art. If the instruments need to be changed periodically (say once every 10 years) then the marginal cost of replacing instruments on a telescope on the Moon (assuming that the capability of getting to the Moon exists) is going to be infinitely less than launching a new state of the art space telescope.

      Basically, the authors are assuming that
      • Everything must be put on the Moon
      • There is little/no lunar human infrastructure


      While this is certainly true now (and validates the reason that their one example - LUTE - wasn't chosen, as it would have been an unmanned observatory) - it is definitely not arbitrarily true for the future. Assuming that lunar human infrastructure exists, and lunar manufacturing capability could be constructed, the cost of building a telescope on the Moon is tremendously cheap.
    2. Re:on the moon? think again -- by Eccles · · Score: 1

      How about putting a decent-sized asteroid (perhaps a km in diameter) into one of the stable LaGrange points? That seems like it might be a decent base for accumulating stuff, placing telescopes, building launchers, etc., with the possibility of some raw materials for in-space construction, without much of that pesky gravity well problem.

      --
      Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
    3. Re:on the moon? think again -- by sdedeo · · Score: 2, Insightful
      However, oddly enough, the moon - being basically made out of the same stuff Earth is - has all the raw materials to make mirrors. So the idea isn't to send a telescope from the Earth to the Moon. The idea is to build it on the Moon in the first place.

      The idea of using in situ resources is great. But I wonder if it will really be a short term or medium term solution (on the scale of twenty years, say.) We have certainly been talking about asteroid mining &c, but I wonder if the costs for sending up infrastructure are feasable?

      Think about it this way: the mass of the systems used to construct, test and characterise the PSF of a mirror are huge compared to the mass of the mirror itself. You would need (I think) technology on a near magical scale to get that down.

      The authors also then go to say "why would we want to keep a state of the art instrument around for a long time?" implying, of course, that state of the art changes so rapidly that keeping something around for a long time is meaningless. They somewhat fail to see one thing: a gigantic mirror will always be state of the art.

      Yes, and no. A gigantic mirror with a particular radius, smoothness and PSF will go out of date. The technology you have will improve continuously so that the best giant mirror you can make now will suck compared to the one you can make later. That will hold down to the level of smoothness given by the wavelength in question (I worked at Arecebo for a bit, and I believe for the radio wavelengths they were using, their mirror was pretty much "as good as it gets." I don't believe we're anywhere even close for optical telescopes.)

      I am a fan of all the cool science you are assuming. But let's see NASA get together a working probe that can build a stop sign out of in situ materials so that we can characterize exactly how cost effective your suggestion is. My intuition is: not very, at least in the next fifty years.

      --
      Protect your liberties. Donate to the ACLU
    4. Re:on the moon? think again -- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      This would require a lot of R&D, and a lot of work - but that's just R&D, which can be much cheaper than the launch costs of a gigantic telescope (a many-meter telescope).
      You clearly have never seen, or are aware of, the infrastructure needed to manufacture and test very large telescope mirrors. That is like saying that since we can build a modern steel mill here on Earth, we can just build one on the moon (until you go and see how big they are and how much power and other resources needed to run them); heck, all the raw materials are up there on the moon.

      the cost of building a telescope on the Moon is tremendously cheap.
      Whoa! That one about knocked me out of my chair! You must be using the "W" Bush economic forecasting rose-colored glasses to type that with a straight face!
    5. Re:on the moon? think again -- by barawn · · Score: 1

      You clearly have never seen, or are aware of, the infrastructure needed to manufacture and test very large telescope mirrors.

      Yes, I am. Very much so. If I had been talking about building a single 30 meter mirror, you'd be right. That would definitely need one heck of a testing facility and a lot of support facilities as well. However, you don't need that. Adaptive optics have gotten really good in the past 10 years, and so you don't need one gigantic contiguous piece of glass. With adaptive optics, you can use many smaller, easy to manufacture pieces of glass very easily.

      (until you go and see how big they are and how much power and other resources needed to run them);

      Modern steel mills are large and power-hungry because they can be. There's no driver to make them smaller, and it would definitely cost more money. If you force someone to think about how to build a small-scale steel mill, they'll come up with it.

