Farewell To Eyes Above And Below

LMCBoy writes "SpaceRef is reporting that the STIS Instrument on board HST has failed. The Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph was HST's only spectrometer, and was responsible for several important discoveries, including the first detection of an exoplanet's atmosphere. The loss is believed to have been caused by a failure in the instrument's main electronics box, which led to a rapid increase in the input current of about 1 ampere, which caused the instrument to enter a "suspend" state. It is believed that this failure is not recoverable." No_Weak_Heart writes "Perhaps the world's most renowned submersible, Alvin of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, is slated for retirement. Alvin has helped scientists explore deep sea, find a lost Hydrogen bomb(oops!) and discover more than 300 new animal species, will be replaced by a newer version in 2008. Also available this audio clip from NPR." (Here's a glance at Alvin's replacement.) Update: 08/07 17:29 GMT by T : Note: "HST"="Hubble Space Telescope." Thanks to Chris Johansen for pointing out the overloaded acryonym.

Comments

Re:It's time to let the Hubble go

[Exatron]

No, it's not time to let Hubble go. A lawnmower is completely different from an expensive and still potentially useful scientific instrument. Fixing Hubble is worthwhile because its replacement isn't operational yet, it won't be serviceable, and it's designed to detect different things.

Re:It's time to let the Hubble go

[Detritus]

You do if a new lawnmower costs $100,000 and has to be ordered five years before delivery.

NASA and HSTSI have invested very large amounts of money and time in the HST program. Even if a new telescope was built and launched, it wouldn't make the instruments magically become 50% cheaper. With the way NASA is being funded, it may be decades before another optical telescope is put in space.

Maybe...

[the pickle]

...this will take some of the sting out of the planned retirement of the Hubble.

I agree with another poster here that we need to get a suitable replacement up ASAP, but perhaps now that Hubble is truly showing its age, the public will accept its retirement as an eventuality. After all, Skylab was a pioneering space "device" (for lack of a better term) and we let that fall back down to Earth.

I'm not saying we should necessarily write it off right now, but that maybe those folks at NASA who said six months ago that Hubble was getting near retirement age were right. Now, instead of lots of expensive repair missions, let's get a new and better 'scope up there ASAP!

p

Re:Maybe...

[RobertFisher]

I think you are missing out on one major fact.

The plan to decomission Hubble earlier this year came within days of the Bush plan to redirect NASA to explore Mars. If you really believe that the decision was based on good science and engineering, and not on political goals, then you are incredibly naive. The announcement came with only a nominal budgetary increase, so many NASA budgets were completely slashed, including the Hubble servicing mission. Several other very important missions, including the Dark Energy Probe, are now on permanent ice as well. It is not a matter of "expense," as you suggest, but rather one of priority. We have the money, but rather than devoting it to science, it is now going into the drain of a Mars mission which will never launch, because Congress will never approve the hundreds of billions required.

The NGST (now named Webb) telescope has been in the works for years. It has a launch date of 2010. The Hubble reservicing mission was planned for 2006, and should have kept Hubble in operation until at least 2011 or 2012. That WAS a rational plan to keep the HST maintained, and to ensure than we have one optical space observatory in service at all times.

--RF

Re:Maybe...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you're missing a major fact; Columbia scattered seven astronauts in little pieces across Texas a year before the decision.

Our response, should have been to ground the Shuttles entirely, ending both the HST and ISS as unfortunate side-effects of the final shutdown of the whole misbegotten Shuttle program. (We should have been getting a replacement on-line in the 1990s, but, hey, there was a budget to balance, and a space station to build as an international venture, and the best replacement candidate came from that evil Star Wars program . . . )

Instead, because of the needs of international diplomacy, we're going to keep launching shuttles on a minimal schedule to keep the ISS open. And as a result, we have to deal with assholes like you suggesting we put even more wear-and-tear on these dangerous, antiquated experimental spacecraft so we can gather data now instead of in ten years, because, hey, the laws of the universe are going to change if we take the time to exercise a little caution. What's another seven lives if it lets you publish another paper, after all?

Mars, of course, isn't something that's going to happen any time soon. But it's the kind of PR goal neccessary to get the funding for the far more prosaic job of building a replacement for the shuttles. You know, something to service future orbital obervatories?

Re:It's time to let the Hubble go

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps the geniusses in Congress should decide to stop invading other countries on knowingly false claims and save that money to send up ten new Hubbles and caring for the poor...

But noooo, why do something good if there are still people to kill and oilfields to capture....

Re:It's time to let the Hubble go

[WindBourne]

Whats the worst thing that could happen if there is a period of time where we are without a space telescope? This isn't exactly a life-critical piece of machinery.

Uh, yeah

The Hubble is done. Deal with it. If the geniuses in Congress decides that our hard earned tax dollars are better spent putting up a new scope up than feeding the poor, educating our children, or researching cures for deadly diseases, we can have another one.

I am curious. At what time in our past history, or any societies history for that matter, have we been able to feed all, educate all, and have absolutely no disease? None that I am aware of. But I do note that in history, societies always do better when they persue science and technologies. Historically, that was when they where engaged in a war off their soil. When the war is on their soil, science and technology stop. So how do we increase our science. One approach is simply start worthless wars that do little for us. Hummmmmm. Rome did that for eons. Perhaps others have as well.

But a better time was when a society sought something beyond their grasp. England migrating all over the world is a good example (interesting that they were not the original discover, but took advantage of it). The original Space shot did more us than any other war did. And it was a whole lot cheaper than any war that we engaged in.

Re:It's time to let the Hubble go

[LWATCDR]

"If the geniuses in Congress decides that our hard earned tax dollars are better spent putting up a new scope up than feeding the poor, educating our children, or researching cures for deadly diseases, we can have another one."

When will this stupid argument stop... "We can put a man on the moon but..."
Did you know that the population of the US spend more money on potato chips last year than Nasa?
Get over it. If you are so worried about the poor stop spending you money on consoles, cable tv, and Ipods and give it to the poor. Even better get up and work a soup kitchen and or homeless shelter.
The amount that hubble costs the US is trivial.