Finally, a sensible solution to the Hubble debate - ... that we can all agree on...maybe.

Commodore · 2005-02-02 17:46:41

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.htm … stronomers urge Congress to continue Hubble Science - Johns Hopkins-led team presents new option

The Hubble Origins Probe

Intended to replicate and to improve upon the design of the Hubble Space Telescope, the Hubble Origins Probe offers an option that is low on risk yet high on scientific returns, according to Norman, principal investigator for the team that also includes Johns Hopkins astronomers Holland Ford, Warren Moos and Tim Heckman.
For instance, HOP would make use of instruments - the Cosmic Origins Spectograph (COS) and the Wide Field Camera 3 (WFC3) - originally built to be installed on Hubble during its fourth service mission. In addition, it would include a new Very Wide-Field Imager that would "greatly enhance the original science mission of Hubble," Norman testified.
That Very Wide-Field Imager, slated to be built in collaboration with Japanese partners who will underwrite the cost, will allow scientists to map the heavens more than 20 times faster than even a refurbished Hubble Space Telescope could, Norman said. What's more, the new Japanese camera will be open for use by the worldwide astronomical community based on a peer review system in the same way that all Hubble instruments have been.
Norman told the committee that it would take an estimated 65 months and $1 billion to launch HOP, which he stated would continue and even expand upon the flow of science and discovery that has made the original Hubble Space Telescope a "national treasure."

For more info: http://www.pha.jhu.edu/hop/]Hubble Origins Probe

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-02 17:52:48

Something like this, either with using the spare Hubble mirror or a new folding one, is the only sane option for UV/Vis space-based astronomy. Launch the thing into a higher orbit too if possible, or at least include much heavier-duty gyros/batteries.

The next question, is do we even need a space telescope with adaptive optics coming of age?

SpaceNut · 2005-02-02 21:12:47

Here are a few more articles:
[url=http://www.jhu.edu/news_info/news/home05/feb05/hop.html] Astronomers Urge Congress to Continue Hubble Science
Johns Hopkins-led team presents new option[/url]

LtlPhysics · 2005-02-02 23:54:25

The Hubble buzz reminds me of the Balkans. Everyone living there had their own map of the place.

http://www.space.com/adastra/adastra_hu … 50128.html

That proposal would require the creation of a tug, a vehicle the Earth needs anyway. Who knows where that might lead?

PurduesUSAFguy · 2005-02-03 00:19:21

The entire Hubble debate is strictly PR and emotion. There are now ground based telescopes with more under construction that surpass hubbles resolution. Adaptive optics, as GCNR stated will fruther reduce the Hubbles relevence.

I'm glad they killed the service mission, the money is beter spent on the James Webb space telescope that will be replacing the Hubble.

SpaceNut · 2005-02-03 03:20:32

This Hubble though as it is named is really a new one to be placed into space.

Hubble Origins Probe

The Hubble Origins Probe (HOP) is a proposed 2.4 meter free flying space telescope.The HOP concept is to replicate the design of the Hubble Space Telescope with a much lighter unaberrated mirror and optical telescope assembly, enabling a rapid path to launch, significant cost savings and risk mitigation. HOP will fly the instruments originally planned for the 4th HST servicing mission as well as a new very wide field imager, enhancing the original science mission of Hubble.

SpaceNut · 2005-02-03 05:29:52

Hubble II ???

Cost Estimate page

item discription FY04 $M
1 Spacecraft 190
2 DeOrbit Module    12
3 Optical Telescope Assembly 242
4 science Instrument Modifications    35
5 Science Instrument Integration    12
6 Fine Guidance Sensors    63
7 Space Vehicle Integration & Test 115
Subtotal 667
30% Contingency 174
8 Atlas 521 Launch Vehicle 150
Total 991

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-03 05:57:38

To put it lightly, I have "very little faith" that this private super ion tug could be built in less then two years or so, and if it requires orbital assembly then it is going to have to fight for room on one of the near-term ISS flights... isn't going to happen.

I am reassured though that nobody in congress or the white house is putting stock in the robot repair option anymore.

Building Hubble-II and putting it into LEO for easy servicing is the singular stupid reason we are in this mess. The main two things that limit Hubble-I's lifespan are battery life and high gyro loading, plus even 400km up Hubble gets nontrivial interference and accelerated ageing from the oxygen in the atmosphere.

