Hubble mistake - Action needed

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2004-11-05 16:08:36

The United States has many partnerships in Space such as having the Russians now carry US astronauts into space, the Russian work planned for the future and the Europeans strongly involved a number of projects, the Euros have given the US space industry millions of dollars for certain missions and more recently have been involved with Hubble, the Cassini mission , the JWST, future planet finder missions..the Europe has been giving billions of dollars to the US space industry and NASA...so I think it would be wise for NASA to honour it's partenships to the fullest. ESA is the NASA partner for the HST. ESA has a nominal 15% stake in the mission , in recent times, the fraction of allocated hours to European scientists has been about 20%, which is not only a reflection of Europe's contribution to the project but also the quality of the partnership.
The ground-based telescopes, even with adaptive optics can only provide so much...even the yougsters will let you know this one. With ground based scopes we are suddenly limited to a small area of the sky visible from the ground and once daytime hours start to approach all work is lost. Even with the best adaptive optics a ground based scope is limited the telescope's resolution is limited by atmospheric seeing, there will no no real ability to view objects emitting new gamma rays or finding the wonderous X-ray sources in space. Much of the infrared, and part of the microwave will also be lost this is one the prime motivations for building space telescopes. Even looking at the visible spectrum there is a need for space scopes as it does not suffer distorted vision from the air. If the air was all the same temperature above a telescope and there was no wind ), telescopes would have a perfect view but they don't. There is also a real need for the detection of Electromagnetic Radiation and UV in space, UV light coming from space doesn't get through very much of the atmosphere at all.
Many years back when Hubbles first problems started to pop up people have been either strongly Pro-Hubble or Anti-Hubble. I am neither , I would be happy to see Hubble lay to rest once all it's work is finished and the astronomy community as another space scope ready for replacement...however we have not much going on in future plans except for the bold statement from the president that declared the vision for going to Mars, how can all this occur when there are still serious safety questions to be answered after the Colombia accident, we have rising debts in the USA, the costs of Iraq, and problems with the US pension system...others like Glenn have been very critical of the Bush plan for Mars. Back some years ago when the Anti-Hubble camp were first shouting out their statemenst many were proved wrong, Hubble got back in shape and started working wonderfully again...it brought back pics of the Shoemaker-Levy crash into Jupiter, proto-planet discs in the Orion nebula, super massive black holes and Analysis of the atmosphere of an extra solar-planet giving chemical data on the air of an exo-planet.
Let's not go back to the darkages !!

Hubble can do some much more work, so I think it should be saved....so let's save Hubble
..either that or you should sell it to China at discount price

Commodore · 2004-11-05 16:39:18

The only way to justify the billions is to make whatever robot is used a mutlipurpose platform capable of a wide range of missions under Project Constellaton, and to use the Hubble as a testbed.

Grypd · 2004-11-05 16:47:51

If Australia is able to have surface telescopes that with modern technology have almost the same resolution as the Hubble and at a fraction of the cost then it is time the Hubble should be replaced. The Hubble was designed in the 1970s it is a product of technology over 30 years ago and though has updates, the fundamental part of it is in space terms ancient.

It is a failing satelite it simply is showing its age. In its time it has proven to be one of the most succesful endeavours NASA has ever done but enough is enough.

We now need something better, with our advances in technology and with our lessons learnt from the mistakes we had with hubble, we can create something a lot better and more useful to our space research. Why spend billions keeping the old banger going, buy a new one.

GCNRevenger · 2004-11-06 13:25:32

Our "international partnerships" have hardly been that at all, the Russians have been flying US Astronauts on Soyuz to help pay their multimillion dollar debt for NASA bailing them out to launch their half-finished modules. I also find it quite hard to believe that the ESA has somehow produced about ~$500 million dollars that a 15% stake in the several past HST repair missions cost, nor will they come up with the $300M that a similar stake would cost for this repair mission.

"Even with the best adaptive optics a ground based scope is limited the telescope's resolution is limited by atmospheric seeing, there will no no real ability to view objects emitting new gamma rays or finding the wonderous X-ray sources in space."

