Hubble Mistake **2** - Action still Needed

GraemeSkinner · 2005-01-21 00:44:22

They are doing well then to continue using a completely obsolete piece of equipment. I have never disputed the fact that a modern replacement for Hubble would have improved resolution, better cameras etc., I have simply disputed the fact that Hubble is obsolete and not worth saving. We do not currently have a replacement that we can send up right now and instantly start working (nor do we have a service mission for Hubble that we can send up realistically now before it drops). A replacement for Hubble should not just be a collection of leftover parts and whatever is available off the shelf.

Graeme

Euler · 2005-01-21 00:59:41

You do have a point about not having a replacement for Hubble by the time it stops working. Most of Hubble's time is spent in the UV right now, and there do not seem to be any UV telescopes scheduled to come on line in the near future. So the question is, how important is it to have a good UV telescope? While I know of uses for most other parts of the electromagnetic spectrum, I can't think of much that UV is really useful for.

GraemeSkinner · 2005-01-21 01:11:32

A good UV scope such as Hopkins Ultraviolet Telescope (better range than Hubble) is useful if you wish to research cosmology. Spectographs from UV scopes are particularly useful. The chances of the Hopkins scope going up any time soon however is slim in my view.

Graeme

SpaceNut · 2005-01-21 06:18:22

Thanks on the Hopkins Ultraviolet Telescope project at The Johns Hopkins University. This was the first that I had heard of its existance.

It appears to have flown twice but is it still in orbit? ???
Its abilities where to extend the sensitivity beyound that of hubble in that band.

Just think if we had to build complete brand new ground base telescopes every 5 or 10 years rather than retrofitting them.

To save Hubble is only for the science that it can produce while another better telescope or multiple telescopes are built for the specific studies which are needed. It would appear that Nasa is headed to specialized wave length telescopes rather than that to which the Hubble is in there replacement efforts. A more universal do almost all the spectrum type is what Hubble is.
Making a short term fix of only 5 years is not a fix In My Book.

GCNRevenger · 2005-01-21 07:53:09

"Its not just a numbers game though is it, because you have already argued that we don't need Hubble as we can use ground based scopes, money in that argument is not relevant. Your point "whichever option gives you the best performance for the lowest cost and risk is the one that should be employed..." is basically flawed as well, best performance for lowest cost would be a 30 dollar/pound/whatever telescope from your local store, because for the lowest cost it will give you the best performance, and risk is not as much of an issue when you use it in your back garden..."

Oh come on Graeme, now you are mocking me by mincing words. You know very well what I mean, to maximize all three aspects of the investment, not to count dollars alone. The fact that ground based telescopes can exceed Hubble in IR and visible by the time it dies is relavent too because it directly concerns the scientific return of any space telescope option.

Oh, and a decade is a pretty long time compared to only six years you would get out of Hubble with a service mission (two years now, another three or four with SM4). Also, right now Hubble is 50% beyond its design life, and the risk is increasing daily that it will suffer a non-repairable failure.

Your use of the car example is also irrelivent, because quite frankly the astronomers will live for a few years without a superscope available to them. The stars will be there tomorrow, and they won't all lose their jobs when Hubble is gone. A haitus of a few years is VERY well worth the superior performance and lifespan of a new UV/Vis ST which will easily reach 10 years and perhaps much more.

"If Hubble was completely obsolete I don't think anyone would object."

Sure they would, if they have a sentimental attachment, or they need Hubble to maintain notarity in the media.

"No, thats just how you perceive it. Servicing missions cost so much because thats the way space agencies want it to be to a certain degree!"

Oh of course, blame it on the high price tags that NASA puts on things... please, have you ever truthfull considerd that the actual cost is not radically lower? Spaceflight is an extremely difficult proposition, much harder then going to the bottom of the sea, and is barely possible with our physical limitations at all... Anyway if it is or not is irrelivent, since the repair mission will either have a very high real cost or a high inflated cost.

