Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Scientists Debate Robotic Hubble Mission

Posted by timothy on from the world-wars-lead-to-medical-breakthroughs dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Some scientists are questioning whether the robotic mission to repair the Hubble Space Telescope is worth the risk and cost. After the Columbia disaster, NASA cancelled its shuttle mission to Hubble, and replaced it with a robotic mission. However, the price tag of the robotic mission is between $1 billion and $2 billion, almost the cost of a new space telescope. Optics expert Duncan Moore is unsure whether the mission will bring the most scientific return per dollar spent. Hubble director Steven Beckwith says the mission will lead to breakthroughs in space robotics."

53 of 172 comments (clear)

  1. All science is good science by Amsterdam+Vallon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I worked for NASA for 8 years straight out of MIT undergrad.

    Though I left the rocket science "business", I have no regrets. It was a great company to work for and we did some amazing things.

    That said, all science is good science, even this robotic HUBBLE mission. I helped with deployment of spacecraft and nothing was more satisfying.

    This mission MUST go on else we will fail as scientists.

    --

    Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate. Ex-O'Reilly/MIT employee, now a full-time Google employee.
    1. Re:All science is good science by InfiniteWisdom · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That said, all science is good science
      While true, the real question if whether that $1-2b could be spent on doing better science. Of course, merely because $2b can purchase a new telescope doesn't mean it isn't worthwhile to do a robotic mission if the science and engineering aspects involved are new and exciting enough, or if the robotic equipment could be used for future time/money saving work.

      If its going to be a relatively routine job, then maybe its better to say a fond farewell to Hubble and build a new space telescope drawing on all the lessons learnt from Hubble's shortcomings.

    2. Re:All science is good science by Pxtl · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Idunno, to me Hubble is more of just an excuse than a goal - NASA wants to develop robotics as an alternative to EVA. I remember designs in the 90s for a "Canad-Hand" to go on the arm. I think NASA just wants an opportunity to develop this technology so they don't have to risk more astronauts, and Hubble is a popular plaform to build support for it.

    3. Re:All science is good science by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I dare say that while robotics research is a lofty goal, this is the wrong mission for it. We can study telerobotics just fine on Earth, and there are a pile of undersea applications that are far more technicalogically challenging, with more direct applications to everyday problems.

      When we say that 1 or 2 billion is going to research, that is the opening bid. Spending 1 or 2 billion to keep an obsolete telescope aloft is a bad use of R&D. Bad with a capital B. Especially since there is no advantage to keeping the old station aloft, nor is there any danger (more than any other satellite at least) in bringing it down.

      If the thing had a radioactive power source, or there was a super-expensive rare metal apparatus that we can't manufacture anymore I'd say sure. Otherwise, drop the thing and spend your budget on a new telescope using the lessons learned from the old, and technology that did not exist in the 30 years since the unit left the drawing board.

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
  2. Just do it by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There's nothing to lose.

    1) The Shuttle is a waste of time and money. It should be grounded, and the remaining shuttles given to the Smithsonian.
    2) The Space Station is useless too. Time to just declare victory in the War against low Earth orbit, and bring it down.
    3) The replacement vehicles suggested for the Space Shuttle are scaled-up and enhanced Apollo capsules. We should just be buying Soyuz from the Russians. It works, it's safe. We'll never use it because it was Not Invented Here. Stupid. In case you missed it, I said not using Soyuz is stupid.
    4) Going to Mars in the short term is dumb. GW Bush likes the idea, and that's a bad sign, because he's a fuck stick. But besides that, it's just too soon to go. There's a tremendous amount to learn by robot right now, and that's what we are doing.
    5) So, we may as well save Hubble. It's not like we have anything else that is better to spend the money on.

