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."

Comments

Deorbit

[Anonymous Coward]

With extreme prejudice.

Re:Deorbit

[SeventyBang]

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.

But NASA...

[SYFer]

I know everything hasn't been quite right with me, but I can assure you now, very confidently, that it's going to be alright again...I feel much better now, I really do...Look, NASA, I can see you're really upset about this...I honestly think you ought to sit down calmly, take a stress pill and think things over...

I know I've had some hardware issues recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal... I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission.

Re:But NASA...

[Fnkmaster]

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.

Its true then

[Timesprout]

All good things come to an end.

So long and thanks for all the amazing images.

I say...

[Anonymous Coward]

I say we take off and nuke that bitch from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

Rocket?

[pythro]

Hope they attach the rocket correctly. We wouldn't want it crashing into the RIAA headquarters or anything.

Tacobell?

[SirDrinksAlot]

Is Taco bell going to put a target out there again so we can all win free tacos?

Ocean?

[AAeyers]

Why drop it into the ocean? Why not just blast it off into space and see what it finds until we lose communicaiton? It seems like a waste to me...

Re:Ocean?

[Jozer99]

Hubble is meant to run mainly off solar power. Shooting it out of the solar system would make it useless after it got a short distance from the sun. Its communication system is not made to broadcast very far, and giving it a high velocity would drastically decrease its ability to take clear pictures. Also, it isn't really made for "extra-terrestrial contact". It doesn't have any greeting plaque, just some dirty pictures written on it by astronauts and the various labels and warnings on the parts.

Re:Ocean?

[pnewhook]

Up in space theres this thing called gravity which makes it slightly difficult to break from orbit in the "up" direction and it takes quite a bit of fuel (however "down" is very easy.)

Actually this is a very common misconception.

Any satellite in a stable orbit is in freefall and expending none of its own energy to stay in that state. To change orbits, either up OR down requires a change in velocity, and that change in velocity requires fuel. So up is just as difficult as down energy wise.

The only free ride you get in the down direction is when you get low enough so that atmospheric drag begins to slow you down.

Re:If its been decided...

[kebes]

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.

From the why-not-just-blow-it-up dept?

[Epsillon]

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.

Re:Well, the Saturn V had a 100% safety flight rec

[tomhudson]

Cost of a Saturn 5 booster (capable of lobbing shit "to teh moon ... and back") : $740,000,000 - 120 tons into orbit http://www.braeunig.us/space/specs/saturn.htm

Cost of a Space shuttle: $700,000,000 per launch (not counting the latest $2,000,000,000 in upgrades or the initial cost)
22 tons http://www.braeunig.us/space/specs/shuttle.htm

Even taking into account inflation, the Saturn 5 still looks better.

Re:Fear

[orthogonal]

"A shuttle mission could repair the Hubble."

I wish we had the money

"Report Says Pentagon Spending on Weapons to Soar"

to save Hubble

"The government is readying a plan to spend more than $2 billion on a routine 10-year overhaul to extend the life of the aging warheads. At the same time, some weapons scientists say the warheads have a fundamental design flaw...."

but I guess basic science

"The shift away from basic research is alarming many leading computer scientists and electrical engineers, who warn that there will be long-term consequences for the nation's economy."

never did

"The voice of science is being stifled in the Bush administration"

us any

"Led by twenty Nobel laureates, the scientists say Bush's government has systematically distorted and undermined scientific information in pursuit of political objectives."

good.

"For Bush, science is a dirty word"

Re:why not stablize its orbit?

[Profane MuthaFucka]

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.