      Whoa! That one about knocked me out of my chair!

      Ah, so that explains why you didn't read the rest of what I said in the sentence you quoted!

      Assuming that lunar human infrastructure exists, and lunar manufacturing capability could be constructed

      would be the part that you left out. The expensive part about building a gigantic telescope in space are the launch costs, and any repairs that would need to be done, and the necessity of all of the support personnel. If the launch costs are eliminated by lunar manufacturing, the repair/retrofit costs are simply absorbed into the cost of maintaining a permanent lunar presence, and the support personnel are no longer constantly required, then it would be quite cheap compared to a space-based telescope.

    6. Re:on the moon? think again -- by barawn · · Score: 1

      The idea of using in situ resources is great. But I wonder if it will really be a short term or medium term solution (on the scale of twenty years, say.) We have certainly been talking about asteroid mining &c, but I wonder if the costs for sending up infrastructure are feasable?

      The benefit is that we're talking about things that can directly feed money back into the economy again. Small-scale manufacturing? There are tons of places that would want that!

      How much money would it cost to build a small probe designed to go to the Moon and try to manufacture alloys (say, bricks) out of lunar regolith? If that's *all* it was designed to do, probably not much - say, maybe, 100 million. So there's your testbed, and then you build a larger scale and send it. Maybe in pieces so you don't have to worry about it surviving completely intact. Then when humans land, the infrastructure's already there.

      Think about it this way: the mass of the systems used to construct, test and characterise the PSF of a mirror are huge compared to the mass of the mirror itself. You would need (I think) technology on a near magical scale to get that down.

      This is what adaptive optics have really helped in - the mirror itself constructs an ideal PSF. The JWST, Hubble's successor, is not going up as a completed mirror, but segmented, that will unfold when it gets there, with adaptive optics optimizing the shape. This is exactly what you would want to do on the Moon, just probably an order of magnitude or more larger.

      The technology you have will improve continuously so that the best giant mirror you can make now will suck compared to the one you can make later.

      Well, this is somewhat true, and somewhat not true. Aperture wins, all the time, so long as the other effects are marginal. Adaptive optics basically can mean that your mirror can be as good as your electronics, since it needs to adapt to thermal variations, and replacing electronics is easy (well... control electronics. I wouldn't suggest replacing thousands of transducers, though this probably would be possible). The age of big, giant mirrors is pretty much over. Only a few of the huge, large scale next-generation telescopes are single-mirror types: both JWST and the thirty-meter-telescope are segmented designs. This is because electronics has sped up at a rate much faster than optics. :)

      But let's see NASA get together a working probe that can build a stop sign out of in situ materials so that we can characterize exactly how cost effective your suggestion is.

      Part of the problem that I have with the current pace of NASA is that it's honestly insane. Small, proof-of-concept missions are really the best way to go. Like Pathfinder, or Deep Space 1, for instance. Actually, in my opinion, I wouldn't've kept Pathfinder running considering the cost of operating it. I would've put that money towards its successor. NASA used to say "faster, cheaper, better" - but I'd say just "more often" would be better. Momentum, momentum, momentum.

      I mean, people out there have to have ideas about how to manufacture things off planet. Plenty of scientists post proposals about it all the time, so the science is there. It's just the engineering that needs a kickstart, and the best way to do that is incrementally.

    7. Re:on the moon? think again -- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
      With adaptive optics, you can use many smaller, easy to manufacture pieces of glass very easily.
      Now it is clear that you have no idea on the concept of interferometry either. Let's take your 30 meters as an example. You're talking controlling disturbances to tens of nanometers and nanoradians. Do you have any idea how hard that is. Look up the Earth-bound facilities that do this (VLTI, NPOI, etc.) and you'll see that these sites are bored into large slabs of bedrock (I guess we're supposed to ignore these costs too). Not to mention that these sites are doing Michelson beam combination, which is easier than the type of telescope you're implying (which uses Fizeau beam combination).

