NASA To Determine Hubble's Fate

clickclickdrone writes "According to the BBC NASA is debating whether or not to send astronauts in to space to service the Hubble telescope. Without intervention it is thought to be good for another 24-36months. Given the quality of images and data it has produced since it's launch, it sounds like a no brainer to me but the people who hold the purse strings are rarely predictable when it comes to spending money."

Comments

Not Only Money

[crymeph0]

it sounds like a no brainer to me but the people who hold the purse strings are rarely predictable when it comes to spending money.

There's way more than money at stake here. Maybe Hubble is worth the risk to the astronaut's lives, but you can't just ignore that issue.

Re:Not Only Money

[dslbrian]

There's way more than money at stake here. Maybe Hubble is worth the risk to the astronaut's lives, but you can't just ignore that issue.

Thats the core of the debate I'm sure, but its a ridiculous point. Space travel is always a risk to an astronaut. If astronauts have a problem with the risks involved then they should get a different job. I'm sure there is a whole line of would be astronauts ready to take their place. Its was a risk when they first put the Hubble in place, and when they serviced it the first time. The risk is unchanged since then, in fact it should be lower since they now have ideas of what problems they may encounter.

Re:Not Only Money

[mrchaotica]

Maybe Hubble is worth the risk to the astronaut's lives, but you can't just ignore that issue.

You're kidding, right? Anyone who manages to become an astronaut knows full well about the risks, and chose it anyway. If we were having to conscript people to go fix Hubble it would be one thing, but since the line of people who would volunteer to do it would stretch all the way from the launchpad to the vehicle assembly building, I say we let them do it!

<flamebait>Besides, it's not any riskier than being a soldier in Iraq...</flamebait>

Not so one-dimensional

[Zarniwoop]

It's not just money. It's risk of a shuttle launch. You may remember we've had a few... issues... recently with that.

Re:Auction Hubble

[Orange Crush]

What other nation or organization has a spacecraft capable of servicing Hubble within 24-36 months? Bear in mind, Hubble was designed to be serviced by the shuttle. Everyone else is pretty much using capsules exclusively, which aren't nearly as EVA-friendly nor do they have the necessary robotic arm.

Unfortunately for us, the current administration..

[mmell]

wants to relive the heady days of the space race and the Apollo program - President Dubya is tired of this "Science for the sake of knowledge" stuff and wants to put men on the Moon and Mars.

Besides, our current president is (seemingly) not quite sharp enought to get most of what science discovers using the HST. He'd rather have "feet on the ground" as it were, telling him things like "We've landed and claimed Mars in the name of the USA" rather than "We've made a startling discovery regarding the dynamics of planetary formation within stellar nurseries".

That said, maybe it is time we went back to the true promise of space exploration - getting mankind out into the Galaxy. There is a certain attraction to the notion of manned space exploration versus robotic/remote methods. Certainly a kind of heroic appeal to the act itself; and all of our robotic/remote exploration was and is intended to ultimately pave the way for manned exploration anyhow. Perhaps we know enough now to take those first tenative steps into space.

Like most coins, this one appears to have two sides.

The debate

[styryx]

Is the cost of building and launching a new and better satellite going to much more expensive than training astronauts, sending them to hubble to fix it and bringing them back down again?

Perhaps they could take the space elevator...:b