NASA Announces De-Orbit Mission For Hubble

maglor_83 writes "NASA has announced the end for Hubble. It plans on performing a "robotic de-orbit mission", and apparently its not due to the monetary costs associated with fixing it, but rather the risks involved. NASA's new goals are now manned missions to the moon, as a platform for Mars."

Comments

Scientific payoff

[BWJones]

OK....... I cannot see what the near term scientific benefit is of sending folks to Mars. Hubble? Hell yeah. The moon? Absolutely, .......but Mars? Look, Hubble has generated more scientific data per dollar than just about any other NASA program as well as helped out more than one project in the defense department and fed data to scientists and scientific organizations world wide. A return to the moon, could certainly function as a refueling point for unmanned missions to other planetary and stellar objects, as well as functioning as a potential resource for mining (with a space elevator which would facilitate this), and a remote optical and radio telescope on the moon could be an extraordinary scientific resource, but I am not sure the payoff of killing Hubble in favor of manned missions to Mars are currently worth it. I would much rather see more investment in sophisticated ground and space based "scopes".

Given current technology, I see a manned mission to mars as a financial boondogle.

Re:Scientific payoff

[Anonymous Coward]

Given current technology, I see a manned mission to mars as a financial boondogle.

Aside from inventing new ways to experience porn, there seems to be no better way to advance current technology than to throw smart people at it, which involves throwing money at smart people and the companies that employ them.

Re:Scientific payoff

[drinkypoo]

Part of the scientific process that often goes overlooked is that when you are trying to solve one problem, you often solve other problems that lie along the way, and sometimes you make accidental discoveries that lead to developments that you never thought might be related. Thus, science for science's sake is generally a far more useful [and maybe even noble] pursuit than most of the other things we do.

Consequently, you really have no idea what kind of bang for the buck will be produced by, comparatively, setting up shop on the moon, and setting up shop on Mars.

Re:Scientific payoff

[Anonymous Coward]

Given current technology, I see a manned mission to mars as a financial boondogle.

This is why we go to the moon first. Of course we can't do it with current technology, and if we keep sending up robots, without the incentive to develop better and faster propulsion, etc., that's all we'll ever have - current technology.

Get people up to Mars successfully, and we won't waste any more missions because of stupid "convert to metric" errors and the like that have doomed most of the robotic Mars missions to date.

No more sending up a robot, finding a tantalizing piece of data, and then waiting 5+ years to get the next round of questions answered. This is tedious and silly! Put PEOPLE on the ground with the right equipment for a year, and your precious "science" will start to ROLL in instead of TRICKLING in like it does now!

(sheesh!)

Step 1: Moon base.
Step 2: Build the next generation of spacecraft on the moon
Step 3: Launch Mars mission from the moon, where the gravity well is shallower.

Re:Scientific payoff

[NatteringNabob]

It has nothing to do with Scientific payoff and everything to do with Electoral votes. If you wanted to pick up a key southern state, say Florida, and you knew that their key reason for existence was about to disappear, you might want to invent an extremely expensive, open ended, project to keep thousands of potential voters employed. Let's face it, the Mars Rovers and Cassini probe have demonstrated pretty conclusively that space exploration is a job for the bots. They are cheaper, more tolerant of extreme conditions, and if they die, nobody cares much. The 'man on mars' program has nothing to do with science and everything to do with politics.

Re:Scientific payoff

[mboverload]

Because there is no financial reason to have one. Unless you got Gates or Allen to fund it, I don't see a commerical one ever happening.

Re:Scientific payoff

[Rei]

So the people get there, find out a tantalizing piece of science, and then keep studying it the same way for the next year. Humans, just like robots, are limited by what scientific insturments they have available to them. Mobility? Any craft that could carry a human could go even further if you didn't strap the dead-weight human to it.

The only thing you gain by having people on the ground is reduced latency. However, it's hard to justify the tremendously increased cost of sending humans along when latency isn't really even a problem in comparison to how frequently we can send new insturmentation to use in studying Mars.

Look at the scientific value of the Apollo program vs. the Russian lunar program. Sure, we got a nice, flashy, feel good event - and heck, that alone may have justified going. But the science didn't. The Soviets spent just a small fraction of the cost that we did, and yet still got sample returns, had good in-situ insturments, and visited many more places on the moon than we did.