      I've now fallen out of the chair, and yes I've read all your sentences. Your argument is basically: assuming no launch costs, no personnel costs, a cost-free fully-outfitted manufacturing facility (that needs to make mirror substrates out of the lunar soil! Go visit the Corning glass facility and get an idea what kind of power and cooling requirements you need), a cost-free fully-outfitted optical facility (including dedicated clean rooms), and pretty much ignore the remaining costs, the lunar optical telescope is essentially free.

      The expensive part of building a space telescope is the optics. Glass is heavy (even when they lightweight it), and if you go to segmented and/or sparse systems, you get the weight back in the metrology and control systems (which you refer to as the adaptive optics).

      I'm not sure how far in the not-to-distant future you are dreaming, but until we have a Flash Gordon world with not little bases, but cities on the Moon, you're not going to have the facilities or resources to do what you are talking about. Especially for something like building telescopes. They'll do radio arrays, but don't expect to see telescopes looking at anything shorter than tens of centimeters unless it is either brought up as a monolith, or it is doing Michelson beam combination.

      Your comment about steel mills is way off too. These mills live and die on the margins. These plants do what they can to squeeze an extra percentage of efficiency where they can get it because that means millions of dollars a day for the amount of steel they put out. They are large and power hungry because of thermodynamics. There are basic metallurgical requirements for turning your raw materials into steel, and believe me, you'll never have to work another day in your life if you can come up with a steel-making process that is even 25% more efficient than it is now. That's why that story last month about that researcher who found he could use microwaves to make steel is such a big deal; if that process works, and it can be industrialized, that man will be very very wealthy.

    8. Re:on the moon? think again -- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There isn't any room there because ZZTop is already at LaGrange. You might find some room at one of the Lagrange points, though.

    9. Re:on the moon? think again -- by barawn · · Score: 1

      Now it is clear that you have no idea on the concept of interferometry either.

      No, of course I do. I never said it would be easy, but it's not impossible. I'm a bit confused about the necessity of a completely stable site (the 30 meter number came from the Thirty Meter Telescope, which has planned sites for places like Hawaii - not exactly what one would consider a "perfectly stable site") - I don't think that the lunar surface would be a tremendously bad placement for it. The control you're immediately throwing out as "ridiculous" is definitely within reach nowadays. Technology's amazing.

      Your argument is basically: assuming no launch costs, no personnel costs, a cost-free fully-outfitted manufacturing facility (that needs to make mirror substrates out of the lunar soil!

      Yes, that would be exactly what I'm assuming. What would need to be launched that wouldn't be used for something else? Not a tremendous amount, for one. The personnel are used for other things, the manufacturing facility is used for other things, etc.

      If you're trying to say "if we go to the Moon to build a telescope, it'd be insanely expensive!" I agree with you. Very much so. But that's not what I've been saying. What I've been saying is "if we go to the moon, and establish a permanent presence, building a telescope is a good idea."

      I'm not sure how far in the not-to-distant future you are dreaming

      I'd say 50 years is a reasonable estimate. If Bush is serious about the return-to-the-Moon thing.

      Your comment about steel mills is way off too. These mills live and die on the margins.

      Um. Yeah. Duh. That's because there's no money in small-scale extremely expensive totally cost-inefficient steel production, which is what I said.

      They are large and power hungry because of thermodynamics.

      No, they're power hungry because of thermodynamics. They're large because of scale. They would lose money trying to make steel smaller-scale than they do now - it's not that it's impossible. Not unless you're trying to say that iron and/or steel has never been made in anything except gigantic foundries. Besides, that's again assuming there's no other material on the Moon that could make a strong support besides steel. I wouldn't even think of steel, as the materials aren't easily available.

      I mean, c'mon. Do you think no one's thought about "how do we manufacture things on the Moon?" Of course they have, and there's an absolute flood of information about it. Here's just a start.

      Anyone can simply say "oh, we can't do it, it's too complicated, requires too much work, etc." Not really. There's certainly no reason why we can't build a telescope out of materials on the Moon. It's just hard. And requires people to think, and be creative, and come up with new solutions to things, which is usually harder to convince people to do in a culture where people are constantly happy with the status quo.

