Hubble mistake - Action needed

Palomar · 2004-01-24 06:48:17

*U.S. citizens can write their representatives and express their support for keeping Hubble alive by going to Google, typing in "write my representatives" (without the quotation marks of course), and hitting Search. Links will be returned which will direct you how to e-mail your gov't representatives either by e-mail or street address.

As for our many international participants here, I don't know what route you can take in this regard beyond contacting your local politicans as well.

--Cindy

Mundaka · 2004-01-24 17:39:59

Palomar · 2004-01-24 22:45:57

(BTW, did you go to NMSU, and if so, did you ever go talk to Prof Tombaugh?)

*Hi Mundaka:

No, I was never a student of NMSU nor did I ever met Prof. Tombaugh (I'm also not originally from this area).

There is a church down the road (Unitarian, if I recall correctly) he attended, which has a big stained glass window in honor of him on the front of the building, depicting astronomical scenes, etc. Very pretty.

If ever I did cross paths with him (completely possible, I suppose), I didn't recognize him as distinct from any other elderly gentleman.

--Cindy

Shaun Barrett · 2004-01-25 02:39:49

Just jumping in here without having done much research into what's been said already, so if I'm needlessly repeating stuff, just ignore me.

The statement by the Steering Committee of The Mars Society, made in response to President Bush's space initiative, makes specific mention of the Hubble and urges NASA not to scrap it.
They mention also that there are new instruments already made for it and that scrapping it now would save about 1% of its total cost and deprive us of maybe 90% of the science! A very bad decision which needs to be overturned.

Mundaka · 2004-01-25 13:13:54

Palomar · 2004-01-29 11:29:24

[=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3437309.stm]Save the Hubble campaign soars

[http://www.savethehubble.com/]savethehubble.com

--Cindy

clark · 2004-01-29 11:49:49

Let Hubble die.

There are technical reasons, related to operation of the Shuttle, and the entire Shuttle fleet, that prevent us from saving Hubble. Yes, it would be nice to continue it's life. Yes, Hubble has been valuable. No, Hubble is not worth the extra risk and cost that will be neccessary to prolong its life.

In order to service the Hubble with a Shuttle, we need to have another Shuttle on stand-by. This is a requirement of the CAIB. In order to service the Hubble with a Shuttle, the Shuttle must be equipped with the ability for on-orbit repairs. As of now, we are not quite sure if this is possible, or if it would work assuming we could develop the means. If we don't have this capability, then the only destination the Shuttle is vetted to go is ISS.

The Shuttle needs to complete the ISS. That's its role from now on. It needs to complete the ISS with 25 more flights between 3 Shuttles. It needs to do all of this by 2010 so we can get on with some new exploration. Any extraneous shuttle missions should be cancelled, unless risking one of three remaining Shuttles, and another 7 astronauts is worth the risk. Is it? I certainly don't think so.

With all of that said, NASA should look at alternative methods for saving or prolonging the life of Hubble with a non-Shuttle mission. O'Keefe said that the Shuttle will not service Hubble, but that does not mean he would be adverse to other options.

Rxke · 2004-01-30 04:13:30

Much as I love Hubble, Clark is right. It's waaaay too expensive to service it by Shuttle, not to mention too dangerous. (Although that 'dangerous' could be argued about...)

A tug or Russian salvage/repair would be incredibly neat, though. It would be a crying shame to let a (working) piece of hardware with such a history burn up in our atmosphere.
I personally see Hubble as some kind of a monument that needs saving, if the cost isn't rediculously high... It would be a major advertisment board for a private company in the tug business to do just that: push it up into a retirement orbit, or better still, an 'active' orbit. Moving it to ISS is not practical, with current tech.

