Hubble mistake - Action needed

wgc · 2004-01-17 11:48:46

It may be out of the charter of the Mars Society, but those of us who are also members of other organizations , Nss , The planetary society need to start writeing our reps and complaining about this cancelation of the hubble servicing mission.

Some times I just don't understand these decisions, Congress has no problem when a pilot is sent on what potentially amounts to a suicide mission orver Iraq , but because there's a small probablity we could lose another crew they absolutely refuse to risk a shuttle unless extaordianary misures are take, A tile repair kit, a second shuttle on the pad...

The hubble has become essentially a national treasure to the astronomey community, just because is not part of some congressional borkbarrel project we risk losing it.

This is nothing new, when the viking landers first landed on mars in 77, there was a big uproar because football interrupted. Surely finding about our place in the universe is more inportant than some petty football gane or some congressmans pet national park.

Start writting those letters folks... now.

Sneezy · 2004-01-17 15:54:20

There's a new one going up in 2011 - 2012 range which I would cancel as well. I say save the money for Bush's new space policy and let Hubble die. Too many other uncertain things as it is. We're looking at 20? 25? missions already to finish that flying piece of junk space station as it is. Imagine another Space Shuttle loss, another year or two delay in resuming flights again, and now you're looking at having to do recertification on the shuttle just to finish the station. Add it up in terms of reality and tack 5 more years on getting on with Bush's plan. I'll be holding my breath enough as it is just praying we make it through the remaining flights without any more accidents.

dickbill · 2004-01-17 16:45:19

The decision to abandon the Hubble telescope before term doesn't make sense. If there is one shuttle mission left, it should be for Hubble, not to add a radiator to a leaking station.

Unless of course the new generation space telescope is already operational and in orbit to replace HST, which I doubt.

Everything sacrified on the Moon base altar ? I hope not.

wgc · 2004-01-17 17:17:38

There's a new one going up in 2011 - 2012 range which I would cancel as well. I say save the money for Bush's new space policy and let Hubble die. Too many other uncertain things as it is. We're looking at 20? 25? missions already to finish that flying piece of junk space station as it is. Imagine another Space Shuttle loss, another year or two delay in resuming flights again, and now you're looking at having to do recertification on the shuttle just to finish the station. Add it up in terms of reality and tack 5 more years on getting on with Bush's plan. I'll be holding my breath enough as it is just praying we make it through the remaining flights without any more accidents.

There's a risk flying to the iss too. Hubble is expanding frontiers we never knew. There's more to the universe than our backyard. I'm sure there wouldn't be a shortage of astronauts willing to fly the mission.

I suspect we will see cancelation of the james wood, This may be a ploy to keep that program afloat. I'm not sure it gives that much more capability as revamped shuttle.

Hey but what do I know as one poster pointed out my posts are always boring.

Ad Astra · 2004-01-17 17:24:44

Congress has no problem when a pilot is sent on what potentially amounts to a suicide mission orver Iraq , but because there's a small probablity we could lose another crew they absolutely refuse to risk a shuttle unless extaordianary misures are take, A tile repair kit, a second shuttle on the pad...

Comparing the Space Shuttle to combat missions only strengthens the argument that the shuttle is a dangerous vehicle that should be retired. If the Air Force had a 2% loss rate like the Shuttle, they would need to seriously consider buying a bunch more airplanes.

The Shuttle should be flown only when absolutely necessary. This also means using European and Japanese "cargo cans" and Soyuz capsules for crew transfer instead of sending Shuttle "Utilization and Logistics Flights." If scrapping the Hubble mission means more money for moon and Mars programs, that's icing on the cake.

BTW, it has been estimated that with folding optics, a Hubble replacement telescope (with the same capabilities as Hubble and nothing more) could be sized to fit on a Pegasus booster. Wouldn't it make sense to launch a Pegasus with a new space telescope every few years instead of a $550 million shuttle mission that has a 2% chance of ending in disaster?

Sneezy · 2004-01-17 17:45:07

To clarify a bit, I am all for any space science programs we can dream up. Like anyone else I have been amazed by the images from hubble. That said, following the Bush policy which says we will finish the ISS, it scares me enough just having to make it safely through the remaining shuttle launces without adding one more to service hubble. Any more shuttle disasters and it, worst case, will kill the Bush plan, and, best case delay it several years in all likelyhood. We lose another shuttle full of astronauts and it becomes a monumental task selling a manned moon trip to the public. Sane people would argue it just proves we should have retired the shuttle sooner but I don't have faith the "public" will see it that way. Space isn't going anywhere anytime soon. Unless government starts showing some big interest to really start coughing up funds for space exploration and research I just think we have to narrow our focus if we really want to see a thriving human exploration program which is much more likely to have more tangible immediate benefits for humans than great new pictures of a galaxy 500 light years away. If everyone in the non-human exploration programs starts yelling for more funding and they get it then we might as well consider aggresive manned exploration DOA at least in our lifetime. This is just my opinion, maybe I'm too cynical. If it was me though, as much as I love the idea of manned exploration, I'd kill anything not related to the moon and mars and putting humans there for at least 25 or 30 years. The other planets and galaxies aren't going anywhere anytime soon.