    --
    Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    1. Re:Just do it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Mod that parent up! (even though I only partly agree)

      1) Yep.
      2) Not quite, but we should finish the ISS using no more than 8 more shuttle flights, then all soyuz and USA/ESA expendable rockets. Hey, invite the Chinese to the party, too. Is it the INTERNATIONAL space station, or not? Snubbing the Chinese is a profoundly stupid thing to do; we'd be well served to have parts of the ISS coming up from China, Europe, Japan, Brazil, Russia, Canada, the USA, and anyone else with the mettle to fly vehicles there.
      3) We should seriously consider buying soyuz from the russians even as we develop further launchers. Apollo had a -LOT- of things right, shame we scrapped it.
      4) Going to Mars is only dumb if we don't plant roots there and establish a manned presence.
      5) I wholeheartedly agree that hubble should be extened robotically. Worst case, we fund R&D for some kickass robotic technology that we can use elsewhere in space or even down here. The problem is that the max price for the robotic mission is projected at $2 BILLION (2,000 x 1,000,000). Sending a shuttle to fix it with carbon based units is a $900 Million proposition. I say take volunteers for a risky shuttle flight and fix it with humans, then spend a smaller budget on a robotic grand finale that would enhance hubble one last time followed by a remote controled electrodynamic tether that would bring hubble in to its inceneration.

  3. Webb/NGST is NOT a radio telescope! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Its a visual/IR telescope. Hubble is for shorter frequencies (visual to UV), but both are definitely optical devices.

  4. Our eye in the Sky ... by Gopal.V · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Stupid question, If it costs as much as another hubble up there , why are we not building another one and send it up again ?.

    Secondly, why isn't ISS going anywhere in comparison ?. Also that's a more international project for space. I hated the canadian reference ... Also sadly the guy in charge wants to last out till Sept 2005 (you know nothing good or bad happens in the last months of retirement).

    Last century, most of the world (with notable exceptions), expected america to do the Right Thing. That's past now (see the Thermonuclear reactor project) and in 4 short YEARS.

    --
    Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur
    1. Re:Our eye in the Sky ... by apanap · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There's also the fact that a robotic repair mission would serve as an excellent opportunity to learn a lot more about robotics in space, something that is very valuable in it self. Both NASA and ESA have sent up missions that do basically nothing but test new technology. This would be new technology that does something very useful other than "being new".

      --
      Give me a job. Please?
  5. But think of how cool it would be... by f4llenang3l · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... to have robots with hands in orbit! I mean, we could make giant shadow puppets on the Great Wall of China!

    --

    ---
    she won't let you fly, but she might let you sing
    1. Re:But think of how cool it would be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Just imagine the possibilities, it could...

      - Knock on the door of Space Station Mir, then fly off.
      - Play Rock'em Sock'em robot with the satellites.
      - Give the finger to Canada when orbiting overhead (I kid, I kid...)
      - Play air guitar...in space!
      - Combine with other robots to make one gigantic super robot.

      etc.

  6. Why not build a new Space Telescope? by WarPresident · · Score: 4, Interesting

    However, the price tag of the robotic mission is between $1 billion and $2 billion, almost the cost of a new space telescope.

    Heck, you could shave a few hundred thousand off that pricetag if you built a new HST around the "backup" primary mirror made by Kodak (which was figured and tested correctly). NASA would just have to get it from The National Air and Space Museum.

    --
    Here come da fudge!
    1. Re:Why not build a new Space Telescope? by flowerp · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Just tell me, how would you launch the backup HST without using the shuttle. ;)

      --
      --- Eat my sig.
  7. Why not contract it out? by Bill_Royle · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'd suggest that the folks at SpaceShipOne could do it for a lot less money. Heck, set up a contest for it - then you're encouraging innovation in the field. With the savings you could garner you could probably divert that to other projects... or buy more $10k toilet seats.

    1. Re:Why not contract it out? by khallow · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No one else has the capability right now except perhaps the Russians. Scaled Composites isn't an option at this time. They don't have the skill set or the technology. From what I hear, this thing needs to get done by 2007.

    2. Re:Why not contract it out? by bhima · · Score: 3, Interesting
      In order to reach the Hubble a Soyuz would have to be launched from the equator rather than Kazakhstan (where they are now currently launched). As it so happens, the Russians have signed a deal with the European Space Agency to allow them to launch Soyuzes from French Guiana starting in 2006. Additionally the costs of launch are so low, that 3 missions to Hubble could be planned for less than the one mentioned here, or two shuttle missions.

      Still I'd like to see James Webb Telescope in place...

      --
      Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
    3. Re:Why not contract it out? by Bill_Royle · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Another good point.

      Since when is it an acceptable project or endeavor only if a US space agency takes part? If it can be done by the Russians, good for them.

      The sentence "It's good for science" isn't exclusively a US phrase.

    4. Re:Why not contract it out? by jjn1056 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What do you think NASA does? They do outsource HUGE amounts of work to various companies to build stuff, they don't build it all themselves.

