Slashdot Mirror
Hope for Hubble
yulek writes "It may not be over yet. space today reports that Bush's NASA administrator nominee, Michael Griffin, wants to revisit the Hubble decision. Space.com has some more details.
The big question is: do we really want to save Hubble for the right reasons or is it more of a symbolic thing? Considering NASA's fiscal woes, is this a waste of funds?
I have loved the Hubble images for the last decade, and the research that stemmed from them, but I think that the most incredible camera we've ever made may need more than just an upgrade. Perhaps it is obsolete."
There was a proposal floated a little while ago to build a replacement for HST from spare parts that already exist and launch it on top of an expendable rocket. The kicker is that it would not cost much more than the servicing mission! I guess it has more to do with the name 'Hubble' than anything else. In a related story, why do they keep calling them gyroscope when they really are reaction-wheels?
There's nothing wrong with taking another look at the situation. After all, O'Keefe wasn't exactly thorough in the analysis.
;) Not only will it find terrestrial planets, but even be able to do spectral analyses on their atmospheres.
Personally, I'll be happy when the ESA gets Darwin up
Margaret Thatcher died the other day. It was a sad day, but I like to think that she's looking up at us right now."
Why not put basic Hubble control [direction] on the web and allow users to sign up for time and have the 'scope zoom in to where the user wants. Would you pay a buck or two to control the hubble for 30 minutes?
'Or else pizza is going to order out for you'
It has been a very useful piece of equipment for the scientific community and would continue to be so. True the cost looks big, but compared to the many other expenditures NASA Makes its a small price for the gain you get from it. Unless you can put up a new telescope with at least it's capabilities for the repair cost its worth the investment.
How do ground based telscopes + adaptive optics compare with the Hubble? I know the JWST will have optical capabilities too, but probably not as good as Hubble.
I generally consider things to be obsolete when they have been replaced by something better. How does this apply to Hubble?
samrolken
For what it costs to determine if Hubble can/should be "saved" we can fund Voyager until it runs out of power. We have never had a man made object communicate with us from outside the solar system.
If you have a copy of the Hubble Manual, 24 April 1990, NASA will pay you $10,000.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Saving Hubble will cost at least $500 million. That money could be used to keep all of the other spacecraft that are being considered for termination operating for a few years. There is a more capable replacement, the JWST, on the way in 2011. The only reason they are revisiting the Hubble decision is to appease Senator Mikulski of MD. Oh yeah, Griffin came from APL which is also in MD. You connect the dots.
-- Instant Karma's gonna get you! [320848 = 2*2*2*2*11*1823]
Considering how low it takes to get a probe beyond Pluto and the strange pull on the spacecraft (it is off where it should be) and the low cost of continuing to monitor the probes, the voyeger missions should be continued too. Cutting them saves very little money but the budget is so tight that to save one or two mil, we are cutting these very important programs.
"Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
In general, use of the word "we" around here refers to be people who don't, as a group, have the slightest idea what they're talking about, let alone any intention of making any contribution themselves.
This is a perfect example. Given the inability "we" have to understand why false color images are used, I find it hard to imagine that "we" have an informed opinion on the utility of the Hubble.
My impression is that the posters here who do know what they're talking about run about 80-20 against hanging on to the Hubble.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Would someone mind telling me what exactly has made the hubble obsolete? What batch of super powerful telescopes has made the hubble unnecessary?
Maybe the hubble is broken down, maybe it's too difficult to maintain, I'll even entertain the very unscientific assessment that the benefits of the hubble are outweighed by the costs now. However, you can't call something obsolete until something else comes along that's simply better and that can replace it fully.
With repairs the hubble can still do tremendous things. The submitter calling it "obsolete" is an irresponsible use of words and that bothers me because it implies it has no further worth. That's simply wrong.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
I suspect that the answer to the question is "both". Hubble has provided stunning information over the years, and - quite frankly - it kicks b*tt! But its old, and NASA can no doubt do better now.
What I would like to see is a detailed summary cost breakdown (un-spun by the politicos) and ongoing sustaining costs for the thing, as well as the schedule-of-use (i.e. who's using it and how much and for what). This info is probably available, but hard to find.
