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

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.

I say...

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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: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.

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"