Re:Scientific payoff

[Zeinfeld]

Part of the scientific process that often goes overlooked is that when you are trying to solve one problem, you often solve other problems that lie along the way, and sometimes you make accidental discoveries that lead to developments that you never thought might be related. Thus, science for science's sake is generally a far more useful [and maybe even noble] pursuit than most of the other things we do.

This is trotted out every time that the space program needs justifying and guess what, its bogus. Non stick frying pans were being developed during the Napoleonic wars when the English embargo prevented the French getting their hands on enough cooking grease. Hence LeCreuset.

It gets even wobblier when you get to the old CERN home of the Web stuff. The folk who go on about that don't mention that CERN never assigned any staff to the Web project directly other than Tim during the time Tim was at CERN. There were three students who worked with Tim and another four people from another group who did the Web because they beleived in it. When it came to setting up the Web consortium the CERN director sent to bat for the Web project EU grant wise told the committee that the priority at CERN was physics and the Web was not considered important.

Even when you get to communications satelites the story is somewhat murky. Most satelites are being launched by the French or the Chinese and NASA has done its best to make use of those facilities as hard as possible.

If you want to research networking then give money to networking, if you want to research biochemistry give the money to biochemists. Do not give the money to a bunch of astrophyscists in the hope that they will solve your networking, fusion, and life sciences problems in their spare time. It does not work that way. The only way you can see a return on 'spinoff' research is if you have programs in place to identify and invest in them. NASA ditched all that years ago and there is zero chance of picking any of it up in the current budget cut environment.

There is no way that shutting down Hubble and spending the money on the space station is going to get even 1% of the science that Hubble has delivered already. The basic problem here is that NASA sees its mission as manned space exploration and that has very little to do with science.

There is one solution to the problem that has not been discussed much. There were two mirrors made, the bent one that is up there today and the reserve that was made (corectly) by Kodak for testing purposes. The Kodak mirror must still be in storage somewhere, there are duplicates of pretty much all the equipment. the parts could probably be bolted together to make a duplicate for $50 million or even less. The French, Russians and Chinese would probably put it into orbit for $50 million at commercial rates and given the cargo it could probably be done at no cost in return for telescope time.

The cost of Hubble is almost all in the design. Making a duplicate should be much, much cheaper.

Re:Scientific payoff

[quanticle]

Well you never know...

Given Creationism's recent gains, and the growing power of the Religious Right in the administration, one might believe that yes, indeed, Hubble is being brought down to set back science.

Re:Scientific payoff

[jelle]

If anything is capable of looking beyond the nose into the depths of the Universe, it is Hubble.

Now, truth of the matter is that they are going to do the 20+ shuttle flights to finish the space station, whose science results have pretty much been limited to 'hey some moss grows in circles in space', and explaining to highschool kids how astronauts live out there. doing valuable circular-growing moss research and all.

But the risk and cost of single flight to keep Hubble operative is too high, and the 20+ for the space station are worth the cost and risk?

Right. I'm not convinced.

This is not about Mars, or the Moon. Mars and the Moon are just decoys. They are only mentioned to make people drool like you are doing.

Most likely, NASA will never get sufficient funding (and balls) to actually go do it. If it's too risky and too expensive to go fix something in orbit, that has been specifically designed to be fixed, then please tell me, how can flying people to the moon and another planet be affordable and safe?

Double standards, that's the only way.

Re:Scientific payoff

[markov_chain]

The basic problem here is that NASA sees its mission as manned space exploration and that has very little to do with science.

Well that begs an interesting question: why should NASA's mission be scientific? It is the national space agency, I don't see a problem with them working on manned space exploration.

Re:Scientific payoff

[LWATCDR]

"This is trotted out every time that the space program needs justifying and guess what, its bogus. Non stick frying pans were being developed during the Napoleonic wars when the English embargo prevented the French getting their hands on enough cooking grease. Hence LeCreuset."
You sort of prove the point... You never know what you will develop until you have a strong need. BTW Teflon has nothing to do with the space program. It was developed for the Atomic bomb project. It was uses for seals exposed to Florine.

"Even when you get to communications satellites the story is somewhat murky. Most satellites are being launched by the French or the Chinese and NASA has done its best to make use of those facilities as hard as possible. "
THis is just nuts. Of couse sommunications satellites where developed by Nasa and AT&T.

