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 Perhaps it is obsolete."
I generally consider things to be obsolete when they have been replaced by something better. How does this apply to Hubble?
samrolken
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...
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
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! --
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.
Bad analogy, actually. Many studies have shown that it is, in fact, cheaper to maintain a used car (per year) than the cost of making car payments for that same year.
;) have supported this.
My experiences (save for the time I threw a head bolt through the hood
Note that my (current) car is old enough to drink legally; this is not hypothetical.
If you're not living on the edge, you're just taking up space!
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).