Do you even know what adaptive optics are? They are special because they can correct for atmospheric distortion, they can make it go away, and the image will be about as high a resolution as it would be in orbit. Plus, thanks to the much much bigger aperatures on the big ground based telescopes, even with atmospheric absortion you don't NEED to stay on a target as long, since you gather the light so much faster. And who says you can't have multiple superscopes on the ground? Its always night time somewhere, and they cost a tiny fraction as much each.

Hubble can't detect Gamma rays, which the late Compton observatory did, nor can it detect X-Rays like the Chandra telescope does, and the infrared region is coverd by SIRTF and eventually by JWST. Microwave/radio astronomy is already handled by large ground-based radio telescopes just fine, and these can be built a thousand times as large. Which just leaves the Ultraviolet region, which Hubble can't detect but a small part of this spectrum anyway, and that could be picked up by a cheap dedicated space telescope instead of fixing Hubble. Hubble. Is. Obsolete. It really is.

But you know what? The Anti-Hubble people, as far as a science investment point of view, they were right, they were right! They were then, and they are now: the amount of money spent fixing Hubble has been so great because of the extreme cost of Shuttle operations, that NASA could have built a brand new copy of Hubble and put it on a Titan-IV for less money. NASA even has the cameras on hand and a spare main mirror! Yes Hubble was saved, and yes it worked beautifully, but a new telescope would have too for less money and risk.

"...it brought back pics of the Shoemaker-Levy crash into Jupiter, proto-planet discs in the Orion nebula, super massive black holes and Analysis of the atmosphere of an extra solar-planet giving chemical data on the air of an exo-planet. "

And you know what? Asside from the ultralucky comet impact, a new telescope would have too. The stars will be there tomorrow, you know, the astronomers will be just fine for a few years until a replacement could be built. It is NOT asking too much for a short hiatus for optical space telescopes... new super ground based telescopes will be ready by the time HST gives out too.

I also don't think you have a clue how good a new UV/Vis space telescope built with today's technology would be, it could be built with a MUCH larger main mirror now that we have folding mirror tech with JWST, we could place it into high orbit which will prevent atmospheric oxygen damage, orbital drag decay, sky glow interference, and make the batteries last longer. And all this for less money then fixing Hubble, and you can take your time building it so you can spread the cost out over years and years plus make sure you spend the time to get it right.

If China or Russia wants Hubble, they can have it, but I wouldn't wrong them by trying to sell them somthing so worthless.

Euler · 2004-11-06 16:39:27

Hubble can do some much more work, so I think it should be saved....so let's save Hubble
..either that or you should sell it to China at discount price

NASA's "Analysis of Alternatives" study found that the risk/reward for building a new telescope was better than any of the options for servicing Hubble, and I think that they might have underestimated the abilities of the new telescope by constraining themselves to only thinking about options that would make use of parts designed for a Hubb

GCNRevenger · 2004-11-06 16:53:15

Or we could build a scope' of similar power, perhaps more biased to the UV/Vis rather then Vis/IR range, for alot less money.

The SIRTF, which has very complicated optics because of how cold they have to be, only cost $450M. An optical telescope with folding mirrors riding on a cheaper launcher could probobly be built that would match or exceed Hubble for a billion or so.

John Creighton · 2004-11-06 16:58:55

But you know what? The Anti-Hubble people, as far as a science investment point of view, they were right, they were right! They were then, and they are now:

Well the are right more now then they were then. Obviously the repair missions gave NASA experience working in space. Hopefully someday that will be more useful. Anyway when we are giving these costs numbers are they marginal cost or average cost? Not flying the shuttle cost too in the sense that the average cost of all the previous flights will be higher. Right now there are alternatives to the Hubble but no clear alternative to the ISS so I think the choice of whether or not to fly the shuttle to the Hubble is clear given the number of shuttle flights left is small. As far as a robotic repair mission I can’t say. The big unknown to me is the future vaule of the work done in robotic engineering and whether we will be ready by then to test such technology.

SpaceNut · 2004-11-08 09:30:43

The Looming Death of Hubble

Tests at Goddard using one of the available robot arms suggested that such an arm could perform most of the necessary tasks for servicing Hubble. Engineers designed and built several dozen special tools, which they attached to the arm and used on a duplicate ground-based version of Hubble to open its panels, remove internal units, and insert some replacement components. The engineers also found the robot arm could disconnect and reconnect several different electrical plugs.

Very interesting to see what has been tried on the ground.

