You are not logged in.
All of this starts with the assumption that a Shuttle missions to service Hubble is expensive. The reason the Shuttle is expensive is all the work to make it ready to fly. The windshield is hand ground, tiles have to be replaced, SRBs recovered/refurbished/refuelled, a new ET, and the main engines have to be overhauled every so often. I saw a TV interview with an astronaut who said the engines aren't removed and overhauled after every flight; there's a schedule. All this work to replace parts is what costs money. It all takes manual labour, a lot of skilled manual labour and that costs salaries. Notice: reusable=good, expendable=bad. So you want to replace the telescope with something new, but why would we believe it would last any longer than the last one? Or any longer than the current one with a service mission? The problem is the Shuttle was designed to be partially reusable. A fully reusable shuttle that doesn't require replacing parts with every flight would cost a hell of a lot less.
In the mean time we have what we have. Hubble is the best tool for astronomy. Any other space telescope would cost more.
Abandoning science for decades means a generation who doesn't have experience, no one to pass the current knowledge on to. When you're ready to go again the knowledge will be lost, the future space agency will have to start over. Abandon science in favour of space exploration? Orion as proposed is just Apollo over again, and Ares-1 is a big dumb rocket. There's the promise to reuse the capsule and the SRB is reusable, but the cost to reuse an SRB is 90% of a new one, and there'll probably be an excuse to expend the capsule by the time it's done. So we have multi-million dollar throw-aways with no retained infrastructure. We saw with Apollo how easy that is to abandon. As soon as Nixon was elected it all got cancelled. How quick will this new vehicle get cancelled? After it's first successful mission? Orion is far too small for Mars, and doesn't even have a recycling life support system. It will not get us to Mars. The only asset from the current architecture is Ares-V.
So abandon Hubble in favour of Orion/Ares-1? Are you nuts!?
Offline
All of this starts with the assumption that a Shuttle missions to service Hubble is expensive
And it is. Using the simple division rubric, they cost about $1.1Bn per mission. Using the much more favorable marginal cost scheme, each flight costs at least $300M. Add another $100-200M for the cost of Hubble repair planning, parts fabrication, and astronaut training and there is no reasonable argument that such a mission will cost less than ~$500M.
Notice: reusable=good, expendable=bad
My, thats quite some deep, exceptional reasoning there... I don't suppose the last thirty years of abysmal failure of the Shuttle to live up to this phases you in the slightest.
So you want to replace the telescope with something new... Or any longer than the current one with a service mission?
You are kidding, right? And here I thought you were an engineer of some sort, my mistake. Hubble is 15 years old! Almost 20 counting sitting in a hanger... Its going to die pretty soon from old age and there is little even a servicing mission can do about it because you can only repair so much. Absolutely we know that a new telescope will give us more years than a band-aided Hubble!
The problem is the Shuttle was designed to be partially reusable. A fully reusable shuttle that doesn't require replacing parts with every flight would cost a hell of a lot less.
Which has a bearing on this how.......? (hint: it doesn't)
In the mean time we have what we have. Hubble is the best tool for astronomy. Any other space telescope would cost more.
"Cost more" in absolute dollar terms yes, but what do you get for that money? HOP will have likely tripple the remaining years that Hubble has left on it after a servicing mission, plus will host a new superwide field imager that does something that neither Hubble nor any adaptive optics telescope can do (A.O. becomes much more difficult with wider fields). It will also fly in a higher orbit, which will be better for those UV spectrum images you want so badly. HOP is a better deal than Hubble SM4, as far as what you get per-dollar.
Abandoning science for decades means a generation...
Huh? Since when did abandoning Hubble = abandoning science? Thats a rhetorical question by the way, but I digress, the astronomers have other telescopes to play with, and soon after Hubble they'll have the immensely powerful JWST too. Just how much does astronomy deserve anyway? They seem to pitch a fit whenever they don't get the toys they ask for.
Abandon science in favour of space exploration?
Again, we aren't abandoning science, a good chunk of NASA's budget will continue to go to science, but priorities have changed: before VSE, NASA's number one goal was science, but now it isn't. Cutting projects with marginal science bennefits (HST SM4) and reallocating it to exploration is a rational, natural consequence of this change.
When you're ready to go again the knowledge will be lost, the future space agency will have to start over
Hey! Just like how NASA will have to start over if they can't get VSE going soon after Shuttle is sent to the museum. Which one is more important? (Thats another rhetorical question) In any event, a four year gap for spaceflight is okay, but its the end of the world(!!!) for astronomers to be sans-telescope for a while?
So we have multi-million dollar throw-aways with no retained infrastructure
Spent rockets are not "infrastructure," and whats wrong with expendable vehicles? They have, thus far, proven to have superior performance and are more economical so long as flight rates remain low. In either case, why can't we reuse the CEV? You've trumpeted how the Soyuz capsule is partially reuseable, and its still using 1960's materals technology with an almost totally ballistic decent.
We saw with Apollo how easy that is the abandon... How quick will this new vehicle get cancelled? After it's first successful mission?
Why yes, because Apollo did what it was supposed to do, its real purpose, which was to beat the Commies. Nothing less, but also nothing more. This time we aren't racing an advanced nuclear armed idealogically expansionary totalitarian superpower, but rather exploring, so I am not so worried given the abject failure of manned flight the last 30 years. If NASA didn't get the axe for the last three decades, why will it get gutted the next thirty? By which time, I hope, commercial spaceflight gets its act together.
Orion is far too small for Mars
NO, really!?!
and doesn't even have a recycling life support system
...which it doesn't need for ~1mo missions
It will not get us to Mars
Thats because it isn't intended to, we are going to the Moon, didn't you see the press conferance? The CEV will make a swell Mars-return capsule and serve as a base for the Mars acent vehicle though just fine.
