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

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-06 10:22:30

"As for "why", remember the life support, avionics, and other spacecraft systems are much more expensive than a fuel tank."

And the systems in the CEV capsule will not be? Even the antique Soyuz, they recycle the avionics componets.

Mining of fuel from an asteroid is a far-future happening if it is practical at all too. It will very likly be easier just to bring it from Earth by that time when we build a fully reuseable Shuttle-II.

There is simply no mission that justifies building a mini-Shuttle, which will have inferior capability, flexibility, and much higher development costs then a large capsule. The additional development costs combined with its inferiority make the CEV capsule the obvious choice. If the mini-MAKS costs even $1-2Bn more, which seems reasonable to me given its complexity, the additional costs of a capsule would be outweighed for years and years of flights.

---
back on topic...

That even if you could squeeze an additional Shuttle flight into the schedule, the cost for a Shuttle SM4 will still be comperable to building the HOP, which makes this an inferior and illogical investment as well. You would get a superior telescope that can do things adaptive optics can't, will last double or tripple as long, and be at a much lower risk.

About space telescopes in general, building one with a segmented mirror with similar aperature to Hubble or HOP in the future could be even cheaper the HOP, and would avoid flying an expensive two-launch (tug/parts + CEV) risky manned mission. Because the tug will be chemically powerd by nesessity and the parts must be launched seperate of CEV, it does not make sense to reuse it.

For that matter, it does not make sense to re-use any chemical tug without the aid of a real RLV (which itself cannot reach high orbit) by which time no fast tug makes sense at all.

If we are going to get Lunar fuel in on this... why not just put the telescopes there and use nuclear energy?

dicktice · 2005-02-06 12:37:29

I tended to sympathize with GCNR's reasoned arguments . . . until I read his epitaph, "Hubble-Huggers," which destroyed in my mind any pretense of objectivity on his part. That instrument is priceless, and until something is already in place and working at least as productively, it should be maintained at whatever "cost" in dollars and "sense."

Grypd · 2005-02-06 13:42:39

I tended to sympathize with GCNR's reasoned arguments . . . until I read his epitaph, "Hubble-Huggers," which destroyed in my mind any pretense of objectivity on his part. That instrument is priceless, and until something is already in place and working at least as productively, it should be maintained at whatever "cost" in dollars and "sense."

Sorry dicktice as for hubble it is hardly worthwhile risking human life in our astronauts to do a temporary fix for something that will die in a few years no matter what we do. I can understand that GCN is frustrated the arquements to keep the Hubble do not make fiscal or political sense and in science with cheaper ground stations getting closer and closer to the Hubbles capability it does not make sense either.

There will be other better more powerful space telescopes and ones which we can design to actually service and repair and to not rely on a very worn out and possibly dangerous Shuttle.

LtlPhysics · 2005-02-06 14:25:41

If we are going to get Lunar fuel in on this... why not just put the telescopes there and use nuclear energy?

That's the best of all possible scenarios.

RobertDyck · 2005-02-06 17:01:54

And the systems in the CEV capsule will not be? Even the antique Soyuz, they recycle the avionics componets.

Do they reuse avionics from Soyuz descent modules? I haven't heard that. That certainly doesn't happen in America. You can't recycle the hull of an expendable capsule, it's marked by streaks of re-precipitated ablative material from the heat shield, the heat shield is consumed, and the temperature of any vehicle that uses ablative heat shielding is so high that the metal hull has been thermally stressed ruining its temper. To avoid metal fatigue you'ld have to anneal the hull: heat it red-hot then let it cool slowly over a few days, usually by burring it in dry sand. You have to remove any plastic or electronics before heating it that much. Contractors won't bother with that, they just make a new capsule. Convincing American contractors to recycle avionics in an otherwise new capsule would be difficult to put it mildly.

