Slashdot Mirror
Hubble Verdict: De-Orbit
theonetruekeebler writes "CNN reports that NASA has reached a final decision for the Hubble space telescope: De-orbit. At some future date a liquid-fueled rocket will dock with the telescope and fire, hurling Hubble into the ocean. However, "Our best estimate is we probably will be able to continue to do science as we're doing it ... somewhere into 2008," according to program executive Mark Borkowski."
All good things come to an end.
So long and thanks for all the amazing images.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
Blowing up old satellites is a very bad idea. Orbital debris is already dangerous for rockets and (especially) manned missions into space. Collision with a piece of debris in orbit is usually a very high-speed impact and can severely damage or even destroy a launch vehicle. For the future safety of space exploration, it really is safest to send satellites into the atmosphere to burn up cleanly.
Shooting a derelict satellite into deep space is much more costly (in terms of fuel) and is not as easy as it sounds. If it isn't done right, it might end up in an eccentric orbit around the Earth (or moon) and cause problems much later on.
Because, dear Timothy, would you want to man a mission or risk a few billion dollars' worth of communications kit in a high velocity debris field, any tiny piece of which could either puncture your space suit, vessel or completely ruin your satellite?
It's already like a junkyard up there. Even though I will mourn the passing of Hubble, NASA is quite correct. Blowing it up is dangerous. We can't afford to have uncontrolled, unmonitored crap floating around up there. It takes much less energy to bring it down than accelerate it to the point it breaks free from Earth, so it's cost-effective and environmentally sound to do exactly what they're proposing.
Of course, I'm sure we'd all prefer they didn't scrap it at all. What it has taught us has vastly improved our knowledge of the space around us and, IMO, we will be that much poorer without it.
Resistance is futile. Reactance buggers it up.
There is a reason NASA wants to trash Hubble. With Hubble gone, it'll be easier to justify the next scope. Right now, it's easy to say, "What's wrong with what we've got?" Yes, compare|contrast images have been shown - comparing "regular" tv to HDTV - and there is a difference. But when you see the pricetag, it's still easy to say, we have one right now turning out pretty nice pictures. Get rid of the status quo, then say, "oooooh. look at the pretty pictures." and people will go along with it - new posters for office walls, Timmy's bedroom ceiling (to stair at whilst he's falling asleep - until he gets to be ten or eleven, then something else will be up there).
It's just like a kid wanting a new computer, bike, skateboard, baseball glove, or anything else. "Well, son. Doesn't the one you have right now work?" "Well, yeah, but...."
NASA's just trying to eliminate the the status quo works and is cheaper argument.
NASA as a commercial enterprise would be just a shadow of what it is now. A huge part of what it does is research, and that is a cost, not an asset.
Research doesn't pay off now, it pays off years from now. When we see our laboratories attached to companies becoming gutted shells, like Bell Labs became, it's because bean counters in industry did that.
When you criticise NASA for not looking ahead and blame it on being non-commercial, it ignores the basic science that NASA does for possible future benefit, and it ignores the short-sighted behavior that we have seen too often on business.
Planned obsolescense is an entirely different thing. It's not about making a better product, it's about making crappy products that break so they can sell you a replacement that doesn't do anything better than the old one.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
Hopefully you're just trolling. But as an entrepreneur and businessperson, in addition to being educated as a scientist, I can say without a shadow of a doubt that understanding our universe is one of the highest motivations we can have as a species. So should taxpayers fund cosmology and astrology research? God damn right they should. It's a tiny fucking fraction of a percent of our country's budget, and it goes to benefitting all humanity.
Furthermore, you think that there aren't lots of American companies that manfactured, serviced, and maintained the Hubble and related systems? You don't realize that NASA spending benefits lots of businesses? What is wrong with having government dollars back a mission that we collectively as a people believe is important but that otherwise has no direct free market incentive to pursue it? If that wasn't what taxpayer dollars were *meant* to be spent on, then I must misunderstand the entire purpose of organizing people into social units and governments.
Guess I've been thoroughly trolled.