Then I'll decide if I/we can afford my/our "feelings" about Hubble, nice as they are.
Cloned foods give the statement "We had that last week!" a whole new meaning.
If you don't have $400M to fix a space telescope, you're not going to get $4B+ to build a new one.
Consider, further, that if a hypothetical new telescope has a $400M sticker on it today, it'll cost at least $4B by the time Congress is done splitting up the contracts so as to maximize the amount of pork (and therefore votes) allocated.
Consider, still further, the probability that this (or any other) administration is ever going to agree to spending one thin time on science. People into science tend to think. People who think tend not to vote as predictably. It's therefore in every Congressman's long-term interest to reduce the proportion of such people among the population.
This isn't an R-vs-D flame. Space telescopes harm Republican politicians by draining money away from faith-based initiatives that would otherwise be used to indoctrinate the next generation of Republican voters, but they also harm Democrat politicians by draining money away from social programmes that foster the kind of nanny-state dependency that produces the next generation of Democrat voters.
I support keeping the Hubble - even if obsolescent, it's better than nothing. And "nothing" is what we'll end up with if we let it crash and burn.
As prior art, I cite the X-33 and other Shuttle replacements, all of which were canned years ago.
I think your question, is Hubble obsolete, is the wrong question to ask.
Hubble IS obsolete. And will be replaced by the http://www.jwst.nasa.gov/JWST. But the JWST won't launch until August, 2011.
Hubble will die soon. So what are scientists to do from 2006 until August 2011? Although we have many world class telescopes on earth, all of them have to contend with the atmosphere, plus earth's orbit - its rotation around the sun affect which part of our sky is visible at night, and because of this annoying thing called "day", those telescopes can only be used at night, which further restrict which part of the universe can be viewed at any given moment.
I'm not insulting earth-based telescopes, but I do believe we need to keep Hubble functioning until the JWST is ready. For safety, Hubble should operate a few months after the JWST is launched, just in case the JWST has flaws that are only discovered after launch... remember Hubble's mirror flaw which required an additional flight to fix?
Tepp
The Hubble Space Telescope stands for everything NASA has done right in the last 12 years. At the completion of STS-61, the mission to replace the warped mirror, NASA's approval rating was at it's highest since the launch of Columbia. Possibly since the Apollo missions. Besides saving a $1.5 billion dollar investment. The mission proved that servicing missions could be done. It opened the door to the idea that in orbit manufacutring and repairs weren't just science fiction.
Since then Hubble has increased our understanding of the universe 10 fold. Its more than just a space telescope, it's a national monument. I think every effort should be made to keep it in working order until the technology exists to safely return it to Earth intact so it can be displayed at the Smithsonian Air & Space Museum
Free MacMini
Any links to pictures from the new scopes to get an idea of what to expect from the next generation of scopes ?
Maybe they can turn it around, point it at earth and use it to film new episodes of Star Trek Enterprise!
This sounds just like the Terri Schiavo case, except set in space!
Even though 90 percent of the public is way more interested in pictures from Hubble than they are in the International Space Station (ISS) or any moon base, the scaredy-cats in DC don't want to risk fixing it with the military space shuttle, so they can send more spy satellites up instead.
Sigh. It will soon be replaced with something better from the EU or Japan anyway.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Nah, I was just BSing. Can't believe I got modded up.
Much has been said about how expensive it is to keep a spare shuttle ready for a rescue mission in case something happens in orbit. And yet the United States and Russia have kept thousands of missles thirty minutes from launch 24x7 for the past thirty years. There must be some way to deliver supplies to an ailing shuttle while a rescue mission is prepared, without endangering the second crew by rushing things. Really, all you need is a stack of solid-fuel boosters to get a capsule into orbit. The whole thing could be put together using off-the-shelf parts and kept parked on a launch pad for years.
Nothing for 6-digit uids?
into the ocean.
The hubble has been great no question about it! But, there is no reason to keep dumping money into. Best to get something else/something better.