This notion that NASA always builds thing with planned obsolesance involved is stupid nonsense, and an denegration of the hard work that NASA engineers put into overcoming the incredible challenges of space flight that you take for granted. NASA is quite capable of building things to last, and you know it.

The facts remains...
-Hubble's life cannot be extended signifigantly by any SM.
-Replacing Hubble is cheaper then fixing Hubble, which would offer superior performance and longer life for similar or lower costs.
-Optical space telescopes in general will becoming decreasingly important as adaptive optics progress.

GraemeSkinner · 2005-01-21 10:02:20

Oh come on Graeme, now you are mocking me by mincing words.

As if I'd mock you :;):

You know very well what I mean, to maximize all three aspects of the investment, not to count dollars alone.

Yet at the end of the day it does come down to dollars, its the way of the world.

This notion that NASA always builds thing with planned obsolesance involved is stupid nonsense, and an denegration of the hard work that NASA engineers put into overcoming the incredible challenges of space flight that you take for granted. NASA is quite capable of building things to last, and you know it.

That is not really what I said, nor as you well know what I meant. I take nothing for granted when it comes to space as you would know if you'd read some of my posts to NM recently not just this one thread. I know NASA, they are capable of building things to last Spirit & Opportunity spring to mind at this point. But there is also the perception that the space industries (not just NASA) and technology companies in general would rather replace than repair.

-Hubble's life cannot be extended signifigantly by any SM.
-Replacing Hubble is cheaper then fixing Hubble, which would offer superior performance and longer life for similar or lower costs.
-Optical space telescopes in general will becoming decreasingly important as adaptive optics progress.

No, no, and erm no again.

I will admit that in time ground based scopes will exceed Hubble in visible and IR thanks to AO, but its not going to be for a while yet. (The fun will start when AO scopes become a reality for amateurs )

Graeme

GCNRevenger · 2005-01-21 11:18:55

"...cost so much because thats the way space agencies want it to be..."

"But there is also the perception that the space industries (not just NASA) and technology companies in general would rather replace than repair."

I don't think so, you can't suddenly say your accusation of fiscal misconduct is no longer an accusation so casually by simply broadening the scope of supposed violators. But nothing, passing off this swipe with the "perception" label doesn't make it better either; since NASA will be doing the service mission, you did indeed mean to accuse NASA of "planning to fail" by bringing up planned obsolesance. And that is what it is, planned obsolesance, a textbook definition.

"No, no, and erm no again."

What? These are facts, simple hard facts, that Hubble's life is almost over with or without a service mission (which robotically will be very risky or risk lives), such a mission will cost just as much as a new UV/Vis ST, and ground based telescopes have or will soon surpass Hubble entirely in Vis/IR. You have no basis to say that these statements are wrong, they are indeed accurate, to claim otherwise is at best irrational or at worst dishonest.

SpaceNut · 2005-01-21 13:36:27

Well the cost of servicing the Hubble has raised the eyebrows of concern and the White House Cuts Hubble Servicing Mission from 2006 Budget Request and directed NASA to focus solely on de-orbiting the popular spacecraft at the end of its life, "according to government and industry sources." So how much of the allocated funds remain for the de-orbit mission or should we just let it come down where ever it may.

GCNRevenger · 2005-01-21 14:15:55

Good. If O'Keefe was too weak to do the right thing in the face of uninformed Hubble-hugger peer pressure, then hopefully Congress is.

SpaceNut · 2005-01-21 14:32:24

If the military needs a proving ground for Earth to space weaponry well here is there chance,,, or any other nation for that fact. They could practice that is a small asteriod and try to blast it out of the sky...

Stephen · 2005-01-23 21:41:47

Buy a new computer, but your opening line makes that obvious completely obsolete something which Hubble is not. If Hubble was completely obsolete I don't think anyone would object.
But Hubble is completely obsolete. A modern telescope that is approximately the same mass and cost as Hubble should be able to get at least an order of magnitude improvement in performance. Telescope technology is improving very rapidly right now; they are more like computers than like cars.