wgc · 2004-01-17 18:44:12

To clarify a bit, I am all for any space science programs we can dream up. Like anyone else I have been amazed by the images from hubble. That said, following the Bush policy which says we will finish the ISS, it scares me enough just having to make it safely through the remaining shuttle launces without adding one more to service hubble. Any more shuttle disasters and it, worst case, will kill the Bush plan, and, best case delay it several years in all likelyhood. We lose another shuttle full of astronauts and it becomes a monumental task selling a manned moon trip to the public. Sane people would argue it just proves we should have retired the shuttle sooner but I don't have faith the "public" will see it that way. Space isn't going anywhere anytime soon. Unless government starts showing some big interest to really start coughing up funds for space exploration and research I just think we have to narrow our focus if we really want to see a thriving human exploration program which is much more likely to have more tangible immediate benefits for humans than great new pictures of a galaxy 500 light years away. If everyone in the non-human exploration programs starts yelling for more funding and they get it then we might as well consider aggresive manned exploration DOA at least in our lifetime. This is just my opinion, maybe I'm too cynical. If it was me though, as much as I love the idea of manned exploration, I'd kill anything not related to the moon and mars and putting humans there for at least 25 or 30 years. The other planets and galaxies aren't going anywhere anytime soon.

And there are a bunch of astronomers that would say the same thing about the moon and Mars.

As for the combat comparision, the only point I'm making is that in our government eyes, to fight one of there little wars any risk is ok, but space exploration is supposed to be as routine as taking a flight.

Anything worth doing is risky.

Martinkh · 2004-01-17 20:37:50

Hubble is a white elephant. It was flawed from the start, and we keep throwing money at it. Lets get on with the big mission, and hopefully put a similarly sized telescope on the moon.

The shuttle design is 20 years old too, it needs to go. think about it, it was designed before the 8086 processor. It has less RAM than my HP calculator. We should move on.

wgc · 2004-01-17 21:36:07

Hubble is a white elephant. It was flawed from the start, and we keep throwing money at it. Lets get on with the big mission, and hopefully put a similarly sized telescope on the moon.
The shuttle design is 20 years old too, it needs to go. think about it, it was designed before the 8086 processor. It has less RAM than my HP calculator. We should move on.

Were have you been for the last several years, Hubble had initial problems, but the science return has been great.

I'd volunteer tommorrow for the mission, even if it was on the shuttle.

wgc · 2004-01-17 21:46:43

Hubble is a white elephant. It was flawed from the start, and we keep throwing money at it. Lets get on with the big mission, and hopefully put a similarly sized telescope on the moon.
The shuttle design is 20 years old too, it needs to go. think about it, it was designed before the 8086 processor. It has less RAM than my HP calculator. We should move on.

This is the same reasoning for letting skylab crash, abadoning the moon program... We keep taking steps backwards rather than forward.

Its like that in everything we do.

Our Universities develop the technology, Foriegn nations provide the venture capital and once proven we end up playing catch up.

Did you know ther're going to start building tv's in this country again. Some of our firms are picking up part of the plasma market.

Euler · 2004-01-17 23:42:00

Hubble is a white elephant. It was flawed from the start, and we keep throwing money at it. Lets get on with the big mission, and hopefully put a similarly sized telescope on the moon.

Hubble has operated successfully for many years, and has significantly advanced our understanding of the universe. However, recent advance in optics are making the old Hubble design obsolete. The James Webb Space Telescope utilizes these advance to create a much more powerful telescope that it also less massive (so it can be launched on a cheap expendable rocket.) It is scheduled to be launched around 2010, and it will operate at L2.

The shuttle design is 20 years old too, it needs to go. think about it, it was designed before the 8086 processor. It has less RAM than my HP calculator. We should move on.

