Slashdot Mirror
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."
When do they intend to deorbit Hubble? As I understand it, the first thing expected to die on Hubble are the gyroscopes. One needs three gyros to point the scope at a celestial target. The deorbit module will definitely have its own pointing system (used for docking, among other things). Which means the mere presence of the deorbit module would fix Hubble. So what's their criteria for dropping Hubble into the Pacific?
The moon would be a good place for a prototype space elevator. If it turns out to be a good source for Helium-3, AND we turn out to have a good use for Helium-3, then the moon may be otherwise useful. Mars, on the other hand, offers us the opportunity to do scientific research that simply isn't possible any way other than landing on another planet, and Mars is the most earthlike of planets around (sad as that is) and may have been significantly more earthlike in the past. It's worth going there. As for measurable, immediate scientific benefits, you have to look further than the end of your own nose if you're going to learn anything, and you have to look further than the end of this week if you want to help humanity.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
In headline after headline talking about Hubble and how they need money to repair it and what-not, I've never seen a single mention of what's actually wrong with it and why it needs "repairing".
What's the deal?
Mars, on the other hand, offers us the opportunity to do scientific research that simply isn't possible any way other than landing on another planet,
Like what? And what can we not do remotely? Why send astronauts there is what I am asking.
It's worth going there.
What I am saying is not that we should not go to Mars. I am saying that sending people to Mars right now would not have the scientific payoff that other investments in our space program might.
As for measurable, immediate scientific benefits, you have to look further than the end of your own nose if you're going to learn anything,
Yes, and your point is?
and you have to look further than the end of this week if you want to help humanity.
See my above comments on best bang for the buck.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
what?
it's a lot harder to launch from earth to mars than it would be to launch from the moon to mars
build a moon launch base, build a mars lander vehicle from the moom.. no athmosphere to require you to go like 18X sound to break free (pulling number from ass)
plus the moon probably has stuff we could use for fuel and whatnot
plus if we go to mars it cant be just for a couple days, we need a base.. the best way to to learn how to build a working base in space is to practice on the moon.. that way if you fuck up you're 3 days away from a rescue instead of six months
So, sending a team of astronauts into space just over 600km away, still within the confines of the Van Allen belts, is terribly dangerous, but sending them out a minimum of 55M kilometres is safer?
This sort of mission was almost *routine* three years ago...and now it's "too risky". Those NASA people sure have turned into wusses. >.>
"Mod, mod, mod...and another troll bites the dust."
Not just "can't hit what you can't reach," but if we can jump around the solar system in reasonable amounts of time largely under our own power (rather than our current slingshot methods for reaching the outer planets), imagine the sort of mobility that could create closer to home if the technology and techniques were adapted.
the idea is to bring it down while they still have "robotic" control. There is no robot to send up to bring it down. They want to be able to command it down, in a nice target path, not some crapshoot deorbit when it goes bad and they can no longer control it due to gyroscope failure. 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.
A better idea would be to build two orbiting radio telescopes in Earth's orbital path, on opposite sides of the sun and with the same orbital velocity as that of Earth. This essentially fixes the Earth and the two telescopes in place relative to each other and keeps line of sight communications between Earth and each of the satellites at all times. Massage the resultant data together via the wonders of very long baseline interferometry and you effectively have an single radio telescope the diameter of Earth's orbit.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
that's one honkin' big piece of glass... 1 ton, melts at about 1500F...
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
Hubble was one of the first casualties of the Challenger explosion. Remember that the first thing that needed to be fixed was a flawed mirror?
While I was in undergrad at UT, I was an officer in the local SEDS chapter, where Dr. Hans Mark explained that the mirror was known to be flawed before it was launched. When the Challenger exploded, NASA shut down everything. Hubble remained, unrepaired, in a dark warehouse somewhere. When they got the HST program back up and running, they'd long forgotten their problem with the mirror.
HST was a great idea, but there were some big screwups attached to it.
Scientific benefit? No. Political benefit? Hellz yeah. Mars is totally impossible with NASAs budget, even if NASA were efficient. People don't properly consider the magnitude of the Mars mission. Think of the massive Apollo rockets. Now consider how teeny-tiny the Apollo orbiter was, compared to the massive Apollo rockets.