  9. just one small point by kippy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Rather than hope that some small or large corporation agrees that a profit can be made off of Hubble research, the government should take a stand and finance basic science for its own sake, instead of ruminating about a massive aerospace industry welfare program under the cover of an exciting bunch of missions to the Moon and Mars.

    Aerospace welfare is keeping the shuttle and space station fantasy of space exploration alive. NASA employed a small army just to keep the shuttles in working order and ISS is just too pathetic to contemplate. Manned missions to planetary bodies is the correct direction for space exploration. That's where the science can be done. All the astronomy that Hubble did could be dwarfed by a lunar telescope array.

    NASA is finaly breaking out of 30 years of aerospace welfare. The new space push is finaly something done right. Let's just hope they stick to it and do it correctly.

    --
    Blaze a trail to the New World
    1. Re:just one small point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      And the ratio of science output to money spent for a lunar array will be dwarfed by Hubble.

      Don't forget, manned missions have next to nothing to do with science; they never have, and they probably never will. It is always preferable to have a human turning knobs, but once you look at it from a financial standpoint (infrastructure to support life, training of people to run experiments, etc.), you can do way, way more remotely/robotically (this goes to the point in the first paragraph) for the same budget. There may be many other reasons to want to send people, but science is way down on that list (but is always pushed to the top as the selling point).

  10. Apollo by kippy · · Score: 1

    though putting a permanent presence on the moon is probably 10 years off at best and expanding that to a good astronomical telescope would probably stretch another 10 or 20 years

    Um, we got to the Moon in 7 years last time and that was with vacuum tubes. Don't you think we could build the telescope during that ramp up time too?

    --
    Blaze a trail to the New World
    1. Re:Apollo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe a radio telescope array. But if you are talking about building an optical telescope with an aperture size large enough to better ground-based adaptive optic systems, then 7 years is way too conservative (even without using vacuum tubes).

    2. Re:Apollo by grannyknot · · Score: 1

      Um, we got to the Moon in 7 years last time and that was with vacuum tubes. Don't you think we could build the telescope during that ramp up time too?

      No. We can't. Space travel is just as expensive as it was when the Saturn V rockets where the hippest thing on the block. The truth is that missions to the moon would not be that much more advanced than they were thirty years ago. They *would* probably replace the vacuum tubes with CMOS-based logic circuitry, and some of the materials would be more advanced, but that's about it. I'd put money on the boondogle, sorry Moon Base, getting nuclear weapons before it gets a Hubble-quality telescope.

    3. Re:Apollo by kippy · · Score: 1

      Weapons on the moon, my favorate consipricy theory.

      Tell me this, why would you put nuclear weapons on the moon when they would take at least a full day to reach any ground based target? We've got weapons on the earth that will reach any target on earth a a couple hours.

      --
      Blaze a trail to the New World
  11. the obvious solution by WormholeFiend · · Score: 3, Interesting

    we have roughly 3 years before the HST becomes unusable.

    also, the construction of the ISS, IIRC, is not "complete" yet.

    wouldnt it be obvious to build another, better Hubble-like telescope and attach it to the ISS instead of some other planned component, or if the ISS vibrates too much, maybe have it tethered?

    the ISS has permanent people on board to fix, or at least to do in situ assessments, should any problem arise.

    plus the Progress can provide supplies if parts are needed.

    could a ISS-based telescope be built in 3 years?

    1. Re:the obvious solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What with the floating debris, gases from leaks and thrusters, vibrations (from astronauts, equipment, and unknown sources), and the high albedo of that bright shiny albatross, the ISS is the last place I'd put a telescope.

  12. Retro Space Taxi by stuffduff · · Score: 3, Interesting

    NASA says no shuttle flights to anywhere but the ISS for safety reasons. What about using a shuttle flight to take one of the existing space vehicles to serve as a space taxi to carry astronauts and material to and from the Hubble. Take a modified Gemini capsule, (it was made for testing orbital rendevous and docking procedures) give it a modified support module to carry the fuel and spare parts for doing the orbital adjustments and let them 'taxi' over to the Hubble when the orbital mechanics are favorible, accomplish the support mission and catch up to the ISS on the way back. While it is rocket science; it is with small modifications that can be made to previously proven vehicles; not a multi billion dollar idea. If they can't make it back they can always reenter the old fashioned way. If they do make it back then we have a relatively inexpensive space taxi for future use. Hell, you could fit 2 Gemini capsules and service modules in the shuttle cargo bay and have room left over!