If Hubble is so completely obsolete why are astronomers still queuing up to use it? Shouldn't those same people be queuing instead to use those shiny new (ground-based) scopes?

Commodore · 2005-01-23 21:58:09

Ground scopes have lines a mile long as well. There arn't enough of them to go around.

Euler · 2005-01-23 21:59:34

They are queuing up to use the ground based telescopes. Astronomers have to wait in line to use any large research telescope because there are not enough really good telescopes for everyone to get as much telescope time as they would like.

SpaceNut · 2005-01-24 05:32:35

There are also seasonal or angular viewing restrictions for Earth based telescopes, which space telescopes do not have IMO this means we need to build more for space. Also having a base or mini ISS station to keep fixing them and or to give them needed upgrades in there orbital local is a plus.
More places to do science from and more places to go will IMO mean a lowering of launch cost in time.

SpaceNut · 2005-01-28 11:12:18

If Hubble is so important to all the astronomy groups then it just might be time that they try to concieve a means to rescue Hubble froms its doom.

Hubble Trouble: Saving Telescope May Require Non-Governmental Solutions

EDITOR'S NOTE: Welcome to SPACE.com's newest addition: Ad Astra Online, created in cooperation with the National Space Society (NSS). Ad Astra is Latin for "to the stars", and it is also the name of the NSS's official magazine. SPACE.com's parent company, Imaginova Corp., recently entered into an agreement with the NSS to edit and publish both Ad Astra Magazine and Ad Astra Online. What is Ad Astra Online? It's a forum for you, the space enthusiast. It is ideas and opinions with one ultimate goal: The creation of a spacefaring civilization. What does this forum need? It needs you, of course. Join the National Space Society, get involved, get online and get your voice heard.

GCNRevenger · 2005-01-28 11:34:38

Why all the weeping and wailing and heartbreak about the end of Hubble? Has it not lived a fantastic life? The "Save Hubble!" people are starting to sound like "Save the Whales!" or "Save the (insert animal here)!" ...Its a machine, a machine that is old and wearing out, and like any such machine operated for non-sentimental reasons it is only practical to repair it for so long. At this point, it takes more reasources to prop up its antique systems and upgrade exsisting ones then it would to simply build a brand new one.

Hubble has reached this point

Even though there may be physical limitations to viewing the sky from the ground, this can be largely compensated for by placement of multiple telescopes, and since their aperature is so much larger, they can gather images much faster then Hubble and so do not need to dwell on target for as long.

Again, if a space telescope is called for, it should be a disposable one. It will simply cost so much money to fix it later then it would be a better investment to build a longer-lived and more advanced new telescope. Also, it is not practical to go up and fix telescopes stationed up at one of the Lagrange points where conditions are optimal.

C M Edwards · 2005-01-28 12:26:24

IMHO, the best reason to "save" the Hubble is the practice it can give us for other applications. Hubble will soon no longer be the cheapest solution for its original function (astronomy), but using it as a target for other purposes may be cheaper than launching new test hardware.

For example, the recommendation has been made that it be used for testing space-based weaponry. That is an excellent idea. The Hubble Space Telescope is huge. Large sections of it are bound to survive any attack and can be later surveyed to assess the effectiveness of the weapon. This is facilitated by its low orbit, which can be reached by surveillance satellites and will allow for orbital decay of any debris.

Alternately, Hubble is semi-modular. We can gut it and press those removable modules into service elsewhere. Non-modular sections may be desirable mission targets as well. The main mirror is pretty big and no doubt still good and in near-pristine condition. Perhaps it could be removed and stored for later use. The old gyroscopes could be brought home and examined to determine the unknown failure mode that laid them low. Hands-on evaluation of failed satellite equipment is woefully lacking in modern aerospace engineering and could help lengthen satellite operational lifetimes (increasing profits).

