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 Perhaps it is obsolete."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'
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 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.
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?
I don't think anyone is saying Hubble is more important than all the other space ventures. But there is something to be said for perfecting constructing and repairing devices in space. The more ambitious the better. Not just for the science after the fact, but the development of the know-how which can be put to use later. Hubble does have more value, and perhaps even 500 Million dollars worth. I'd be surprised if it didn't already return far more in commercial activity resulting from the pictures it returned than several times it's cost to date. Furthermore, I don't think Hubble will want for astronomers with objects to observe, and it might take pressure off newer instruments that succeed it.
A better question is why not pursue a more reasonable fiscal policy and use the left over change to try and save Hubble? Why not kill tobacco or other agricultural subsidies? Why not audit companies under-reporting their tax obligation? Why not license all data recovered by NASA and charge small fees for non-peer reviewed or educational publication? There are a lot of alternatives aside from giving up on other important science.
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)
Yes, for the amount of money spent just talking about whether it's worth saving the Hubble over the next year. Not counting the people on slashdot.
What keeps me going is my inertia.
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.
Do list off all of the things that Hubble can do and all of the things that JWST can do. I think you'll find that the lists are not identical and that you could easily find enough work for both in non-overlapping areas.
Rod Taylor
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?
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.
Yeah...there are jobs at stake. Some programs in their early stages have been cannabalized to save the ones that are close to launch. I won't comment on their relative merits. The fact remains that Hubble has been highly successful for the past 15 years and can remain so almost indefinitely. It was designed that way. You all need to stop thinking about this one-time use stuff that's been the prevailing model for the last 50 odd years. Expandable and Upgradable is more cost effective in the long run. When a better video card comes out, do you throw out your whole PC to upgrade? Think of HST as a PC in space. Hell, it has a PC on board and it's the second rev! If we wanted to, and the chasis held up, we could opearate HST for another 15 years. Just about every system is replacable.
Stop the use of force!
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.
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.
Three very tall orders indeed.
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/
They just need to swing the Hubble around and make it a top notch spy satellite.