The shuttles have had many extensive upgrades. Current shuttles have computers that are much more powerful than your calculator, probably much more powerful than your PC. The reason that the shuttle needs to be replaced is because the design has been flawed from the start. The size, complexity, and cost of the shuttle were greatly increased by Air Force requirements that were never used. The space shuttle is not really designed for the tasks that it is being used for, which is why we need a new spacecraft that is designed for those tasks.

wgc · 2004-01-18 09:02:33

Hubble is a white elephant. It was flawed from the start, and we keep throwing money at it. Lets get on with the big mission, and hopefully put a similarly sized telescope on the moon.
Hubble has operated successfully for many years, and has significantly advanced our understanding of the universe. However, recent advance in optics are making the old Hubble design obsolete. The James Webb Space Telescope utilizes these advance to create a much more powerful telescope that it also less massive (so it can be launched on a cheap expendable rocket.) It is scheduled to be launched around 2010, and it will operate at L2.
The shuttle design is 20 years old too, it needs to go. think about it, it was designed before the 8086 processor. It has less RAM than my HP calculator. We should move on.
The shuttles have had many extensive upgrades. Current shuttles have computers that are much more powerful than your calculator, probably much more powerful than your PC. The reason that the shuttle needs to be replaced is because the design has been flawed from the start. The size, complexity, and cost of the shuttle were greatly increased by Air Force requirements that were never used. The space shuttle is not really designed for the tasks that it is being used for, which is why we need a new spacecraft that is designed for those tasks.

There's a good chance this telescope will never get built.

Palomar · 2004-01-18 09:04:45

Hubble is a white elephant. It was flawed from the start, and we keep throwing money at it.

*Hubble initially had problems (for a *short* period of time)...which has been straightened out now for 11 years. Contrary to being a "white elephant," it's given us priceless data -- a lot of it. It's certainly paid for itself and then some, given the veritable treasure trove of indispensible information and data it has supplied us with.

I'm all for putting a telescope on the moon, by the way.

--Cindy

Dook · 2004-01-18 10:24:24

I can't believe NASA would just let the Hubble burn up. So it's a little old, it still does a great job. There must be some way we can boost it's orbit without a shuttle mission. Also why wasn't it placed into higher geosynchronous orbit to begin with?

Palomar · 2004-01-18 10:35:43

I can't believe NASA would just let the Hubble burn up. So it's a little old, it still does a great job.

*Yes. And it's especially ironic, given the article Rik (Rxke) quoted in the "New Discoveries *2*" thread earlier in the week, wherein a scientist was quoted:

"Asked how Hubble is performing Dr Beckwith said: 'Hubble is doing beautifully. It's working better than when it was new. We have not yet reached the limit of what it can do.'"

[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3387919.stm]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3387919.stm

...Hubble has not yet reached its limit!

--Cindy

Mundaka · 2004-01-18 15:03:53

Martinkh · 2004-01-18 20:56:28

Well, I suppose there may be two different schools of thought, some want to learn more about the universe just because there is more to know, and those who want to get the hell off this planet and try to find something better!!! I personally fall into the second category, I want to find new places to colonize, where morons don't have control, where welfare rats and wanna be social-do goders dont get to whine about thier rights, because the only people taken along have proven that they have something to contribute.

So for me, I say if the hubble needs a boost, fine, if it needs an anual boost and electronics upgrades, forget it. Lets go to the moon and put telescopes on the back side of that baby.

jadeheart · 2004-01-19 14:51:03

I can't believe NASA would just let the Hubble burn up. So it's a little old, it still does a great job. There must be some way we can boost it's orbit without a shuttle mission. Also why wasn't it placed into higher geosynchronous orbit to begin with?

Hate to make it even worse for you, but not only is NASA planning to let it burn up, it is thinking about spending hundreds of millions of dollars to do so. See the "$300 million to destroy Hubble" thread in the Science & Technology section.

Hubble was not put in geosynchronous orbit because it would've been too high for the servicing missions to reach. (Which turned out to be a good thing or they never could've fixed the mirror.)

The shuttle cannot go beyond LEO, it's maximum altitude is 300-400 miles. Geosync is like 20,000 miles.

I agree that switching one of the ISS shuttle missions to service the Hubble would be a better return on the investment, but Hubble has exceeded its mission plan and is at the end of its design life. Even without the extra servicing mission it will still probably last at least a few years beyond 2010. I kind of agree with the others who say we need to look forward. The James Webb Space Telescope is already under construction and is planned for launch in 2011. (This isn't to say it still can't be nixed for arbitrary political reasons, but I think it's unlikely.)

Michael Bloxham · 2004-01-19 15:15:40

Why does Nasa put an expiry date on everything it makes? The hubble should never be retired. Even after the James Webb is launched, hubble will still be valuable. It is still the sharpest 'scope in our posession, and should be used until it quits. Keep it flying with mini-boosters, space tugs, whatever. Just keep it up there.

BTW, what happens if the James Webb is blown up on launch, or pronounced dead on arrival, or the mirror is ground to the wrong shape, etc.?

jadeheart · 2004-01-19 15:31:26

Expiry date is mostly to give the engineers who build it an idea of how to build. It has a big impact on the quality of materials used.

HST will eventually fall victim to onboard malfunctions, of which it actually has a long history. Without further servicing missions my bet is that it will lose enough gyros that it will no longer be able to point itself properly. (The gyros have been the main source of trouble ever since it was launched.) I think the thing will be crippled, if not useless, before its orbit degrades to where it burns up.