When you push the state of the art you never know what you will develop. IC based computers where developed for the Apollo program. Why never before? because no needed computer that small before. I mean why would you need a computer smaller than a desk or even a room?
Remote heart monitoring systems. Why would you need to check someones heartbeat remotely.
Yes the space station is a waste. Not because it is a bad idea but because it was cut and cut and is now just a shell of what it was going to be. Much like the Shuttle.

Re:Scientific payoff

[Zeinfeld]

You never know what you will develop until you have a strong need. BTW Teflon has nothing to do with the space program. It was developed for the Atomic bomb project. It was uses for seals exposed to Florine.

Hah! see my other post, Teflon was invented in 1938, before the Manhattan project started.

When you push the state of the art you never know what you will develop. IC based computers where developed for the Apollo program. Why never before? because no needed computer that small before. I mean why would you need a computer smaller than a desk or even a room?

The USSR did not develop ICs and still put rockets into space. In fact the ICs did not become important in space until after the Appolo program. They were pretty finiky until the 1970s.

Kilby was funded by Texas Instruments, Noyce by Fairchild. Both companies were working for the Pentagon, not NASA. The first applications for the ICs were in the US Airforce and the minuteman missile (1962). There is a big difference between using an IC in a missile where it has to work for no more than a few minutes and using one in a satelite or such.

There are certainly links between research fields but space is certainly not unique in having a spinoff effect and you do not get spinoffs without also doing basic research in the area in question. The World Wide Web put together ideas from twenty years of formal comp sci research with a different perspective to reach the breakthrough.

I don't see any reason why we should expect that diverting funds from worthwhile science like Hubble to worthless science like the space station is going to result in a net gain through the spinoff effect. Space has been enormously well funded for fifty years. Sending people to the moon does not create any seriously interesting new challenges.

Re:Scientific payoff

[Zeinfeld]

Well that begs an interesting question: why should NASA's mission be scientific? It is the national space agency, I don't see a problem with them working on manned space exploration.

NASA costs $15 billion per year to run. Thats rather a lot of money for a government with a $500 billion deficit to be spending on feel good programs.

The only way that the Mars trip becomes viable is with a space elevator. The shuttle and the space station are irrelevant. All they are doing is finding out what we know already, people's bodies start to deteriorate significantly after six months or so in space. And that is within the protection of the earth's magnetic field.

To get to Mars we need a ship with artificial gravity and there is no way we can lift one using conventional rocketry.

Dick Feynman once pointed out that if you take any seriously complex engineering task that is done on an infrequent basis it is very difficult to get the success rate above 98% or so. The sheer number of places where you have an opportunity for error is immense. So far we have had about 100 shuttle launches and the rate of failure is 2%. If you do the calculation in terms of failures per mile flown you arrive at a figure that is pretty much comparable to commercial airline flights.

I don't think that there is much chance that the shuttle will ever launch again. The degree of political risk is huge, so far they are talking about May/June but its one of those dates that just keeps slipping a month each month.

Re:Scientific payoff

[1u3hr]

Sending people to the moon does not create any seriously interesting new challenges.

I think building habitats on the moon; mining, prospecting for water, growing plants, building a rail gun launcher, etc, are all extremely interesting challenges; if not ones a theoretical physicist could get very excited about. But a farside lunar radio or light telescope might.

Re:Scientific payoff

[Shadowlore]

You can't see it because you are looking in the wrong spot. You are only thinking of what NASA has told us is "science" on Mars: poking and scraping rocks and taking pictures of dirt.

Your assertion regarding Hubble returning more scientific data per dollar is specious. The Apollo program has resulted in hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars worth of scientific data and technological advancement and products. Even as recent as the last 9 months has some of the original Apollo data been used to create/do more -- in particular physical therapy. What the Apollo project did for science and technology is staggering. Despite it being a mere flag and footprints set of missions. Hubble's contributions while not insignifcant, are hardly up to the scale of Apollo, let alone Mars. Primarily due to it's extreme limitation.

Furthermore, the roughly 5-6 billion the Hubble cost would have paid for some truly awesome observatories capable of producing images that rival Hubble's for a small fraction of the price. For example this telescope set cost under 170 million to build: http://www2.keck.hawaii.edu/geninfo/about.php

This one is about a billion:
http://www.eso.org/projects/owl/

It is a matter of physics that the Moon is a very poor choice of refeuling station for interplanetary travel. Stopping at the moon for feul when goingfrom Earth to Mars is like going from LA Pheonix and refeuling in Portland, OR. The exact same launch capability that took us to the Moon can take you right on to mars w/o "refeuling". Surface to surface, Earth to Mars is cheaper (lower delta-v) than Earth to Earth-Moon.