It's like those people who have an old car. Sure, back in its day, it was great. Top of the line. But now, you always have to put more and more money into it. I know your attached to the car, but in the long run its going to cost you more. Even a cheap civic is going to be better then your 1982 audi.
There comes a point when the cost outways the benifits.
You're ignoring the aspects of time and matter.
A better telescope could be placed in to orbit, sure.
But time on the telescope is a finite resource. If you want to look at something, you have to create a proposal, and get time scheduled on the device, get it pointed, etc.
If the Hubble still has some significant utility, and the cost to repair it is worth that additional utility, than it should be repaired.
But just being "obsolete" doesn't make it worthless, and I don't see this as a "sentimental" argument.
-- John.
For a lot of people, being able to bury history would be a GoodThing.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Instead of repairing hubble, NASA should use the money to train monkeys to work at the USPO. They could evaluate software patents more accurately than anyone currently working there.
It's like we're watching the Terri Schiavo drama all over again, with NASA repeatedly yanking and then replacing life support.
The problem with launching a replacement to Hubble is that there isn't one, right now. All space telescopes due to be launched are on very different wavelengths. Plans to build super-massive ground-based telescopes look interesting, but they aren't even started yet and there's no guarantee they'll ever get them to work.
Hubble is what we have in orbit now. Whether it stays or whether it goes, no space-based alternative will exist for a long time - maybe a decade or two after Hubble is disposed of, if no rescue is launched.
Space telescopes are vital because, although there are ground telescopes that can be programmed to correct for the distortion, the atmosphere is still not forgiving. Light that is absorbed cannot be calculated for, because you have nothing to base your calculations on. Also, most telescopes are either on top of active volcanos, in Earthquake zones, or in Hurricane-prone regions. It's impressive there are any left standing. One geophysical mishap could set the science of astronomy back thirty or forty years, maybe more.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
... it's dead, it's dying, it's kinda up in the air ...er vacuum.
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
It'd be cheaper in the long run, and less complex. And it keeps the primary advantage an orbital telescope has over an Earth-bound one: almost no atmosphere to get in the way.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4426535. stm
;-) More fuel to the fire...)
Ground telescopes to 'super-size'
Sunday, 10 April, 2005, 09:10 GMT 10:10 UK
"A new generation of ground-based telescopes could be up to 10 times the size of existing instruments and have vision 40 times as sharp as the Hubble space telescope."
There ya go. Hubble _IS_ obsolete.
(On a second thought, I might submit this to slashdot tomorrow
My physics professor said in a lecture two years ago that the Hubble is long obsolete; in fact it's nothing but a toy now. Ground telescopes have advanced their techniques for correcting atmospheric distortion of the image to the point that taking a picture with a telescope in space is less desireable. In fact, he suggests that putting telescopes in space is not even a worthwhile venture anymore, because updates in technology can be rolled out on the ground so much faster than in space that it doesn't make sense to invest your funding in a space launch. The same cost of putting a telescope in space is the same as putting a 2x-10x better telescope on the ground, which can be more easily upgraded in years following. In fact, the technology improves so fast that a telescope in space becomes essentially useless for research purposes within a fraction of its operational lifetime. It looks awfully silly when you've spent millions on putting a tool way up in orbit when it becomes a toy in less than twelve months.
I've read some bad /. threads before, but this is terrible. Anyone who both RTFAs and is capable of reading comprehension would have noticed that the issue to be decided isn't specifically about Hubble - it's about whether the improved space shuttle can handle the assignment of dealing with Hubble. A decision will be made after the shuttle is flying again and why know it's capabilities.
I'm sorry, but this isn't news. It's called common sense.
I think that money would be better spent towards creating and launching one that's bigger, better etc.
(If at first you don't succeed, do it different next time!)
There is a telescope on the drawing board that is ment to be a replacement for Hubble, but it has not even been considered by NASA. it is called the HOP telescope, and would be able to perform many of the same functions as Hubble, but it would be much more sensitive, and it would also be more efficient and easier to maintain.
Not to mention, the upcoming James Webb Telescope will be able to see much farther then Hubble when it comes to the infrared spectrum. But it isn't going to even launch until 2011.
