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 Perhaps it is obsolete."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."
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)
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.
Methinks your professor is full of it clear to the roots of his hairpiece.
Or, let me put it to you this way:
If these ground based scopes that have been brought online in the last 5 years are so friggin great, why are we not being treated to some of their output? With the exception of the twins on Mona Kea that Mr keck financed, the rest of them have been so far as I know, built with public money. So I'm actually surprised that we have all these people preaching at us as to just how much better these new toys are in comparison to the Hubble, but frankly, I've not seen a single image to back those statements up.
If the new ones are so much better in fact, then why are TPTB so afraid to let us look at some of their image data so that we, the taxpayer, can quite writing his congress-critters asking them to save what is not just a national treasure, but IMO a treasure to all humankind.
So as Jeff Foxworthy would say, "here's your sign", you proponents of pulling the feeding tube from hubble, either put up images that prove what you're saying, or STFU. The ball is in your court.
How about some movies of the last 90 days of eta carinae for instance, its right handy even, or maybe a movie of the last 6 months of the orbital goings on around Sag A? Maybe we could prove that Sag A is indeed a black hole of 6 million suns mass. And I'd love to see you attempt to duplicate the pair of really really deep space images, showing stuff over 10 billion light years away, that I'm using for 2 of my screen backgrounds here. But of course, being inside the atmosphere, thats simply impossible for ground based scopes.
Maybe the hubble is obsolete, but as yet, I've seen nothing that can touch what its done. The JW scope works at different wavelenghts, so it won't be able to replace the hubble. Supplant it, confirm each others findings maybe, but not "replace" it, they simply do 2 different jobs.
--
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