Also, we can test in-orbit rondevous technology by sending a second satellite to net or latch onto Hubble for a planned de-orbit burn. At some point, we're likely to want that ability. A defunct telescope sounds like the perfect place to practice.

Any information we can get from Hubble's component parts would be invaluable. It would be a shame to just scrap it.

We should strip it instead.

Martian Republic · 2005-01-28 13:21:04

C M Edwards,

The cheapest way to deal with Hubble Space Telescope is to put it into a decaying orbit over the Pacific and let it burn up in the atmosphere. Any other solution to saving or salvaging the Hubble Space Telescope is going to cost a billion to several billion dollars.

It just not worth trying to salvage it or repair it and if we use it for target practice, we would scatter crap every where.

There really is no better solution to de-orbiting the Hubble Space Telescope and going on to our next space project. Besides if the Hubble Space Telescope were worth salvaging and there were any money in it, you would have the private sector cry get a piece of the action and nobody seem to want any of it.

Larry,

SpaceNut · 2005-01-28 13:58:45

BY private sector do you mean Lockheed and Boeing or others.

They will not do and rescue attempt unless there is a garanteed contract for the work to be preformed. That is also where the problem starts but does not end there. There is no means to do a manned mission by US standards and to use Russian equipment might not be possible, even if it could be gotten.

Short of flying the shuttle as the only alternative there just seems to be none to be had.

Martian Republic · 2005-01-28 14:21:43

BY private sector do you mean Lockheed and Boeing or others.
They will not do and rescue attempt unless there is a garanteed contract for the work to be preformed. That is also where the problem starts but does not end there. There is no means to do a manned mission by US standards and to use Russian equipment might not be possible, even if it could be gotten.
Short of flying the shuttle as the only alternative there just seems to be none to be had.

I mean by anybody who might be considering the require mission to get Hubbell telescope. Anybody that wants to go after that Telescope is going to have to spend too much money to get it even if they could or if they had the technical capability to get it. Beside that you also have a time limit of maybe two years to get it too.

It just not worth going after it.

Some of you people on this forum have an emotional attachment to that Telescope. Now it was a nice telescope, but now it time to move on to other things.

Larry,

Commodore · 2005-01-28 14:27:31

The only worthwhile way to save it is to deorbit it to the ISS orbit and let the Shuttle do it there while there doing there ISS construction duties, or leave the parts there and let the ISS crew do it.

The trouble is it is not in the best orbit for that, and would require a very strong OMS module to do it. But this can likely be done for less than any other method currently on the table.

GCNRevenger · 2005-01-28 14:34:07

IMHO, the best reason to "save" the Hubble is the practice it can give us for other applications. Hubble will soon no longer be the cheapest solution for its original function (astronomy), but using it as a target for other purposes may be cheaper than launching new test hardware.
For example, the recommendation has been made that it be used for testing space-based weaponry. That is an excellent idea. The Hubble Space Telescope is huge. Large sections of it are bound to survive any attack and can be later surveyed to assess the effectiveness of the weapon. This is facilitated by its low orbit, which can be reached by surveillance satellites and will allow for orbital decay of any debris.
Alternately, Hubble is semi-modular. We can gut it and press those removable modules into service elsewhere. Non-modular sections may be desirable mission targets as well. The main mirror is pretty big and no doubt still good and in near-pristine condition. Perhaps it could be removed and stored for later use. The old gyroscopes could be brought home and examined to determine the unknown failure mode that laid them low. Hands-on evaluation of failed satellite equipment is woefully lacking in modern aerospace engineering and could help lengthen satellite operational lifetimes (increasing profits).
Also, we can test in-orbit rondevous technology by sending a second satellite to net or latch onto Hubble for a planned de-orbit burn. At some point, we're likely to want that ability. A defunct telescope sounds like the perfect place to practice.
Any information we can get from Hubble's component parts would be invaluable. It would be a shame to just scrap it.
We should strip it instead.

