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

[drinkypoo]

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.

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

[Zocalo]

Actually, apart from using it as a shield against EM interference coming from Earth, there's not all that much to be gained from sticking a radio telescope on the moon. You'd have to either make it small enough to land intact, or build the thing in-situ as well, plus you'd have to relay any data around the moon, most likely via a satellite unless you want a second base station and someone laying a lot of fibre...

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.

Re:Scientific payoff

[Ford Prefect]

The moon would be a good place for a prototype space elevator.

No, it wouldn't be. Basic space elevator is essentially just a tower to geostationary orbit. Earth, rotating just over once every day (!), that's an orbit radius of 42,000 km. The Moon's equivalent orbit with it rotating once a month (albeit with lower gravity) is about 90 million km, assuming this back-of-the-envelope calculation is right.

The best place for a prototype space elevator would be a small asteroid with a fairly high rotation rate - you could probably get away with a few tens of kilometres if chosen carefully...

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

[Anonymous Coward]

assuming this back-of-the-envelope calculation is right.

It might be in itself, but you're forgetting something important: Lagrange points. The link below explains how a lunar space elevator can be done.

http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/lunar_spac e_elevator.html

Not only would it be possible, the entire cable could weigh just 6,800 kg according to the article's calculations.

(It's been a slashdot story, but the usual searches wouldn't find it)

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

[Almost-Retired]

Unforch, there is no "Dark side of the moon" in terms of a permanent dark side. Its day, and its night, are each nominally 2 weeks long. Yes, it maintains the same face toward the earth, but thats not the same else we wouldn't have the phases of the moon as the 'dark side' rotates around the moon as it rotates around the earth.
--
Cheers, Gene

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.

When?

[Odo]

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?

Gee, I hope ...

[ari_j]

I hope part of it lands on my field. I just haven't had anything to sell on eBay for a couple years. (I am not referring to Columbia. That's just wrong.)

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

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.

Re:It's not the end.

[Kiryat Malachi]

JWST is not a full replacement for Hubble - it is primarily an IR scope, with some visible capability - it lacks certain wavelengths Hubble covers, like UV, which is one of the primary benefits of launching a space scope in the first place. The band in question, covered by Hubble but not JWST, is the 110nm-600nm band. JWST has significantly more infrared extension than Hubble, but infrared is one of the more usable windows from Earth, especially as adaptive optics techniques improve.

Basically, JWST is not a full Hubble replacement. A good thing to launch? Yes. But we'll definitely lose some capabilities in the bargain.

Re:What's wrong with Hubble

[wikinerd]

You can learn why a fourth servicing mission is necessary by reading my article. I say: "several components of Hubble, most probably its batteries, are expected to stop operating in the next 2-4 years" and "HST was designed to be maintained with servicing missions operated from space shuttles every few years" (i.e. it is impossible to keep Hubble there without launching servicing missions, we need to fix its orbit and replace components every few years). In addition, the gyroscopes will also stop working, but I think the most important problem will be its batteries (Hubble can work with just 2 or 3 gyroscopes, but not with dead batteries).

This makes utterly no sense.

[Cutriss]

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. >.>

Re:This makes utterly no sense.

[TheGavster]

I want to know why the moon landing is slated for 2015-2020, while the last time we did it a) not really knowing how to do it and b) in like half the time. Repeating a past mission with modern tech should not be this difficult.

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: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

I know I'm showing my age by mentioning this...

[cutecub]

...but I think I'll have to dust off my old "Official SkyLab Target" T-Shirt.

Seeing as the Government usually can't hit the broad side of a planet, its a pretty fair bet that making myself a target ( again ) will prevent any possibility of me getting hit by Hubble when it crashes.

Cue SNL video of John Belushi smashing his SkyLab model into a Globe of the Earth

A tragic end to a great piece of work.

[Rimbo]

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.

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.

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:Why not boost Hubble to higher orbit?

[JungleBoy]

Perhaps even bring it down safely for museum display?

Hubble was scheduled to be brought down and put in the smithsonian. In fact, the display mount is already in the air & space museum (or was a couple years ago when I visited). The problem is that the Colombia was the only shuttle decked out to down mass the Hubble. All the other orbiters are setup with an airlock and docking port for the ISS. Hubble won't fit in the cargo hold of those orbiters now.

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.

A long, sad night...

[mbrother]

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...