The best route (in terms of technology, resuability, and performance) is a series of tethers from LEO to GEO and GEO to Mars (GMO and then LMO) for example. The catch is the mass needed to make the tethers. Launched from Earth it is not workable. However, a mission to Mars that established the production facilities to make these would do it quite well.

Mars provides the resources needed to sustain life quite well while making the tethers. You go from Mars surface to LMO and put a LMO to GMO tether in place. Then you utilize this capability to put the GMO tether in place. Now you have Mars surface to Geosynchronous Mars orbit using rockets that are comparatively small (read: already developed) as they only need to go to LMO, rising out of a much shallower gravity well.

With this you could go two ways. You can then build a Mars Space Elevator. We don't need carbon nanotubes for that. Kevlar 49, IIRC, has plenty of wiggle room for doing that on Mars. Again, the shallower gravity well is a boon, as well as it only neededing to be about 10,500 Km on Mars. Of course, a LMO with the tether launch to GMO would make it even easier to make.

Instead of or in addition to the MSE, you put up a GMO->GEO tether. Using these systems you can launch from Mars to Earth using either the MSE, or Surface-LMO rocket power. The tether you put in GEO is then added to the system and you use it to put one in LEO.

Now you have launch windows spanning many months, and transit times as low as 90 days.

The scientific return on manned Mars missions is not necessarily geological. It's largely biological, ecological, and technological. Doing the same thing on Luna is not only an order of magnitude more expensive to start with, it is also going to return less usable data per dollar.

If you go by the old way of NASA Mars, yes it'd be one helluva boondoggle. If you insist on space stations and moon bases to do it, it'd be a ruinous one for all aspects.

The ISS building costs alone are above (last I recall) 60 billion dollars billion, with annual costs to exceed 3 billion. Given it's estimated 10 year life that's 30 billion dollars. So when it is said and done, the ISS will have cost us about 100 billion dollars, and it's scope and capacity have been decreased.

That is a financial boondoggle as well as a serious setback in space exploration.

But if you g

Re:Scientific payoff

[plague3106]

NASA costs $15 billion per year to run. Thats rather a lot of money for a government with a $500 billion deficit to be spending on feel good programs.

Please refresh my memory..how much is the war on terror costing us?

Seriously..when i figure out my personal finances, i start looking at the largest expenses first, and seeing if i can't trim those or cut them completely.

Re:Scientific payoff

[Zeinfeld]

LOL, funny how you are denouncing the space program while using a device that most likely uses VLSI components. Guess what the push for MSI and later LSI which lead to VLSI was made mostly by NASA requirements for highly integrated devices using this new thing called a "transistor" which until then no one really had a use for, except for some fancy qualities as an amplifier.

That is bogus, there were plenty of applications that needed compact logic. The Air Force was a much bigger consumer of MSI and LSI than NASA.

What I am denouncing here is the idea that there is something unique to space exploration in generating spinoffs. All (good) science should produce results in other fields.

Given the choice of Hubble or the space station it is very clear which will produce more science, Hubble is the winner by miles. Hubble is providing more data about the early state of the universe than any other source. The occupants of the space station are doing no experiments at all, they are just keeping the station running.

Thank goodness you were in no way shape or form in charge of any basic research programme.

That really is a funny statement. I don't regard the space station as research of any kind. It is at best an engineering challenge.

But you are completely wrong about influence on funding.

Re:Scientific payoff

[Zeinfeld]

Both applied and basic research are valuable pursuits that have paid off in many ways. Basic research, like astronomy, often pays off much better in cultural value than economic, and that's okay by me. I'm not here on Earth just to make money to leave my family and government.

This is a different issue. What I am saying here is evaluate the programs on their direct merits first.

Hubble has provided real direct benefits, albeit mainly in the cultural field. We know more about the origins of the universe, we are able to better understand basic physics.

The Appolo program produced real direct political benefits. JFK funded the program for one reason, to spend the USSR into the ground. His objective was achieved, the USSR was broken psychologically in 1969, it just continued moving for another two decades.

