Hubble mistake - Action needed

deagleninja · 2004-08-24 04:33:46

The MER's have been wonderful, don't get me wrong, but they aren't getting us fundamentally closer to walking on Mars. We can 'study' Mars for years (we have) and send dozens of probes (we have) and be no closer to taking that first giant leap (we haven't).

By comparison, the HST makes world shaking discoveries every few months. So yes, the science HST collects in a few years is ultimately much more valuable and important.

Grypd · 2004-08-24 05:59:48

But a better more modern HST 2 would do so much more especially as what it would cost to rescue the Hubble would pay for its replacement. The Hubble has been a great facility for science but it is falling apart, soon we will have to power it down just to keep the gyros working. And in all probability what happened to skylab will happen to the Hubble it will fall to earth before its "rescuer" is able to fly. And since we have been trying to build a super "rescuer" it means no HST 2 as the political process only allows one way or another either "rescuer" or HST 2.

SpaceNut · 2004-08-24 06:54:39

So I guess based on cost of save or replace Hubble, Replace is probably of lower cost.
But how soon could it be done? What other enhancements would be added to make a better optically designed telescope for space?
Of course using what has already been built for hubble for replacement parts to keep the cost even lower is a must.
Placing the new Hubble 2 into the same location and giving a much smaller and simpler deobit control stage for the old hubble to be brought down safely with.

GCNRevenger · 2004-08-24 09:14:37

There isn't any reason that I know of that the cameras built for Hubble's service mission can't be repackaged for use in HST-II. Anyway, the only reason that Hubble is in the low earth orbit is because its so heavy, and so Shuttle can come up and service it. Since it will weigh much less without the glass & metal mirror, the best place to put it is into a solar lagrange point like the SIRTF infra-red telescope... no de-orbit required. Service missions cost so much, you might as well build a new one when it wears out.

SpaceNut · 2004-08-24 10:36:04

Backyard telescope helps find new planet
4-inch instrument detects world 500 light-years away

snipet:
With the help of a modified backyard telescope, astronomers have discovered a giant planet orbiting another star. It is the first extrasolar world found with such modest equipment.

Hubble might find water in TrES-1, and the telescope would "give us a much more precise measurement of the planet's size, and even allow us to search for moons.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5807650/

dicktice · 2004-08-24 13:22:49

It took a lot of trial and error to get Hubble out there and working, years and years of blundering effort. What makes anyone of you think a new program run by another generation of blunderers will get it right the first try? Keeping a working system operational, at least until the next one is up and running, is a first principal of engineering--or warfare for that manner. And we are at war in the space environment, believe it.

John Creighton · 2004-08-24 13:36:49

It took a lot of trial and error to get Hubble out there and working, years and years of blundering effort. What makes anyone of you think a new program run by another generation of blunderers will get it right the first try? Keeping a working system operational, at least until the next one is up and running, is a first principal of engineering--or warfare for that manner. And we are at war in the space environment, believe it.

That is the best argument I heard for saving the hubble.

GCNRevenger · 2004-08-24 14:04:42

And jerry-rigging the ultraprecise gyros, electrical systems, and everything else that needs to be replaced on HST with an untested, untried robot.. which was built in a big rush.. will be a safer bet than building a copy of JWST? Even if it can do the job at all before HST loses power/command/attitude?

The question over which one is more reliable, a new telescope or fixing HST, is not the issue... the question is between a new telescope and a jerry-rigged robot frankenstein of two spacecraft, one which is very old.

John Creighton · 2004-08-24 14:16:54

And jerry-rigging the ultraprecise gyros, electrical systems, and everything else that needs to be replaced on HST with an untested, untried robot.. which was built in a big rush.. will be a safer bet than building a copy of JWST? Even if it can do the job at all before HST loses power/command/attitude?
The question over which one is more reliable, a new telescope or fixing HST, is not the issue... the question is between a new telescope and a jerry-rigged robot frankenstein of two spacecraft, one which is very old.