There is simply no mission that justifies building a mini-Shuttle, which will have inferior capability, flexibility, and much higher development costs then a large capsule. The additional development costs combined with its inferiority make the CEV capsule the obvious choice. If the mini-MAKS costs even $1-2Bn more, which seems reasonable to me given its complexity, the additional costs of a capsule would be outweighed for years and years of flights.

Missions:
• deliver astronauts to ISS
• deliver food, water, other supplies, or experiments in science drawers to ISS
• "down mass", returning science drawers back to Earth
• deliver astronauts to LEO for transfer to an LTV for the Moon
• deliver astronauts to LEO for transfer to an ITV for Mars
• service mission in LEO
• deliver astronauts to LEO for transfer to a vehicle (capsule + tug) for service mission in MEO

Basically any human mission to space starts with the space taxi carrying astronauts out of the atmosphere. A dedicated semi-reusable space taxi (and eventually fully reusable spaceplane) will always be more efficient at getting to LEO than a capsule on expendable rocket. Use the capsule for in-space operations where it is more efficient. Your cost argument is dependant on underestimating the development cost of a capsule (despite the fact it's a redo) and overestimating the development cost of a mini-shuttle. The cost difference isn't as great as you think.

If we are going to get Lunar fuel in on this... why not just put the telescopes there and use nuclear energy?

Nuclear energy? Ok, have you lobbied NASA yet? Remember I have submitted a few papers to NASA about my ideas. Have you actually contacted them about yours? I don't think Nuclear/LOX is very efficient, so I'm very sceptical about any lunar fuel. The only viable lunar fuel I've seen is aluminum powder suspended in LOX as gel monopropellant, but I'ld never trust any monopropellant for a manned vehicle.

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-06 17:32:36

I tended to sympathize with GCNR's reasoned arguments . . . until I read his epitaph, "Hubble-Huggers," which destroyed in my mind any pretense of objectivity on his part. That instrument is priceless, and until something is already in place and working at least as productively, it should be maintained at whatever "cost" in dollars and "sense."

Objectivity? What is there to be "objective" about concerning hard facts? It is not a matter of "opinion" that fixing Hubble will be expensive no matter how the mission is carried out. It is also a matter of fact that Hubble is old, likly will not last much longer with or without fixing, and will certainly not last as long as Hubble-II. It is a matter of fact that Hubble-II will be superior, with its super wide field camera, which is something that ground based telescopes can't match. These things are not matters of opinion, it doesn't matter what I think about the situation, these things will not change.

I also did not coin the term "Hubble-Hugger," but rather I think our pal Jeffery Bell did. That said, I do not appologize for using the term, since getting rid of Hubble is OBVIOUSLY the better investment. That the Hubble advocates cannot come up with good rational reasons to save Hubble versus replacement is because they don't exsist.

Therefore, people who advocate repairing Hubble have formed their opinion irrationally... "it should be maintained at whatever "cost" in dollars and "sense."

Why? Why do you think this? Yes it will take some time to build and prepare Hubble-II, but why should we spend such a large amount of money and risk to keep it operating? The stars will be there tomorrow, and the astronomers will live for a few years between telescopes.

Another fact is, that Congress is reluctant to spend money on Hubble. If they are reluctant to do that, then there is no way they will spend to fix Hubble-I and build Hubble-II, so it really will be an either/or decision. Why would you choose to fix Hubble-I dicktice?

Martian Republic · 2005-02-06 18:42:19

I tended to sympathize with GCNR's reasoned arguments . . . until I read his epitaph, "Hubble-Huggers," which destroyed in my mind any pretense of objectivity on his part. That instrument is priceless, and until something is already in place and working at least as productively, it should be maintained at whatever "cost" in dollars and "sense."

Why do you take an unreasonable argument and try and defend it. On this one I agree with GCNRevenger on this one. Even if I had almost unlimited resources and could spend a hundred to two hundred billion dollars a year on space efforts, I wouldn't waist my time and effort trying to save the Hubble telescopes. It served it purpose and we used it twice as long as it was designed to be used and no matter what we do, we will only three or four year at best.