Anyway, looks like NASA won't be too keen to do the Shuttle thang: [http://www.spacedaily.com/2004/04012922 … l1rnl.html]spacedaily

Palomar · 2004-01-30 06:32:26

Much as I love Hubble, Clark is right. It's waaaay too expensive to service it by Shuttle, not to mention too dangerous. (Although that 'dangerous' could be argued about...)
A tug or Russian salvage/repair would be incredibly neat, though. It would be a crying shame to let a (working) piece of hardware with such a history burn up in our atmosphere.
I personally see Hubble as some kind of a monument that needs saving, if the cost isn't rediculously high... It would be a major advertisment board for a private company in the tug business to do just that: push it up into a retirement orbit, or better still, an 'active' orbit. Moving it to ISS is not practical, with current tech.
Anyway, looks like NASA won't be too keen to do the Shuttle thang: [http://www.spacedaily.com/2004/04012922 … l1rnl.html]spacedaily

*Rik, I respect your opinion because I believe -you- are genuinely concerned about space and related matters.

My thinking on this (yes, might be flawed) is:

Hubble's replacement, the James Webb Space Telescope, won't be launched until 2011.

[http://ngst.gsfc.nasa.gov/]JWST

The shuttle (which I will be happy to see retired) isn't scheduled to be retired until 2010. You mentioned "although that 'dangerous' could be argued about...'"

My point is that

a) since Hubble is still returning fantastic images and data
b) scientists have stated it has not yet reached its full potential
c) shuttle missions will resume regardless, so why not continue giving it this work to do (i.e. service the Hubble -- I'm not sure how often Hubble needs servicing but to the best of my knowledge it is -not- on a greatly frequent basis) since Hubble is already there?

If Hubble is allowed to be "let go," we have a 7-year wait until JWST is launched, set up and returning data. Hubble has been rated one of the greatest scientific instruments of all time.

This isn't simple nostaglia on my part, or "let's save Hubble at any cost!" I'm a bit more practical than that.

The shuttle missions will resume regardless (with attendant costs and risks); Hubble stays afloat; it's business as usual and why not get all you can for money already invested?

Is it -impossible- to perform services for ISS (it could be argued the Russians are currently doing just fine without the shuttle and have been for almost a year) and Hubble in one mission (ala "2 birds with 1 stone, more bang for your buck")?

Besides, the shuttle also services satellites.

Just some thoughts.

--Cindy

::EDIT:: Columbia was doing experiments on the influence of zero gravity on a certain specie of worm and meterological studies (among other things) before its accident, as have other shuttles. Since their tasks (missions) are multifaceted in nature, again...why -not- continue servicing Hubble? The nature of the shuttle -isn't- that it must come down immediately. And given all the science experiments, fixing other satellites, etc., these missions have done and likely will continue to do, it's doubtful the shuttle will ever be totally exclusive to ISS.

Again...just some thoughts.

Byron · 2004-01-30 07:01:53

My point is that
a) since Hubble is still returning fantastic images and data
b) scientists have stated it has not yet reached its full potential
c) shuttle missions will resume regardless, so why not continue giving it this work to do (i.e. service the Hubble -- I'm not sure how often Hubble needs servicing but to the best of my knowledge it is -not- on a greatly frequent basis) since Hubble is already there?
If Hubble is allowed to be "let go," we have a 7-year wait until JWST is launched, set up and returning data. Hubble has been rated one of the greatest scientific instruments of all time.

I agree. Truthfully, I'd rather see the ISS go down as opposed to the Hubble. But, hopefully there'll be a way to "have our cake and eat it too", by using the Shuttle to "finish" the ISS (it'll never really be finished, imo) and using a different vehicle to repair and/or tug Hubble to a higher orbit.

The Hubble Space Telescope has returned more scientific data per dollar spent than just about anything we've done in space...I say let's keep a good thing going...

B

Rxke · 2004-01-30 08:26:04

It just won't happen. CAIB insists the Shuttle to be able to reach ISS in case of a malfunction. Hubble's orbit does not allow that.

Cindy, to make sure: i *will* be heartbroken when (if) Hubble comes down, i do *not* want that to happen.
But if you have to choose between Hubble and losing another Shuttle...

A tug. With some spare propellant, to keep Hubble up (and maybe 'pointable') for a long while.
And a daring Soyuz mission, maybe accompagnied by a Progress, funded by the international science community, docking with that tug, repairing Hubble. Would be a great show...

(Keep dreaming, Rik!)
it *would* be cheaper than a Shuttle launch, though...

Rxke · 2004-01-30 08:35:53

About the repairing of sats on-orbit, that turned out to be too costly to be really worth the risks.