Using it for a target for ASAT weapons? A novel idea, but woefully wasteful. If you want to make a target for ASAT weapons, the obvious choice would be to use a spent upper stage. Pack more fuel or less payload onto a launch and place that nice, big 5m Centaur rocket stage into a stable orbit after delivering its payload. Almost "free." I assure you, it would be much, MUCH cheaper then reboosting Hubble for target practice... as it stands, a deorbit mission to Hubble will cost $300M, so a reboost mission probobly will too.

Spacecraft are so fragile given the extreme dynamics involved, any signifigant damage would obviously be fatal, so making sure some portion of the target vehicle survives attack for study is unnessesarry. The higher mass of Hubble's parts, like the gyros and main mirror, would perhaps survive reentry. Having it fall in one piece isn't that big of a risk, but having the debries break apart and fall over a wide area is.

Gutting Hubble of useable parts is a non-starter either. We actually have a spare Hubble main mirror right here on the ground right now in storage, which is really the only unique componet besides the cameras, where all the original and new replacement ones are available now, the ones on orbit are not worth saving. Getting the mirror out of Hubble is not practical either, none of Hubbles' componets were designed for orbital removal except cameras, batteries, gyros, and to some point solar pannels.

Also, we know perfectly well what keeps killing gyroscopes on Hubble: they are overworked. Since Hubble is in such a low orbit, the gyros must work hard continuously to keep HST pointed precisely onto a target as Hubble makes its tight circle just above the Earth's curvature. It is not a design flaw either, the gyros are small and are worked very hard, and NASA knows they will fail because they are assumed to; Hubble was designed with regular Shuttle servicing in mind!

And since we have visited Hubble several times and replaced the duplicate gyros several times, we already have several examples from earlier repair missions on the ground, bringing down more gyros that have failed for the same reason doesn't make sense either.

Oh, and if you want to test auto-docking technology with a target without docking hardware, forget about it, there is no future need to dock with vehicles not intended for docking, so this too is a bad investment. If you want to test docking between two vehicles that are designed for it, just have the test vehicle dock with its modified spent booster, which would be much simpler and cheaper then a system designed to dock with objects not intended for docking.

There is no useful information or experience to be gained by any mission to Hubble, to fix it or otherwise. Stripping or using it for target practice are not practical options either.

GCNRevenger · 2005-01-28 14:35:24

The only worthwhile way to save it is to deorbit it to the ISS orbit and let the Shuttle do it there while there doing there ISS construction duties, or leave the parts there and let the ISS crew do it.
The trouble is it is not in the best orbit for that, and would require a very strong OMS module to do it. But this can likely be done for less than any other method currently on the table.

Impossible, changing orbital inclination of something as big and heavy as Hubble is not practical, you would need a HUGE rocket stage, or not even for a small ion engine would do. Building a huge ion drive tug is not going to happen before Hubble falls out of the sky either, nor would it be cheap.

SpaceNut · 2005-02-02 15:23:39

Just found this on nasawatch sort of snuck in without a notice...
Real curious to find out more ???

Hubble Hearing on Wednesday
House Science Committee Democrats Urge Administration to Preserve Hubble
House Science Committee Hearing Charter: Options for Hubble Science
House Science Committee Hearing: Options for Hubble Science
10:00 A.M. - 12:00 P.M.
2318 Rayburn House Office Building (WEBCAST)

Just check the spacepolitics site:

Senate commerce reorganization
While the House is grappling with a potential reorganization of appropriations subcommittees, the Senate Commerce Committee has quietly completed a reorganization of its own. Of note is that the former "Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space" is now the "Subcommittee on Science and Space"; technology gets its own subcommittee where it is coupled with "innovation and competitiveness". Although I have not seen a formal announcement, it's my understanding that Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) will chair the science and space subcommittee. Given that Hutchison is considering a run for Texas governor, it's not clear yet how much attention she will be able to devote to the subcommittee.