I agree the new telescope should have a better chance of success. However if we are going to need to repair these tellescopes it would be nice to develop some more robotics.

Grypd · 2004-08-24 17:40:35

Then we design the robots to be able to function and repair the new telescope. But when the original hubble went up crucial errors where made and repairs had to be done to get it to work. We now know what we did wrong so hopefully it can be sorted but if we design a robot that can do the job anyway we can use it for other things. But we should make a new telescope not the constant juryrigging of an old one waiting for the power down and eventual drag to earth.

deagleninja · 2004-08-25 03:53:25

While I am in favor of a manned mission to Hubble, I do see the merit in practicing our telerobotic skills in LEO (I just wish they weren't practicing for the first time on HST).

GCN- as always, your points have merit and logic. However, the HST isn't a pile of junk. It is a much more capable machine today (even with failing equipment) than it was at its launch. Since its deployment, the HST has gained much in software and optical muscle that wasn't forseen in its original design.

My point is, the HST is a very valuable resource, that while costly, does yeild incredible scientific information. It never need be obsolete or out-dated. Should something better in the visible light spectrum come along, wonderful! But until then, and even after, there is no reason to scrape Hubble.

Should this telerobotic experiment be successful, it will be interesting to see if NASA offers contracts for regular service missions. As you have stated (GCN) the first mission is always the most expensive. I have no doubt that Hubble can be serviced robotically for millions, not billions.

SpaceNut · 2004-08-25 05:50:24

The other problem with this mission is that though the robotic craft will be outfitted with cameras there is no way to dock softly with Hubble since there is no distance beacons to gauge distance with. Also the end has only on direction that it could lock into in order to couple power and other control features into Hubble.

GCNRevenger · 2004-08-25 07:40:08

"I have no doubt that Hubble can be serviced robotically for millions, not billions. "

Well, that is very optimistic of you, but the question begs... why do you believe this? Space flight experts, interviewed by various aerospace news reporters, consistantly place the cost of a robotic or human service mission of any kind (other than simple OMS) around a billion to a billion and a half dollars. Perhaps more.

For a vehicle which must be designed in a very short amount of time.. only about one year from right now until construction would absolutely have to begin (perhaps less).. which sounds quite reasonable given what the vehicle will have to do on a rush job. Do you know of a good reason, other than wishing it so, why it would not cost this much or more? In fact, I have doubts if the mission is even possible given the small time frame and numerous technical hurdles involved, even with unlimited funding.

"My point is, the HST is a very valuable resource... It never need be obsolete or out-dated. Should something better in the visible light spectrum come along, wonderful! But until then, and even after, there is no reason to scrape Hubble."

Mmmmmm I find it hard to follow the reasoning of this statement, particularly given the facts... First, there are certainly componets of the HST which cannot be reasonably replaced on orbit by any service mission. These componets were engineerd to such a degree that they would have a low probability of failure over the design life of the HST. This time has since passed, or ought to have by now... for instance, the recent loss of a spectrograph is probobly as a result of power supply failure, not the instrument which can be easily swapped, in one of the 5V lines which could be a sign of serious degredation of the whole telescope. So no, it simply is not true that HST can be made to last forever for a nominal cost.

But more then that... your statement that if superior UV-Vis telescopes come along which far exceed HST, that HST should be kept alive anyway is not logical. First of all, if much better instruments are available, why bother with Hubble? It is very likly that two new telescopes of similar or better capacity to HST could be built for similar or lesser cost then building one and servicing HST, which would involve developing two different spacecraft.

I am sure this must sound heretical to you, but why exactly do we need more than one UV-Vis telescope? Is there really enough scientific bennefit to warrent the millions of dollars per year to string along the old Hubble? Spending that kind of money so as many astronomers as possible have telescope access must be weighed in a cost/bennefit analysis... just how many targets are worthwhile to view?