GCNRevenger · 2004-11-08 11:22:03

With how little time they have left before Hubble will likly loose attitude control, any robot they build is still going to be a risky and untried experiment.

John Creighton · 2004-11-08 16:13:27

If it works I think the robotic mission will be worth it. It will demonstrate a very important peace of technology. Although if the priority is space science I think we should let the satellite burn and build a newer better one. People are too sentimental about Hubble. Any money spent saving the Hubble is money that won’t be spent on a newer better telescope. People are impressed with Hubble but how impressed would they be with a telescope that is 10 times as powerful. A telescope that would peer even further back into the creation of the universe. I think the new telescope should mostly focus on UV but I am wondering something. The light furthest back in time is the more red shifted. James Web is infra red. As far as physics goes isn’t in more important?

SpaceNut · 2004-11-09 06:33:35

The problem is we may have waited to long to do something about the Hubble issue and that after the very first mission to Hubble plans should have been made then for the follow up work to keep it going but Nasa chose back then to use the Manned shuttle program to keep it going.
Maybe smaller robotic probes, or more specilized ones should be sent for each job type that is needed rather than one do everything unit.
Hubble's time is running short and who knows when it will be beyound the point of no return for any repairs to be made.

SpaceNut · 2004-11-12 11:22:36

Any one registered for the washington post article
Robot Helps Nasa Refocus on Hubble
What was the 411 on the article please.

Edit quote from nasawatch
"The Hubble Robotic Vehicle will be built from scratch, giving the United States a robotic rendezvous and docking capability for the first time in the history of space travel."

SpaceNut · 2004-12-07 08:47:05

Recent news articles as they appear on spacetoday.net are indicating that the road ahead for any Hubble repair mission may be derailed due to the many factors that we have discussed.

John Creighton · 2004-12-07 16:04:03

Recent news articles as they appear on spacetoday.net are indicating that the road ahead for any Hubble repair mission may be derailed due to the many factors that we have discussed.

I don't know who is right but I would love to see NASA do this mission successfully and much cheaper then the Nay sayers say it will cost. It will show real innovation on the part of NASA.

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-07 17:02:39

My vote is obviously on the "no fix" side

Why wouldn it cost so much money to throw together such a complex vehicle in such a short amount of time?

You can't "innovate" a billion dollars away.

John Creighton · 2004-12-07 17:27:06

My vote is obviously on the "no fix" side
Why wouldn it cost so much money to throw together such a complex vehicle in such a short amount of time?
You can't "innovate" a billion dollars away.

I am not saying I support the mission but aren’t the biggest costs estimates for the design of the vehicle. Aren’t the launch costs in the millions. So if you are innovative enough to develop it cheaply then you innovated if not billions at least hundreds of millions away.

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-07 17:55:14

Even hundreds of millions off the $2Bn budget through some clever magic trick would still not knock enough off the missions' price to be worthwhile.

SpaceNut · 2004-12-07 20:24:09

Please can some tell me why when a contract is issued that it can balloon out of control to such an over charge as that. I had presumed that it would be launched on a modified Delta IV and that the 300 million contract was for the whole package. So even after that still how can it rise so high. It will not be done if it is more than 700 million all told.

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-07 20:35:56

The most common reason is that the estimate that the contractor came up with was not accurate and was too low.

The $300M mission you have in mind is purely a disposal mission, just to bring HST down.

The robot vehicle to fix Hubble is much much more complex... it must have solar cells, batteries, gyros, and OMS engines capable of maneuvering & powering not only it, but Hubble too. The two vehicles mated together will be very heavy.

The robot is still just an engineering concept and some pretty drawings. The HST replacement componets haven't all been built, and having the robot do more then swap out cameras is still a big unknown. The automated docking system is also a grey area and has never been tested before by any vehicle.

And all this has to be done, and FAST. The mission has to be rolled out to the pad by about mid 2006 to early 2007 to have any real chance of reaching Hubble before it starts to spin out of control aimlessly.

Thats why it will cost so much. And it will still probobly fail. And will still cost as much or more then a new telescope.