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-02 15:59:32

Can a congressional subcommittee overrule the White House's order to forget about a servicing mission?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#76 2005-01-21 00:44:22

Re: Hubble Mistake **2** - Action still Needed

#77 2005-01-21 00:59:41

Re: Hubble Mistake **2** - Action still Needed

#78 2005-01-21 01:11:32

Re: Hubble Mistake **2** - Action still Needed

#79 2005-01-21 06:18:22

Re: Hubble Mistake **2** - Action still Needed

#80 2005-01-21 07:53:09

Re: Hubble Mistake **2** - Action still Needed

#81 2005-01-21 10:02:20

Re: Hubble Mistake **2** - Action still Needed

#82 2005-01-21 11:18:55

Re: Hubble Mistake **2** - Action still Needed

#83 2005-01-21 13:36:27

Re: Hubble Mistake **2** - Action still Needed

#84 2005-01-21 14:15:55

Re: Hubble Mistake **2** - Action still Needed

#85 2005-01-21 14:32:24

Re: Hubble Mistake **2** - Action still Needed

#86 2005-01-23 21:41:47

Re: Hubble Mistake **2** - Action still Needed

#87 2005-01-23 21:58:09

Re: Hubble Mistake **2** - Action still Needed

#88 2005-01-23 21:59:34

Re: Hubble Mistake **2** - Action still Needed

#89 2005-01-24 05:32:35

Re: Hubble Mistake **2** - Action still Needed

#90 2005-01-28 11:12:18

Re: Hubble Mistake **2** - Action still Needed

#91 2005-01-28 11:34:38

Re: Hubble Mistake **2** - Action still Needed

#92 2005-01-28 12:26:24

Re: Hubble Mistake **2** - Action still Needed

#93 2005-01-28 13:21:04

Re: Hubble Mistake **2** - Action still Needed

#94 2005-01-28 13:58:45

Re: Hubble Mistake **2** - Action still Needed

#95 2005-01-28 14:21:43

Re: Hubble Mistake **2** - Action still Needed

#96 2005-01-28 14:27:31

Re: Hubble Mistake **2** - Action still Needed

#97 2005-01-28 14:34:07

Re: Hubble Mistake **2** - Action still Needed

#98 2005-01-28 14:35:24

Re: Hubble Mistake **2** - Action still Needed

#99 2005-02-02 15:23:39

Re: Hubble Mistake **2** - Action still Needed

#100 2005-02-02 15:59:32

Re: Hubble Mistake **2** - Action still Needed

Board footer

Re: Hubble Mistake 2 - Action still Needed

Re: Hubble Mistake 2 - Action still Needed

Re: Hubble Mistake 2 - Action still Needed

Re: Hubble Mistake 2 - Action still Needed

Re: Hubble Mistake 2 - Action still Needed

Re: Hubble Mistake 2 - Action still Needed

Re: Hubble Mistake 2 - Action still Needed

Re: Hubble Mistake 2 - Action still Needed

Re: Hubble Mistake 2 - Action still Needed

Re: Hubble Mistake 2 - Action still Needed

Re: Hubble Mistake 2 - Action still Needed

Re: Hubble Mistake 2 - Action still Needed

Re: Hubble Mistake 2 - Action still Needed

Re: Hubble Mistake 2 - Action still Needed

Re: Hubble Mistake 2 - Action still Needed

Re: Hubble Mistake 2 - Action still Needed

Re: Hubble Mistake 2 - Action still Needed

Re: Hubble Mistake 2 - Action still Needed

Re: Hubble Mistake 2 - Action still Needed

Re: Hubble Mistake 2 - Action still Needed

Re: Hubble Mistake 2 - Action still Needed

Re: Hubble Mistake 2 - Action still Needed

Re: Hubble Mistake 2 - Action still Needed

Re: Hubble Mistake 2 - Action still Needed

Re: Hubble Mistake 2 - Action still Needed