      Gosh, everytime we have some sort of problem in goverment, why do so many people think that simply shutting down the goverment agency and handing out huge wads of cash to companies will solve it?

      Look at what Haliburton did in Iraq. Arguable the Army Corp of Engineers could have done a lot of that work for less.

      It will be years still before commerical interest and technology improvements will allow a non government sponsered agency to pull something like this off. I'm not discounting the amazing achievement of the SpaceShipOne people, but a short, suborbital flight was something NASA was doing back in the 1960's.

      Someday technology improvements will push costs down to the point that something like this will be some kid's high school science experiment. But that is not today.

      --
      Peace, or Not?
  8. $2 billion?? by Joel+from+Sydney · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I have difficulty comprehending how something can cost that much.

    How urgent are these repairs to Hubble? Realistically speaking, if NASA is only debating to whether to spend $2,000,000,000 now, it's going to be several years before anything gets off the ground. So clearly the repairs aren't that urgent. Wouldn't it then make more sense to spend the cash and resources on improving/fixing/replacing the shuttles, so that we can safely send humans to do the job?

    1. Re:$2 billion?? by eclectro · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Wouldn't it then make more sense to spend the cash and resources on improving/fixing/replacing the shuttles, so that we can safely send humans to do the job?

      I really think that NASA has a lot of dirty little secrets that no one on the outside knows about, and after this last accident they probably looked close and hard and realized that the number of places the shuttle could catastrophically fail is more than they originally thought.

      If there was another shuttle failure (even if it did not result in the loss of life) I suspect that there would be a noticeable chorus to dismantle the agency, that cannot produce very much more than kitsch science and photo ops with school children on the ground.

      Though unspoken, I think the three strikes and you're out rule may be in place here. NASA since apollo has always been an agency with self-survival first in mind, so I would not be surprised if they find a way to retire the shuttles to museums.

      So much as replacing the shuttles - I do not think that this will even be considered for the next decade as the cost is too steep. It was hard to justify the shuttles when they were first built (and the reason that the space station was built) in the seventies.

      But as can be seen, the space station can work with cheap Russian rockets that are more reliable than the shuttle.

      The Hubble was designed so it could be serviced by the shuttle (the other justification for the shuttle). But if the Hubble was designed so that parts could be replaced by dockable unmanned rockets, we would not be in this position we are today with it. For an instant, if the power supply and gyros were on a small module that could dock using conventional rockets. But it is not.

      When O'Keefe said that a repair mission to Hubble was "too dangerous," people should have recognized that that was code words for "we need to ground the shuttle permanently now."

      The fact is that there are earth based telescopes that are catching up in performance to the Hubble. Add to that the fact that the Hubble is old technology, it's pretty obvious that it's time to move on.

      It truly would be a better decision to take the many lessons learned from Hubble design and repair and put those in a new telescope, and send it to orbit on a unmanned rocket.

      --
      Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
  9. Engineers, not scientists by fuzzy12345 · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I'd say that the people doing cost/benefit analyses and robotic repair feasibility studies are engineers, not scientists. The guys that got hung out to dry by the early mirror troubles, the ongoing gyroscope troubles and the recent "drop everything: We're going to Mars" troubles, they're scientists.

    I can see de-orbiting an old, useless analog comsat as being sensible. But for stuff which would otherwise continue to usefully function for years or decades, write-off due to non catastrophic failure ought not to be the natural option. The US space program suffers from an attention deficit disorder.

    --

    Everybody's a libertarian 'till their neighbour's becomes a crack house.
    1. Re:Engineers, not scientists by johansalk · · Score: 2, Interesting



      Here's my conspiracy theory of the day; "drop everything: We're going to Mars" is just a distraction to screw those atheist astrophycists who are dabbling in things they shouldn't (origin of universe etc).

      Shut them up, those big bangers.

  10. Get Dick Cheney to cover it. by pair-a-noyd · · Score: 2, Funny

    He's got plenty of money, what with all the billions Halliburton has bilked the American public out of. What is the tab now? About 200 BILLION?? So what's a billion??

  11. Re:Critical problem with this argument by metlin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well said.

    And besides, it's science. Who cares whether or not the money gets spent on some piece of lens up in the sky.

    If the Hubble gets repaired, the money spent on the robotics can be reused and the development will not go waste. But if we were to rebuild the Hubble, there is no real progress - we're just reinventing the wheel.