The only asset from the current architecture is Ares-V
And the EDS stage, which can be stretched to perform TMI, and the CEV as noted above, lander technology (RL-10 can be converted to Methane too), nuclear reactors (adapted from Lunar version), rover/digger vehicles (ditto) and perhaps Lunar HAB modules can be adapted to Mars too.
But most importantly, NASA will gain competance and confidance in itself as well as confidance of the public and Congress, which right now they desperately need after the Shuttle debacle(s).
NASA's future, the future of American spaceflight, and perhaps the future of ALL manned spaceflight for probably the rest of your life rests almost soley on the VSE suceeding. If NASA can't get Ares-I/Orion to work, then we and all our dreams of man leaving this planet are lost for another generation or more...
...So the real question is, would you threaten this for a 15 year old broken down telescope that isn't worth fixing and will probably not last long even if you do? No no, you are the crazy one!
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
I think you are missing Roberts, point and it is a decent one. The Hubble is not needed for simple detection of NEA, our conventional systems on the ground can do that quite well currently, but it might be well suited for doing spetroscopic analysis of nearby asteriods to determine their composition. I'll grant that this might be a very valid reason for a Hubble like telescope. Asteroid mining concurns aside, the data is probably valuable in and of itself.
However, that doesn't necessarily mean that we need the Hubble to accomplish this. Those asteroid aren't going anywhere. They will still be in orbit 10, 20, 30 or 100+ years from now. It's not a time critical issue. The Hubble, on the other hand, is not likely to be around for the next 10~15 years new service mission or not. So for a prolonged study of the compositoin of NEA Hubble is still not the best investment. A purpouse built device, placed in an appropriate orbit would no doubt both last longer, give better results, and would likely be less expensive.
I understand the anxiety people face with respect to their work. They want to get results and action today (or yesterday if possible) and not weight 5 years or so untill a better device can be built. In most fields of study human time is valuable enough that it is worth it to pay extra cost to get instruments to our people quickly. Unfortuantly, this is not the case in astronomy. The stars are not going anywhere, neither are the asteroids. Even asteroid mining is serveral decades out at best. And building telescopes, especialy space telescopes is monumently expensive. It may be painful to wait, but economicaly it is the best solution.
On the positive side, pushing to get new instruments instead of trying to recycle the old is probably a positive thing for astronomers in the new end. Congress is not going to fund a program for a new (and better) space telescope as long as we have one currently up there in orbit. In the search for new and better instruments to explore our universe, scientist should always be pushing for new toys instead of upgrades or life-extensions of the old. Happily, in this case the quest for new & better instruments and economic realities are harmonious. So by not pushing to extend the life of the old Hubble, we may end up getting new and better instruments that we never would have recieved had it stayed up in Orbit.
I think we need to know the composition of asteroids in order to know how to best divert them if they are on a collision course with Earth, I think this should be part of the defense budget and not count toward space science in general, and since the Air Force would be learning to divert asteroids in case the need should ever arise, it may as well push technologies that can be used for profitable asteroid mining operations, perhaps it can start as a partnership between the Air force and business. Perhaps a prize should be offered for anyone who can divert the course of an asteroid byu a certain amount. The Air Force can then pony up this money out of its annual budget and it doesn't pay out this money until someone meets the conditions of this prize. There doesn't have to be gold or platinum or something else valuable in this asteroid, the winner will only have to demonstrate that it can change its orbit, and once this technology is demostrated, we have a defense system against potentially dangerous asteroids and will have a plan on what to do if an asteroid should someday be found on a colision course with Earth. You know procrastination is easy, and one can always procrastinate a little further by saying the technology of tomorrow will be better than the technology of today and that we should wait for it.
Well technology doesn't just happen, somebody has to develop it. We have a reason for developing this technology that doesn't have to do with mining the asteroids or whether valuable material can be extracted from them vis-a-vis mining the planets or bringing stuff from Earth. The reason we must learn to move asteroids is for self-presurvation. We must detect all the asteroids orbits of significant size, and we must develop the technology to move them so we have a plan on what to do should a dangerous asteroid be found. It shouldn't be that we find a dangerous asteroid and then develop the technology to divert it, because then we won't know what technology to develop and the technology might not work right for the first time when we need it, and their might not be a later, in addition the closer the asteroid gets to collision the harder it is to divert. I think there is a defense reason for dealing with asteroids, and the expenditure of government money to do this is well justified, and if there is an opportunity for profitable asteroid mining, then that's just icing on the cake. Certainly the ability to move asteroids will bring us closer to mining them.
Offline
Hubble has had its moments of late when its hardware has begun to show more than age. Each time it has been revived to be put back into action once more.
In late January, just one day past the annual deadline for submitting proposals to use the Hubble Space Telescope, one of the venerable observatory’s key instruments, the Advanced Camera for Surveys, went dark. About 500 of the more than 700 proposals received by the Jan. 26 deadline were suddenly obsolete.
“To our amazement, we got over 800 proposals,” Mountain said in a recent interview. “So the interest in using Hubble is still extraordinarily high.”
More amazing is that
A panel of 100 astronomers not affiliated with the Space Telescope Science Institute are due to gather March 19-23 at a hotel near the Baltimore-Washington International Airport to conduct peer reviews of the 821 proposals and decide which ones deserve Hubble observation time and the funding that goes with it.
With the cost to operate is not all that much..
The institute has an annual budget of $57 million, nearly every dollar of which comes from NASA. That figure does not include the $27 million in NASA grant money that passes through STSI on its way to research astronomers.
Offline