    --
    "Can there be a Klein bottle that is an efficient and effective beer pitcher?"
    1. Re:Retro Space Taxi by sr180 · · Score: 1

      And how many technicians, scientists and engineers do you still know working that know how that works... The problem is that we've lost alot of the knowledge on these systems and its not just as simple as rebuilding them from the plans. All the manufacturing and support systems have moved on so that makes the designs as good as dead.

      --
      In Soviet Russia the insensitive clod is YOU!
    2. Re:Retro Space Taxi by stuffduff · · Score: 1
      You could be right. But we can always hope that someone out there can still whip out a slipstick and calculate a transorbital dx burn. After all it was a much simpler era. In Reno they compete in air races in 50+ year old hardware. And us, well we're not launching it from the bottom of the gravity well, it gets an aerodymanically insulated ride up into space inside the shuttle, it gets 40 years of improved technology in the recertification process. And it gets 40 more years of experience in tracking and flight management.

      "If an elderly but distinguished scientist says that something is possible he is almost certainly right, but if he says that it is impossible he is very probably wrong."
      -- Arthur C. Clark

      --
      "Can there be a Klein bottle that is an efficient and effective beer pitcher?"
  13. It's not about money... by beeplet · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I doubt that raising money for Nasa will be enough to change their minds on the Hubble issue. (Though if I thought it could, I'd be the first to donate!)

    Nasa is basing its refusal of the Hubble mission on safety issues. And since it has already made this clear, it would be a huge PR error to change their minds now... I think cancelling the Hubble mission is Nasa's way of telling the public "yes, we care about safety". Whether or not the Hubble mission is significantly more dangerous than the ISS missions is debatable in my view, but to Nasa it's a moot point anyway. As long as they are seen to be doing something to improve safety, then they can get on with the rest of their agenda...

  14. This *is* a thought... by Pi_0's+don't+shower · · Score: 3, Informative
    wouldnt it be obvious to build another, better Hubble-like telescope and attach it to the ISS
    I don't know if this idea has been considered, but what is commonly referred to as the "successor" to Hubble (I'll explain below why it's not), the James Webb Space Telescope, is built so that it won't need servicing missions. Hubble was built to be upgraded, as it's great seeing power comes from not having to look through an atmosphere and from having great cameras. (The cameras are what gets upgraded and replaced.) It is designed to view objects in the Ultraviolet and Blue light range. James Webb only "sees" in the Red and Infrared, and therefore isn't a replacement, it's just a different telescope. The only thing I wonder about, that may make this a bad idea, is that I believe the ISS may not be in a high enough orbit to house a telescope -- someone may want to check this.
    1. Re:This *is* a thought... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The JWST will not have a servicing capability, not because it won't need them, but because it will be put in an orbit (L2) that will not be servicable.

  15. Comander Data doesn't exist yet by kippy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I disagree. Sure it costs more to send a human cause of all the food and air and all that but robots are left in the dust when it comes to doing the science. Take the Mars probes. They're great and all and their teams should be commended but a human could have done in 10 minutes what they've done in the past month or so. And it's not like there's a shortage of work to be done up there too. Dollar for dollar, pound for pound and minute for minute, humans are better able to do science in volume, speed and creativity than robots. If it costs 100 times the amount to send a human than a robot, I put to you that the science return will be 1,000 times that of a robot.

    This may change in the future but we're not exactly able to send C3P0 out there just yet.

    --
    Blaze a trail to the New World
    1. Re:Comander Data doesn't exist yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like that wonderful International Space Station, huh? They haven't been doing much science recently. In fact most of the recent science involved trying to figure out where the air leak was......Far more useful data has come from Hubble than the ISS.