A new telescope should be placed at a Lagrange point instead, where the telescope is almost continually in sunlight and doesn't need the rapid and continuous attitude change as it would tightly circling the Earth. It is also a much cleaner environment then LEO, no oxygen to corrode componets or gasses to disrupt spectroscopy. Oh, and you don't have the Earth obscuring about 1/5th of your orbit either.

Edit: A thirty percent contingency... thats pretty good.

Ad Astra · 2005-02-03 09:11:22

I support "Son of Hubble" 110 percent. I see no need to risk human lives and the entire manned space program over a telescope, but I'd also like to see the science continue if the robots are deemed unable to to the job.

Hubble II might not look like Hubble I, and I'm perfectly fine with that. Hubble I was based on the KH-11 spy sat, which is long out of production. It might be cheaper to adapt a current generation spy sat into Hubble II, as long as the unflown Hubble instruments could be integrated.

Ideally, the telescope would be in a much higher orbit, but Hubble was placed in a lower orbit so the shuttle could reach it. An expendible telscope that has no chance of being serviced should fly in a higher orbit and take better pictures.

I've also heard that folding optics would make it possible to launch a Hubble replacement on board a Pegasus-class rocket. Maybe this is a technology we should look towards when replacing Hubble.

If Hubble II is the same size as Hubble I, it will need a Delta IV-Heavy or similar booster. Depending on the telescope's orbit, it may require something even bigger, like an SDV. When NASA studied the Magnum booster, a space telescope mission was a reference mission. With Hubble II and Mars providing equal justification, maybe NASA will decide to by an HLLV after all.

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-03 09:30:09

Fit on a Pegasus? Not a chance. The cameras alone would take up much of the payload.

The LEO "Hubble-II" option that Johns Hopkins is pushing would be a little lighter then Hubble-I probobly, and they think it would be light enough to fly on an Atlas-V 521.

In order to get a telescope as heavy as Hubble-II up to Lagrange, then yeah a Delta-IV HLV (~27MT) or Delta-IV+ (~40MT) would be required.

Or another option, insert the thing into LEO on a single-core EELV, then push it to Lagrange with an attached ion engine.

Using an SDV or other HLLV would be overkill with any configuration.

dicktice · 2005-02-03 11:25:53

GCNR wrote: A new telescope should be placed at a Lagrange point instead, where the telescope is almost continually in sunlight and doesn't need the rapid and continuous attitude change as it would tightly circling the Earth. It is also a much cleaner environment then LEO, no oxygen to corrode componets or gasses to disrupt spectroscopy. Oh, and you don't have the Earth obscuring about 1/5th of your orbit either.
My query: Has anything ever been launched to be situated at a Lagrange point? I can't recall and am too impatient to search (for what?) to find out. If yes, what result(s)? If no, how about a test shot with a not-too-smart-but-responsively-similar-and-therefore-relatively-cheap "dummy telescope" before committing?

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-03 12:21:36

Hitting the LaGrange point is just a matter of physics, its pretty easy. Just make sure that the english/metric conversions are done correctly.

I think that the SIRTF telescope is at a LaGrange point, if I am not mistaken.

It is probobly a bit easier to get there then it is Lunar orbit.

LtlPhysics · 2005-02-03 23:34:58

Hitting the LaGrange point is just a matter of physics, its pretty easy. Just make sure that the english/metric conversions are done correctly.

Ed Weiller tried to take the heat off NASA by commenting, to paraphrase, "Mars still has surprises for us," as if the metric/english fiasco was somehow the fault of Mars, and not human error.

What was NASA's experience with those poky Deep Space probes?

Austin Stanley · 2005-02-04 02:37:18

Well the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) is positioned at the Sun-Earth L1 (bettwen Earth and the Sun), and the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe is at Sun-Earth L2 (beyond the Earth and Sun). So putting someting in a LaGrange orbit is certianly possible. However, since the L1, L2, and L3 points are unstable some (moderate) stationkeeping is necessary. The Sun-Earth L2 point would be a great place to put a telescope since neither the Earth or the Moon would ever block your view, however it would take a bit of delta V to get there, since it is out beyond the orbit of the moon.