If the White House burned down and it was discovered that it would only cost a little more to build a new White House over in Arlington then to rebuild it at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, which would you choose?
I would choose to use the money to fix the Hubble.
Next question?
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
The poor scope is going to bust in half out of nerviousness alone.
"Mr. Hubble, itsa yes, wait......itsa no, now yes.....now no, yes, no, yes, no, yes, no.......A definite.......maybe!"
Table-ized A.I.
According to http://www.astrophys-assist.com/educate/hubble/hub ble.htm, the thing originally cost $1.5 billion but we've put another 3.5 billion into it so far just to maintain the thing.
Seems expensive for a web cam attached to a big mirror and a wi-fi transmitter. I suppose there is that pesky little guidence system, but still, I bet I could build one for half that ;)
Rather than spend money on sending the Hubble into the ocean, let's send Hubble into a higher orbit (maybe one that will keep it around for a couple hundred years?) This way future generations can decide if it is worth saving. How much would we spend now to recover the Mayflower if it was out there somewhere waiting for us?
Maybe I'm mis-informed,but wasn't the plan before the Columbia tradgedy to have a shuttle mission to service Hubble? What's changed? Would the cost of doing so, or the cost of sending an alternate vehicle if a shuttle mission is too risky, really be that much different post-Columbia vs the pre-Columbia shuttle mission that was planned? Didn't NASA already have the debate about the cost of saving Hubble years ago, and didn't they decided that the answer was "yes"?
Isn't the real issue that the President (or his administration) has repurposed this money for going to the moon and to Mars, and (right or wrong) they've decided that this is more important than saving hubble?
On one hand, I wonder if the Hubble and JWST could compliment each other if they were operating simultaneously (being that they use different wavelengths and all - concurrent observations of the same objects ought to be somewhat useful). On the other hand, since concurrent operation seems to be completely out of the question in any case, I wonder what's the big deal if there is a 5 or 6 year gap between hubble and the JWST?
Understanding is a three edged sword. - Ambassador Kosh Naranek, Babylon 5
1. I agree completely with keeping Hubble going until the Webb telescope is in place. Remember Shoemaker-Levy 9? We had telescopes and probes in the right place at the right time to capture a once-in-a-lifetime event that could not possibly be foreseen. We need to maintain the capability. We have no idea what we might miss if we don't.
2. We are not talking about changing a plan here. The servicing mission was always part of the plan. But Columbia made O'Keefe gutless. That fact is that it will be NO MORE DANGEROUS to go to Hubble with a crew now than it was all the previous times. In fact, it will be LESS dangerous since they will be operating post-CAIB with a can of Thermal Tile Fix-a-Flat in the glove box and a rescue shuttle on pad 39B.
If you foreigners are wondering whether Americans are giving up Hubble for something better, or we no longer want to gather knoledge that's not generating income: Upgrades are done when the replacement is already in place or ready to be up in a very short period of time; else, it's desertion. That money saved will get more votes funding a tiny fraction of resources need to bomb someone with theoretical WMD.
sorry for the bad handwriting
Found it! Its called the Hubble Origins Probe http://www.pha.jhu.edu/hop/ The Hubble Origins Probe (HOP) is a proposed 2.4 meter free flying space telescope.The HOP concept is to replicate the design of the Hubble Space Telescope with a much lighter unaberrated mirror and optical telescope assembly, enabling a rapid path to launch, significant cost savings and risk mitigation. HOP will fly the instruments originally planned for the 4th HST servicing mission as well as a new very wide field imager, enhancing the original science mission of Hubble.
As I often mention, a solution that everybody seems to be ignoring is putting up a new telescope, the Hubble Origins Probe. This new telescope would be more capable than the original Hubble and cost less than a robotic repair mission. For whatever reason, this possibility is almost never mentioned, although it's IMHO the best option by far.
Obligatory blurb:
Astronomy Magazine reports that an international team of astronomers has proposed an alternative to sending a robotic or human repair mission to the ailing Hubble Space Telescope. Their proposal is to build a new Hubble Origins Probe, reusing the Hubble design but using lighter and more cost-effective technologies. The probe would include instruments currently waiting to be installed on Hubble, as well as a Japanese-built imager which 'will allow scientists to map the heavens more than 20 times faster than even a refurbished Hubble Space Telescope could.' It would take an estimated 65 months and under $1 billion to build, less than the estimated cost of a service mission.
