NASA Gives OK to Fix Hubble Telescope

Erick writes "NASA has decided to rescue the Hubble. This will come as great news to all of those who have advocated for fixing the ailing 'scopes sensors, gyros, etc. The article states that nine to 12 months of planning will precede a mission to the Hubble Telescope."

Comments

Cool

[Anonymous Coward]

The Hubble has served us well, and like the Enterprise, it has at least another spin around the galaxy before its time is up.

Nothing gives me more pride than to see a project for which I was a team leader for stay in the game against all odds.

This is awesome...

[march]

What we need is more science, less politics.

On a related topic, for which Hubble was sort of a contributor, check out The Perfect Machine (The Building of the Palomar Telescope).

Re:This is awesome...

[DanielMarkham]

I don't think so.

What we need is more politics, and less science. Politics makes the world go around, and politics is what is going to pay for all of the pure research we like so much. We've had too many years of wonderfully smart people trying to sell super-colliders to lawyers -- we should have learned something by now.

Focus on promoting space travel and lowering cost-to-orbit, and the rest will work itself out.

Re:This is awesome...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi, this is reality and our union would like a word or two.

Although you may believe that the hot air given off by all the politians in the world is enough to sustain a steady orbit and rotation of our planet it is in fact gravity and momentum which does this, which are scientific principals.

While valuble in avaiation hot air does not fund research or industry that is economics which is just a fancy branch of mathematics which is .. science again.

Have a nice day

Cost vs Risk

[meganthom]

I'm sure that at $1-$1.6 billion to repair the Hubble, many who are not directly affected by the Hubble's latest problems will wonder why we're throwing so much money into something that, to them, is just a big, expensive camera. Personally, I'd like to know what kind of research money we're losing because the Hubble isn't working properly.

I also fail to see how Mr. O'Keefe, who heads NASA, can postpone shuttle missions citing danger to the astronauts' lives. If it seems imminent that another disaster will occur on the next flight, I would understand, but surely we've found ways to resolve the latest problems. Astronauts don't go into the business of space flight thinking they'll have "safe" jobs, and I would think that as long as they're ready to fly again, the administration would be eager to get them back in space.

Re:Cost vs Risk

[Maestro4k]

• I also fail to see how Mr. O'Keefe, who heads NASA, can postpone shuttle missions citing danger to the astronauts' lives. If it seems imminent that another disaster will occur on the next flight, I would understand, but surely we've found ways to resolve the latest problems. Astronauts don't go into the business of space flight thinking they'll have "safe" jobs, and I would think that as long as they're ready to fly again, the administration would be eager to get them back in space.

Astronauts do indeed know they have unsafe jobs but it's one thing to die from an unavoidable mishap and another to die from something that should have been avoided. Both shuttle disasters have been proven to be the result of a culture (management culture at least) that tried to cut corners and costs even in the face of facts showing doing so could lead to loss of life (which it did, both times.) Frankly I really doubt NASA's culture has changed, if the shuttle goes back up it will be only a matter of time until we lose another one and it will most likely be due to avoidable error(s) (again). I fully support space travel/research but I also support the delays of starting up the shuttle program again. The only thing I'm worried about is if NASA will EVER be able to safely fly the shuttle, or anything else for that matter. I'm afraid that buracracy has taken over and NASA will never be able to avoid the avoidable risks since that might cost a few more dollars. (And yes I know not all risks can be avoided but there are risks that should not be taken when they're fixable -- like the problems in the O rings that caused the Challenger disaster.)

Re:Cost vs Risk

[Epistax]

Well personally I'd rather see the money go towards space elevator development. The sooner that is done, that $1-$1.6 billion to repair the Hubble will decrease significantly. Even if it requires a manned crew that must launch separately a lighter craft can be used (once developed) to get people into space.

On a side note I think that should be a project to go alongside the space elevator: A bare-bones launcher made just to hold astronauts, life-support, and creature comforts. Let the "shuttle" then go Lego style over pieces sent up by the elevator, potentially becoming enormous.
Oh yes, and I hope we have the best of the best of the best working on this project or else we'll just be throwing money down the drain.

Re:Cost vs Risk

[jridley]

Personally, I'd like to know what kind of research money we're losing because the Hubble isn't working properly.

Are you talking about the spectrograph that broke last week? Hubble was working perfectly up to that point.

Agree with you on the weak-kneed approach to space exploration. If we don't want to risk any more lives, then we should get the hell out of space. And also out of sea exploration, defense, and about 99% of what humans do.