I'm not as sure about the utility of Earth-Moon LaGrange points. As far as I know, no satilite has ever utilised one.

dicktice · 2005-02-04 08:03:29

Well, based upon your (plural) replies, I wouldn't recommend building a telescope and sending it up to (whatever) LaGrange point, as a replacement for the Hubble, without a simulated one. And I'd do everything possible to keep the Hubble operational, and putting out its kind of imagery, until something better is in place and operational. And even then, continue to operate it singly, as well as in parallel with the replacement instrument, as long as it can be made to work. Think what we have learned since it was fixed. The thing is priceless.

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-04 09:37:33

I'd do everything possible to keep the Hubble operational, and putting out its kind of imagery, until something better is in place and operational. And even then, continue to operate it singly, as well as in parallel with the replacement instrument, as long as it can be made to work. Think what we have learned since it was fixed. The thing is priceless.

Absolutely not! Hubble is not priceless.

There is only enough money and justification for one large billion dollar UV/Vis space telescope. One or the other, not both, squeezing the money out of Congress or bleeding another pint from other NASA programs for two projects isn't going to happen. UV/Vis superhigh performance astronomy is just not that important.

If you have read even a fraction of the prior posts about potential Hubble repair missions, you would know beyond shadow of doubt that any mission to repair Hubble would be a terrible mistake. No repair mission of any kind to Hubble, robotic or manned, could possibly cost less then aproximatly $1.5-2.0Bn!

For that kind of money, you could nearly afford to build TWO Hubble-II telescopes!

No mission of any kind can extend Hubble's life signifigantly, since it was never intended to operate for long periods between Shuttle servicing missions and would be almost 200% of its design life by the time it needs new batteries again. It will be so old that other componets will likly fail soon, the power system feeding the cameras has already partially failed, and most Hubble systems cannot be replaced on orbit.

Both repair options are risky, that the weakest spot on Shuttle is the TPS system with a historic 2% failure rate and ~3% chance of damage per flight. With the ISS as safe haven, this risk can be cut in half, but without it is a unlikly a rescue Shuttle could be launched quickly enough.

The robot repair option has a terrible risk of failure and is more expensive, with an estimated chance of sucess around 40-60%, which is not counting the fact that the robot would be a rush job to launch by Hubble's 2007-2008 likly power failure date (where its electronics would freeze and be destroyed).

So lets review... It will cost aproximatly double the money to repair Hubble which will only maybe extend its life a few more years before the power system shorts out. Or we can build a new one.

Also, this new telescope gets a discount since the new replacement cameras for Hubble-I could instead be installed on the new Hubble-II, along with the extremely powerful wide-field imager that is incompatible with Hubble-I's optics.

The notion that we can't reliably send Hubble-II to LaGrange and we need a demonstration flight is silly, and such a test flight would make the project unacceptably expensive. NASA intends to launch the JWST to LaGrange without any test flight, NASA can launch Hubble-II without one too.

RobertDyck · 2005-02-04 12:12:11

As some people have pointed out to me, one reason for going to Mars is to start over without repeating the same mistakes. Western culture on Earth has a pathologic obsession with disposable everything. People just don't know how to care for their stuff, and don't know how to repair/maintain. I personal example: I asked the manufacturer of my cell phone to repair it. Their response was "that isn't a current model"; and didn't say anything else as if that's an answer. Cell phone models change so quickly that by the time you take home a brand new phone the factory considers it "not current", so if they think that's an excuse to refuse repair then they don't support any phone. If they won't support their product then I won't buy any phone from them. I asked an electronics technician at work to help me repair my cell phone. He didn't want to and suggested I replace it with one of those "free" phones. I'm not going to replace a good quality $400 phone with a crappy one that's given away free with a service contract. I'll give you another example; I came up with a method to recycle carbon anodes for aluminum smelting. This completely eliminates CO2 and carbon monoxide pollution, replaces pitch and finely ground coke with electricity, and reduces cost of operation. Coke is made by baking coal to burn sulphur into sulphur dioxide gas. That creates acid rain, so environmental regulations require a smoke stack scrubber to remove it. Pitch is a thick form of oil; coal and oil are non-renewable resources and needed for energy, so eliminating their use is responsible management of resources. Aluminum smelters are typically located at an ocean port with plenty of cheap electricity such as a hydro-electric power dam. But when I asked one person to help develop this technology he wanted to make anodes from methane, another non-renewable resource. That would eliminate acid rain from coking, but wouldn't capture CO2 and CO from aluminum smelting. I devised the process for Mars because the only carbon sources are calcite from soil (unreliable quantity, a lot of energy to extract carbon) or CO2 from Mars atmosphere. It takes energy to purify CO2 from atmosphere so pure CO2 and CO from smelting skips that step; so recycling carbon costs a lot less energy than harvesting fresh carbon. Applying this to Earth has all the aforementioned benefits, and develops a technology we need for Mars.