Mini-boosters & space tugs will never be developed in time even if the money were there. (Remember, each shuttle mission is half a billion bucks-- this is a large fraction of the total cost of the telescope itself.)

If Webb fails in some regard, we're screwed I guess. Hopefully HST will last long enough to provide some overlap. I agree that it's worth it to give HST one more servicing mission & boost.

Bill White · 2004-01-19 15:41:40

Does the Orbital Recovery plan have any merit?

[http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=10083]http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=10083

jadeheart · 2004-01-19 16:02:46

I'd forgotten about that. Sure, great idea if they get up & running in the timeframe that guy claims. Depends also on what they'll charge NASA to do the mission, but surely it'd be way less than a shuttle mission.

In fact, in light of the Bush rearrangement, it's pretty much the ONLY option left to extend HST's life.

For some reason I'm skeptical though. Too many ifs-- Orbital Recovery is going to be dependent on the whims of the market, (demand for their services, acquiring launch services for their craft) and on top of that I have a feeling stodgy old NASA is going to want to use some more proven method in dealing with HST. (Like doing nothing.) We'll see.

Ad Astra · 2004-01-19 16:16:27

It seems like NASA will continue to operate Hubble until its systems break down. It should still work for another two to four years. With re-boosting by space tugs, it's possible that Hubble could be saved long enough for a CEV to service it. Then again, they said the same thing about Skylab.

Palomar · 2004-01-22 07:16:32

[=http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/hubble_future_040121.html]Help for Hubble

*They're asking the Russians to consider doing maintenance and also private donations.

--Cindy

::EDIT:: Mundaka writes: "but I always hear scientists complaining that manned missions take away funding for robotic missions (that produce much better science, IMHO.)"

*Well, such a complaint strikes me as a bit odd. Hubble (and other space telescopes) can peer out into terrifically vast distances and supply us with lots of cosmologically significant data. Robotic missions are "limited" to the solar system. Studying the solar system is just as important as far-reaching cosmology (they go hand-in-hand); both are important, IMO. Consider that scientists of old weren't content to study just the nearest running river; to get a better "overall" picture they started studying the ocean as well...which, in turn, helped them to learn more about the nature of both and especially their interrelation.

Money wouldn't be such an issue if the blankity-blank-blanking Federal Gov't would learn how to handle money, i.e. quit throwing it away.

::EDIT 2:: There's a poll at space.com regarding Hubble, i.e. "Did NASA make the right decision to abandon the next Hubble mission?"

Yes, they are dangerous missions: 19%

No, Hubble is too important: 81%

realmacaw · 2004-01-24 00:12:36

The January 2004 edition of "Popular Science" has a 2 page article on repairing the Hubble Telescope using the Orbital Recovery Corporation's tugboat. It says the tug will cost $110 million and can be ready by 2006. The tugboat launches from a rocket (I assume the $110 million includes the launch but it doesn't say). It clamps onto the Hubble and guides it anywhere controllers want it to go. It could be parked next to the International Space Station so it could be safely serviced there. The article says the primary drawback to this plan is it costs $245 million per year to pay for the engineers on the ground to keep Hubble going.

My thought is if we have to save money for Bush's Moon/Mars plan, why not pay the $110 million and park the Hubble near the ISS or attach it to it and don't use it for years. Then it would be available again when there is money to operate it. This makes far more sense that wastefully dumping it.

My question is how do we start grass roots e-mailing and contacting of officials to get them to change their mind and do this? I could contact politicians in my state but for Hubble to be saved this will take a huge effort of people doing this. Can this group help do this?

Brian.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-01-17 11:48:46

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#2 2004-01-17 15:54:20

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#3 2004-01-17 16:45:19

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#4 2004-01-17 17:17:38

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#5 2004-01-17 17:24:44

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#6 2004-01-17 17:45:07

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#7 2004-01-17 18:44:12

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#8 2004-01-17 20:37:50

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#9 2004-01-17 21:36:07

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#10 2004-01-17 21:46:43

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#11 2004-01-17 23:42:00

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#12 2004-01-18 09:02:33

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#13 2004-01-18 09:04:45

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#14 2004-01-18 10:24:24

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#15 2004-01-18 10:35:43

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#16 2004-01-18 15:03:53

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#17 2004-01-18 20:56:28

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#18 2004-01-19 14:51:03

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#19 2004-01-19 15:15:40

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#20 2004-01-19 15:31:26

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#21 2004-01-19 15:41:40

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#22 2004-01-19 16:02:46

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#23 2004-01-19 16:16:27

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#24 2004-01-22 07:16:32

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#25 2004-01-24 00:12:36

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

Board footer