Slashdot Mirror
Repair Costs for Hubble Are Vexing to Scientists
wallstreetprodigy23 writes "Some scientists questioned whether a repair mission for the aging Hubble Space Telescope was worth a projected cost of $1 billion to $2 billion at a hearing of the House Science Committee on Wednesday.
Both scientists and legislators praised the orbiting observatory for the many contributions it had made to science since it was launched in 1990. But the telescope needs servicing to continue working...
"
The John Hopkins folks proposed a 'Son of Hubble' for that same cost. It would give the same or better scientific data gathering and also be designed to be fixed in an easier fashion, made with more modern tech, etc.
Do you know why the road less traveled by is littered with the bones of the unwary?
It always seems that whenever something needs to be maintained, suddenly, congress is all scared to give them money. Like they never expected a 15yr old telescope dealing with the harshness of space would need lots of money to keep it going. The problem is, they make the initial investment saying "Oh, this will be great", but as soon as it becomes less than popular, they drop support, and thus waste billions of dollars worth of equipment and achievements, just so in the public eye they aren't wasting money. The problem is, the public doesn't realize they are wasting money by NOT spending the money for it. All I can say is "people are dumb" (well, on average, at any rate)
I came, I saw, She conquered.
Is this thing just an out-dated, broken down piece of crap that people just can't let go of because of sentimentality?
I have a 15 year old car that I'm rather fond of due to all the good times I've been through with it, but when the next major repair becomes necessary, it's going to the dump.
We have Hubble now though, and there really isn't anything wrong with it. A new space telescope would take years to design, build, and then launch. There is one in the works, but it doesn't catch the visible light spectrum as well as Hubble can. It's for different purposes. Plus I'm pretty sure they both costed more than a billion.
Bugs are just features that have been fixed.
Open it up to the rest of the world, have other countries, people, and institutions fund it and then split up their usage time depending on the amount they donate.
I suspect the Chinese could get it fixed for a lot less than $1 billion. It's called trickle down economics, I think.
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
What exactly cost this much to repair. Wouldn't it be cheaper to hitch a ride with the Russian space agency a la Denis Tito. He paid what, 10Million for a ride, throw in some coin for spare parts and your still way under 1-2 Billion (but out of my price range). m
With all the taboo associated with the Shuttle Program, do you really thing that Nasa/Congress could send another shuttle+team up there with the sole purpose of retrieving the Hubble? I agree that something that has contributed as much as the Hubble has should be preserved, but I just don't see that Congress/Nasa coming up with a way to do this in time and with our current program. Maybe we could get Virgin Galactic to do it for us, instead?
If we allow for a 0.5% probability of the loss of austronauts, the costs would drop dramatically. For example, they don't want to send the mission without another shuttle on "stand-by", because, if something is wrong, this mission will not be able to repair itself (unlike those, that are sent to ISS).
If lives can be and are lost for a good cause in Afghanistan, Iraq, in fighting domestic crime, and in firefighting, I say, we are overly protective of the space crews.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
The solution is synthesis of a sky-time market from scientist demand. Scientist demand should derive money provided by their funding source to purchase required sky-time. If there is sufficient market demand for Hubble sky-time it will be profitable to repair. Otherwise it should be sold for scrap/ditched.
Seastead this.
Err, I think you mean it will be at the second Lagrange point (L2)..
Actually, it'll be in orbit round the L2 point, but now I'm just getting picky.
I think you'll find that the French physicist Lissajous had very little to do with orbital dynamics, and much more to do with fascinating sqiggly loop patterns that provide endless entertainment for thost supposed to be learning how to use an oscilloscope.
Protect itself from what? WMDs that don't actually exist?
Ah, how soon we forget. The UN weapons inspectors found WMDs in Iraq, that is well documented. Hussein never accounted for them, including 10,000 liters of anthrax. He never made a convincing statement as to what happened to them. Intelligence agencies all over the world felt Iraq had these WMDs, again well documented before the war. Hussein had failed to respond to numerous UN resolutions. The US tried to get UN action, but was blocked by France, Germany, and Russia, all of which had either economic or military ties to Iraq. Finally, the US acted unilaterally. This was hardly unjustified in my view. Oh, and don't forget that Hussein could have left Iraq before we invaded and the invasion would have been called off... Major miscalculation on his part to stay.
