Hubble mistake - Action needed

Palomar · 2004-12-10 08:02:25

*Here we go again.

Latest news from NASA is that they prefer sending astronauts to repair Hubble as opposed to robotic repair.

Maybe they should just pick straws.

--Cindy

::EDIT:: You know what I think? I think they're just stalling for time. Until Hubble is absolutely beyond any sort of repair and they can do the "oh, tsk-tsk; we're too late now, woe is us" routine.

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-10 09:05:30

Thats plausable. NASA saw the PR disaster of of "just throwing away!" the beloved Hubble in the "recycle = good" world and aren't at all serious about going up to fix it.

How would you react to O'Keefe getting on TV and saying that everybodies' favorite spacecraft is worthless and he's orderd that it just be thrown away? ...that is, if you didn't know better that fixing it was a terrible idea.

Plus, NASA might get more money out of congress for their trouble, which they won't be giving back.

Or, NASA earnestly does want to fix Hubble, but there is no practical way to do it in light of the pragmatic analysis of alternatives.

Palomar · 2004-12-10 09:30:27

...O'Keefe getting on TV and saying that everybodies' favorite spacecraft is worthless...

*Laying aside the "should it/shouldn't it?" debate for a moment:

GCN, why do you consider Hubble as worthless and obsolete?

It is still returning good, hard science. How can that be "worthless" and "obsolete"?

Again: Laying aside the primary debate here.

Why do you feel this way? Just wondering.

--Cindy

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-10 09:49:18

Just read past posts in this very thread... a synopsis:

-The main reason Hubble was built, that ground-based telescopes have poor resolution due to atmospheric interfereance, is no longer true. Thanks to adaptive optics invented for spy satelites, ground-based telescopes can now offer similar or superior power to HST for a fraction of the cost. Several such telescopes are being built or planned right now.

-No practical HST repair will extend the life of the telescope by more then a few years; many componets cannot be replaced on orbit and will fail pretty soon. One of the cameras that failed recently was due to a power supply problem, not a camera fault. Hubble is OLD, there is no way around this.

-An entirely new space telescope or a pair of smaller ones could be built for as much or less money then any useful repair mission to Hubble, and would be of comperable or superior performance. Such telescopes would last for years longer, and could be placed in a more favorable high orbit. The SIRTF telescope was planned, built, and launched for only $450M, even following years of delays and redesign.

-No mission except a Shuttle mission, which I feel is an excessive risk now that we know the TPS is so fragile, has a good chance of sucess. Estimated risk of a robot's mission failure is in the 50-66% range, given the small amount of time between now and when Hubble loses attitude control and is lost to us.

Although the best course of action isn't clear, one thing is... that fixing Hubble is simply not a good investment.

Palomar · 2004-12-10 10:06:00

Just read past posts in this very thread

*Re-read through 21 pages and 303 posts?? I stand corrected. :-\ [I'm pretty much a stickler for "figure it out for yourself" as well, but that's a rather tall order on a workday morning...or anytime. ]

I had a general idea of your opposition, but was curious for a more down-to-the-nails statement...which you graciously provided in your synopsis.

Thank you.

As to your 1st point: Yes. Palomar's adaptive optics come to mind.

Your 3rd point is excellent.

::sigh::

Good points all around. I just hope, though, that they hurry up with replacement(s) -- *optical* -- which JWST isn't.

Thanks again.

--Cindy

SpaceNut · 2004-12-10 10:56:47

Yes these are all great things that have been done to further the use of ground based telescopes but what of all the old units. Have there sites all been bull dozered to make way for these brand new units.. In a word no. There role and work has changed and even possibly lessened. Why should space telescopes be any different?

edit:
News article that proports the possibility and impact of doing a single mission for the michoud plant.
Michoud cheers support for space shuttle Panel backs manned flights

Each 154-foot-long tank costs about $43 million and takes about 18 months to build.
Under a space plan crafted by President Bush in the wake of the shuttle Columbia tragedy, NASA is expected to retire the current shuttle fleet in 2010, once they complete the 25 to 30 trips needed to finish construction of the international space station.
Each of those trips would require a fuel tank from Michoud. But work building the tanks could end before then because NASA has a backlog of seven tanks. Another 12 tanks are in various stages of completion.

RobertDyck · 2004-12-10 11:52:36

Latest news from NASA is that they prefer sending astronauts to repair Hubble as opposed to robotic repair.

