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

Auction Hubble

[Colin Smith]

Sell it off to the highest bidder. Some other space agency may well want to take over the maintenance and running of the telescope. Or maybe Google to grab it turn it round and use it to map the earth down to the smallest pebble.

Re:Auction Hubble

[wanerious]

Perhaps we're pushing this so hard is makework for all of people who have degrees (in this field)?

Surprisingly not. Most astronomers I rub elbows with are not too supportive of the Hubble program. Sure, the pictures and deep field stuff is nice, but with recent advances in adaptive optics, we can build enormous ground-based scopes for much less money that outperform Hubble. And Hubble has diverted hundreds of millions of dollars away from other projects. I'm not a zealot for either side, but the professional astronomical community is certainly not of one mind on this.

Re:Not Only Money

[Ctrl-Z]

Since the US government just signed off on a 700-mile-long fence along the Mexican border with a down payment of $1.2 billion [1], I think it's worth spending that much for a few more years of Hubble. But that's just me.

Replace it...

[ironicsky]

If its going to cost millions/billions to fix hubble we could just replace it with modern technology. Better yet, we could have a H Prize to replace hubble. Let the private sector try to launch their own. I mean, if they can launch a shuttle to space let them do other things. NASA Cant seem to do it for under a billion.

Benefit to mankind

[swestcott]

As the whole world has benefited maybe we could pass around the hat to get this funded

Hubble may simply not be good enough

[lokedhs]

There are ground-based telescopes that produces much better pictures than what Hubble can produce these days. I believe that the choice to abandon it may very well simply be a result of some simple maths. The same scientific results can be had cheaper by using the VLT. Here's an interesting quote from the Wikipedia article:

The VLTs are equipped with a large set of instruments permitting observations to be performed from the near-UV to the mid-IR (ie a large fraction of the light wavelengths accessible from the surface of the Earth), with the full range of techniques including high-resolution spectroscopy, multi-object spectroscopy, imaging, and high-resolution imaging. In particular, the VLT has several Adaptive optics systems, which at infrared wavelengths correct for the effects of the atmospheric turbulence, providing images almost as sharp as if the telescope was in space. In the near-IR, the Adaptive Optics images of the VLT are up to 3 times sharper than those of the HST, and the spectroscopic resolution is many times better than Hubble. The VLTs are noted for their high level of observing efficiency and automation.

Re:Hubble may simply not be good enough

[gerardrj]

Exactly. In the 16 years since it's launch our technology has improved dramatically. We have learned to make super large mirrors, flexible mirrors, and other such improvements to the optical systems. We can now use a laser and either flexible mirrors or computers to remove the distortion of the atmosphere. We've gained the compute power to build arrays of smaller scopes to build a "virtual" telescope orders of magnitude larger than any single reflector in the array.
On top of that we've also sent up other spacecraft, or are building them, that dwarf Hubble's capabilities.

Hubble does have the rather unique ability to stay parked on a single target, continuously, for very long periods of time. No Earth based scope can do that. But again, there are smaller, faster, cheaper craft in service or coming on line soon that will have better imaging and better processing power.

I don't know that Hubble should be repaired and kept operating, but I do think it should be brought back to Earth for placement in the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum.

Re:The debate

[Waffle Iron]

Given the unreliability and outrageous costs of shuttle launches, it would probably be quicker and cheaper to take the backup mirror out of the Smithsonian Institution, build a new copy of the Hubble with it, and launch it on an expendable rocket. Unfortunately, in the mind of budget directors, that would be a "new project", and it would be harder to fund than just shoveling yet more money into the shuttle black hole.

Re:Not Only Money

[Xzzy]

But what if that 1 billion were to end up spent on Hubble's replacement, which would permit a new level of research?

A lot of the "save Hubble" defense seems to be more sentimental than practical. I'm not saying it should be tossed in the bin just because it's old, but it IS old, and technology has advanced tremendously since it was put into orbit. I'm not against being sentimental either, but if the money doesn't exist to maintain two space observatories, I know I'd choose to get an all new one.

