Slashdot Mirror
No Money For Hubble Service Mission
starexplorer writes "SPACE.com is reporting that the White House has eliminated funding for servicing the Hubble Space Telescope from its 2006 budget request. After many options 1, 2 were explored, is this the death knell for Hubble?"
The James Webb Space Telescope is scheduled to fly in 2011.
The problem arises from the fact that Hubble will die without servicing before then.
"If we let things terrify us, life will not be worth living."
- Seneca
As soon as it gets to the point where it becomes a re-entry risk (which happens when only one gyro remains functional), NASA will drop it into the Pacific. They don't want to risk an unplanned, uncontrolled descent that may put it in the middle of a population area.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
The problem is that eventually, the gyroscopic stabilizers will wear out, and it will be unable to move.
Not really unable to move, but unable to be controlled.
Not to mention Hubble and JWST don't see all the same frequencies on the radiation spectrum, so even once JWST goes up, we won't be able to see everything Hubble could.
The JWST was meant to complement the Hubble, not replace it. It functions almost entirely in the infrared range, whereas Hubble covers a very wide range of wavelengths. The JWST was intended to fill in one of the HST's weak points.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
After the Challenger disaster, plans to bring the Hubble back were dropped. Landing the shuttle with that much weight was found to be too risky.
After the Columbia accident, going to Hubble to repair it or deorbit it with a space shuttle was found to be too risky.
The Hubble was designed back when the shuttles were believed to be far more robust and expected to have a bit more carrying capacity. Going from the drawing board to a flight-worthy vehicle with a design that managed to be both revolutionary and out-of-date resulted in some difficult problems.
Eventually (as the Estes catalogs taught us in the late '60s) reusable is the way to go. But with the current state of engineering and finances, the Russians are doing a lot better with big, dumb, reliable, mass-produced single-use vehicles.
We desperately need a new space vehicle system that's safe, versitile, and cheap in terms of the cost of kg. to orbit. The new system is doable engineering wise, but probably dead politically.
This sig seemed like a good idea at the time....
Yes, a newer and better one is on the horizon. The James Webb Space Telescope is scheduled to launch in 2011.
More like a new and different one. If you actually compare the two you'd notice that the JWST doesn't see everything the HST can, not even close to the same wide range of spectrum. It sees primarily in IR.
- AMW
In other words, this could just be a gambit to drum up support and funding from congress.
Hubble Origins Probe, a rebuild of Hubble with modern technology on a expendible launch, will cost only $750M - $1000 according to the following report.
http://www.pha.jhu.edu/groups/ astro/Colin%20HOP_final_noBudget.pdf