They still do it (did it) for Hubble, but you could argue it would be cheaper to make a set of Hubbles on a production line, and launch them cheaply, everytime the one in-orbit dies... upgrades would be implemented in every new Hubble that leaves the factory... (hmmm... you'd still need a shuttle for that, or are the next-gen launchers getting powerful enough, at last?)
Building series is cheaper than building one product. Maybe they'll do that with the Webb. I see people posting on /. asking to 'serialize' te Rovers, now that the tech seems mature, sell it to private enterprize or other countries, they add the scientific payload etc...

(I'm going to change my sig in 'a tug, a tug, my kingdom for a tug!' that way i won't have to keep yelling it over and over again)

Rxke · 2004-01-30 08:45:47

There's a discussion going on on /. about this. [http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl? … 160&tid=99]Nasa reviews Hubble plans I'm not going to get involved, because i've got modpoints, and i'll probably spend them there

Palomar · 2004-01-30 10:43:15

*::Sigh::

Plan B, I guess.

Rik, a similar article to the one you posted:

[http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s … ble_plea_5]Read Me

As I stated previously, I'm not in favor of "save Hubble at ANY cost"...however, IMO calling for its termination out of hand, like a flat death sentence, is not wise. Not if there are reasonably cost-effective and safe OPTIONS. When and if those options are exhausted or proven inefficient or whatever, well...

--Cindy

clark · 2004-01-30 11:11:53

Have any of those who want to save the Hubble looked at what is needed to do it? Do you understand the limitations of the Shuttle, of ISS missions serviced by the Shuttle, or what the CAIB report requires? Have you looked at the Shuttle schedule when it does finally resume flights?

I have.

Three of six gyros have failed. It needs at least three to remain functional. Scientists expect another 2-3 years of operation, until more gyros fail. They are currently exploring software fixes that may allow Hubble to survive on less than 3 gyros.

Hubble was designed to be serviced by astronauts. That means either a Shuttle goes, or we put Hubble near ISS. Right now there are concerns about changing the orbit of Hubble to the ISS becuase it might damage the lens due to the effects of the upper atmosphere. There is no possibility for a two for one deal where we send a Shuttle to the ISS and then the Hubble. They are on different planes, and require different fuel requirements. That means the Shuttle can either go to the ISS, or Hubble, not both. If it goes to the Hubble, it won't be able to go to ISS- that means if there is a porblem with the Shuttle that can't be fixed, we have to launch another Shuttle to go rescue the stranded astronauts (which would have the same risk of failure as the Shuttle they are rescuing).
If we lose a Shuttle servicing the Hubble, that means we only have TWO remaining Shuttle's by which to complete the ISS.

May I remind you that the Shuttle is the only vehicle that can be used to finsih the ISS. There are no other options at this time.

In order to even consider sending a Shuttle to Hubble, the CAIB report requires that the Shuttle have the capability for on-orbit inspection, and repair to any damage to the tiles of the orbiter. We don't know if we can do this, and we don't need to do it if we only go to the ISS.

So in order to even consider sending a Shuttle to Hubble, we would have to spend money, time, and resources on developing a way to fix a Shuttle for ONE mission, and for a vehichle that we plan to retire in 6 years. Is this a wise investment of limited funds?

The next 8 Shuttle missions are solely for ISS construction- the ninth was to be for the Hubble. That ninth mission will now be another ISS mission, which will further us towards completion of ISS. When ISS is complete, we can retire the SHuttle, and get the hell out of LEO.

Hubble is a magnificient observatory. It has produced stunning pictures and expanded our horizons in countless ways. But the Hubble is not our entire space mission, and it certainly isn't our only observatory. It's not worth a half billion dollar flight, using a fragile multi-billion dollar Shuttle, and risking the lives of more astronauts, and jepordizing the completion of our hundred billion dollar ISS.

Palomar · 2004-01-30 11:27:23

Hubble is a magnificient observatory. It has produced stunning pictures and expanded our horizons in countless ways. But the Hubble is not our entire space mission, and it certainly isn't our only observatory.

*No kidding.

I did mention the fact that I look forward to the shuttle being retired.

Also, that I'm all for getting out of LEO (obviously...next stop, Mars!).