This whole attitude of consuming non-renewable resources and throwing things away rather than maintaining them will have to be corrected for Mars. Forcing this correction is one reason to go to Mars. The next application of this principle is the Hubble Space Telescope. Throwing away the existing space telescope to replace it with another is just plain stupid. Over inflated cost estimates to service the telescope only destroy any credibility of the person making them. There is no way a single Shuttle mission would cost $2 billion.

SpaceNut · 2005-02-04 13:31:50

We know the figure for the shuttle fuel and oxidizer, the external tank foam shedding or otherwise, the solid boosters 4 or 5 segment length but have few numbers for the launch cost, or for refurbishment or replacement of tile or tiles.

I quite agree though that something is wrong with the estimated cost of using the shuttle.

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-04 14:36:38

*Shakes head* Please, you could at least try not to blame your precieved "ecocide" of the world on America... The "waste socity" is common to all societies that are not faced with the threat of shortage, not just the "west." Now that you have got your lengthy preaching out of the way about the evils of our capitalist society, maybe you are now ready to think about spaceflight and not psychology... I am all for limiting waste, but the idea of not throwing away anything when it is obviously not worth saving is untenable.

The notion that we "just have!" to save Hubble as a symbol of our mindless anti-capitalist environmental lemming commitment to waste nothing, no matter the cost, versus the reality of the situation and the costs/bennefits is a terrible deal too. The wasted money and scientific knowledge that will result from repairing rather then replacing Hubble is so large that I am quite sure that you can find a much much better "icon" to preach the path of environmental salvation from the hands of the evil capitalists that is more deserving of your limited supply of concern.

Some things it is so much more efficent to throw away then reuse that it is worth whatever environmental cost is incured. We will be throwing away large rockets for a century to come if we are to get to Mars or mine asteroids/Moon without a space elevator, what about saving those too? Why shouldn't we try? Is MarsDirect or DRM bad since they use throw-away rockets? The fact of the matter is, the efficency or cost of replacement is many a time worth any small environmental excess, especially with old machines. You know full well that not everything should be reused, and stating otherwise is an excercise in deception or stupidity... Hubble-I is one such machine.

Now about a Shuttle mission and its cost... perhaps you are thinking that I made up a number, the $1.5Bn Robert? Well guess what? NASA's own estimate runs at $1.3 billion dollars! The Hubble Alternative report estimates a Shuttle mission will cost a little more, which is since the NASA report does not take into account the hardware already built for the SM4 mission.

Let me repeat that... NASA's own estimate for a Shuttle mission is $1.3Bn. This is plausable since each Shuttle flight costs aproximatly $800M-1.00Bn because Shuttle costs about $3.9Bn a year and can fly four, perhaps five times per year. Spacenut had the link to the article on this or earlier thread.

Add another several hundred million for additional engineering & astronaut training at several millions of dollars per month (Hubble costs at least a few million per month in engineering costs), a few more tens of millions for replacement parts and tools, and topped off with the new and more expensive Shuttle Tank and the whole thing comes out on estimate. $1.5 Billion is not at all unlikly with a little for margin.

So, here we are back again...
Hubble-II: ~$1.0-1.2Bn, low risk, a decade worth of life at least, superior instruments to Hubble-I, superior orbit, superior electronics. Discount price with using spare or new Hubble-I parts.

Hubble-I Shuttle SM: $1.3-1.5Bn, nontrivial risk of crew, repair will only last until 2010-2011 probobly, high risk of non-operable failure before then due to telescopes' age which is already 150% of design life.