SpaceNut · 2004-12-08 06:31:56

Originally when I had heard the news of the Hubble mission cancelation and of the need for a safe haven I began the process of think of how that could be solved. Many solution were launching left over modules to sending up Bigelows inflatable to launching the shuttle with just the soyuz capsule in the cargo bay for just in case the unthinkable should happen. Well here is a story now in the news months later.

IMO the plan would actually benifit the US to give another research platform and infact the military could be the ones to finance it and to man it was just another of my off the wall thoughts.

How a ‘safe haven’ could help save Hubble

An “out-of-the-box” plan to put a new space habitat in orbit could be a leading contender for saving the Hubble Space Telescope, private-sector analysts say in a proposal being prepared for NASA. The habitat could be used as an emergency safe haven during the Hubble servicing mission, and then could serve as a base for wider commercial and exploratory space travel.

Palomar · 2004-12-08 08:50:27

*The situation -- how it's being handled, rather -- is getting beyond exasperating. It seems one day it's "we'll send a robotic repair mission" then it's "we MIGHT send a robotic repair mission" then it's "we're going to scrap Hubble" then it's "we're looking for another way to save Hubble"...yadda yadda yadda.

Geez. Round and round, like a dog chasing its tail. Might as well flip a coin.

--Cindy

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-08 09:01:32

Hopefully that is because NASA is finally starting to coming to grips with the HST "Alternative Report" which clearly illustrates what a bad idea fixing Hubble at all is. Or maybe they already have and are trying to find a way to break it to the public that no mission will be sent to popular but obsolete space icon.

Thoughts on alternate Shuttle mission designs:

-NASA is still not nor will likly be allowed to buy any Russia hardware, like Soyuz capsules. In any event, only one Soyuz would fit, since OMS engines would be required. Modifications to Soyuz for battery power operation and Shuttle payload bay mounting would also be needed.

-Zarya-II has already been called for and is slated for launch on Proton to the ISS in order to give the station a six-man capacity without the US HAB module.

-Building and launching an American version would likly cost no less then about $500M, combined with the $1.1-1.2Bn or more of a Shuttle mission, puts the total mission cost well above building new telescopes. Unless the AltSpace folks are willing to cough up this kind of cash, why should NASA be expected to build and fly their space hotel?

-No assembly in LEO equitorial is nessesarry, future VSE vehicles could simply dock on orbit and proceed from there, like a Lunar lander/Hab mated to a TLI stage launched on an uprated "Delta-IV+."

-A Shuttle mission to the HST would not extend its life but a few more years anyway, considerably less then a new telescope, which could be placed in a more favorable orbit anyway. Hubble is much too heavy to boost to high orbit.

clark · 2004-12-08 10:13:42

Coming to grips after their budget passed, the one that gives them unprecented power to shift funds. If I was a cynic, I might point this out, but nah. :laugh:

BWhite · 2004-12-08 11:05:10

A while back, GCNRevenger stated Hubble mostly has value in the realm of public relations. If true, leverage that.

Offer ownership of Hubble (and the service packages) to whoever can "save" it, within reasonable parameters. bin Laden cannot apply, for example.

The US pays no cash, it simply transfers title to whoever successfully extends its life.

Edited By BWhite on 1102525531

clark · 2004-12-08 11:07:08

Nice idea, but...

who holds the bag when a savior tries, and destroys the thing?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#251 2004-11-05 16:08:36

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#252 2004-11-05 16:39:18

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#253 2004-11-05 16:47:51

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#254 2004-11-06 13:25:32

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#255 2004-11-06 16:39:27

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#256 2004-11-06 16:53:15

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#257 2004-11-06 16:58:55

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#258 2004-11-08 09:30:43

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#259 2004-11-08 11:22:03

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#260 2004-11-08 16:13:27

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#261 2004-11-09 06:33:35

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#262 2004-11-12 11:22:36

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#263 2004-12-07 08:47:05

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#264 2004-12-07 16:04:03

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#265 2004-12-07 17:02:39

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#266 2004-12-07 17:27:06

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#267 2004-12-07 17:55:14

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#268 2004-12-07 20:24:09

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#269 2004-12-07 20:35:56

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#270 2004-12-08 06:31:56

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#271 2004-12-08 08:50:27

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#272 2004-12-08 09:01:32

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#273 2004-12-08 10:13:42

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#274 2004-12-08 11:05:10

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#275 2004-12-08 11:07:08

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

Board footer