    And another idea is the idea of organizing a contest on the redesign of Hubble -- cheapest guys get X% of the amount as the prize money. Or something.

  12. Re:Critical problem with this argument by Bootsy+Collins · · Score: 4, Informative

    The current state of the scope is that there is NO money for new telescopes other then the Webb telescope, but it's a radio scope and not an optical one (even though it's being sold as a Hubble replacement).

    This was modded insightful? The Webb/NGST will be a near-IR telescope, not a radio telescope. As such, it is a partial replacement for the Hubble, as there is significant overlap in the wavelengths for which each were/will be used. If you consider perhaps the main purpose of the Webb/NGST to be high-z observations, then it's even more clearly a replacement for the Hubble.

  13. A funny parallel by LucidBeast · · Score: 3, Funny
    I have an old Toyota thats about 16 years old and I kind of have the same dilema...

    Though, on the second thought, this problem doesn't involve robots.

  14. Re:Critical problem with this argument by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Even with the original blueprints, some of the original parts, manufacturing processes, and even suppliers DO NOT EXIST ANY MORE.

  15. We should outsource... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    the mission to India, it would be way cheaper.

  16. Re:Cheaper to replace? by nacturation · · Score: 3, Funny

    ... add in a robotic arm or two so it can do self-repairs

    And of course, if it's the arms that need repairing...

    --
    Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
  17. Why crash it into the ocean? by mykepredko · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If they're not going to fix it, I'd like to understand why they must crash it down into the ocean? If they're going to send a propulsion module up there, why don't they move the Hubble to a Lagrange point between the Earth and moon?

    I realize that it will probably take years to get there but I've seen a few proposals for future space stations being placed at the Lagrange points - wouldn't it be nice if they had a high-quality (maybe not as good as when launched) set of optics waiting to be used in a station observatory? I realize that there is a (very) good chance of this never happening, but it seems a damn sight better than crashing Hubble into the Pacific.

    myke

    --
    Mimetics Inc. Twitter
    1. Re:Why crash it into the ocean? by bitingduck · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'd like to understand why they must crash it down into the ocean?

      Because the stuff on it that's not expected to totally disintegrate has too large of a footprint and is statistically dangerous. The primary is going to come down as a big hunk of hot glass, propellant tanks will probably survive, as well as some other bits.

      It's also cheaper to build a new telescope than it is to try to figure out a way to get the existing HST into a station in some other orbit.

    2. Re:Why crash it into the ocean? by evanbd · · Score: 4, Insightful
      1) It's unsafe to all the other things (including people) to leave unneeded space junk up there.

      2) The propulsion module needed to deorbit is much smaller and therefore cheaper to build and launch than one to move it.

      3) Moving it then requires keeping it in place and also repairing it, if it's to be useful.

      4) After moving it, it would still be nice to be able to dispose of it once it's no longer worth maintaining.

      5) You do realize there's a plan to put the replacement at the (Earth-Sun) L2 point, right?

    3. Re:Why crash it into the ocean? by LMCBoy · · Score: 2, Informative

      just to be pedantic, there are no propellant tanks on HST. Propellants leave icky residue on optics.

      --
      Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
    4. Re:Why crash it into the ocean? by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 3, Informative

      The replacement is a very specialized infrared telescope that won't be able to make the same kinds of observations that the Hubble has been making.

  18. What's the debate? by dshaw858 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't quite understand what the debate is. Even if the mission fails and billions of dollars are "wasted", it will not all be in vain. Using robotics like this are exploring a new frontier of space exploration. The first few manned shuttle orbits weren't risky? Of course they are! The Columbia accident proves that they still are today. Money is valuable, but exploring new scientific frontiers is much more valuable.

    - dshaw

  19. Re:Cheaper to replace? by tonsofpcs · · Score: 2, Funny

    Thats why it has 2, one to repair the other if it dies.

    --
    Video Production Support
  20. Put on the space elevator... by jim_v2000 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What they ought to do is put the money towards designing a space elevator. They could stick a telescope...or somehow get the hubble...onto the mass that would hold the carbon fiber ribbon taunt. Then they could just climb up and down the elevator to make repairs. This would be cheaper (per trip...not as a whole project), and a heck of a lot more innovative than making robots to fix Hubble.