You remind me of my sister and here emotional attachment to here car. She lived in Chicago and the car's almost twenty year old. The body of the cars all rusted out and floor board in the front seat are about to fall out onto the road below. The engine got hundred fifty to two hundred thousand mile on it and it starting to smoke. The transmission about ready to go and breaks are shot. Then she talking about doing a major overhaul on it, because it been a great car for her.

It doesn't matter if it car's or space telescopes, at some point, there just not worth fixing and we build or buy something else to replace it.

Larry,

SpaceNut · 2005-02-07 06:02:43

Question for those in the know on what type of batteries will be used in the HOP (Hubble II) or the type of gyro's. If they are the same short live units (5yrs) to which are in the Hubble, then why bother, for to get to 10 years means more cost on both accounts.

The problem with modular design still comes back down to the individual stages being more capable when fully fueled to give the performance for the change in lift required by either modifying of a stages weight or by adding another inline module between other stages to get the particular job done.

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-07 06:46:27

Question for those in the know on what type of batteries will be used in the HOP (Hubble II) or the type of gyro's. If they are the same short live units (5yrs) to which are in the hubble, then why bother, for to get to 10 years means more cost on both accounts.

Hubble's batteries and gyros die every four or five five years or so because Hubble is in too low of an orbit. The lower the orbit, the longer and more often Hubble spends in Earth's shadow, which requires the batteries to work harder. Also, the lower you are, the faster you have to rotate the telescope to keep it fixed on one spot.

So even if you used the old Hubble-I designs for Hubble-II, it would last much longer if you just put it into a higher orbit.

Mad Grad Student · 2005-02-18 23:56:13

There are a couple of things I should mention here before I reply. I didn't find this thread until about 15 minutes ago. My policy when this occurs and the thread is already four pages into discussion is to read the first few posts, skim the rest, and respond only to those first few, unless something particularly interesting or provacative was said elsewhere. I'm saying this just so you know that I'm not trying to personally attack anyone. Normally I wouldn't do that, but I've noticed that there's been some pretty bloody arguing so far.

From GCNRevenger:

I am not kidding, I am upset with you!
"...reacting purely out of emotion..."

Actually, GCN, you seem to completely validate an assertion that I will remind you Cindy did not make. Following up the implication that you did not act "purely out of emotion" with "I am upset with you!" bores holes in your defense you could drive a truck through. You should really try to avoid becoming so emotionally-attached to your comments and stop taking such counter-arguments as personal attacks. Now, I just know you're going to come around and accuse me of trying to pick on you or divert attention from the subject. If you must, go ahead.

From Martian Republic:

You remind me of my sister and here emotional attachment to here car. She lived in Chicago and the car's almost twenty year old. The body of the cars all rusted out and floor board in the front seat are about to fall out onto the road below. The engine got hundred fifty to two hundred thousand mile on it and it starting to smoke. The transmission about ready to go and breaks are shot. Then she talking about doing a major overhaul on it, because it been a great car for her.

The problem is that this is not an applicable analogy. If your sister wanted a new car she could have gone out and bought one of millions of new or used cars availible on the consumer market that all would have unquestionably done the same jobs as her previous one much better. This is not the case with space telescopes, where each one is a one-of-a-kind deal with the possibility of the replacement not being as capable as the original in certain ways. JWST is NOT a Hubble replacement and never can be because it will look in the wrong part of the EM spectrum to do the same tasks as Hubble. Assuming HOP has all the same visible/UV spectrum capabilities as Hubble it would be an acceptible replacement, but the equation isn't quite that simple.