And finally, I don't think you have the faintest clue how much more powerful a UV-Vis telescope the size of JWST would be... Hubble's main mirror is only around 2.4M across, but a UV-Vis knockoff of JWST with its 6.5m mirror will have six or seven times the light gathering power. In any event, ground based telescopes with adaptive optics will soon be so good, that a superscope many meters wide of similar clarity to HST will be possible.

The case for Hubble does not make sense

SpaceNut · 2004-08-25 08:09:29

So you are willing to throw away any item that you own that is say the age of HUBBLE because there are new stuff out there...

Usually the task for a telescope does change when new ones come out, they just start looking for different stuff usually closer to home.

The Near Infrared Camera (NIRCam) will be the primary JWST imager in the wavelength range of 0.6 to 5 microns.

This is just near the visible light band for red is which .635 microns while the other colors are smaller.

The Hubble also has the Near Infrared Camera and Multi-Object Spectrometer (NICMOS) provides imaging capabilities in broad, medium, and narrow band filters, broad-band imaging polarimetry, coronographic imaging, and slitless grism spectroscopy, in the wavelength range 0.8-2.5 microns.
While it also has the Wide Field Planetary Camera which is visble light.

SpaceNut · 2004-08-25 09:38:28

Speaking of space telescope have we forgotten that we have the Spitzer infrared unit.
http://www.spitzer.caltech.edu/

The pictures:
The telescope gathers infrared light, an invisible form of electromagnetic radiation associated with heat. It allows astronomers to see through layers of dust, which block visible light, and detect heat emitted by deeply embedded dust around myriad cosmic objects. The heat is infrared energy on the electromagnetic spectrum between the wavelengths of 3 and 180 microns. Much like the JWST will do just a different size band of frequencies or wave lengths.

Cape-launched telescope offers a galactic glimpse
Spitzer eyes infrared part of spectrum
http://www.flatoday.com/news....ZER.htm

SpaceNut · 2004-08-25 09:42:48

Here also the other side of the coin for space telescopes.

Hawaiians speak out against Mauna Kea telescope project
http://www.usatoday.com/tech....s_x.htm

SpaceNut · 2004-08-25 10:37:40

Who says that you need a large telescope?

Small telescope reveals new planet
http://www.cnn.com/2004....ex.html

A tiny telescope has spotted a giant planet circling a faraway star, using a technique that could open a new phase of planetary discovery, scientists said Tuesday.
The small telescope with a 4-inch diameter -- about the size that some backyard astronomers might use -- tracked the periodic dimming of light from a bright star 500 light-years away that found this latest planet is part of a network of modest instruments called the Trans-Atlantic Exoplanet Survey, known as TrES.

deagleninja · 2004-08-25 11:07:56

GCN- let me ask you this: In a family of four, does it make more sense to throw away the sedan when you buy a SUV, or is it better to just give/sell it to one of the teenagers? (and don't say you would use it as a trade in cause you cant trade in the HST for JWST )

I always value your opinions GCNRevenger, as they are educated and provide excellent arguements that one may face. However, in this case, I feel Spacenut is correct. You have a an enormous feild of scientists all struggling to get some time with instruments like HST. Many wait years for a chance to prove or disprove something simply because there is only one Hubble.

But, as you say, ground-based telescopes are nearing a point where they rival the HST. If the time should come when HST is no longer the leader in the feild of visible light astronomy, then yes, I painfully agree that it then makes little sense to spend that kind of money on HST. My point is, and as you have also stated, this is years away if it happens.

Ok, now to some of your recent statements. When I made the comment about HST being serviced for millions, not billions, I was speaking of future servicing missions using the same robot. I believe the cost of the rocket it needs to launch on is in the neighborhood of 60 million. Of coarse you need a room and staff to perform the telerobotics from so you are probably looking at about 200 million for a servicing mission every two years or so. Does this not seem reasonable to you?

As for the eventual death of Hubble due to irreplacable parts or damage in orbit, you have a point. There are parts to Hubble that no robot constructed in this decade would be able to repair. But this is why Hubble was designed to fit inside the shuttle, so it could be carried back. I am not going to launch into another angry spectacle of why the ISS is junk not worthy of a shuttle mission and Hubble isn't. Suffice it to say, I feel NASA is being damned stupid.