Now imagine an Apollo rocket that has to go way, way further, and carry a vehicle that can keep men alive for months instead of days. Now think about what you do when you get there - the moon is low-G and no atmosphere. Mars is more like earth - and we don't use little bitty landers to land on earth, we use giant-ass space shuttles, runways, and launch platforms. All that stuff has to be moved.
So instead of each Apollo flight being a stand-alone mission, we have dozens of Apollo flights, each launching little bits and pieces of equipment to Mars. Then we get the first planetary atmospheric land-and-takeoff vehicle onto an alien landscape.
I can't say this enough: Mars is hard. Yes, NASA has a salespitch concept - but the first plans for the Shuttle didn't look much like the half-assed end product.
So here's the political benefit: Bush has given NASA a death march. The project will fail, and other projects will stagnate under the resources lost to Mars. Then, once NASA has no discernible product or output, 90% of the organisation can be cut just by eliminating the Mars program, and the public will cheer for the demise of such an incompetent, beaurocratic space agency that had only one job and couldn't even do that.
Sounds fun, don'it?
To really lay out the facts, we need to add up the total costs of the "haven't found Bin Laden or the Weapons of Mass Destruction" debacle and then divide that by the number of slaughtered Iraqi citizens.
This will be called a HCU or Halliburton Citizen-Unit.
How many HCUs would it take to go to the moon?
Currently the Iraqi Debacle stands at $153.3 billion. Divide that by 100,000 and you get:
$153,300 is equal to one HCU.
How many HCU's to build a base on the moon?
How many HCU's to set up 8 hubble's in equidistant earth orbits around the sun for fantastic long-wave interferometry telescope the size of earth?
How many HCU's to go from the moon base to mars?
Have fun
I was chatting with Marvin Minsky a few days ago, we started bitching about space, and he had this sad story to relate:
Once some of the ISS modules were relatively complete and ready for launch, NASA rounded up a group of dignitaries to bless it (I can't think of another reason why they were called in, and you'll see why I had more interesting things to ask about..), and he noticed an engineer really screwing up a docking procedure. He asked why they didn't just have a simple bit of robotics to handle it (any of a billion implementations would work great for something this trivial), and the answer was that NASA had dictated from high up that a human must be the operator for a wide class of tasks.
So there you have it! The space industry has some luddite motivations, which is absolutely terrifying. And unfortunately the great success of JPL/Caltech's probes gives more justification of their _small_ budgets (wow! you're so great you can keep being great with only $10 !!); I guess a large set of the administration still feels a need to justify 'manhood'. fucking retards.
First you're assuming that they actually have the correct engineering drawings. A GAO investigation of ISS revealed that although NASA had a system that was supposed to track the ISS engineering drawings, they didn't actually have the correct drawings.
Secondly, the cost of making a one-off of just about anything goes UP over time, unlike the cost of mass manufacturing items which goes down.
And third, I doubt that they would build another Hubble even if they could. They wouldn't be able to resist making a lot of changes to take advantage of advances in technology, so the design work would all get redone anyhow, resulting in no net savings.
I think NASA is finally realizing that if they really want to go places (like, how about, off this rock, for starters?), they can't be tinkering with a bunch of cheesy programs in low earth orbit (read: space shuttle, ISS, hubble, etc), which basically amounts to not even leaving your own backyard! NASA is now desiring to get back to the glory days, when at their height, they were launching rockets to the moon in the 60s. Setting rather "lofty" (but not too lofty) goals like that allow you to set smaller goals in between to help you achieve your big goal. But it gives you a definite project and direction that everyone is focusing towards, which makes people happy and brings in more funding, and lets you accomplish the smaller, but arguably more important, goals along the way. It's these smaller goals that we're actually going to see back here on earth: things like Tang (tm), new metals/products/machinery for industry, aeronautics, air travel, faster computers, better telemetry and data systems for relaying vital signs in hospitals,... the list goes on.
You're not going to develop this stuff as rapidly as you would by mucking around in LEO,...
Plus, methinks that the moon would be a much better base to build a permanent space telescope on.
NASA's sole purpose isn't science -- if it was, it'd just be rolled into the National Science Foundation. That said, I'm a big fan of spending the money instead on the Hubble Origins Probe -- hopefully we'll see that happen.
Your argument though reminds me a little bit of something I once saw, which said that all/most space advocates were either Saganites, O'Neillians, or Von Braunians (each named after a famous figure in the space field). The descriptions are as follows:
Saganites: "Look, but don't touch." The sole purpose of space endeavours is to increase our scientific knowledge, which will in the long-term lead to the enrichment of mankind.