While a shuttle mission to service the Hubble would probably top out at $1 billion in cost, HOP's budget could easily go the way of many big unmanned projects and balloon out of control until it hits the $2-3 billion range. Alternatively, it could go the way of the vast majority of unmanned mission proposals and simple be axed before it leaves the powerpoint stage. At the end of the day, a complete Hubble replacement will be inherantly more risky than a Hubble repair mission for a number of reasons. What if the optics are fouled up after launch, exactly as it happened for Hubble? Assuming HOP is launched into a higher orbit that's better for astronomy purposes it has no chance of being service and will be dead in the water, too bad so sad. The politicians have already been skittish about funding a new repair mission to Hubble, but a new mission all together? I can't imagine that going over well in Washington.

Assuming no delays in its schedule, HOP could be launched by about 2010, according to the original article. That could mean three years with no space-based UV/visible telescope. Granted, this is not as hot a field of astronomy as infrared, but it is still very important, and no other part of the EM spectrum has yeilded such awe-inspiring eye candy. I'm not saying that we should have a Hubble-class telescope merely to ponder pictures of nebulas, galaxies, and infinity, but that's one of the big undeniable bonuses to having one. Ground-based astronomy is becoming more advanced all the time, but it will always have limitations compared to space-based astronomy due to a host of factors on the ground such as the atmosphere, weather, daylight, etc, that aren't problems in LEO. No matter what, not servicing the Hubble will result in a pretty hefty hole in our astrnomy capabilities for some time.

The Hubble may be old, but it's still a worthy investment for NASA and the world. Assuming everything goes according to plan in a repair mission it could last until a much later date, perhaps until 2012 or 2013. This would buy NASA enough time to build a Hubble replacement and not affect our observation capabilities. Perhaps they could even call on the private industry, through its Centennial Challenges program maybe, to build a low-cost replacement. I suppose that's the lowest risk possible. The result would be either a low-cost space-based UV/Visible telescope or not a cent charged to the taxpayers.

One of NASA's most important resources is the Hubble Space Telescope, and it absolutely deserves to be serviced at least just one more time. Simultaneously, a minimum-risk replacement such as HOP should be developed to fill the gap created when Hubble is finally replaced. NASA owes it the scientists, the public, and themselves to do so.

Just FYI. :;):

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-19 10:11:37

Perhaps "F.Y.I." stands for "Foolish Yammering and Ignorance?"

"While a shuttle mission to service the Hubble would probably top out at $1 billion in cost, HOP's budget could easily go the way of many big unmanned projects and balloon out of control until it hits the $2-3 billion range."

Wrong. Even NASA calculates that a Shuttle mission will cost $1.3Bn and the Hubble Alternatives estimate is at $1.5Bn, and that is not nessesarrily counting the extra Shuttle safety processing following Columbia, which continues to balloon out of control right now.

Even HOP costs a full 50% higher then is estimated, it will still be no more expensive. Even if it were double the estimated price, you still get more years-per-dollar with a superior telescope equipped with a wide-field imager that AO scopes' can't match... which Hubble doesn't have.

And about HOP being riskier, are you kidding? We have now launched multiple space telescopes with a variety of complex optical schemes.. Hubble, Chandra, and Spitzer.. and all of them work perfectly when designed with an appropriate level of care. ALSO, HOP will be more of a copy of Hubble then you might think, that it will even use the extra main mirror NASA has in storage. We know how to build the old one, then building the new one will be less risky. So, since we know what is involved, building HOP is a low-risk solution both fiscally and technically.

"What if the optics are fouled up after launch, exactly as it happened for Hubble? Assuming HOP is launched into a higher orbit that's better for astronomy purposes it has no chance of being service and will be dead in the water, too bad so sad."

Hubble optics wern't damaged, they were manufactured wrong. We will not make the same mistake twice... And it would be cheaper to build a second HOP then it would be to try and fix this one. None of the Shuttle SM missions except the first one were worthwhile.

"The Hubble may be old, but it's still a worthy investment for NASA and the world. Assuming everything goes according to plan in a repair mission it could last until a much later date, perhaps until 2012 or 2013."