It's a dangerous world; we must decide whether to face it or crawl into a hole. O'Keefe apparently is more interested in public relations than doing what the agency is chartered to do.

Re:Cost vs Risk

[jandrese]

Isn't this kind of like saying: We should give up all of our road maintence/construction budget and spend it all on the development of flying cars? Most people I talk to don't think a space elevator will be practical for decades (if ever). People need to do science now, not 50 years in the future.

Re:Cost vs Risk

[Epistax]

Not at all. If I said to give up the ISS, then that would hold some weight. However still none of these space explorations are vital in the same manner that you equate to road maintenance and construction. Flying cars? I hardly think that is a fair comparison at all.

How long a space elevator takes is very much a factor of how much people take it seriously. You don't take it seriously, yes it will take decades. You take it seriously, it might take one.

Re:More Money Down the Drain

[Sammich]

Nevermind the fact that the entire space industry puts AMERICANS to work. So when people have money (from working and not being on unemployment) they can buy items thus boosting the economy back up...oh wait never mind money down the drain Mod me down if you like, I don't care anymore.

Good for Nasa

[the_crowbar]

As an armchair astronaut (is there such a thing?) I applaud NASA's decision to keep the Hubble Space telescope operational. I have been fascinated over and over again by the images it produces. I think it may be one of the things that can keep NASA in the public eye and help it to get funding for more space exploration. I just hope that the repairs go well.

Cheers,
the_crowbar

Someone's finally making sense...

[solive1]

This is great news. The Hubble is one of our greatest scientific instruments. Without it or a suitable replacement, the effort to learn more about the universe would be left flapping around like a fish out of water.

Re:Want extra funding?

[sploo22]

Sure, but would average John Doe watch it? Bear in mind that the only way NASA can keep the public interested in the Mars rovers is to play wake-up music for them and give rocks names like "Snout" and "Tarmac". Something tells me that a 3-hour spacewalk to calibrate a spectrometer won't appeal to the lowest common denominator.

Thank God!

[JessLeah]

This is WONDERFUL news! It's interesting how NASA has kept saying "We'll just let the Hubble de-orbit" while maintaining a "head in the sand" attitude about its replacement. The scientists who rely upon Hubble need it now as much as ever (if not more than ever), but NASA has seemingly ignored them. Oh, I am so happy to hear that they've finally come to the right decision!

I mean, why should we deorbit Hubble if it doesn't already have a replacement up there?! Doesn't make sense.

Re:Want extra funding?

[Mattintosh]

Time to scold the mods... This isn't funny. It's practical.

And for once, there would be a reality show that isn't complete drivel. Hell, even I'd watch it, and I'm one of the few that usually finds watching TV to be painful.

Um, no

[Anonymous Coward]

1. NASA won't be dead "in five years", you asshole.

2. Bush isn't trying to kill NASA.

3. The word "spatial" refers to "space", moron, so while that may not be common use, it does indeed make sense, technically.

4. You're the "whacko". Sorry. If all you can see is 100% conspiracy, evil, and malevolence in everything Bush or his "cronies" do, then you're the only "whacko" around here.

Re:Want extra funding?

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't have to live. They can edit it to make things more exciting.. like... what happens when the spacewalk turns dangerous?! Find out after this commercial!

Great, but...

[Ed Burnette]

I'm glad that Hubble will be repaired but I fail to comprehend why it has to be by robots. It's in near Earth orbit! If we can't send humans to near Earth orbit then we have no business sending them to, say, Mars.

Even Discovery

[halothane]

Even Discovery Channel perpetuates the same error.

Hubble's replacement, the James Webb Space Telescope, isn't scheduled to be launched until at least 2011.

James Webb can't replace the Hubble. They see at different wavelengths. Webb can't even be reached once launched, let alone be repaired.

I know people here at /. know these things, but to see even so-called science channels misleading the public is disheartening.

Re:Even Discovery

[lildogie]

> Even Discovery Channel perpetuates the same error.

Yeah, in between documentaries about the Bermuda Triangle and Area 51.

Re:Even Discovery

[Minna Kirai]

Webb can't even be reached once launched, let alone be repaired.

Uh... if Webb can get there, then it's position CAN be reached.

Sure, it's out of range for the plausible human spacewalk profiles, but that doesn't mean a disposable repairbot can't be shot to LaGrange.

The reasons the Webb is less repairable are multiple: It costs less than half what Hubble did, and only 3x that of a rocket launch, so replacement isn't cost-prohibitive over repair. And since spacewalkers can't reach it, it was built to be less accessible...