If you're referring to ICBM's, your data is incorrect. It's been over 40 years.
The US had about 1000 Minuteman missiles and less than 100 Atlas missiles in the early 80's. The Soviets had a like number. The SALT treaties and the sands of time have eroded that number greatly since then.
AND the response time was less than 30 minutes!
PLUS Solid rocket fuel absorbs moisture from the atmosphere and is very sensitive to temperature changes. So, boosters must be cycled regularly and overhauled. They are not maintainence free! They are also bulky and difficult to transport. If a crack develops in the booster fuel, a hot spot will develop causing catastrophic failure and loss of payload.
I would suggest a big sling shot to deliver a payload of oxygen and food for stranded ISS astrouauts. Or better yet, escape pods.
"I'd rather win in an ugly car than lose in a pretty car" - Jari Lahdenpera
Less complex? The moon has a habit of turning alot, not only in circles but it also makes of habit about spinning on its axis. This would result in alot of Pointing At The Earth action, although very interesting, it's not the point of the telescope. And yes, the earth's atmosphere is prone to occasional meteors, the moon is more subject to them.
Told you Bush is a good president!
(Now I bet I'll be modded -1 Troll or Offtopic or something like that for supporting Bush. But if I were to write a completely inflammatory, trollish, offtopic post about how much Bush lied (Bush did NOT lie, by the way), then I'd be modded +5 Insightful or something like that. Slashdot. What the hell did you expect?)
Now the on-topic part of my post, as a reward for those Republicans out there who are actually reading this: I think that space exploration is a very meaningful industry, as it ultimately causes technologies to emerge which benefit the whole world. Better types of insulation, machining processes, computers, and other great things resulted from past missions to the moon. I think that further exploration has a lot to offer for the future.
They are, however, discussing quite a hefty amount of money to fix Hubble, and I think it would be best if the thing could be replaced by a telescope that is much bigger and better. The cost of repairs would undoubtedly be smaller than the cost of building a whole new telescope, but at least several years down the road, we'd have a telescope that is a lot more capable than the current Hubble.
I have to agree that I think keeping Hubble going is very important. I do not however believe that Bush deserves any credit, so far. The plan is still in place to allow it to burn up in the atmosphere via controlled re-entry. It's not saved yet. If it is allowed to burn up, I think that would be a horrible legacy for the Bush administration. To have to watch the twin towers fall, our symbol of financial power, and see the hubble burn up too, our symbol of scientific achievement, under the same administration is simply horrific. I hope this guy can see that at the least.
In an attempt to promote something resembling intelligent discussion, here's a link to official information on NASA's budget.
In particular, I'd like to point out the $4.5 billion devoted solely to the Space Shuttle for FY2005, and the $1.6 billion devoted to the International Space Station.
Why is it everyone only talks about the cost and usefullness of keeping the Hubble in orbit? Doesn't anyone else think that there is some sentimental value in keeping the Hubble in space, even if it is obsolete?
In a few centuries, wouldn't it be nice if people could see the original Hubble in a museum, and not just some mock up? Did we trash the first automobiles and airplanes just because they were obsolete?
Yes and no. You would still have the problem of maintainance, which might be multiplied quite a bit if any of the moon dust should get into the supporting bearings. That stuff, not haveing had a few million years to blow about in the wind and round off its fractured edges, is very very abrasive indeed.
Support structure flex as it moves about will be a constant calibration problem, and keeping the mirrors figure as it bends under that 1/6th moon gravity also need to be considered. None of these are a problem for the hubble as it truely is in a zero G environment. In fact, its quite strong, but that was only to support the mirror from the multigravity forces trying to rip it out of its mounts as it was being boosted to orbit when it was finally put up. Once there, a couple of strips of scotch tape could probably hold it together quite well unless the reaction wheels try to turn it to a GRB as its occurring, which has been done several times now. Then we're back to a row of 1/4" bolts to hold it.
