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

Want extra funding?

[Anonymous Coward]

Make it a reality series! I know I'd watch them prepare and fix it.

Re:Want extra funding?

[Billy the Mountain]

Make it a reality series! I know I'd watch them prepare and fix it.

Yeah, I second that. Make it like Junkyard Wars or something.

BTM

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.

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.

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!

Re:Want extra funding?

[rossdee]

I thought that the space equivalent of Junkyard Wars was the X Prize.

Re:Want extra funding?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, NOVA got footage from NASA for a show on the first repair mission to Hubble.

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..

Re:Want extra funding?

[Mateito]

So we get to send Paris Hilton off to Hubble?

I'd watch that!

Actually, maybe she's already in training, which explains the bruises (link omitted, as I can't find one that doesn't feature porn banners. Its a wierd world)

Re:Want extra funding?

[AviLazar]

As I recall, NASA does have a cable channel where you can observe their missions. I viewed this once, and well - it was VERY boring.

Re:Want extra funding?

[blamanj]

a 3-hour spacewalk

Unfortunately, there is no spacewalk planned. The approval has been given for a robotic mission only. Presumably this means that people actually believe it can be done by a robot, which hasn't been clear up to now.

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

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.

Re:Cool

[drinkypoo]

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.

I'm sure all the astronomers of the world thank you. Someone had to be in charge of catering.

Re:Cool

[XemonerdX]

Its replacement is scheduled for launch in 2011 (it's in the article btw). Until that time it would be nice to have some nice crisp & clean new wallpapers for our desktops.

NASA LIES!!! [partly OT]

[bunburyist]

Don't beleive that stuff, Be more cynical. Bush is allocating 1 billion a year for the moon and Mars. Impossible. In return, NASA is being asked to give up the Hubble, the Shuttle, the Space Station (eventually). And funding for all other programs will be cut or eliminated as well, "for the Mars mission". The "Mars Mission" is twenty years in the future. It will have to survive five administrations, ten Congresses, and the eventually bankrupting of the Federal kitty by the tax cuts and increased non-discretionary spending. Point is, the "Mars mission" won't survive. I've watched the space program for thirty-five years, and things like this don't maintain momentum, especially in hard financial times. NASA, I hear, initially was jubilant; now they realize what they are being asked to give up: everything. For a pig in a poke. You are being just cynical enough. This is a way of disbanding the manned program while looking like heros, or "spatial pioneers", as Bush called them (I am not making that up). Five years from now, NASA will be all but gone, with a few contractors making a bit of money researching new systems that never make it to reality. I didn't believe it would happen so fast! Hubble already given up? I only wonder if Bush is smart enough to have thought this up himself, or if his Grand Viziers came up with the scheme while telling George about Mars and "Spatial Pioneers"? Does the King actually believe what he is saying? Is he that dumb, or that smart? And these comments are "flamebait" if you are a far-right whacko, kids. I'm not laughing.

Re:NASA LIES!!! [partly OT]

[Aadomm]

Absolutely. This whole Mars fiasco has damaged NASA badly.

Wonder if any of the X prize teams will be in a position to go up and fix the Hubble before NASA get around to it?

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...

[garcia]

What we need is more everything, less politics.

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

Re:This is awesome...

[QEDog]

We've had too many years of wonderfully smart people trying to sell super-colliders to lawyers -- we should have learned something by now.

The Superconducting Super Collider was canned for political reasons. The congress wanted to crack down on something for budget reasons, and there were 2 big targets: the International Space Station or the SSC. Remeber how each of these projects are a tiny amount of the goverments budgets. They needed to make an example out of one of them to "show" that they were serious about the budget. They cracked on the SSC because it was less "interesting" to the public, even though it was more important scientifically. They were going to look, among other things, for the Higgs Boson. It would have attracted thousands of scientists from around the world.

Then the same politicians crippled the Space Station by putting it in an orbit that would let them cooperate with Russia, but made it useless for its original purpose. They broke the Space Station for a public show of how happy things are politically with Russia.

I disagree, we haven't had years of smart people selling super-colliders.

Basic science is hard to grasp for the general public. What is its application? Who knows? But, the point is that to build new technologies, a good strating point is to understand nature a bit better. Don't forget the basic science, without it the rest wont work itself out.

Re:This is awesome...

[jafac]

SSC was pork-barrel politics from Bush Sr.

The scientists who wanted it, thought it should be built in Illinois, so that Fermilab could be used as an injector ring. It would have been merely an expansion of Fermilab, and thus, would have saved taxpayers BILLIONS of dollars in construction of new facilities (and would have allowed scientists who already live there to stay living there). Additionally, there already existed in Illinois, several firms with lots of experience in deep tunnel boring projects (for Chicago water pipelines, etc.) In Texas, the plan was for some oil-service companies (run by buddies of Bush), to expand their businesses to acquire the capability for that kind of tunneling. They did not have that capability when the contracts were awarded.