Also, that I'm -not- for "save the Hubble" at any cost. And as Byron points out, ISS likely will "never truly be finished."

But neither of those will occur until around the time Hubble would be "naturally" retired anyway.

Can a non-astronautic Plan B be developed, ala robotic tug or something along that line? But then there's the issue of maintenance.

I don't think at least -considering- cost-effective, safe options is unreasonable before the gavel comes down.

But if the only truly reasonable alternative is to let Hubble "go"...well... ::shrugs:: I guess it would have to be.

--Cindy

clark · 2004-01-30 11:40:14

The only realisitic solution is to try and get Hubble near the ISS, but that has it's own problems. Hubble needs people to fix it- robots can't do it.

We could try a solution to save it only to find that our actions damage the telescope (by moving it).

I guess I get incensed by all this noise about saving Hubble. If we want NASA to succeed, then we should give it the room to make decisions like this. Constantly second guessing them only puts further strain on their decision making.

Where is the real scientific argument for extending Hubble's life for a few more years? We could spend the same time and energy upgrading earth based telescopes, or developing a new replacement to Hubble for the future. Any way you look at it, Hubble is dead once the Shuttle is retired. At that point, there pretty much is no way to fix it again in the future.

As you point out Cindy, the sooner we can retire the Shuttle, the sooner we can get towards Mars.

Now, isn't that worth more than any colorized photo from Hubble?

Palomar · 2004-01-30 12:10:39

As you point out Cindy, the sooner we can retire the Shuttle, the sooner we can get towards Mars.
Now, isn't that worth more than any colorized photo from Hubble?

*I might be able to have my cake and eat it too, in a way...

James Webb Space Telescope is next to go up; I'm counting on enjoying photos from it in "Astronomy" magazine while tuning into the televised first manned landing on Mars.

--Cindy

John Creighton · 2004-01-30 12:16:04

I agree with Clark. Save the Hubble if it is feasible but if it?s not let it burn. The NASA engineers need to make their decisions on a technical basis and not a political basis. After all this investment the international space station must be finished. How, much risk is there of this not happening because of an extra mission to service the Hubble.

Palomar · 2004-01-30 12:33:41

I agree with Clark. Save the Hubble if it is feasible but if it?s not let it burn.

*Thank you John.

I can't help wondering if you've read the posts of others here as well.

I rather think that's my ultimate position (after a bit of extended debate), but whatever...

--Cindy

jadeheart · 2004-01-30 14:17:23

The NASA engineers need to make their decisions on a technical basis and not a political basis. After all this investment the international space station must be finished

Interesting you should say this, as it's been my impression that the reason we're finishing ISS is a political one-- we have to honor our commitments to our ISS partner nations.

As someone else stated here, a shuttle mission for repairing hubble would give a better scientific return on the investment than a mission to ISS. However, if it can't be done then it can't be done. No need to risk any more lives over it.

Funny thing though. How are they going to deorbit it now that they can't send a shuttle mission to attach a deorbiting device (see "$300 million to destroy hubble" thread from november)? Hmmm.

I still have hope for the tug mentioned in the November thread. [http://www.spacedaily.com/news/rocketscience-03zzn.html]Link

Unfortunately they aren't calling for a first flight of the thing until '07.

John Creighton · 2004-02-02 13:38:03

Interesting you should say this, as it's been my impression that the reason we're finishing ISS is a political one-- we have to honor our commitments to our ISS partner nations.

Consider economics as part of the technical basis. I don't think any government wants to write off the cost of the ISS.

Funny thing though. How are they going to deorbit it now that they can't send a shuttle mission to attach a deorbiting device (see "$300 million to destroy hubble" thread from november)? Hmmm.

I was wondering about this.