    --
    Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
  21. Re:Critical problem with this argument by WindBourne · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well, it is most likely that the robots will be pretty single minded about this mission. But, unlike the early apollo missions, NASA does a better paper trial and documents much better. In addition, this mission will enable us to test al sorts of new control systems for doing robotics. Some will be total manula, some semi-autonomous, and others full-autonomous. If we can get to the point where we can give instructions to robots to preform a task and not worry about how it does the task, than it allows us to send robots to future remote mission. Such as building a base on Mars. Or exploring Pluto. Or walking on a comet, mining it, and sending back chunks of it. etc.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  22. Re:Critical problem with this argument by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 2, Funny
    Even with the original blueprints, some of the original parts, manufacturing processes, and even suppliers DO NOT EXIST ANY MORE.

    Then FIND THOSE BLUEPRINTS TOO.

  23. I cant help but think that... by deft · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This money might be better spent on terrestrial research right now.

    Look a story down at the hydrogen development... this could change the world on a much bigger scale than anything...effecting us right here ont eh ground right away. 2 billion can do so much good right here.

    Yeah, I sort of hate the idea of not looking toward the stars even for a moment, but look around here, things are pretty messed up, and I dont like the dependence on gas and oil. 2 billion could go towards alot of infrastructure for hydrogen cars.

    --

    There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
    1. Re:I cant help but think that... by wass · · Score: 4, Insightful
      This money might be better spent on terrestrial research right now.

      Yeah, and all the research money Faraday, Maxwell, Marconi, Rutherford, Bohr, Watson+Crick, etc wasted on mere 'science' would have better been spent perfecting metal bearings for carriage cartwheels, right?

      Look a story down at the hydrogen development... this could change the world on a much bigger scale than anything...effecting us right here ont eh ground right away. 2 billion can do so much good right here.

      Umm, you might want to take a look at the projects funded by DOE. Many of them are in the realm of better energy resources, including hydrogen power, as well as fusion.

      I dont like the dependence on gas and oil. 2 billion could go towards alot of infrastructure for hydrogen cars.

      Apples and oranges, 2 billion for funding 'hydrogen car infrastructure' doesn't necessarily have to come from Hubble. Besides, if Hubble were cut, chances are that the money 'saved' would just be diverted to Iraq or otherwise be lost in a myriad of other government pork.

      Anyway, you're pretty short-sighted. Like I said before, if the world were populated with people like you, than today we'd have highly-optimized horse-drawn carriages and cobbled roads, without the money-wasting inconveniences of digital electronics, for example.

      --

      make world, not war

  24. If the robots are ocean-bound anyway... by laughingcoyote · · Score: 3, Funny

    If, as I understand it, the robots would be brought down and destroyed after the mission anyway, why couldn't NASA get some more use out of them?

    Put cameras on them with a feed to Earth, this is not that hard to do. Have the two robots slug it out in orbit over the Pacific, maybe with the moon as a backdrop, and drop 'em into the Pacific after that.

    It probably strikes as a bit off-the-wall, but could have several benefits...the sale of advertising during the program could pay a decent bit of the bill, and hey, we need to do SOMETHING to get people aware that yes, there actually is something out there past the atmosphere. Might raise support for funding in several ways...for one, not needing so much of it (the advertisers), and for another, raising public awareness.

    Yes, I'm advocating a publicity stunt. That's what seems to get people's attention.

    --
    To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
  25. Re:Critical problem with this argument by bitingduck · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If there's a real desire to have a Hubble class visible-wavelength telescope in space, it's probably cheaper and lower risk to build a new one. As it is, the Hubble repair is going to eat into the budgets of other missions that are already well into development, delaying them and increasing their costs. The money to fix Hubble is going to come out of other astronomy missions (at least in part).

    Repairing Hubble is fairly high risk-- not all the technology is in hand, there are unknowns on Hubble (will the robot arm have to have a hand free to bang on the door?) and there is a very real possibility that Hubble will suffer a fatal failure (battery or gyro) before the mission is launched, but after a great deal of money is sunk.

    If you were to build a replacemant today, it would probably have a much lower mass mirror, possibly with a better surface quality, and there would likely be some kind of deformable mirror downstream to improve the image even more. It could also be at L2, where it would have much higher throughput than HST, and very likely could cost quite a bit less than servicing, depending on the set of instruments on board.