Yea! It should be saved and the best way to do it is a manned Shuttle mission. Those opponents should realize this is recognized by everyone as the last service mission.

Dook · 2004-12-10 12:01:14

Originally I was opposed to saving the hubble but GCN has convinced me. The JST will soon replace it and be better. Plus if we don't need the space shuttle to fix hubble then we can eliminate it all together.

Wonder what NASA would then do with the extra $7 billion a year?

RobertDyck · 2004-12-10 12:06:00

Wonder what NASA would then do with the extra $7 billion a year?

You make that sound like $7 billion per year for Hubble. That isn't so. If you're talking about Shuttle, they need it to finish ISS. I've talked about completing ISS other ways, but they all require work and any NASA people I've mentioned it to don't want to hear any separation of Shuttle/ISS.

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-10 12:47:03

Yea! It should be saved

Oh? Why?

RobertDyck · 2004-12-10 13:39:00

The James Webb Space Telescope is strictly infrared. There's a lot of science HST can do that JWST cannot, and we don't know when JWST will be launched. Since JWST will be parked in L2 it can't be serviced by any spacecraft that we have. If something goes wrong like Hubble, we can't fix it. In that sense HST is the safety cover-your-ass option. Lastly, ground based telescopes are a lot better now, but they can't do everything Hubble can.

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-10 13:55:24

The James Webb Space Telescope is strictly infrared. There's a lot of science HST can do that JWST cannot, and we don't know when JWST will be launched. Since JWST will be parked in L2 it can't be serviced by any spacecraft that we have. If something goes wrong like Hubble, we can't fix it. In that sense HST is the safety cover-your-ass option. Lastly, ground based telescopes are a lot better now, but they can't do everything Hubble can.

This is true, I am not comparing HST to JWST.

Why is it a bad thing that the telescope can't be serviced? A repair mission would cost more then the telescope did. Just build a new one instead. The chance that the telescope will work for its design life is pretty good, but the risk the repair mission would work is not so good unless it is designed with that in mind, which would drive up development costs.

Fixing Hubble is not any such "backup" option as Hubble will likly be at the end of its life even with a repair mission by the time JWST is sent up.

"ground based telescopes are a lot better now, but they can't do everything Hubble can."

Is what Hubble can do that ground-based superscopes important? Is it worth the money to repair HST? Is it even worth building a dedicated space telescope to that purpose?

GraemeSkinner · 2004-12-10 14:04:08

"Earlier I had put forth the concept of canabolizing it while in orbit..."
Astronauts have enough trouble getting the doors on Hubble to shut tightly, much less dismantle the thing on orbit. This is impossible.

Gaffer tape, lots and lots of sticky gaffer tape...

Seriously though, the longer they take to decide what to do with Hubble, the more I think its going to burn up and die - shame in my view.

Graeme

**This thread is now over the 300 mark, perhaps we should start another before this one goes pop**

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-10 14:14:51

Chances are good that, barring repair mission, Hubble will either lose all attitude control or lose power by the end of 2007. Certainly by mid 2008... If Hubble loses either one, it will enter a slow spin, and be impossible to dock with.

If you did go up and fix HST by the end of 2007, then it would probobly fail again by 2009-2010.

Maybe NASA is stalling and waiting for it to fail.

GraemeSkinner · 2004-12-10 14:26:31

Maybe NASA is stalling and waiting for it to fail.

I don't want to be a pessimist, but thats what it looks like, and it would be very convenient - they just have to spend lots of time talking about it until its too late to do anything to save, then its not their fault that it burns up and they save money.

Graeme

Dook · 2004-12-11 07:00:19

I don't want to lose hubble but if it means keeping the space shuttle just for that then I see no choice.

Also if NASA wants to keep the shuttle just for ISS, tough! ISS is giving us almost nothing. It's just another hubble without pictures.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#301 2004-12-10 08:02:25

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#302 2004-12-10 09:05:30

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#303 2004-12-10 09:30:27

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#304 2004-12-10 09:49:18

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#305 2004-12-10 10:06:00

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#306 2004-12-10 10:56:47

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#307 2004-12-10 11:52:36

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#308 2004-12-10 12:01:14

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#309 2004-12-10 12:06:00

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#310 2004-12-10 12:47:03

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#311 2004-12-10 13:39:00

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#312 2004-12-10 13:55:24

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#313 2004-12-10 14:04:08

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#314 2004-12-10 14:14:51

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#315 2004-12-10 14:26:31

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#316 2004-12-11 07:00:19

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

Board footer