Hubble-I robot SM: $2.0-2.2Bn, extreme risk of failure due to mission complexity and time/testing constraints, similar short life extension as a Shuttle mission.

Hubble has already lost one camera port from electrical failure and non-repairable systems could fail fairly soon. Plus due to Hubble's low orbit and intentionally designed short gyro and battery life, no life extension could extend Hubble for more then four or five years. Attaching a seperate power/gyro pod to the rear will not work since there is no structural support on the rear of the telescope and even then it is impossible to repair Hubble's old dying electronics on orbit. The correct choice is clear...

Now you want to talk about the effects to society? How about the tangible ones. With a new telescope, you get:
-Longer life, superior performance vs HST-1
-Wide-angle mapping camera, incompatible with HST-1 and cannot be replicated by adaptive optics on Earth
-No risk of stranding Astronauts on orbit, which would kill NASA from the television tear-jerker media reports

And then the tangible environmental bennefits, that any one of the three options would require a launch vehicle, plus the Shuttle will dump large masses of Perchlorate salts into the atmosphere... Oh, and the parts that were originally intended for Hubble-I, the spare main mirror, the two new cameras, and other componets would be recycled.

Environmentally friendly and a superior scientific investment.

RobertDyck · 2005-02-04 20:11:28

First I said "Western culture" not America. Western culture includes America, Canada, Australia, the UK, France, Germany, etc. In fact, industrialization was invented in England. Don't assume everything is an attack on America. I'm Canadian so that means I'm born and bred in that same culture, and live in it now. As a part of it I'm certainly qualified to critique it. There are national differences, but the problem with the "disposable society" crosses all the West.

Now you argue against one service mission against replacement cost assuming the replacement will last at least a decade. Hubble required its first service immediately after it was launched. How many years or just months would the new one last before it requires replacement? The point is if you can't get service cost down your alternative is to pay both replacement and service cost for the new one, or worse yet have to replace it completely very frequently such as every year or so. To repeat this point, if you can't get service for Hubble down to where it's affordable, you can't afford to launch any other telescope. Do we want to restrict all space operations to short-duration probes? Or do we shut down the entire space program and save the American taxpayer $16 billion per year (and the Canadian taxpayer $300 million/year).

As for expendable launch vehicles, I see them as short-term work horses. I already submitted a paper to NASA proposing a reusable mini-shuttle space taxi with an expendable external tank, but even that's a stop-gap. I want to see hypersonic spacecraft developed to produce a true spaceplane. I don't think a space elevator will ever be practical for passengers, it takes too many days to get up there. I also proposed a series of small UAVs extending the X-43 program to develop a true SSTO RLV spaceplane. I think they can be achieved. I don't know about cargo, for now we have expendable rockets. We can talk about launch vehicles in another thread.

Using the mirror and cameras built for Hubble is generally a good idea. However, as I said my opinion is that we need to ensure we can service a telescope and keep costs down before launching anything else. This will be the last service of Hubble, it's life will eventually come to an end. Then we should launch a dramatically improved telescope. I would suggest starting with medium Earth orbit (MEO) where it's orbit is stable without using fuel. That would require a manned vehicle that can travel from LEO (where any shuttle would park) to MEO and back. An on-orbit tug with a CEV style capsule could do it, but we don't have it yet. Yes, I would like that vehicle to be reusable as well. Also give it a larger mirror; a single-piece large mirror could be launched on edge to keep aerodynamics down. Russia proposed launching a http://www.energia.ru/english/energia/m … 2.jpg]disk shaped lander for Mars on the side of an Energia. If Russia can do it, can't America? Let the engineers debate whether it's better to side launch like Shuttle-C or on top of an EELV. Do you think astronomers would like a 24 metre space telescope? But we're not ready for that yet, so let's keep Hubble.

ERRORIST · 2005-02-04 20:25:15

"As for expendable launch vehicles, I see them as short-term work horses. I already submitted a paper to NASA proposing a reusable mini-shuttle space taxi with an expendable external tank, but even that's a stop-gap. I want to see hypersonic spacecraft developed to produce a true spaceplane. I don't think a space elevator will ever be practical for passengers, it takes too many days to get up there. I also proposed a series of small UAVs extending the X-43 program to develop a true SSTO RLV spaceplane. I think they can be achieved. I don't know about cargo, for now we have expendable rockets. We can talk about launch vehicles in another thread."