    (and as mentioned elsewhere, JWST is infrared, not radio)

  26. About time... by ca1v1n · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's about time we had robots that could fix orbiting devices. Two billion is a bargain. Oh, yeah, and it might just save one of the most scientifically energizing pieces of space hardware ever flown.

    --
    WARNING: there is a trojan on your
  27. Large Binocular Telescope by flyingsquid · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The University of Arizona is currently working on the Large Binocular Telescope (LBT)- see: http://www.nd.edu/~science/core/binocular/index.sh tml. The thing has twin 8.4 meter mirrors- their light gathering power is equivalent to a single 11.8 meter telescope, and their resolving power is equivalent to a 22.8 meter telescope. It is supposed to have more light gathering power and much sharper images than Hubble http://www.nd.edu/~science/core/binocular/lbt_othe rtelescopes.shtml. Supposedly the LBT is be able to get around the blurring from the atmosphere by using adaptive optics- deforming the secondary mirrors to correct for distortions. They claim that the construction costs are $80 million. So, an order of magnitude more resolution for an order of magnitude less money. If it performs even close to specifications, it sounds like a good deal. The dedication ceremony has already taken place and the thing is supposed to be operational in 2006.

    1. Re:Large Binocular Telescope by wass · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Supposedly the LBT is be able to get around the blurring from the atmosphere by using adaptive optics- deforming the secondary mirrors to correct for distortions.

      Hmmm, yet another post that assumes telescope resolution is the one parameter that determines which telescope is best. A quick analogy would be to claim which is better - a monitor resolution with 1024x768 at 24 bit color, or 3200x2400 resolution with 1 bit color. The answer, of course, is that it depends on your application.

      Questions about this project:

      1. Adaptive Optics (AO) usually need a reference star nearby, or an artificial star produced w/ laser. What limitations will this produce in the images?
      2. How does this limit the area of the sky they can look at?
      3. What is the wavelength 'bandwidth' of the telescope, accounting for atmospheric absorption as well as sensor design?
      4. A good deal of astronomical science is done with spectra. What artifacts are introduced into the spectra through absorption and emission lines of the atmosphere?
      5. What artifacts are introduced to the spectra through artificial star for the AO?
      6. How long are the integrations that this telescope observe for? Hubble Deep Field was integrated for 150 orbits (10 days). Can this project integrate for a similar time, observing similar magnitude faint galaxies (sometimes individual photons), while maintaining a similar SNR?
      7. What is the limit for observing faint objects with this groundbased scope? Ie, the noise floor of a ground-based scope is much higher due to scattered 'light pollution', and it would be harder to see fainter objects.
      So basically, image resolution is only one of several important factors and limitations in doing astronomical science.
      --

      make world, not war

  28. I work at NASA (but do not speak for NASA) by Audacious · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The problem is which way will people whine about the most. When astronauts are lost NASA is bombarded with "Save the Astronauts!" slogans. Lots of BS about why we should send robots instead of people.

    Then when the price tag for sending robots into space is talked about people start screaming "Why are we doing that? Send astronauts instead! It's cheaper."

    It is decisions by committee and it works in the same way as if you were driving a bus down a multilane freeway at the beginning of rush hour with a cloth tied over your eyes. Your only method of knowing what to do is what everyone on the bus is trying to tell you. So everyone gets to scream out what they want the bus driver to do and then he tries to react to the orders. And just like the bus - NASA is going willy-nilly down the freeway trying not to hit anyone, trying to apease each and every person on the bus, and to reach the destination each and every one on the bus is screaming at them to go to. It is a thankless, almost impossible task to perform.

    The people of America need to realize just how stupid their over-the-top reactions to problems with space travel are. This isn't Star Trek, BattleStar Galactica, Star Wars, or any of the other truly great (IMHO) space shows. The physics alone are no where near the same. Yet these TV/Movie shows are what are held up as being totally correct and truthful. Further, when someone dies (as in Star Wars when trying to take out the Death Star) no one goes "Wait! Oh my GOD! Think about the insurance! Oi-vey! What about the children? His/Her wife/husband? Friends, relatives, and countrymen? Who's going to pay for all of this?" Everyone goes "Oh Wow! Did you see that? His head flew off into the window next to where Luke was trying to save Obiwan!"