Bush pulled strings to get it built in his home state of Texas. Yes, the religions wingnuts have no qualms spending big money on big science, as long as their contributors get to feed at the trough.

Likewise, Clinton performed a mercy-killing on the project, partially as a politically-motivated attack on Bush's supporters, and partially as an attempt to show that they were serious about fighting pork in the federal budget. But there were sound scientific reasons too. Ongoing expansion projects at other facilities in the world will fill in the gaps left by the loss of the SSC. There would be no such alternative for the ISS. On the other hand - I agree that for the money spent, the SSC had a better promise of delivering more useful science than the ISS. Right now, the ISS does provide some limited capability there, but the cost of maintenence (including the Shuttle) is just plain crippling the space program's more worthwhile scientific projects.

Re:This is awesome...

[SergeyKurdakov]

Then the same politicians crippled the Space Station by putting it in an orbit that would let them cooperate with Russia, but made it useless for its original purpose. They broke the Space Station for a public show of how happy things are politically with Russia.

just to add few cents from Russian point of view. Russians were not happy on abandoning their own project Mir station - and more - there are those here in Russia who are unhappy that we spend money on ISS - which costs us quite a bit of money and yes - brings few scientific output. To most Russian space specialists ISS is not 'up to date' space station ( due to the organisation of process and rush when it was designed) - it is more costly to maintain than estimated cost for some projects we had here on paper and which Russians could launch after Mir ended it's mission if there were no ISS commitments .

Overall - I could say that common beliefs here among specialists and which are articulated ( years before ISS was launched) for example by former chief designer of Salyut and Mir space stations is - manned space researches are cost ineffective and failed to meet expectations which were about manned flights in 60s to 80s. It is like the fact it is much more efficient to use robotic satellites but manned space flights bring more public attention and are politically more attractive and the last point always wins when funding solutions are made.

Thus the decision to launch robotic mission to repair Hubble seems a good move from the point of getting more output from money.

As for what russians had from launching ISS - here there were much public protests against abandoning Mir, till now seems no real scientific results were achieved on Russian part and now, when US declared that they will stop shuttle missions since 2010 and will limit current ISS building process puts a lot of hurdle on russian space budget with even less perspective that IS scientific will be somehow effective in future. And as Souz becomes the major mean to deliver humans to ISS and each costs money - which no one expected to spend The Russians are posed in very difficult situation - spend money with almost no political or scientific results - ISS is mostly respected as US creature, science is not effective with reduced support from US, and Russians are about to spend more money to support operations. As a matter of fact - we have much less developed economy so launching additional Souzes is not a fun but a big hurdle which in turn stifles russian attempts to develop modern robotic satellites due to lack of funding ( space budget is one and limited by relatively small economy- and if money spent on Souz es no money on unmanned flights).

So - NASA is moving in right direction - and rusians are having hurdles to develop due to need to support flights to ISS.

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

[LMCBoy]

'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.

I would remind these people that $1 billion souunds like a lot, but it's equal to the cost for 2-3 shuttle launches, and probably not much more than we've spent on previous HST servicing missions. It's certainly far less than has been wasted^W spent on the ISS.

Re:Cost vs Risk

[Billy the Mountain]

...as long as they're ready to fly again, the administration would be eager to get them back in space

Well, it's not as though we've got a huge stable of shuttles ready to be deployed. We've only got two left Discovery and Atlantis, and there's no way we'll build any more like them, I'd wager. And, I'd also wager that NASA has essentially lost the ability to build any new launch vehicles because of the attrition of layoffs and retirements of skilled people to pull it off. (There haven't been any new designs seen to completion since the shuttles. I'm purposely excluding the ISS because it's not a launch vehicle.)

BTM

Re:Cost vs Risk

[proj_2501]

three left. you're missing the endeavour

Re:Cost vs Risk

[stevesliva]

Endeavor, too. And NASA doesn't build launch vehicles. Lockheed-Martin and Boeing do.

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.

Secret documents reavel the future of Hubble

[Anonymous Coward]

Google's IPO is actually so they can BUY Hubble from the United States. This will allow them to index the entire UNIVERSE! Imagine being able to search Space!

Oh, and they'll be renaming Hubble to Huugle.

Re:Secret documents reavel the future of Hubble

[fimbulvetr]

remove the +"on earth"

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

Re:Good for Nasa

[FortKnox]

I agree 100%. Even if its only an 'expensive camera,' it is fascination and inspiration to people (and children who may become astrophysicists and astronomers).

Science and space should be fun and exciting... that's what Hubble is. It keeps the public interested in science, which makes it easier to get funding for, say, Mars missions.

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.

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:Thank God!

[bware]

Because the $1B you use to keep the Hubble up is the $1B that you now don't get to spend on the replacement.