A Terrorists that aren't actually in the country we're invading?
There were plenty of terrorists in Iraq. It was also well known that Hussein paid the surviving relatives of suicide bombers after each bombing. He certainly wished to do harm to the US and US interests. Plus he had openly defied us and the no-fly zones for years. Taking his regime out sent a clear message that the US is serious and not to be trifled with.
Please tell me, how was invading Iraq "protecting ourselves"?
Go back over the news reports at the time, and note the wide international support for the idea that Iraq had WMDs. In fact, it may well have had them, and they are either buried in the desert somewhere, or were snuck over the border into Syria or elsewhere. Hussein may have craftily decided that if Iraq lost, at least he could cause discomfort for the US if the WMDs were never found, even if he lost his chance to use them. Of course, it's possible they might still be used if they are hidden somewhere.
It's difficult to make the argument that the Iraqi people are worse off now than they were under Hussein, and they have the chance for a much better life down the road than they would have had.
As to the US protecting ourselves, if democracy and freedom take hold in the Middle East, it could have a very positive effect on our security situation. The other factor you're missing is that the US now has the respect of the governments in the region. They might have thought we were decadent and weak before, but not now. Believe me, without a strong military, we'd not be getting the help we are against terrorism.
It's not the risk to the astronauts, it's the risk to NASA (as in, bad publicity). I mean, come on -- being an astronaut is safer than many other occupations (like a firefighter, or a soldier), even with the occasional failure once in a while. The reason NASA doesn't want to do it is that another failure would completely ruin them, not because they are concerned about the astronauts. Shit hitting the fan is a powerful force.
Somebody doesn't understand the concept of throwing good money after bad...how much more money and how many more lives must we lose to "save face"?
Maybe I'm stating the obvious, but most options I've seen ask to replace Hubble with something newly designed. Why this seems good, and if we had the money I could see it, I haven't heard the alternative:
Why not replace it with a brand new hubble, using the design of the original? I.e. reduce the costs of design, research and development by reusing what we already know works, of course use some obvious improvements (including avoiding the optics errors), but only replace something in the design if a better, proven, easy-to-upgrade or off-the-shelf alternative has been developed since Hubble was first designed/deployed.
I like the "fleet of Hubbles" idea. Many folks argue that designing a replacement will take 5-7 years ... okay, how long will building an exact replica take? Oh, the establishment players don't really want to answer that one, do they? There's not enough R&D funding to justify it. I personally think they should build a second unit with the available spares and chuck it into orbit. Let Hubble I keep functioning as long as it can. Put a second resource up in a slightly different orbit. Do more science. Rinse, lather, repeat. Who says we're restricted to only one orbital telescope at a time?
I'm an unemployed mechanical engineer and my entire family has been completely without health care for almost a year now. This includes two kids and my wife as well as myself. Even when I was working I could only afford the cheapest package. I'm now in the process of applying for welfare health care so that the kids can go to the doctor. In fact for most of my adult life, I have been without basic health care. To me the Canadian system sounds pretty nice.
Clickety Click
Bush's rhetoric toward Iran, considering Iran is a democracy.
Before you start accusing Iran of being *cough* *cough* a democracy, you need to consider the particularities of their political system:
a) The Guardian Councils can veto any elected candidates, prevent their candidacy, and any legislature they passes.
b) Half of the Guardian Councils are appointed by the Ayatollah directly, the other half by the head of judicial, who is also selected by the Ayatollah.
c) The Ayatollah is selected by the assembly of experts, and by convention, holds office for life, though they can be deposed by the same assembly.
d) The public elects the assembly of experts, but selection can vetoed by the Guardian Councils.
So while there is universal suffrage in electing the president and their representatives, the system is skewed towards concentrating lots of power in the Ayatollah and making him hard to dislodge. The elected President and legislative councils are powerless under the thumbs of the Ayatollah and his powerful Guardian Councils.