  16. You're less likely to see this these days by rk · · Score: 3, Insightful

    because of the principle of unintended consequences. Now, there are laws that state that a publicly-traded company's board and executives must to their best to maximize shareholder revenue, which on the surface sounds like a nice anti-fraud idea.

    The practice of it is corporations do relatively little basic scientific R&D anymore, and lay off masses of people at the first sign of financial difficulty.

    I even remember the TV ads Bell Labs ran when that discovery was made (I'm telling my age a bit, I'm sure). Nowadays, if they crowed about it, the board would probably be up on charges of securities fraud because they were working on "pie-in-the-sky" abstractions and not figuring out how to integrate yet another toy function into a cell phone.

  17. Flaw in the ointment by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The argument against the Hubble maintenance mission is that it would not have the ISS as a safe house if the shuttle makes it to orbit but is not safe to come back down in. Therefore any mission to other than the ISS requires making up the repair kit that the safety board recommended.

    Well hogwash! The safety board didn't say build the repair kit only if you go elsewhere, they said build it period. It would still be a good thing to have, even if the crew can hideout in the space station. Second, if no shuttle goes to Hubble, they have to build a special remote operated tug to match orbits with Hubble to bring it down under control, rather than let it wobble around and possible land big chunks on people. But a repair mission could install a much simpler de-orbit rocket as part of its mission, and I bet the costs would be a lot less, compared to designing a one shot remote operated booster.

    --
    Infuriate left and right
  18. Congressional hearings preceded M&M by apsmith · · Score: 1

    and Roger Angel testified to the Senate that a lunar telescope could be 100 times as powerful as Hubble. It's been out there, just wasn't in the main announcement.

    --

    Energy: time to change the picture.

  19. Save Hubble by Genial+Generalist · · Score: 1

    Why not move Hubble from its current orbit and attach it to the ISS. If we have a few years, a small amount of thrust to relocate Hubble to the ISS should be sufficient. The big advantage would be that a combined Hubble / ISS platform could be serviced by the ISS crew, thus reducing some of the risk of servicing Hubble with the limited shuttle flights. I will even supply the duct tape.

  20. Saving hubble will not be that hard. by Criton · · Score: 1

    My ideal to save hubble is accually very simple as it would involve a modified cargo carrier like progress and a soyuz or CEV mission. One reason is you really don't need a large space plane to do a repair mission. They repaired skylab back in the 70s with nothing more then apollo hardware and basicly saved the entire mission. Sky lab was pretty much 80tons of space junk at first due to a stuck solar array and a missing metor/thermo shield. . It should be possible to send up a soyuz and a progress ATV or the Kistler K1 space craft to carry the parts and a kick motor. This would also be quite affordable too since a soyuz and progress only cost 50 million each to launch. This would be good pratice for building a lunar station which will have to be done no shuttle since that class of spacecraft can't make it to lunar orbit. Though ironicly it's HLLV derivitives like shuttle-c will probley end up becoming the work horse of the lunar program and other heavy items like JIMO. Now if their going to do such stuff all with EELVs such experiance will be very nessiscary.

  21. I had pretty much the same ideal. by Criton · · Score: 1

    Mine was to use a soyuz and a progress to carry the equipment this would be a very cheap solution and would cost around 100 million to implament less thena shuttle mission which runs 300million.
    Also lockheed martin's CEV/OSP can have custom service modules.
    Boeing's retro apollo design also could be given a special mission module. Heck apollo was suposed to had a vesion for earth orbit science missions that added nice things like 15 cubic yards more living space and a real bathroom like the shuttle's.
    It was called the extended duration configuration for missions upto 28 days free flight.It was dropped when the program was cutted back in the 70s and only funding for skylab and ASTP remained.
    These could be used for future hubble missions and for repair and upgrade of JSWT.

    1. Re:I had pretty much the same ideal. by stuffduff · · Score: 1

      You've obviously given this a great deal of thought. Many interesting ideas here. All probably more cost effective. Just curious, any of them a good candidate for a side trip to the moon or a Lagrange point?

      --
      "Can there be a Klein bottle that is an efficient and effective beer pitcher?"