I expect to hear that in the next few days, since the new fiscal year is coming up, that both of the future space science projects that I work on will have budget cuts, if not be mothballed entirely. This will be directly as a result of this Hubble decision.

You're fired...

[lewko]

Thank you. I just had a fantastic vision of Omarosa imploding in the vacuum of space...

Re:You're fired...

[meta-monkey]

Why would she implode? If she were exposed to the vacuum of space, I could see her lungs bursting (exploding) if she tried to hold her breath, but I would figure that every fluid in her body would boil away, and that's what would kill her.

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.

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?

Yay!

[sunking2]

Many more years of neat looking background images. What would we do without Hubble!

Must be a Tuesday...

[Pendersempai]

Seems to me they issue this sort of announcement every other Tuesday. How many times now has NASA gone through this "we're gonna get rid of Hubble... we're gonna do it... PSYCH!" dance?

The cynical side of me says that they're holding it hostage for better funding and popular support, because it's such an icon. The last time they announced that they were junking it I didn't believe them for a second... and now, surprise, looks like it has a new lease on life.

Soyuz rocket prepared w/ Windex and screwdriver

[IronChefMorimoto]

In related news, a Russian Soyuz rocket was prepared for the Hubble repair mission. In an effort to cuts costs on the project as much as possible, NASA officials are using the Russian-made space vehicle to facilitate the mission.

Additionally, NASA will supply the two astronauts assigned the project a bottle of Windex and a roll of Bounty paper towels to clean the Hubble optics. If the budget permits, a Philips head screwdriver and one of those fancy Sears/Craftsman "GRIP" wrenches will also be thrown in to the duffle bag the astronauts are carrying with them for the flight.

IronChefMorimoto

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

Re:Amazin

[traveyes]

rtfa. It was NASA chief Sean O'Keefe's decision to plan mission, not President Bush's, nor his administration's.

This link makes it clear that O'Keef wants this to be a "robotic mission". I don't think they can design robots to replace batteries and gyros by 2007, but I truly hope they can. So it won't be a political battle that axes it, but a technological one.

.

Fix the old, replace with new?

[Apollo Jones]

Great news that NASA will seek to keep the Hubble up and working. Sounds like NASA will be able to schedule a service mission in about 3 years (with one of those years just planning). However, I am a little worried that there is not a lot of press covering its replacement - the James Webb Space Telescope. This isn't scheduled to be launched until 2011. The extension of Hubble closes the gap between current and future platforms. Interestingly Webb has a mission life of 5 - 10 years. In contrast Hubble was launched in 1990 and will be in use for at least another 3-4 years. Let's hope NASA is being conservative in their estimate of the duration of the Webb...

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?

The real reason

[mackman]

Secretary of State Rumsfeld insisted NASA "repair" the hubble by turning it around and pointing it at Earth.

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:Great

[Christopher Thomas]

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!

Actually, adaptive optics give us better visible-wavelength pictures from the ground now. The Hubble is useful for wavelength bands that the atmosphere absorbs.

Re:Great

[Christopher Thomas]

if the Hubble is in a Shuttle-serviceable orbit, the Earth blocks it's view 45 out of every 90 minutes ...Except when the telescope is pointing along Earth's axis of rotation, but that gives you a rather small patch of the sky to observe. My understanding is that they do build the deep-field images by adding successive exposures.

I should really write replies when I'm more awake. :)

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.

Re:Overused quote of the day

[Walrus99]

"Ruse de Rorce, Ruke."
--Scooby Wan Kenobi

Story Musgrave !!!!

[cbelt3]

They need more Astronauts like Story to gain interest. Am I the only one who remembers their kickass EVA on STS-61 ? Of course, adding in a Zero-G sex act would probably increase viewership way more than the intellectual challenge.

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...

That Was A Hoot

[crawling_chaos]

by some private industry who actually is trying to save a buck while getting the best service

Yeah, just like Microsoft saves a buck while producing the best software, or Ford saves a buck by producing the best car...

Private industry is no panacea. Particularly since the main client will continue to be the US Government and nobody has ever accused government contractors of producing the best product. As one astronaut once said "I try not to think about the fact that every part of the rocket underneath me was built by the lowest bidder."

Re:More Money Down the Drain

[dapyx]

So what you're saying is... we aren't spending enough on our military.

US has 5% of the world's population and 50% of the world's spending on military and it's not enough ?

Not so fast....

[global_diffusion]

This sounds to me like a stalling tactic, not like NASA is actually going to fix the Hubble. Think about it:

They have 9-12 months to design a robotic space mission. Then how many years will it take to build it and implement it? By the time this "mission" is underway, Hubble will have been floating dead in space for years and will probably have tons of other problems that will make this mission obselete.

This sounds more like a way to funnel money to people studying robotics than a way to save the Hubble. An interesting thing to do would be to see which companies are supposed to develop these robotics and what connections they have to the administration.