Bringing Hubble back to Earth and updating its hardware will eventually be needed if the HST is to stay the leader in optical astronomy, but this doesn't appear to be in the cards. I can't explain the decisions of NASA, because I don't understand them. They seem content to waste good money on projects with no obvious benefit, and yet decide to 'tighten their belts' when it comes to productive equipment.

In short, why is it worth 1.5B to save Hubble for the next few years?

Hubble is a tried and true workhorse. Its flaws have been dealt with. A new telescope is going to take at least a year to callibrate and test, even if everything works perfectly.

Allowing Hubble to deorbit or just plain die means years of science and progress lost before the JWST is up and hopefully ready, and a gap of who-knows-how-many years before another telescope working in visible light is put up.

Even allowing that a telescope of Hubble's abilities is up and running while the HST is operational, you still have an incredible need for more like Hubble. Our scientists don't have the tools they need to do science. This is unexceptable.

SpaceNut · 2004-08-25 11:13:23

If I recall correctly there was some discussion on the safety margin for bring Hubble bad in the cargo bay of the shuttle fully intact. Not sure if this was a report or not. I feel to lessen that effect you might remove Items to lower the weight some, in order to increase the safety margin.

John Creighton · 2004-08-25 11:16:00

I wonder what ever happened to the option of using a space tug to toe the Hubble over to the ISS for repairs.

deagleninja · 2004-08-25 11:18:39

John, I think the spacetug is still in development stage.

SpaceNut · 2004-08-25 11:34:00

Space Tug to NASA's Hubble Space Telescope's Rescue?
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=10083

http://www.orbitalrecovery.com/

08.20.03.SLES.Hubble.2.jpg

GCNRevenger · 2004-08-25 13:52:03

If the old family station waggon has a fatal flaw that will make it undriveable soon and cost as much to fix as it would to buy a second SUV, if it can be fixed at all, then yeah I would definatly throw it away. Even better, it will throw itself away.

And any service mission will cost a bit more than $200M... Hubble is a large and heavy object with its glass & metal mirror, heavy gyros, batteries, and optics equipment. A small vehicle able to ride on a Delta-II will not be large enough to hold the equipment or fuel needed for an HST mission, and you will need an Atlas-V or Delta-IV at least, talking around $150M just for the launcher. And the robot itself, it will certainly cost many million of dollars per copy even with no development. And then you must plan and integrate the mission hardware, and replacement parts built... No, I think it will cost several times that for any mission even with no vehicle development costs.

A Shuttle mission is not going to happen... why? It doesn't really matter, it is essentialy a done-deal now. Shuttle can't recover HST easily anyway, as it is too heavy without cutting off big pieces most likly and you would have to pay for a second trip up to replace it. And the year or two or three it would be between recovery and re-launch would be wasted.

In short, Hubble is not ever going to get any more than fresh solar/batteries and new cameras... therefore, its old and past-life vital componets that cannot be serviced on orbit cannot be fixed. This will limit HST to only a few more years, if that, past any service mission of any kind mounted by 2007. You want to spend 1.5Bn to fix the old stationwaggon that is going to break again in a few years anyway?

"Hubble is a tried and true workhorse"

Yes, yes it is. But a half-working Hubble + Service Robot Vehicle is not. A new telescope, you can test in its completed form on the ground before it ever gets to the launch pad.

"But, as you say, ground-based telescopes are nearing a point where they rival the HST."

The time when ground-based telescopes with adaptive optics can surpass Hubble is closer than you think, we are almost there already, and with how fast the technology has developed it is essentialy a sure thing that this capability will be achieved by the end of this decade... likly only a few years after HST loses attitude/power/command on its own, and the greater light gathering power will put HST's grainy images to shame.