I agree the Space elevator is to massive but the Pipline to space isn't!

ERRORIST · 2005-02-04 20:27:32

"Using the mirror and cameras built for Hubble is generally a good idea. However, as I said my opinion is that we need to ensure we can service a telescope and keep costs down before launching anything else. This will be the last service of Hubble, it's life will eventually come to an end. Then we should launch a dramatically improved telescope. I would suggest starting with medium Earth orbit (MEO) where it's orbit is stable without using fuel. That would require a manned vehicle that can travel from LEO (where any shuttle would park) to MEO and back. An on-orbit tug with a CEV style capsule could do it, but we don't have it yet. Yes, I would like that vehicle to be reusable as well. Also give it a larger mirror; a single-piece large mirror could be launched on edge to keep aerodynamics down. Russia proposed launching a disk shaped lander for Mars on the side of an Energia. If Russia can do it, can't America? Let the engineers debate whether it's better to side launch like Shuttle-C or on top of an EELV. Do you think astronomers would like a 24 metre space telescope? But we're not ready for that yet, so let's keep Hubble."

Aerogel Mirror!!!

RobertDyck · 2005-02-04 20:58:58

Aerogel Mirror!!!

Wouldn't micrometeroids fly right through aerogel? Or at least into it. You'ld want some sort of micrometeoroid resistant coating on the mirror, and a micrometeoroid resistant backing. You could keep telescope mass down by exposing the mirror to space like the James Webb space telescope. Needs a sun shade.

el scorcho · 2005-02-04 21:00:07

I would much rather see us put up a large interferometer with as much surface area as we can conceivably launch and support. The Hubble had its day and, as someone else already pointed out, there are ground-based telescopes that are beginning to outmuscle it. We can't just keep slapping band-aids on whatever spacecraft we have up there; Mir and the Shuttle are prime examples. Besides, imagine the boost to the space movement if an interferometer captures a distant blue dot in some faraway star system. That image would be ingrained in the public psyche and cause the removal of many heads from the endorectal region--in society and politics--and highlight why we need to go outward into the cosmos.

LtlPhysics · 2005-02-04 21:38:44

Time out.

I found this on AP -

Updated: 11:42 AM EST
Is Hubble Telescope Worth Saving?

By DEVLIN BARRETT, AP

The chairman of the House Science Committee said Congress needs to decide whether the 14-year old telescope, renowned for its inspiring snapshots, is worth the cost of repair - estimated to be as much as $2 billion.

''We have to make hard choices about whether a Hubble mission is worth it now, when moving ahead is likely to have an adverse impact on other programs, including quite possibly other programs in astronomy,'' said Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y.

Hubble hovers about 375 miles above the Earth, circling the planet every 95 minutes, and has seen galaxies that are more than 12 billion light years away.

While NASA has sent several repair missions, experts say an additional one is needed because the batteries and gyroscopes probably will fail between mid-2007 and 2010.

But with the crash on Feb. 1, 2003, of the space shuttle Columbia, a manned mission to repair Hubble is not worth the risk, said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif.

''Some people just want to dive back in and use the shuttle as if these catastrophic accidents didn't happen. ... To the degree that we don't have to use the shuttle, we shouldn't use the shuttle,'' he said.

Experts also are divided about the best course of action.

NASA caused an uproar among scientists last year when the agency said that the safety of astronauts should not be put at risk in order to repair Hubble.

A National Academy of Sciences committee concluded in December that NASA should use astronauts, not a robot, for a repair attempt.

''The crew risk of a single shuttle mission to Hubble is very small,'' the chairman of that committee, Louis Lanzerotti, a professor at the New Jersey Institute of Technology, told lawmakers Wednesday.

But Dr. Paul Cooper, an executive at the company asked by NASA to create a Hubble-repairing robot, said such a trip could be of huge scientific benefit in future repairs of U.S. satellites, particularly for the Defense Department.

The goal of any repair mission to Hubble would be to install fresh batteries, gyroscopes, fine-guidance sensors, and two powerful new cameras that could make the telescope more productive than ever.