There were certainly some spin offs from Appolo, but the same effects could have been achieved for far less by direct investment in research into the relevant fields.

The 'spinoff' effect can work both ways. I work in computer security, it has taken us two decades to escape from the seriously warped views that entered the field because early funding came almost exclusively from military contracts. One reason that the Internet is insecure is that the security models being applied are completely wrong for its current application.

Re:Scientific payoff

[Zondar]

"Given the choice of Hubble or the space station it is very clear which will produce more science, Hubble is the winner by miles. Hubble is providing more data about the early state of the universe than any other source. The occupants of the space station are doing no experiments at all, they are just keeping the station running. "

But then you have to answer the next question: "What gain to we get from learning about the early state of the universe?"

Some people might argue that the pursuit of that knowledge is just as useless (in a practical sense) as the knowledge gained through manned spaceflight.

Re:Scientific payoff

[True Grit]

If anything is capable of looking beyond the nose into the depths of the Universe, it is Hubble.

Uhmm, no, actually the Hubble is now obsolete.

[Please read all of this before modding me down.]

Its generated a lot of pretty pictures, yes. Why are those pretty pictures interesting and valuable? Because they let us look back in time to the early period of the universe. Thats why Hubble was created, not because the public would like the computer-enhanced pretty pictures (you didn't think those pictures were 100% virgin, right-off-the-satellite, did you?), but because they help us understand the past.

But there's a problem: Hubble looks in visible light, which prevents it from looking far enough back into time to answer the kind of questions we're asking. In particular, if you want to look deep into the past, you have to abandon visible light altogether and go to the far infrared. But there's another problem: Unlike the visible and radio wave spectra, infrared is completely blocked by the Sun's, the Earth's, and even the telescope's own heat, as well as interference from reflected light. This means that a ground based telescope won't work for far infrared. That is why Hubble's successor, the James Webb Space Telescope, is going to replace Hubble, because it can look much farther back into time than Hubble ever could.

Now, if its just pretty pictures from the visible light spectrum that you're interested in, there are several Very Large Telescope Arrays coming online now that use interferometry to achieve resolutions better than Hubble, but using telescopes on Earth. The Cambridge Optical Aperture Synthesis Telescope has already beaten the Hubble in terms of resolution. These VLTAs though can't beat the James Webb Telescope or its European counterpart the Herschel Space Observatory because these space-based telescopes operate in the far infrared, which no ground based telescope can do (decently).

In other words, the Hubble is obsolete. I know thats an unpopular idea around here, but its the truth. Now that we have VLTAs on the ground, and the Spitzer Space Telescope (infrared) in orbit (both of which together cover the Hubble's range), we'll have plenty of pretty pictures (all the pics you see from Hubble, the Spitzer, and others are computer enhanced, so it doesn't matter whether the scope is far infrared, infrared, or visible light, on the ground or in space, the pictures will always be pretty) to keep us busy while waiting for the James Webb or Herschel scopes to get up there. But if you still remember the reason Hubble was put up to begin with, to look deep into the past, then you should understand why we need to move to the James Webb as quickly as possible, because the James Webb will be just as dramatic an improvement as Hubble was over the scopes it replaced. So at this point, any attempts to keep the Hubble going will just be taking money away from the James Webb telescope. I really don't see the point in that.

I won't get into the issue of Mars and such, except to say in a sane country NASA wouldn't be hurting so much for cash all the time (as it currently is with the James Webb project). Someone mentioned NASA's budget of 15 billion. That is a lot of money, until you compare it to our other spending priorities, like 3 billion a month for the Iraqi War. Its all a matter of priorities.

What is the point

[bryan986]

They could launch 300 robotic missions for the price of a manned mission to mars...

Moon as a platform for Mars?

[NardofDoom]

That doesn't make any sense. About the only thing that would be the similar between a Mars mission and Moon mission would be terrestrial (or arestrial or lunestrial as the case may be) vehicles.

The moon doesn't have an atmosphere, Mars does. The moon has 1/2 the gravity of Mars. (1/6g vs. 1/3g.) The moon is three days away, Mars is six months, minimum. The Moon has a 28-day sol, Mars has a 24.75 hour sol. Mars has water, the moon's water is still under question. The moon has huge temperature swings; Mars... not so much.