No it won't. The Hubble gyros have a useful life of about three years, maybe four (Columbia went up to replace them in 2002 STS-109 and they are near failing now). Replacing them with a fresh set will only buy you time until 2010-2011 or so. The gyro design is not flawed, they are simply pushed too hard. Redesigning for larger gyros would require altering the telescopes' design, which introduces risk.

Hubble's other systems are also getting quite old. It is already at 150% of design life, and its power management systems have begun to fail... already, one of the camera bays has been knocked out by a power supply problem which cannot be repaired on orbit. There is a substantial risk that Hubble will simply die soon with or without any repair mission.

HOP on the other hand, would likly last a full decade in its higher orbit with superior componets, would be brand new, and would have the wide-field imager that is incompatible with Hubble's optics. Wide-field imaging is something that adaptive optics telescopes can't do, which is an important consideration since most of Hubble's abilities can soon be matched by AO telescopes on the ground.

"The politicians have already been skittish about funding a new repair mission to Hubble, but a new mission all together? I can't imagine that going over well in Washington."

Okay, here is the comparison...
$1.5Bn for a repair mission to maybe squeeze four more years out of HST. A risk of human lives and disruption of ISS assembly schedule too.
$1.0Bn ($1.5Bn with 50% cost creep) for a new telescope that will last twice as long and be much more useful. Launched on Atlas-V.

I think I know what the politicans will decide. Also, I think it fair to assume that they will only pay for ONE option, not both. It is an either/or proposition.

"No matter what, not servicing the Hubble will result in a pretty hefty hole in our astrnomy capabilities for some time."

Can you explain why this is worth throwing away a billion dollars? The stars will be there tomorrow, not having a super-scope for three or four years is simply not worth the cost.

"One of NASA's most important resources is the Hubble Space Telescope, and it absolutely deserves to be serviced at least just one more time."

No it doesn't, its a machine, it deserves nothing. Machines don't have loyalty, and sentimentality has no place in scientific investments of this magnetude.

And then don't forget, that NASA doesn't have a spare Shuttle sortie that it could fly to Hubble, they are going to need every last one of them from May 05 to December 2010 to get the ISS done on time. Shuttle will require requalification after this date, which is unacceptable.
---
So lets review...

-Launch Shuttle for a similar price as HOP, which will only extend Hubble's operating life by about four years tops. There is a signifigant risk that Hubble will die before then anyway due to non-serviceable componet failure. There is also a risk that Hubble will die before you finish reading this, in which case it all that money was for nothing.

A Shuttle flight will be risking a crew with a 2% historic heat shield failure rate, and NASA doesn't have time to spare a Shuttle flight anyway with the 2010 deadline aproaching.

-Launch HOP, which will last twice as long at least, have a superior imaging camera more powerful then anything ever before and cannot be matched by AO scopes or HST. It will not have parts double their design life, and it will be launched by a cheap expendable rocket. Low risk since it would be a copy of HST and even use some of HST's spare parts.

Now get this... Johns Hopkins, the people who run Hubble, advocate HOP!

So I conclude, that now that you can no longer hide behind any excuses of ignorance Mad, that your future support for SM4 is therefore born out of sentimentality and stupidity.

Mad Grad Student · 2005-02-19 23:18:36

Actually I had thought that FYI meant something like "For Your Information," but you can interpret it as you like. Jeez, you must be really angry. I find it ironic that the person who's debate platform is the belief that the opposing side is wrong due to their intense emotion attachment to their cause is the only person who is yelling and screaming IN BOLD ALL-CAPS UNDERLINED ITALICS, not to mention the only one calling all disagreeing parties ignorant, stupid, both, or some combination thereof, and the one whining like a two-year old in ritilan remission. Lighten up, pal. I am not kidding.