Also, don't forget that the farther away it is, the more that service mission is going to cost. We can goto the hubbles NEO 100 times for what its going to cost to goto the James Webb out at L5, or to something on the moon.
--
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
99.34% setiathome rank, not too shabby for a WV hillbilly
With the hubble going and the shuttle most likely gone for good, it's sad to see how space is getting less and less accessible. Successive generations are seeing less and less expolration, scientific experiments, and just plain cool stuff from space anymore. Without the cold ware, there's just less and less influence of science on the current administration to push through space-based research. From a purely practical economic standpoint, it is hard to find reasons to go into space. There's no military race for space right now (I don't think Bin Laden is working on a satellite attack system or countermeasure system) which is good but kind of sad.
;)
The only thing that would solve all these funding probelms would be MALEVOLENT SPACE ALIEN ATTACKS. Nothing like a good ol interplanetary tiff to get our cheap, isolationist political leaders to get that space race up and running again. I mean, with a few MALEVOLENT SPACE ALIEN ATTACKS going, we as a planet would definitely put Trillions more into the development of agile space flight, military stategy, new weapon development (energy based), etc. oh well. All we can do is hope and ask for MALEVOLENT SPACE ALIEN ATTACKS to happen soon.
0- Eamonman Proud member of DNRC
How is it obsolete? Is the 200 inch Hale(?) telescope at Palomar obsolete? It was put in service about the same time as my mother,who is also still in service due to large government expenditures. Obsolete, hardly. How can you put a value on sentiment? People place great value on sentiment, not so much on the Hubble per se, but pictures taken from a fancy camera in orbit, which takes picture like no other. If work was already commencing on a new space telescope, a launch date set eith minimal downtime of the ability to take these pictures, then, ok. However, think of the true value of what the Hubble has done for all of us who are touched by its images, and how they have brought us all a little closer to grasping the immensity of what is out there and marvel of its beauty. The USA can afford this for both its scientific and spiritual benefits (like Dao and Buddist spiritual, not intending to imply or annoy Right Wing Religious Christian Fundamentalist zealots).
One man's bullshit is another man's treasure. - me
SB
It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
I did a rather large paper for a history class last semester on this topic. it's in PDF at www.nick.eevfd.com/hubblehistory.pdf. I came up with pretty interesting stuff in those 20-odd pages, a lot of it surprised me. Like the fact that Kodak Eastman made a backup mirror for the damned thing incase Perkins Elmer messed it up, but because of the business politics and NASA's own internal politics the Kodak mirror was ignored.
Also of note is that the 4th service mission would mark the end of teh COSTAR package, since all the instruments after that mission woudl have corrective optics built in, thereby freeing that 5th modular bay for another instrument, i can't remember which one, it should be in that paper.
I'd guess on the order of 500-800 million for a human servicing mission, and probably 1-1.5 billion for a robotic.
I'll have to ask for credentials before I'll take your word on that one.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
Symbolic?! Hubble is the source of virtually all of the science that is currently being performed by NASA in space. The space station does experiments when astronauts take time out of their personal time to do so. The vast majority of time is spent fixing hardware. Getting rid of Hubble would remove almost all short term scientific benefits we get from NASA.
My Company - Red Cedar Technology
At least when Hubble dies and falls into the ocean, we don't have to worry about having a space toilet hit someone and kill them like Mir did in Dead Like Me. But Hubble is going the way of all good TV shows. Cancelled: Firefly, Dead Like Me, Wonderfalls, and Enterprise. OK, strike that last one. Enterprise sucked. Oh well Boom Boom Ba.
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
As someone working on the Hubble robotic servicing mission (I know most /.ers will say this biases my opinion; really it just means I can speak from a position of knowledge), I can state 100% that this mission can be done, and can be done on schedule.
Let me break down the phases of the mission for those who are unaware:
1.) Launch - needs little explanation - a Delta IV or Atlas V heavy lift launches the HRV into Hubble's orbital plane
2.) Checkout & Commissioning - The robot arm and other HRV elements are tested and verified operational
3.) Orbit Phasing & Rendezvous - The craft will be commanded to approach Hubble. Autonomous systems will be used to coordinate the final stages of this approach, using technologies currently being proven out on the XSS-11 spacecraft which launched this week, and to be launched next week on the DART spacecraft.