NASA has agreed that failing all else, it will use a robotic spacecraft to steer Hubble into the ocean by 2013.

-------------

So, that's the bottom line. The Hubble will be scientifically useless but still stable enough so that an assassin spacecraft can attach itself and dispatch Hubble into the deep.

So, what are we left with? Hopefully a Hubble II will have had a few years of observations under its belt, but the mission to scuttle the first Hubble is an expense with nothing to show for it. Nothing of any value was created. I've heard estimates of $300 million to create the de-orbit spacecraft and maybe that's about right, maybe not. Whatever it costs, it's money gone.

But, we have the luxury of 8 more years to mull it about. I would use the intervening time and budget, maybe more, maybe less, to build a tug that could nudge the original telescope to a safe haven and have something to show for it when it's over. A useful tug, perhaps the first of many instead of a one shot doomsday machine. Even if it fails, the engineers will have been thinking in the right direction, one of creation rather than destruction.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2005-02-02 17:46:41

Re: Finally, a sensible solution to the Hubble debate - ... that we can all agree on...maybe.

#2 2005-02-02 17:52:48

Re: Finally, a sensible solution to the Hubble debate - ... that we can all agree on...maybe.

#3 2005-02-02 21:12:47

Re: Finally, a sensible solution to the Hubble debate - ... that we can all agree on...maybe.

#4 2005-02-02 23:54:25

Re: Finally, a sensible solution to the Hubble debate - ... that we can all agree on...maybe.

#5 2005-02-03 00:19:21

Re: Finally, a sensible solution to the Hubble debate - ... that we can all agree on...maybe.

#6 2005-02-03 03:20:32

Re: Finally, a sensible solution to the Hubble debate - ... that we can all agree on...maybe.

#7 2005-02-03 05:29:52

Re: Finally, a sensible solution to the Hubble debate - ... that we can all agree on...maybe.

#8 2005-02-03 05:57:38

Re: Finally, a sensible solution to the Hubble debate - ... that we can all agree on...maybe.

#9 2005-02-03 09:11:22

Re: Finally, a sensible solution to the Hubble debate - ... that we can all agree on...maybe.

#10 2005-02-03 09:30:09

Re: Finally, a sensible solution to the Hubble debate - ... that we can all agree on...maybe.

#11 2005-02-03 11:25:53

Re: Finally, a sensible solution to the Hubble debate - ... that we can all agree on...maybe.

#12 2005-02-03 12:21:36

Re: Finally, a sensible solution to the Hubble debate - ... that we can all agree on...maybe.

#13 2005-02-03 23:34:58

Re: Finally, a sensible solution to the Hubble debate - ... that we can all agree on...maybe.

#14 2005-02-04 02:37:18

Re: Finally, a sensible solution to the Hubble debate - ... that we can all agree on...maybe.

#15 2005-02-04 08:03:29

Re: Finally, a sensible solution to the Hubble debate - ... that we can all agree on...maybe.

#16 2005-02-04 09:37:33

Re: Finally, a sensible solution to the Hubble debate - ... that we can all agree on...maybe.

#17 2005-02-04 12:12:11

Re: Finally, a sensible solution to the Hubble debate - ... that we can all agree on...maybe.

#18 2005-02-04 13:31:50

Re: Finally, a sensible solution to the Hubble debate - ... that we can all agree on...maybe.

#19 2005-02-04 14:36:38

Re: Finally, a sensible solution to the Hubble debate - ... that we can all agree on...maybe.

#20 2005-02-04 20:11:28

Re: Finally, a sensible solution to the Hubble debate - ... that we can all agree on...maybe.

#21 2005-02-04 20:25:15

Re: Finally, a sensible solution to the Hubble debate - ... that we can all agree on...maybe.

#22 2005-02-04 20:27:32

Re: Finally, a sensible solution to the Hubble debate - ... that we can all agree on...maybe.

#23 2005-02-04 20:58:58

Re: Finally, a sensible solution to the Hubble debate - ... that we can all agree on...maybe.

#24 2005-02-04 21:00:07

Re: Finally, a sensible solution to the Hubble debate - ... that we can all agree on...maybe.

#25 2005-02-04 21:38:44

Re: Finally, a sensible solution to the Hubble debate - ... that we can all agree on...maybe.

Board footer