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 Perhaps it is obsolete."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."
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I generally consider things to be obsolete when they have been replaced by something better.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
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?
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.
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.
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)
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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).
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
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)
As much as I'm a Hubble fan, this isn't true. There are a number of other successful and productive NASA missions like Chandra, and a couple of dozen others, that NASA performs. And NASA also supports astronomers like myself and our space-based research programs (they've given my group over $200k this year). Hubble is the crown jewel, but far from the only one, coming out of NASA.
Professor of Astronomy, Author of Spider Star & Star Dragon (Tor)
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.