4.) Capture & Berthing- The robot arm is set up for capture, and when the vision system determines that the end effector is within tolerances, an autonomous capture is performed. HRV is performing station-keeping until just before, and when HRV and HST are known to have a negative relative drift rate (receding), the capture process is allowed to begin. A capture ends with the arm grappled to one of HST's shuttle grapple fixtures. The vision system is in development, and the hardware has been space-proven for the past ~20 years on Shuttle... in fact the exact same end-effector design has been used on all previous HST servicing missions. After Capture, the arm decelerates HST and then engages it into the HRV latches (same latching arrangement as on a shuttle servicing mission).
5.) Battery Augmentation - HST's batteries will die soon, and are one of the prime schedule drivers for the mission. The dexterous robot (two armed robot) connects wire conduits from the HRV batteries to the outside of HST and routes solar array power to them. The hardest part of this task is transfering the 2 prime or 2 redundant connectors on each of the port and starboard diode boxes (located just under the solar array masts). This operation has been proven out on the ground, using a validated flightlike 1G testbed version of the actual dexterous robot, and a hi-fi Hubble mockup. In fact I think operators demo'd this very op just yesterday for maybe the 20th time. Trust me... it's highly doable.
6.) Changout WideField and add Gyros - The gyroscopes are the next most likely item to fail on HST, and are another schedule driver. With the new two-gyro mode currently under investigation, the lifetime of HST could likely be extended beyond the 2007 timeframe. The Rate-Gyro Assemblies are attached conveniently to the outside of WFC3, the replacement wide-field camera for WFPC2. WFPC2 is the camera responsible for most of the majestic galaxy and planetary photographs we seen in the news and magazines. WFC3 will improve yet again over that. Changing out WFPC2 involves de-mating the internal connectors, removing the ground-strap, unlatching the instrument, and sliding it out of the -V3 radial instrument bay rails. The old instrument is transported down to a stowage location in the HRV, and the new instrument is installed in the empty HST bay in the reverse sequence. This entire operation has been demo'd several times over the past year.
7.) Changeout COSTAR - After the two critical repairs (batteries and gyros), we move into the get-aheads and upgrades. The COSTAR instrument, sitting in axial bay 4, has performed corrective optics functions since its installation during the first servicing mission. Now that all HST instruments are built with integrated corrective optics, this instrument is obsolete, and can be replaced by something more productive; the Cosmic Origins Spectrograph (COS). To perform the changeout, the robot must unlatch and open the -V2 aft shroud doors, attach a handling fixture to COSTAR, attach a connector transfer panel to the handling fixture, transfer the 4 COSTAR harness connectors, transfer the ground
... I'm utterly appalled at the decision to not service HST. This view is essentially universal among all the professional astronomers that I know.
I certainly don't claim to have done a rigorous survey of the field, but here at Berkeley, at Santa Cruz, and at Caltech, pretty much anyone you ask will say that HST has been returning fantastic science, has unique capabilities that nothing else can match, and there's no technical reason why the servicing mission shouldn't be done. Speaking personally, I work in adaptive optics, which many people will tell you lets ground-based telescopes outperform Hubble. It's not that simple: in some circumstances AO does do that, but in others (for large fields of view or at visible wavelengths) it does not, nor is it likely to do so sooner than a decade from now, maybe more. HST has by far the highest resolution available in visible light, and it'll be devastating to lose that capability.
Only an poorly informed idiot, or a non-astronomer, would say this. I got a proposal through this year to do some imaging work on a class of objects known as "post-starburst quasars." I can't really do the same project with any other telescope ANYWHERE. Is that obsolete?! The Hubble Space Telescope, especially one refurbished and updated with new insturments like COS (Cosmic Origins Spectrograph), can do things no other telescope in existence can do. Things that are useful. Again, only a poorly informed idiot would say it is obsolete.
