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."

Comments

A newer scope would likely have better resolution

[ABeowulfCluster]

.. than the hubble. And scientists would get more bang for the buck to replace the hubble than to send up a robot which would have a likelihood of failure.

rho-bawt

[mnemonic_]

How about we send a robotic telescope instead? One with arms so that it could fix the Hubble, look at the stars and then hurl large rocks at the teeming citizens below...

$1 billion is cost of both building and launching

[FleaPlus]

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.

Re:America's retreat from knowledge?

[Seenhere]

How can you say that the Bush administration is retreating from knowledge when he: a) DOUBLED the budget for the National Science Foundation.

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.