Spending money to preserve Hubble is not throwing money away. By servicing Hubble NASA will maintain its ability for space-based UV/visible astronomy and ensure no gap in observation capibilities. If you don't like my prose then let me rephrase some of my statements. How about we owe it to the astronomers to let them continue to conduct their research? That's not a statement I make out of sentamentality, it's one I make out of a rational desire to continue with this valuable science.

As it turns out, to the best of my knowledge, Hubble didn't fail before I finished reading your quite insulting, brazen post. Sometimes hardware can actually outlive expectations. Even the most optimistic expectations of the MERs didn't count on them lasting past last summer, and they're still going practically as good as new. You can't take the worst-case scinerio and assume that that is the only possible scinerio in the real world. The point is that Hubble will almost definately be functioning properly by the time it is serviced, and after this is done it will have a strong chance at lasting until HOP's launch.

I would have absolutely no moral qualms about sending a crew to service Hubble. Historically the shuttle has a failure rate of about 0.9% while operating within its guidlines, and with the modifications made to shuttle operations following the CAIB that could be cut in half or more. If you're really so worried about it, why not ready two shuttle's for launch at once so a rescue mission could be sent if necessary? If NASA is too worried to take that kind of risk, I wonder why they even fly.

I don't buy your cost estimations. Very possiblly HOP's cost could increase by 100-150%. However, that's really beside the point. Even if it takes $1.3 billion, a figure that is given with no support and is well beyond the actual cost IMHO, that would be worth it. The Hubble Space Telescope is of enormous value to the scientific community; the real split in our idealogoies is whether or not it is of so much value it's worth the extra servicing mission. I say yes. If you tell me I say yes out of stupidity again I'm going to be really angry at you, GCN.

So I conclude, that now that you can no longer hide behind any excuses of ignorance Mad, that your future support for SM4 is therefore born out of sentimentality and stupidity.

Well, thank you for telling me why I take the actions I do. If it weren't for you, how would I ever figure it out? Do you honestly believe that this is why I support a Hubble servicing mission, out of sentimentality and stupiditiy? How stupid am I? Perhaps you would like to elaborate on this subject. Really, I'd like to know how ridiculously, mind-bogglingly stupid someone is who is ranked second in their class with a 4.833 GPA and who's idea of fun is checking out space.com and spacedaily.com every day. After all, you appear to know everything. Except how to come up with a response that doesn't focus on insulting the opposing side.

When you want to stop acting like a troll, grow up, and have a mature discussion on this topic I'll be ready.

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-20 11:16:39

Please, this is becoming quite pathetic...

It is very simple, and I have said it now several times: no rational, objective, intelligent analysis of the situation could possibly deduce that a Hubble servicing mission is a good investment. The facts speak for themselves and are completly compelling and overwhelming. Hence, if you believe to the contrary, then you must not be making a rational, objective, or intelligent analysis to reach your opinion on the matter.

This isn't rocket science... much better telescope, longer life, less risk, probobly less cost too. The cost of fixing Hubble is simply indefenseable. It makes me angry when people ignore the facts and dismiss the only logical conclusion that even Johns Hopkins who operate Hubble reach... You can have all the brains in the world but not a milligram of intelligence or sense.

The proper course of action is obvious, it is beyond any intelligent reproach. Hence, your opinion is simply without merit.

---

You being an aspiring professional engineer or in a similar field know quite well that setting a design life for a machine is a game of chance and statistics... And as time goes along, the chance that the machine will keep operating for the next unit of time decreases. The MERs are a bad comparison, because their operational life was estimated due to dust sticking to the solar pannel, which is being unexpectedly cleaned by Martian wind or something. Hubble's batteries and gyros on the other hand were designed only for a few years of operation, and have been failing on time repeatedly, almost like clockwork.

Eventually, luck will run out, and the machine will fail... Hubble was designed such that there was a high degree of probability that it would not fail for a certain period of time. That time has now passed and then some, now the probability of failure has exceeded the threshold where investing in a repair mission is a bad deal, service mission or not:

"and after this is done it will have a strong chance at lasting until HOP's launch."