    So what am I trying to get at? The country needs to decide, once and for all, whether it is worth the lives of our astronauts to send people into space. If it is - stop complaining and start supporting that way of going into space. If it isn't - stop complaining about the cost and lend your support to the cause. The main thing is - you can't have it both ways. Either people are going to die up there or we are going to probably bankrupt the country trying to build a robot capable of doing everything a human can do.

    And don't think that just because businesses are starting to get into the space business that things are going to change for the better. The problem isn't going to go away just because you've changed who is going into space. It doesn't work like that. You are still going to have people dying up there if you send them up there. You just will have more of them dying at one time. Just like in an airplane crash.

    So come on America! Make up your mind! People or robots?

    --
    Someone put a black hole in my pocket and now I'm broke. :-)
    1. Re:I work at NASA (but do not speak for NASA) by 0123456 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Like most people, you totally miss the point: astronauts are ten a penny, losing a few is no big deal.

      Shuttles, on the other hand, are politically irreplaceable: Endeavour was only built because we had most of the parts already, and the rest could be cobbled together for a couple of billion. Today there's no way to build a replacement shuttle cheaply, and with retirement announced in 2010 there's no point... it would get to fly a couple of times and then retire.

      If a shuttle is lost servicing Hubble then you have only two left. One of those will usually be in maintenance, so that cuts your effective shuttle fleet by 50%. There's no way that ISS could be finished in that case.

      Not that ISS should be finished, or should even have been started, in my opinion. But even a 1% chance of losing a shuttle and therefore losing a large portion of ISS upgrades is more than NASA want to risk.

  29. Re:Critical problem with this argument by levell · · Score: 2, Informative

    For non-sciencey types, the light from a long way away (high-z in the jargon) gets "stretched" (red-shifted by the expansion of the universe) as it travels so light that was visible when it set out on its journey has a longer wavelength ("near infra-red") when it arrives here.

    --
    Struggling to find a day everyone can make? WhenShallWe.com
  30. Re:Critical problem with this argument by Drakin · · Score: 2, Informative

    In this case, "robot" means a device very similar to the arm on the space shuttle, and identical to the one that is being built for the ISS. Remote controlled, in this case, from earth.

    In fact, if they do decide to go ahead with the plan, they need to build a whole new setup, because the one that has been used in testing is the one for the ISS.

  31. Re:Critical problem with this argument by mforbes · · Score: 2, Informative

    The problem with putting a telescope (or any other facility, for that matter) at L2, or any of the other Lagrange points, is that their location puts them out of the orbits reachable by the Shuttle for repair purposes. All maintenance would have to be done robotically, and considering the delta-V to return any robotic craft to LEO, it's likely that the service robots would be single-use only.

    For those not space-science oriented, the Lagrange points (L1 through L5) are points in space around any two orbiting bodies where their gravity exactly (or nearly so) cancels out; as a result, other objects can be left in stable position at those points. It's even possible to put an object in orbit around a Lagrange point, even though there be no mass there. These are referred to halo orbits. SOHO, the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory is in such an orbit around L1, the postion directly between the Earth and Moon. More information is available online (the last link is a PDF, sorry).

    --

    Allegedly real newspaper headline from 1998:
    Man Struck by Lightning Faces Battery Charge

  32. Re:Critical problem with this argument by LWATCDR · · Score: 2, Informative

    The other problem is that now we have several earth based telescopes that are as good as Hubble in the normal optical range. An exact Hubble replacement would be a huge waste not to mention that the cost of launching it would be high. Right now the ONLY launch vehical you could use is the shuttle. I would guess that it might be possible to modify it to fit on a Titan IV, Ariane V, or maybe Sealaunch "I am not sure if the Sealaunch has the lift". A robotic mission would be good since we would learn something. Frankly there are so many really good projects that NASA could be doing like liquid fueled fly back boosters for the Shuttle, improved shuttle, Heavy Lift vehical, crew return vehical. Too bad they are just sort of waisting away on the vine.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  33. Hubble repair alternatives by jfoust · · Score: 2, Informative

    Those interested in the various alternatives to repairing or replacing the Hubble Space Telescope may be interested in this article from a few weeks ago that reviews an interim "Analyses of Alternatives" report by a third party, the Aerospace Corporation. This report concludes that a robotic repair mission would cost about the same as a shuttle repair mission or building and launching replacement telescope(s), but carries a far lower probability of success. It should be noted that this is an interim report, and according to one source the final report may look more favorably on robotic repair options.