To me, this is like preparing for a mission to Antarctica and saying it's applicable in Canada's North Woods. Yeah, they're both cold, but one has trees, liquid water for at least part of the year, and mud. Not much the same.

Re:Moon as a platform for Mars?

[Derling Whirvish]

I have to agree. The moon is an out-of-the-way destination to go to Mars. It's as if we wanted to fly on a 747 from NYC to London for a weekend, but when we took off the plane diverted to Orlando for a week and we spent most of our vaction money at Disney World prior to arriving in London. Just as the time spent in Orlando is a waste of our London vacation, the moon would be waste of our Mars exploration money. Other than both being accessable by air and are tourist destinations they have very little in common. Same for the moon and Mars. Dammit, let's just go! "Light this candle!" "Poyekheli!"

Re:Moon as a platform for Mars?

[mboverload]

You seem to have little concept of the situation.

A rocket/shuttle/anything uses up pretty much ALL of its fuel just to get off the ground. If we could land on the moon, not only could we go faster (full fuel + no air + moon swinging around) it would be safer because the mission would have spare fuel to use on the way to Mars. Plus you have enough fuel to get back since you would be using a capapult+rockets to get on your way.

Maybe...

[DrKyle]

Just because there isn't any room in the budget for them to fix Hubble, that doesn't necessarily mean the end. Congress approval has nudged NASA's priorities before, so prehaps the little telescope that could still has a chance.

NASA has it wrong

[Garbonzo Pitts]

NASA has consistently pushed the idea that manned space flight gets the public's attention. But the facts indicate otherwise. Photos from the Hubble and interplanetary probes appear on the front pages of newspapers and have a very high "ooh-ahh" factor. In contrast, the public doesn't seem to care at all about astronauts in the space station. Why would they care about people going back to the moon? They've seen those pictures already.

and one giant leap...

[Engineer Andy]

backwards for mankind.

It's a pity to lose such an excellent scientific tool without a replacement either in train or already deployed

Re:and one giant leap...

[Pxtl]

Except that Webb is not a visible-light telescope. So no, a replacement for Hubble is not in the works.

It's not the end.

[Hrodvitnir]

Honestly, all this uproar over downing Hubble is a bit dramatic. It's not the end of space research. We'll keep sending up satellites and they'll keep getting better. There's just going to be a hole fore a few years where we won't get the type of data that hubble was able to provide.

We will put up a satellite to replace the Hubble. Space isn't going anywhere.

So shortsighted

[eisenbud]

This is one of the few big budget scientific missions that's had a clear purpose. The space station -- not so much. The shuttle -- takes people to orbit for way too much money (though it would be nice if they could use it once more to fix Hubble.) This is one of the best possible uses of our space dollars, and it's sad that it's being ignored for high profile but not scientifically focused things.

If they say it's not about money...

[SteeldrivingJon]

It's about money.

The budget Bush just submitted cuts the Hubble.

Risks too High?

[bill_mcgonigle]

Right, so we've heard the story - they don't want to send astronauts to Hubble because in case of damage to the shuttle they can't get into a higher orbit to dock with the ISS.

OK, fine, and I admit Hubble is probably too expensive to patch up and the money would be better spent on a new telescope.

But since sending Astronauts to Hubble is too risky they're going to send Astronauts to MARS instead? This does not compute.

It's official...

[rasafras]

NASA is dead. When you claim risk and safety as a high priority for exploration and scientific conquest, you know you aren't going to get anywhere. Lewis and Clark didn't wait for the invention of the SUV before going cross-country, they just went ahead and did it.
I'm not saying that exploration should cut corners and put people in unnecessary danger, but there are astronauts willing to risk going up to do things like this. Face it, shooting somebody into the sky on a giant bomb is inherently unsafe, and that's something you've just got to accept. I understand that another accident for NASA would cut approval and potentially cost them far more money, and I'm saying that that's the problem. Trying to be unnecessarily safe is going to cost them far too much money, and that's money that they most likely don't have and won't have to spend.
(I was referring to the Mars mission as well)

We're going to the Moon!

[TheOriginalRevdoc]

Yippee!

It's gonna be just the ISS. They'll spend billions designing amazing machines, the budget will be cut 50%, they'll redesign, the budget will be cut another 50%, they'll redesign again, then they'll put up a half-arsed end result that barely meets its mission requirements.