Many astronauts have spoken

[wass]

Actually, several astronauts have spoken out in the past few years saying they were willing to go service Hubble again, despite the risks. Ie, they understand the huge scientific output that are at stake should Hubble be shut down. Additionally, the risks aren't greater than previous Hubble servicing missions, it's just that there are problems of which we were blissfully unaware previously.

their lives are not their own

[theStorminMormon]

Of course we should take into account the willingness of astronauts to go into space for this mission. Especially because astronauts are not prone to ignoring safety considerations, and so if they are willing they probably think it is reasonably safe to do so. But it is worth pointing out that in a certain sense an astronaut is not entirely a private citizen. When we lose an astronaut, it's a blow to the entire nation.

I'm just saying that just because we have astronauts willing to go doesn't mean we can neglect to take into consideration the risk to their lives.

-stormin

Re:Astronauts or Hubble. Easy.

[Chris Burke]

Yeah I know, the astronauts know the risks involved. Yet the risk is bigger to who manned space program should something go wrong, especially something going wrong on a mission that is "largely" optional.

The only space missions that are not entirely optional are the ones that involve recovering crew from a space station.

If we can't afford the risk to service Hubble, then we can't afford the risk to do anything else in space and should just mothball the entire manned space program right now.

The shuttle is not that big a risk. While it has flown less than expected, it has actually had better safety and reliability than was originally calculated. There have been two terrible disasters, but many flying successes. The safety of the space shuttle right now has never been higher. So if it was worth the risk to put the HST up in the first place, then it is worth the lesser risk that exists now to go up and service it.

I'm serious. Hubble is one of the space shuttle's greatest successes. If we can't risk servicing Hubble, then our entire manned space program is useless and should be scrapped. If we are going to even pretend that it isn't useless, then we should service Hubble.

Re:Not Only Money

[DerekLyons]

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.

This is going to sound cold - but its realistic.
 
The astronauts lives really aren't worth considering. They are volunteers and know the score - and there are hundreds if not thousands more where they came from. OTOH, the Orbiters are multi-billion dollar irreplaceable national assets. Assets without which we cannot complete ISS after another loss. And even though the ISS is about the most expensive way to do the engineering and biological research needed as a percursor to a Mars mission - it's all we have for the forseeable future.

already done

[Quadraginta]

Hubble's replacement is the James Webb Telescope, and has been in the works for a long time. Slated for launch in 2013, it will have a 6.5 meter primary mirror (Hubble's is 2.4 meters), be optimized for the near-infrared (so it can see through dust clouds, and further back in time and/or farther away), and orbit at the second Lagrange point about a million miles from Earth, instead of right around Earth like Hubble. That means it won't be bothered by light from the Earth, so it can see far dimmer things, and also that it can point steadily without having to compensate for its rapid orbital motion, unlike Hubble.

Hubble is certainly very nice for crowd-pleasing photos, and it's done valuable science, but I think the astrophysics community is a lot more interested in JWST. Near IR astronomy seems much more fruitful in terms of actual science than visible, is my impression. Considering a Shuttle mission costs something like $250 million, it is not clear that the money is best spent prolonging the aging Hubble's lifetime another few years. Bear in mind the Shuttle fleet is to be grounded in 2010 anyway, so there can be no more servicing missions, and Hubble's hardware is beginning to wear out.

Re:Why not make another?

[GrEp]

The extra costs per unit would be griding a new lens/mirrors and the "shipping" cost into orbit. Other development costs would be incremental. Plus, we would have more eyes in the sky for research.

Also, along the lines of another poster a fleet of NOAA immaging satalites would rule. Think of a google earth type site getting a high res refresh of the whole earth each week.

Re:James Webb Space Telescope

[r3lik]

http://www.jwst.nasa.gov/ lists the launch date as 2013. Yikes! Even still, with the cost overruns that will almost for sure happen you would think saving money now may be in everybody's best interest. Perhaps Hubble has outlived its usefulness. We can get by with our ground based observatories until then, finetune our cosmological understanding between now and then with CERN et. al, and in 7 years have that bad boy up in space with its 6.5m mirror and put Hubble to shame.