Where's our priorities?

[milgr]

Nasa will send plenty of missions to continue constructing the ISS. But, how much scientific information do we gain from the ISS? As I understand it, most of the work currently done on the ISS is maintaining the ISS.

The Hubble on the other hand has a proven track record of sending back fascinating images that have advanced the astro-sciences.

There are no plans to replace Hubble with a space based telescope that takes images in the visible wave lengths.

So, where are we sending astronauts?

Re:Want extra funding?

[Sc00ter]

Exactly.. worked for "Al Capone's Vault"

How else can you keep people tuned in for a room full of dirt and old bottles..

Amazin

[Nuttles]

This is amazing news to hear considering the current political atmosphere of the country. George W. Bush may want to gain favor with the scientific community quickly in order to get some more support for his reelection. Since the project will take 3 years George W. could scrap it after the election to go for more ambitious and prestigious plan that will bolster up his presidency. So, if George W. Bush gets reelected, I think there is a chance that this project gets scrapped. Now if Kerry gets elected, there may be a ?weeding? of all things Bush and it may get scrapped that way too. So, given our current political atmosphere, I do not think that the fixing of the Hubble is a sure thing

Nuttles

Christian and proud of it

We need cooler people, and cooler stuff

[linzeal]

They need to hire rock in roll scientists, maybe go to the Luxuriant Flowing Hair Club for Scientists and pick out a particular Dude who I've seen make women swoon at talks before, and the right heads always turn when you pick up one of his books. Nasa also needs to give them cooler spacesuits than these. See the guy on the bottom he looks like the stay puff marhmellow man. I suggest something svelte, robotic, and shiny like these things here.

How many kids would be studying their asses off if they knew they could pilot a mecha?

Every time I see "Hubble"...

[nlawalker]

I think "red-headed stepchild" of NASA and government funding. That poor thing has been broken and talked about so many times that it was tough to decide if they should actually salvage it or just let it burn up. Money and promises of future technology be damned, I think we should keep the thing around. Hubble is one of the few things that keeps the explorers of the "undiscovered country" in the news and connecting with the public (even though so often, the news is that it's busted again). Besides, the fact that they can keep fixing the thing is a tribute to functional technological design. Someone should explain to Microsoft programmers that if NASA, an often-underfunded agency, can replace lenses and precision gyroscopes on a piece of metal orbiting the earth at high speeds, Microsoft should be able to patch their software without all this racket.

Re:More Money Down the Drain

[bhima]

Just to put things into perspective: Hubble launched in 1990 at a cost of $1.5 billion to build and put into orbit.

It costs about 300 million every year to operate (for a total cost of four billion two hundred million) so I would guess about 6 billion dollars so far. Using various web resources I estimate US military spending for the same time period to be three trillion four hundred seventy-four billion four hundred million.

So I estimate that Hubble cost 1/579.1 of what what is spent on the US military

(thanks google calculator)

Great

[condensate]

Hubble is one of the most fruitful scientific projects ever. Since the nineties, it has continuously shaped our view of the universe, think, e.g. of the Hubble deep field. Besides, it is still the only way astronomers can take a peek into space (in the visible part of the spectrum) without having to accept athmospheric disturbances. That is, it is still our sharpest eye out there and will surely help in bringing us some great science. Thanks a lot, NASA!

Re:Overused quote of the day

[Apollo Jones]

I happened to notice this, and for once felt the need to say it really is from Mahatma Gandhi. Just an off-topic FYI.

I'm pretty sure everything we do is space is good.

[l4m3z0r]

Whether it be repairing the so-called 'failing' ISS, repairing hubble, or sending up new instruments. As we struggle to keep ISS afloat through repairs, budget issues, and tons of setbacks we are obviously learning alot about how to keep that thing up there. I'm sure as stuff breaks or breaks multiple times, new things are developed to replace the faulty parts. After years and years of doing this NASA has built up alot of practical experience of keeping a piece of junk in space that can support life. Obviously hubble is more important scientificically but we shouldnt underestimate the value of excersises in engineering, maintainence, and beerocracy :). NASA has many responsibilities, learning as much as they can about keeping people alive in an old and finicky spacecraft is about as important as they come....

Everything we do in space is good... barring of course bringing the damn military and weapons into space.. that wont go well for anybody...

Re:Want extra funding?

[the pickle]

Yeah, but that's because Mark Burnett isn't producing it. Say what you like about Survivor and The Apprentice, but the guy knows how to make seemingly boring television fairly exciting for the unwashed masses.

p