Then the astronauts will hang out on the moon, kicking rocks and wondering what the hell they're doing there. They'll do a trial collection of Helium 3, but there won't be any point, because there's no use for Helium 3, even if we could get it back to Earth.

Eventually, the engineers will admit publicly that getting to the moon doesn't contribute to getting to Mars in any meaningful way, but boy oh boy, the contractors sure made a shitload of cash off the project, didn't they?

And isn't that what American politics is all about?

Baby with the bathwater?

[fygment]

We have Hubble which:

1) captured the public imagination. How many posters have you seen bearing pictures from SOHO, Chandra, or any IR camera? How many kids turned on to astronomy after seeing a Keck picture?

2) is known to a huge swath of the public. How many know of SOHO?

3) has a very positive track record. How much bad publicity has Hubble generated for NASA? It was recovered heroically from its intial flaws and has performed stunningly ever since.

In its place:

1) a cosmologists dream machine (read: pictures in the IR that show little blobs of the early universe). Not for public consumption.

2) no inspiring name has been fielded though there is time to fix that. NGST? But Hubble was the first so NGST faces an uphill battle.

3) a telescope many people don't want so money can be diverted to a mission fraught with more danger and potential bad publicity than a space walk.

So getting the axe is: a popular, inspiring, positive public face for NASA. In its place, an item on the drawing boards to free up cash for a truly extreme mission. Begging the question, can NASA make any good decisions?

Re:Baby with the bathwater?

[jstockdale]

Begging the question, can NASA make any good decisions?

You're forgetting, they have to answer to the US Government. So I guess your actually getting at the question of whether the US Government can make any good decisions.

I leave the answer as an exercise for the reader (Hint: No.)

-S ...

PS. To be honest ... given NASA's budgetary, political, and social constraints ... I'm just impressed that they manage to get any science done at all.

Re:There is no deorbit module

[Odo]

> There is no robot to send up to bring it down. They want to be able to command it down [...] BTW my father worked on pointing and control on Hubble. I'm no expert, but I've spent many nights asking him a lot of questions about Hubble.

Oh man, you seriously need to have another chat with your dad. Hubble can point itself in any direction thanks to its gyros. But it doesn't have any engines. It couldn't deorbit itself if it wanted to. They have full control over where Hubble looks, but not where it goes. To deorbit Hubble you need a robotic deorbit module (aka a rocket).

For more information, see this page:

HUBBLE ROBOTIC VEHICLE DEORBIT MODULE (HRVDM)
Contract Award Date: DTD 092404
Contract Award Number: CNT NNG05EA01C
Contract Award Amount: AMT $330,578,914
Contractor: TO Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company

[Off topic] While Googling for the above I found this generated ad:

Find HUBBLE DEORBIT MODULE at eBay
Looking for hubble deorbit module? eBay has great deals on new and used electronics, cars, apparel, collectibles, sporting goods and more. If you can't find it on eBay, it probably doesn't exist.
http://www.eBay.com

One small step for man...

[Anonymous Coward]

One giant poke in the eye for mankind.

Re:This makes utterly no sense.

[bkrrrrr]

It's just politics. Servicing Hubble isn't good for the politicians. Wasting billions of dollars to show video of some guy putting an American flag on Mars is good for politicians. These "manned missions" are the stupidest idea ever.

Re:The billion taco question is...

[The Good Reverend]

The fact that you're still talking about it, and know it was Taco Bell, 4 years later is a pretty good sign that it's absolutely not a "brain dead marketing scheme". It was a no-lose situation for the company. Consider:

Situation 1: Target is missed. It still captures the public's imagination, gets people talking, makes people like you bring up the event years later. To marketing departments, this kind of exposure is exactly what they love.

Situation 2: Target is hit. They have to give away upwards of 300,000,000 tacos. Except, no where near everyone would go, and those that do would likely order a drink, burrito, or other side dish. Even if none of them did, it's still eyeballs and foot traffic, not to mention amazing amounts of publicity. That, and the promotion was insured.

That silly little $40,000 blow-up target is one of the best things that company every did for itself, second only to a talking dog.

The Future has to start sooner or later...

[emjoi_gently]

They went to the moon in the 1960's, when I was a little kid.

Now I'm a middle aged man....I'm getting old here, and we still haven't even got back to the moon yet. 2020? I'll be in my fifties. And then will a manned landing on Mars be even in my lifetime?

