Slashdot Mirror
Instead of Revamping Hubble, Replace It
Neil Halelamien writes "Astronomy Magazine reports that an international team of astronomers has proposed an alternative to sending a robotic or human repair mission to the ailing Hubble Space Telescope. Their proposal is to build a new Hubble Origins Probe, reusing the Hubble design but using lighter and more cost-effective technologies. The probe would include instruments currently waiting to be installed on Hubble, as well as a Japanese-built imager which 'will allow scientists to map the heavens more than 20 times faster than even a refurbished Hubble Space Telescope could.' It would take an estimated 65 months and under $1 billion to build, less than the estimated cost of a service mission."
it was a problem with the mirror -- no lens
Oh damn, I really should have reworded that. The $1 billion includes the costs of not only construction, but of the launch as well. From the release:
Norman told the committee that it would take an estimated 65 months and $1 billion to launch HOP, which he stated would continue and even expand upon the flow of science and discovery that has made the original Hubble Space Telescope a "national treasure."
While you're at it, double theck the units we're using, make sure no sensors are installed upside-down, and make sure all our rubber seals are tight.
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, especially when it costs $22,000 per pound to launch something into space.
" Except we lost the only shuttle that could get it up there."
Except had you read the article you would have noticed the plan would use an Atlas 521 rocket to put it in orbit instead of a shuttle
I submitted the story, and because of some sloppy wording on my part a number of people now think that the $1 billion doesn't include the cost of launching the rocket. In actuality, it does include this cost already.
From their poster, here are the figures which go into the cost estimate (written as low/high estimate):
Spacecraft: $135M/$165M
Observatory ATLO: $80M/$100M
Deorbit Module: $5M/$10M
Optical Telescope Assembly: $150M/$210M
SI Mods: $20M/$30M
SI Integration: $5M/$10M
FGS: $30M/$55M
Fee: $64M/$87M
Contingency: $128M/$174M
Launch Vehicle: $130M/$150M
Total: $747M/$991M
Again, my apologies for wording my submission poorly.
There's less light pollution only half the time. The dark side of the moon, if I recall correctly, isn't actually dark -- it faces the sun as often as the light side. It's the side that never sees the earth, though. This would create a small additional engineering problem regarding communicating with the satellite.
Gravity isn't always an advantage. It has the annoying property of holding gases and things like dust closer to the telescope. Modern telescope designs might prefer freefall operation.
Uhm... http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology /webb_ngst_030108.html
Well, it has never been successfully tested.
I submitted the story as Science/Space, and was wondering the exact same thing. I guess some editor thought it'd be clever to include it in the "Upgrades" category, which I guess meant it had to be in IT. Or something.
I was going to post something similar to this.
I'll add that the James Webb Telescope will work at longer wavelengths than Hubble, and will not duplicate Hubble's UV capability. In that sense, I would support the proposed Hubble "copy" that would fly the to-be-orphaned new Hubble Instruments, especially as seeing as how there's no ultraviolet spectroscopic capability in the near term.
I suspect this idea is dead in the water given where James Webb Space Telescope is at the moment. It is viewed by Washington and most of the astronomical community as Hubble's replacement, and attempts to propose new ultraviolet telescopes to advance Hubble's current science have not fared well.
Professor of Astronomy, Author of Spider Star & Star Dragon (Tor)
Hubble has some advantages that Keck with AO can't touch. For instance, the AO systems work in the infrared, not the optical, and for sure not in the ultraviolet (which is blocked by the atmosphere). There are some other technical issues, too, to consider (e.g. the specific shape of the point spread functions). Hubble also has a huge advantage in background light, and in platform stability (Keck cannot point and stare so fixedly at one patch of sky for ten days straight like Hubble).
I'm not sure this is worth the money versus building ten Kecks, or a couple of new super-duper ground-based telescopes (e.g., 30 meters), but it is important to consider what unique capabilites are being lost.
Professor of Astronomy, Author of Spider Star & Star Dragon (Tor)
You only need adaptive optics when you're trying to image through our turbulent atmosphere. Images from space are diffraction-limited -- the only way to get higher resolution is to build a bigger telescope.
The techniques of adaptive optics are used in space to compensate for mechanical stresses of space travel, temperature variations, manufacturing flaws, etc. They are used on the new Spitzer Space (infrared) Telescope.
Basically, if you want a bigger telescope, then adaptive optics (or at least something similar) is the way to do it.
These comments do express the opinions of my employers, and, personally, I think they're complete rubbish.
How do you explain away the many successful scientists who are both out-and-out Creationists and dare to say so despite the risk of being branded heretic and burned at the academic stake for it?
I don't have to, because there are not "many" if by "creationist" you mean disbeliever in evolution, natural selection, etc. Rare, rare, rare. It's possible to get a PhD in science and hold any number of irrational beliefs, but most scientists don't because irrational beliefs are the antithesis of scientific thought. How about we instead talk about the overwhelming number of scientists who are secure about evolution? I'm sure you've heard about Project Steve?
Again, most of the creationist hacks I come across usually argue against what they think evolution is, rather than what the theory actually is. For instance, evolution says nothing about the origin of life, just of species. That's "uneducated" in my book.
Personally, you should peddle your creationist non-science someplace other than slashdot, and, at the least, some thread other than one about the Hubble Space Telescope.
Professor of Astronomy, Author of Spider Star & Star Dragon (Tor)
For one thing, the doubling was supposed to happen over 5 years. It certainly hasn't doubled yet, and in fact it certainly won't.
Quite the contrary. The FY 2005 NSF budget for research and related activities is being cut by .7% from its FY 2004 level, the first such cut in many years. The other main part of the NSF budget, that devoted to education, is being cut even more. The "doubling" bill is now very much no longer operative.
The rational conclusion is that Bush just isn't serious about this.
"I used to be a dilettante. Then I thought I'd try something else for a while."