O'Neillians: The ultimate goal is to turn humanity into a space-faring species. Our focus should be on space settlement
Von Braunians: They want to push the technology to the limit and beyond, and do what's never been done before. Sending huge rockets into orbit and planting flags on extraterrestrial bodies is valuable in and of itself, if only for the glory.
Of course, many are actually some mix of the above. Personally, I'd consider myself a former Saganite, more recently leaning towards O'Neillian.
During the 60s and 70s (the Space Race) the US was predominantly Von Braunian. In the 80s and 90s the US government's space program has been predominantly Saganite, focusing primarily on scientific missions. It's gotten to the point that now many people think that's the only worthwhile thing to do in space. Bush's Vision for Space Exploration is intended to turn the government's space program into a mix of O'Neillian and Von Braunian, doing things like establishing a permanent, self-sustaining moon base.
I'd characterize most private spaceflight folks like Burt Rutan and Elon Musk as a mix of O'Neillian and Von Braunian.
The Hubble was greate, but it has problems. Being in orbit (of Earth) makes it hard to fix, and expensive to fix...
Now, if we had a permanent base on the moon, with a sub-station on the dark side, we could put a Hubble like device in orbit of the Moon (or teathered to the Moon) with a crew that could easily go to the new Hubble and fix it. The graivty well of the Moon is much shallower so going up to fix the device is easier. Or just (gently) yank on the teather to bring it down for repair, then gently boost it back into orbit.
Just my $0.02 worth.
Think of the massive Apollo rockets. Now consider how teeny-tiny the Apollo orbiter was, compared to the massive Apollo rockets. Now imagine an Apollo rocket that has to go way, way further, and carry a vehicle that can keep men alive for months instead of days.
The bulk of propulsion is used to escape the clutches of earth's atmosphere. The additional propulsion required to coast to Mars is (relatively to the entire quantity) small. In addition, I'd guess that we won't use the same technology as Apollo. Think nuclear reactors and ion engines. A form of nuclear propulsion constantly accelerating a craft to Mars would also cut down on the months of time we currently need to coast there.
Also, with the experience we've gained from in-orbit assembly of the ISS, I would also guess that we might be able to launch a spacecraft in components rather than all at once.
Now think about what you do when you get there - the moon is low-G and no atmosphere. Mars is more like earth - and we don't use little bitty landers to land on earth, we use giant-ass space shuttles, runways, and launch platforms.
The "giant-ass space shuttle" was an overcomplex monstrosity built by a group of people that couldn't escape winged flight paradigms. Just to point out how things have changed, the upcoming Delta IV heavy will have a payload capacity greater than that of the STS.
From the rumblings I've seen / heard / read, the CEV will be more like an Apollo capsule. Also, you don't need to land your entire craft on Mars. You just need to get your people, scientific equipment, and whatever you need to escape the atmosphere down there. All of the support equipment for the trip back can remain in orbit.
I'm not going to comment on the political thread to this discussion, but I'd suggest not labeling the technological hurdles as insurmountable outright.
have the Chinese or the Indians build that 'Son of Hubble' telescope that someone mentioned (I cannot find the linky at the moment)... as I recall, it could be done at around $50 million and would probably be better.
We outsource everything else to them anyway, why not our manned missions?
Try not to let life get in the way of living.
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.
Guess what -- THAT's bogus.
Great example, by the way. LeCreuset is nonstick cookware, I'll give you that. However, they do not use Teflon for their ceramic cookware. They did not invent Teflon or anything at all similar. They do USE Teflon, however, in their kitchen textiles, as a fabric protector. Because, that's right, teflon is useful for more than non-stick cookware! Hooray!
In fact, Teflon is among the (at the top of the list I believe, but I'm not willing to back that up) most slippery materials known to man. Not simply the cheapest or most widely available, it is extremely unique.
I do agree with you in general that the Hubble has delivered far more science than any manned mission ever has. However, I believe both have their merits, and both deserve funding.
Random and weird software I've written.
Possibly, I suspect that it is not completely functional and the main mirror may not be the optically accurate one made at a cost of $15 million or so.
But it would be a good starting point. I'll bet that even the Smithsonian would rather the thing was put to decent use.