"years of science and progress lost before the JWST is up and hopefully ready, and a gap of who-knows-how-many years before another telescope working in visible light is put up"

Really? Why would their progress be lost? No, it would just be postponed... the stars are still going to be there tomorrow, and they will still be there in 2014. When ground based telescopes reach that level of clarity, then anyone with a 8-digit science grant can make a scope' as good as HST.

"Our scientists don't have the tools they need to do science. This is unexceptable."

Well i'm ever so sorry, but as it stands now, money for any type of research is tight, and a question of cost vs bennefit must be asked. Why is astronomy deserving of this money rather than another program? Why should Hubble get this money? Especially when the same results can be obtained for the same money, and the instrument will be much more capable and last much longer? Or that the money will be wasted if HST's unfixables give out or the repair robot fails? Or when HST becomes obsolete in only a few years after it will likly fail?

A hiatus of only a half dozen years between HST failure and its capabilities replaced is not worth the $2Bn, money which is not available except by drastic cuts to other NASA science missions, on a risky proposition to fix HST for a little bit longer.

The answer to the cost/bennefit analysis of the fix/no-fix question is obvious...

Euler · 2004-08-25 13:55:10

If the time should come when HST is no longer the leader in the feild of visible light astronomy, then yes, I painfully agree that it then makes little sense to spend that kind of money on HST. My point is, and as you have also stated, this is years away if it happens.

I think that this has already happened. The VLT telescope, despite not being at "full power" yet, is already making measurements that Hubble is not sensitive enough to make. Certainly in terms of resolution or light gathering power, VLT has a substantial advantage. The twin Keck telescopes are pretty formidable and arguably superior to Hubble. The next two years will also see the inauguration of the Large Binocular Telescope, Gran Telescopio Canarias, and South African Large Telescope, all of which should be at least competitive with Hubble.

Still, Hubble does still have a few advantages. It is still the best UV telescope we have. It can also be pointed at almost any place in the sky at any time, and it can stay pointed at the same place for days at a time.

Grypd · 2004-08-25 16:03:42

There is an arquement in the science community, a rather vocal section hate manned space flight and point to the hubble and the mars rovers as being the best that man can get. This is not progress. The Hubble has done an amazing job but it is failing it has reached its age limit but do we really wish to keep it going knowing that this would stop us having the funds to send the Hubble 2 up. As long as there is a Hubble limping along then there will be no way that we can send a replacement into orbit. This is the way the political process works if we have something that works even if very poorly but can be maintained then no replacement will be given funds. Only if we can say the hubble is finished lets get a replacement will it happen. Of course using Skylab as a reference Skylab was to be put into a higher orbit by the new super duper SHUTTLE it turned up years too late and sucked up the funds to do the basic rescue. That is reality and no getting round it we are likely to spend all this money on the robot to fix the Hubble only to be delayed and delayed, till a solar flare causes the Earths atmosphere to draw the Hubble down, and there is no funds for its replacement.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#201 2004-08-24 04:33:46

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#202 2004-08-24 05:59:48

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#203 2004-08-24 06:54:39

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#204 2004-08-24 09:14:37

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#205 2004-08-24 10:36:04

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#206 2004-08-24 13:22:49

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#207 2004-08-24 13:36:49

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#208 2004-08-24 14:04:42

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#209 2004-08-24 14:16:54

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#210 2004-08-24 17:40:35

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#211 2004-08-25 03:53:25

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#212 2004-08-25 05:50:24

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#213 2004-08-25 07:40:08

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#214 2004-08-25 08:09:29

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#215 2004-08-25 09:38:28

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#216 2004-08-25 09:42:48

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#217 2004-08-25 10:37:40

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#218 2004-08-25 11:07:56

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#219 2004-08-25 11:13:23

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#220 2004-08-25 11:16:00

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#221 2004-08-25 11:18:39

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#222 2004-08-25 11:34:00

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#223 2004-08-25 13:52:03

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#224 2004-08-25 13:55:10

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#225 2004-08-25 16:03:42

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

Board footer