There is an argument, and discussion, that should be had in an honest manner, about the cost and risk to astronauts' lives. One of my old professors became an astronaut who serviced Hubble last time, and I've thought about applying for Mission Specialist myself, so I don't take this lightly.
Mike Griffin, from what I can tell, is probably Bush's best nomination ever. I'll respect his decisions in a way I have not from the previous head. Hubble is perhaps the crowning jewel of NASA, and not to be discarded lightly. I'm not being sentimental here. I apply for Hubble time every year because the things Hubble can do can be done no other way.
Professor of Astronomy, Author of Spider Star & Star Dragon (Tor)
If NASA is serious about the James Webb Space Telescope, then I say yes, put the money allocated for Hubble into JW. But if JW is too far out, then keep Hubble alive until JW is ready.
That's my opinion.
Wouldn't it be possible for NASA to consider selling the HST / Voyager projects to other space agencies who might want to continue maintaining and using them?
Others have proposed this: IIRC the present plan involves sending a robotic mission to Hubble to grab it and accelerate it (negatively) to de-orbit velocity, and steer it into the proper entry trajectory. But such a robotic mission could just as easily accelerate it (positively) so that its orbit reaches one of the Lagrange points (L2? I forget which is which), where it can rest forever, essentially. The only difference appears to be the relative fuel requirement. I don't know how much the difference is. It takes significant fuel to slow it down to suborbital velocity, just as it takes fuel to speed it up to a higher orbit that would (eventually) intersect the Lagrange point, then slow it down enough to allow the gravity well there to hang onto it.
This would accomplish "saving" this historic piece of machinery, which could become our first extra-orbital National Monument to be visited occasionally by those moon tourists in a couple of decades. It has become such a major symbol in the popular conscienceness that it is possible that the additional money to do this might be raised in private donations. Perhaps NASA should consider moving ownership of Hubble to another entity that could try to do this, such as the Smithsonian or a private nonprofit set up just for the purpose. There are even perhaps 100 individuals who could fund this out of their own resources.
It would also eliminate the rush, providing an opportunity to mount future missions to upgrad it, refuel it or whatever future folks want to do. As many have noted, there is still plenty of good science that can be done with it. As it becomes ever more obsolete, access to it will become easier, perhaps to the point that high school students might even have a chance.
The Lagrange point might even be a good place to put it, out of the dust and dirt that Earth drags around, and even away from the Earth's bow shock in the solar wind, and the various other busyness around the planet.
It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
Well, I for one wellcome our new android overlords
It isn't just the atmosphere in the way of telescopes. The heavy pollution molecules displace oxygen in the lower altitudes where many of us live. These molecules swirling around in the wind are distorting the telescope imaging. As an aside, thank goodness for us humans. Our lungs act as a giant collective pollution filter so our car engines run smoothly! http://tinyurl.com/5c4ll and http://www.newpath4.com/theanswer.html .
They just need to swing the Hubble around and make it a top notch spy satellite.
There is a replacment already in the works. IIRC, the hubble is well past it's origianl planned lifecycle, and they have been designing a replacment since it went up.
See here for details.
"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
"...replacement..."
"...original..."
I don't know how I missed that when previwing. I know how to spell, I swear.
"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
If you want to use the currently built next-gen instruments that were supposed to go on the next servicing mission, you'd need to couple either a good mirror with something that introduced the aberration or you'd have to make an identically bad mirror again. Or, send the instruments back to the drawing board to fix their optical paths. They both currently have optical fixes in their packages to account for the aberration that's in the Hubble right now.
Fun, no?
hubble IIRC did cost about $6 Billion American dollars.
for that money today, you could by ~6 ELT's (Extremely Large Telescope's) .. which these days come with 'adaptive optics' to compensate for the atmospherical disturbances, etc ... and out-perform the Hubble telescope so much that it isn't worth any more effort to keep Hubble around - except for sentimental reasons, and such ...
and then assign/use it to search for asteroids and what not's ... it one of those things we haven't done proper findings on. (sure it need some upgrades ... but it'd be manageable to do in any case...)
I don't claim I know more than I know, and if you know you know more than I know, then by all means, let me know.