The main problem is the mirror and assembling the whole thing in a dust free environment.
On the subject of plans, the ISS is a completely different botch up. The Hubble plans are really well understood because hundreds of copies were made, checked and rechecked when we were going over the whole saga of the spherical aberation in the mirror.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
Karma to burn, so...
Zubrin is a barking mad cult leader labouring under the messianic misapprehension that he and only he can get us to Mars. Anybody who says otherwise is a fool and a communist.
If you read his statements made after the release of the basic outline of the current Bush space plan, he stops just short of calling treasonous any effort to go to the Moon as a first step or staging post rather than directly to Mars. He's not interested in consensus building, just his own (dubiously costed and hand-wavingly engineered) master plan. There are a growing number of people in space advocacy who consider him as mad as a bus. In a field full of dogmatic fantasists, he dwarfs all others for sheer cultish zealotry.
Mod me "-1 uncomfortable truth shut up shut up lalalalala"
Quoting from an online article: "NASA had considered a robotic servicing mission, but now doubts the technology would be mature enough before Hubble suffers a fatal equipment breakdown."
Well, let me get this straight. They don't want to repair the Hubble with a manned mission. Well, OK. Assuming no planned repair, the Hubble is guaranteed to fail anyways. So, what's the risk of trying a robotic repair mission? They are spending the money to make a robot to bring down the Hubble, so why not at least try a robot that will attempt to repair the Hubble? If it doesn't work, oh well, it was coming down anyways, right?
My God, it's quite evident that NASA has SO lost any initiative to take any risk at all now.
There are quite a few types of robot designs that can easily outclass humans. One that was mentioned on slashdot a while ago was the "tumbleweed" design - a giant hollow frame which can essentially maneuver around anything. Some proposals being looked into involve "multi-hop" robots which can land, take off, land, take off, etc - in effect, covering the whole planet, and reaching places that would take humans weeks to climb/descend.
;)
Your "ATV" wasn't designed to explore mars autonomously, or otherwise it would have had a self-righting mechanism if they planned to drive it on rough terrain.
If we were to send a spider bot to mars, there's no need for a human. A spider bot can deploy itself quite fine unless it's designed specifically not to be able to. And what on earth were you talking about when you said "specialized devices like ground penetrating". Did you mean core samples? If so, Beagle was supposed to do that, while MSL is going to be able to do that. If you meant ground penetrating radar, that's even easier - have you ever seen anyone use ground penetrating radar? You merely have to drag it behind you.
"but could not check them out" - this statement is incorrect. They did a risk-benefit analysis and decided that the data they could gather wouldn't be worth the risk; they've studied dunes elsewhere on Meridiani Planum already. Besides, if you want a fair comparison, you'd need to compare humans with a robot that cost 50 times what Opportunity costs; a single robot with that kind of budget that could not only study dunes and fly around the planet, but juggle Opportunity and Spirit at the same time
Once again, the point people like you cnotinually ignore: One manned mission vs. 50 robotic missions, when you factor in the cost. The one mission goes to a single part of the planet, while the robotic missions go to 50 different parts, or revisit the parts that they find to be interesting (the manned mission may end up in a completely uninteresting part of the planet). Etc. The economics just simply don't work out, as far as science goes.
Dear Lord: One of your creatures may be hurt tonight. Please let it be the other creature.
I really thought we could keep Hubble going until the James Webb Telescope goes up. Guess not. The proposal I just put in last month might be my last chance to do a new Hubble project (failure is expected for 2007, but could be sooner, or a little later). I've got some grant money to hire a postdoc, and one of my friends who currently works at Space Telescope is going to call me about it tomorrow. He says morale there is awful, and many are looking for outs. They'll be running James Webb, too, so there will be things to do, but still...
Professor of Astronomy, Author of Spider Star & Star Dragon (Tor)
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.
Thank goodness you were in no way shape or form in charge of any basic research programme.
NASA and the space program may not be responsible for some "great new products" however the need to apply new solutions to manned space challenges is what has pushed the state of the art in a significant way. If you can not see that just go and bugger off, sometimes the worst idiot is the one who things he knows it all.....
Let's face it, the last thing a government in the pockets of the bastard fundamentalists wants is to increase people's knowledge about the universe. They'd be a lot happier if we all believed the stars were just lights in the sky hung there by god.
"Information wants to be paid"