John Creighton · 2004-02-05 11:59:29

For the benefit of those not on the mars society mailing list:

A Letter from an Astronomer
Feb. 3, 2004
For further information about the Mars Society, visit our website at
[http://www.marssociety.org]www.marssociety.org.
Since the start of the Mars Society's mobilization to defend Hubble,
we have been deluged with letters thanking us for our stand. With the
permission of the author, I decided to publish the one below, as it
contains important technical information that provides valuable
ammunition for those making the scientific case to save the space
telescope.
A special expert panel laying out the scientific and programmatic
necessity for saving Hubble will be included in the agenda of the 7th
International Mars Society Convention, to be held Aug 19-22 2004 at
the Palmer House Hilton, Chicago IL. Registration is now open at the
Mars Society website.
The letter follows.
Dear Dr. Zubrin;
I would first like to applaud the Mars Society's stance on HST. I am
one of many astronomers who first became interested in the science
through the exploration of the solar system and dreams of a human
future in space. Many of my colleagues are rabid supporters of human
spaceflight and the push to go to Mars. I myself traveled to
Hanksville , Utah with Jon Wiley and identified the area as a
candidate site for MDRS. You have many supporters in the astronomical
community who would agree with the statements in this newsletter.
I would like to emphasize one point which does not seem to find its
way into any of the arguments in support of HST, even from
astronomers well versed in the relevant technical issues. Much has
been made of the gap of five or six years between he projected demise
of HST and the planned launch of JWST, and the science lost in that
period of time. The loss is actually much greater.
The label "Next Generation Space Telescope" for JWST is misleading.
JWST is not a successor to HST. If anything, it is a succesor to the
recently launched Spitzer Space Telescope. It is entirely an infrared
instrument, and its capabilities overlap only slightly with those of
HST. Except for specialized, program-driven missions, the loss of HST
will mean the end of optical and UV astronomy in space for much of
the astronomical community. JWST will not be able to observe in these
regions of the spectrum.
Optical astronomy is still the largest segment of the community, and
provides the majority of our information about the local universe. I
do not wish to denigrate JWST. I work closely with one of the co-
investigators on its near-IR camera and do a great deal of public
outreach in connection with it. JWST will do exciting science, but it
is not the same science that HST is capable of doing. Abandoning HST
is not a temporary inconvenience, but rather a permanent and
crippling loss to astronomy. I hope that this point enters public
debate over the fate of the servicing mission.
Again, thank you for all of your efforts,
Patrick Young
Steward Observatory
Tucson, AZ
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better
than not to think at all. To teach superstitions as truth is a most
terrible thing."
-Hypatia, Librarian of Alexandria (circa 400 AD)
_
Note by RZ; Young's citation of Hypatia in conjunction with the
threat to Hubble is interesting. Hypatia was the last of the great
classical neoplatonic philosopher mathematicians. She was murdered by
a mob of religious fanatics in 415 AD, an act which closed the career
of ancient science. The destruction of the Library of Alexandria
followed.
For further information about the Mars Society, visit our website at
[http://www.marssociety.org]www.marssociety.org.

John Creighton · 2004-02-05 12:03:40

Whether or not the Hubble is saved I would hate to see such a setback to optical astronomy. How would the cost launching another optical telescope aboard an unmanned vehicle compare with the cost of saving the Hubble. If another telescope is launched what is a reasonable time frame for such a launch.

Rxke · 2004-02-07 11:59:13

interesting: leaked documents say it is not a question of danger but a question of politics:

[http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/07/scien … ner=GOOGLE]NYT no-subscription article

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2004-01-24 06:48:17

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#27 2004-01-24 17:39:59

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#28 2004-01-24 22:45:57

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#29 2004-01-25 02:39:49

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#30 2004-01-25 13:13:54

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#31 2004-01-29 11:29:24

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#32 2004-01-29 11:49:49

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#33 2004-01-30 04:13:30

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#34 2004-01-30 06:32:26

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#35 2004-01-30 07:01:53

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#36 2004-01-30 08:26:04

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#37 2004-01-30 08:35:53

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#38 2004-01-30 08:45:47

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#39 2004-01-30 10:43:15

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#40 2004-01-30 11:11:53

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#41 2004-01-30 11:27:23

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#42 2004-01-30 11:40:14

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#43 2004-01-30 12:10:39

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#44 2004-01-30 12:16:04

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#45 2004-01-30 12:33:41

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#46 2004-01-30 14:17:23

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#47 2004-02-02 13:38:03

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#48 2004-02-05 11:59:29

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#49 2004-02-05 12:03:40

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#50 2004-02-07 11:59:13

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

Board footer