The future isn't moving forwards fast enough.

In the great NASA tradition. . .

[Zobeid]

Saturn V
Skylab
Hubble

Whenever you get something that's a really huge engineering success or scientific success -- or both -- you proceed to scrap it. Then apply the money saved to other programs that are on their way to becoming hopeless boondoggles (re: shuttle, ISS, Moon-Mars initiative).

Why not boost Hubble to higher orbit?

[wildsurf]

As long as they're sending a booster to Hubble, why not just boost it into a higher orbit, where it can stay parked for another several years, at which time we might have better means to do something useful with it?

Perhaps even bring it down safely for museum display?

It seems like a waste to send the booster all the way up there just to destroy the telescope.

Re:Makes no sense to me

[oneiron]

You're looking at it from the wrong angle.. The moon->mars initiative is NASA's new direction. The risk is that an accident while repairing hubble could endanger that new direction. Fixing hubble would be a detour in funding and technology...a potentially costly detour considering the newly proclaimed direction of the program.

Politics Aside

[Sephiriz]

Ignoring the simple truth of politics, it's a damn shame that something that captured the imagination of millions and in turn gave astronomers unique opportunities will now be discarded. Seriously, this was one of the few "cool" things the government was doing. A telescope in space, I mean, thats awesome! Essentially, the cold reality of business just comes lashing back. But still, I'll miss the sci-fi invoked dreams that the Hubble brought about. Back to "Star Wars" or some other superior alternative (Daft Punk? Heh).

Not really

[SuperKendall]

If anything is capable of looking beyond the nose into the depths of the Universe, it is Hubble.

Or one of a number of ground-based scopes that are doing just as well thanks to increases in technology.

What we are capable of

[SuperKendall]

Like what? And what can we not do remotely? Why send astronauts there is what I am asking.

What can we not do remotely?

First of all, consider that everything both rovers, combined, have done to date could have been done easily in a day by one human scientist with a buggy. Possibly even on foot.

Now consider what the rovers have not been able to do, such as going on steep slopes or overly sandy surfaces for fear of getting stuck - things a human could have just walked right over to.

Now consider the things that are just unthinkable for rovers to explore, like really complex canyon-laced terrain. You just can't send rovers there at all.

What is to be gained? A deeper understanding of geology and the forces that shape planets - perhaps offering new insights into our own planet. Possibly of course other lifeforms if they probe deep enough. And all the variety of technology that makes working on Mars practical, like improved propulsion systems, life support systems, etc.

But basically it would be a fantastic boost for the human spirit. Look at how riveted so many people have been to Rover progress, and the Titan mission. Lots of people know about these things and it excites them. It could help to really raise a new generation of engineering minded youth, whereas right now I'd warrant a lot of good potential scientists end up as MBA's or lawyers right now. After all, what is compelling or cool abotu going into science?

If you want a planet full of lawyers, by all means lets shut down manned space flight and just sue each other for IP infringements every time we make a sandwich. But frankly I hope for a more inspired future.

I know it may sound crazy to you, but I would quite happily take a trip to Mars knowing I would only live a day and there was no hope of return. And I think there are a lot of other people like that. Let people with the will to explore go forth and inspire others in turn.

Re:This makes utterly no sense.

[cgenman]

Remember, the apollo missions were taking 10% of GDP for the 10 years or so it was active. I doubt this mission will get that kind of funding.

Plus you're talking about a space agency that goes trolling on eBay for parts to older systems. If they're going to do a moon mission, they're going to have to modernize. Which means re-making a lot of what they had done with a lot of different technology providers.

Re:This makes utterly no sense.

[FleaPlus]

Four reasons I can think of:

1. They had pretty much all the funding they could possibly want.

2. Much greater safety paranoia. When the crew of Apollo 1 was killed, NASA fixed the problem and moved on with the program. They didn't paralyze their manned spaceflight program, go into a period of national mourning, and launch congressional investigation committees.

3. Von Braun and the other German rocket geniuses who essentially designed and built the rockets they used are just about all dead. Granted, there's some folks around who trained under them, but there's no one with their sheer amount of experience.

4. NASA is much more diversified now than it used to be. Back then, landing on the moon was their one and only goal, and they were able to focus all their resources towards achieving that goal. Nowadays, it's almost impossible to cancel old programs and refocus on something else, because some constituency is going to have NASA's head on a platter.