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...
"
If this can be justified, I think a toy like Hubble should be affordable.
However, our parents always tell us they can't afford 10 cents for that yummy candy because they just bought a $40K car.
Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
How much would a new telescope cost? I mean, $1 billion is a lot for repair costs -- if a new one costs somewhere around there, why not just replace hubble altogether?
You can mod your friends, you can mod your nose, but you can't mod your friend's nose.
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?
"If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free." - P J O'Rourke (1947- )"
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
...of the ISS. Is that money pit doing anything for science but falling apart?
I'm assuming that a new telescope can be developed and deployed for the same cost as a repair mission, and that the issue is the 5-7 year delay time from concept to launch?
Maybe it's time to bite the bullet, be without data for a few years, and plan for something grander for the next decade.
Why not look at developing a fleet of Hubbles, each with perhaps a 2 year lifespan, and just keep launching them as the others break down? Or better yet, launch a number at the same time. Hubble often seems very busy, I'm sure people would crave the opportunity to collect even more data?
Of course, Hubble nostalgia is the one thing keeping funding going. Politically, you can continue to argue for Hubble repair, but not for the construction of new telescopes, even if they cost the same thing. The program would be never be approved or scrapped soon after the design phase.
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.
"Representative Bart Gordon of Tennessee, the ranking Democrat on the committee, said the NASA estimate for a shuttle mission needed clarification. In answer to committee budget questions in 2002, Mr. O'Keefe wrote that the cost of the shuttle mission was included in the long-term budget of the space flight office, not the science budget.
Dr. Steven Beckwith, director of the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore, said previous shuttle missions to the telescope were charged in the $300 million to $400 million range, which was acceptable to scientists. If the cost suddenly went above $1 billion, Dr. Beckwith said, he would have to reconsider his strong support for a service mission."
So the Hubbell costs $300 million to service when you don't add the cost of the shuttle flight? I can't believe that NASA ever tracked the cost of their programs this way. Does it make any sense not to include the cost of the shuttle flight in the Science budget if that is the only purpose for the shuttle flight?
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 competition for use of the HST is still fierce, and for good reason.
The problem is that it still offers capabilities that nothing else can replicate, or will for some considerable period of time.
Yes, there are other telescopes that can do better than HST for some tasks, but there are still many tasks for which the HST is the best there is. Even if we consider planned future telescopes, they are all optimized for different things. The Webb telescope, for example, is optomized for infrared observations.
Yes, we should be able to build someting with the capabilities of the Hubble much more cheaply now, but nobody actually has funding to do such a thing, and I suspect the chances of such a project being funded are worse that a repair (even if the repair is more expensive).
If your 15 year old car were the only car ever built with the features you wanted, and nobody was willing to build another one, you might approach a major repair differently.
-Hil
"Please tell me, how was invading Iraq "protecting ourselves"?"
... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a lic! it missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." - Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001
.. We also shoul
---
Hmm. Good Question. Lets ask some leading democrats:
---
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the Greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten time since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton N ational Security Adviser, Feb 18,1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry (D - MA), and others Oct. 9,1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engage! d in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chem! ical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9,2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years
Nah. If it was him, the message would be something like "We found the WDMs and made Iraq safe for democrity. That is why I am ^H^H^H^ back the Prepsodent."
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Aside from life-extension repairs, the mission would also replace two instruments (one not really an instrument) with two brand new instruments providing greatly increased capability. Wide Field Camera 3 (WFC3) will replace Wide Field Planetary Camera 2 (WFPC2), and Cosmic Origins Spectrograph (COS), will replace the no longer needed corrective optics of COSTAR (the corrective optics are now incorporated into the individual instruments). To call this strictly a repair missing is a wild understatement.
--- What?
No, the grandparent is correct- the James West Space Telescope will indeed be in a Lissajous orbit- that is the name for a particular type of orbit around a Lagrange point and is a slight variation on the simpler "halo" orbit (basically just an ellipse or circle around the Lagrange point). This may seem counterintuitive, as the Lagrange points are just empty points in space, but in fact you can orbit spacecraft around them just as you would any celestial body. In the case of (IIRC) Langrange points L1, L2, and L3, you pretty much have to do this- those points are unstable, so some station keeping is required (about once a month at L2). The principal advantage of the quasiperiodic Lissajous orbit at L2 is that it experiences fewer eclipses (L2 is collinear with the sun and earth), important for probes using solar panels. An example of a recent mission using a Lissajous orbit around L2 was the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe.
"FDA staff reviewers expressed concern about the number of patients who were left out of the study because they died."
I'll probably get modded down as well, but I fear not. If I am to be modded down as off-topic, there's 80 other people that they'll need to do the same to; this entire article's comments are half about this subject.
/06/last_minute_iraq_offer_cited/
> Ah, how soon we forget. The UN weapons inspectors found WMDs in Iraq
Then document it. I've read the Dueffler report. Even despite being a Bush-chosen war hawk, the best he could come up with was possible low-level "programs", and even that is doubted, given the evidence cited, by most experts.
> Hussein never accounted for them
Hussein did account for them; unfortunately, his account was "we unilaterally destroyed them". UNMOVIC/UNSCOM had detected evidence that various chemical weapons had been destroyed in the locations stated, but were unable to assess the quantity. When we invaded, they were working on a way to try and assess the quantity.
> Intelligence agencies all over the world felt Iraq had these WMDs
That's why the IAEA was near certifying Iraq as nuclear free, and why UNMOVIC was reporting significant process, right? Why the heads of both organizations were mad at us for invading? Why the US was pretty much laughed at for pushing many of the claims, such as the "uranium from Africa" and "aluminum tubes" claims. Any of this sound familiar to you?
> Hussein had failed to respond to numerous UN resolutions.
Funny thing - turns out that he was in compliance on most of the things that we asserted he was in violation of. Then, we go and invade, violating the very UN charter itself.
> 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.
But economic ties a hundred times greater to the United States. This line of argument is pretty dumb, and I'm surprised that people still use it. The populace of France was 3/4 against the war; Germany, over 4/5ths. Russia, about 3/4ths. How dare a country do what it's citizens want!
> Oh, and don't forget that Hussein could have left Iraq before we invaded and
> the invasion would have been called off...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1079 76 9,00.html
http://www.iht.com/articles/116629.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3247461.st m
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/ 11
This can all be summed up here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Failed_Iraqi_p eace_in itiatives
> There were plenty of terrorists in Iraq.
Surely you will cite them, then!
> It was also well known that Hussein paid the surviving relatives of suicide
> bombers after each bombing.
And the Saudis ran bloody telethons for them.
> He certainly wished to do harm to the US and US interests.
He joined about 80% of the world in that regard.
> Plus he had openly defied us and the no-fly zones for years.
You mean, the no-fly zones that the French called harmful and pointless, which the Russians and Germans called illegal, which the Chinese condemned, etc?
How would you feel if, without a resolution, French military aircraft flew over America, shooting down anything that flew without their permission (and attacking US bases), and then when the US tried to attack them, they condemned us for "defying the no-fly zones"?
> Taking his regime out sent a clear message that the US is serious and
> not to be trifled with.
That's why Iran and North Korea are openly building nukes, eh? About the only message that it sent is "If the US says disarm, don't - they'll invade anyways, so you need your weapons". That and "Freedom is defined by a dozen deaths a day", "Democracy involves a couple dozen dead, the almost complete sitting-out of a religious/ethnic group (Sunni arabs), the blocking of anot
Freeze Ray. Tell your friends.
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.