Its statistics, and the statistics don't go away because you wish, hope, or want them to. This chance that you place your money on is marginal at best, corroborated by the recent electrical failures and other fatigues, and signifigantly if not fatally detracts from the service mission proposition. That is the way it is, and is a big gamble.

"I don't buy your cost estimations."

Why? What is your basis for this assertion?

In fact, bringing up the MERs reminds me, did not the second MER cost less to build then the first one? Now why do you think that is? Thats because another rover just like it was already developed... and here we have a telescope to copy, just like MER-B. It gets better too, that the spare mirror and parts in storage and the replacements for a service mission to HST will be used to build HOP and reduce its cost and risk.

So, here we have two independant estimates that a replacement scope' will be no more expensive (Hubble AAS and Johns Hopkins), the fact that a copy is cheap because of minimal development, and we have spare & SM4 parts to lower the cost of HOP... And what do you have, "Very possiblly HOP's cost could increase by 100-150%", which is based on the idea that "lots of space missions cost more then they say so"?

This is another reason besides the obvious political reasons why there is only going to be one or the other, that HOP makes sense because it uses Hubble SM4 parts. Either SM4 flies or HOP does, not both.

But for a moment lets assume that HOP does cost double what it is estimated to cost, a full $2.0Bn. It will easily last a whole decade, while Hubble will only last an additional four (which is an iron-clad known, Hubble's batteries/gyros have broken down ever ~4yrs since it was launched, perhaps 5yrs), so it is a better deal even then. And don't forget that HOP will have the wide-field mode, which is something that neither HST nor AO scopes' can do. Worth a gap of a few years of service.

And the Shuttle, which is now priced at $4.3Bn a year for 4.0-4.5 flights according to NASA's budget. A few hundred million more for mission preperation, engineering costs, and so on would place the price well above $1.0Bn and is in agreement with NASA and Hubble AAS estimates. As well as the fact that Shuttle's schedule is booked until retirement.

I am wary for safety reasons of sending Shuttle because the heat shield has failed 2% of the time (both Columbia and Atlantis suffering wing damage, but the latter got lucky and survived) and because there is only one launch pad, then a rescue mission will have very little margin for problems. Also, the rescue operation itself is hazardous and untried. The ISS eliminates this problem, which makes the risk much lower.

"By servicing Hubble NASA will maintain its ability... and ensure no gap in observation capibilities... we owe it to the astronomers to let them continue to conduct their research?"

And I will end on this... that this is less of a matter of opinion then you make it sound. Congress is barely willing to go along with NASA's budget at all, and it is naieve to think that they will spend money for BOTH HST and HOP, it is one or the other. Second, that since HOP uses Hubble replacement parts (the $100M cameras especially) it is one or the other. Third, that Hubble's abilities will be matched by AO telescopes by the end of the decade, which leaves only a small gap anyway. Fourth, that HOP has something that neither HST or AO telescopes have, a wide-field mapping mode, which will vastly increase its scientific return. More years with a better telescope for the same or less money.

dicktice · 2005-02-20 11:38:48

Wow, I find all of this entertaining. Talk about opposing viewpoints! Both "combatants" have debating points which promise to outlive Hubble, whatever is decided by the "bean counters" who have to knuckle under to Bush Administrative dictums. When the Hubble servicing mission's predictable costs are compared to the War On Terror's unpredictable costs, how can anyone plan whether Hubble lives or dies based upon "cost savings" when any funds "saved" would be undetectible--while the Hubble, once gone, won't be replaced by anyone with background to avoid "starting again from Square One" mistakes. (Machines don't care, remember, and Murphy has no memory, which is why engineers should never be let go en mass.) Hubble, while it operates, is priceless. Any other interpertation is STUPIDITY at it's worst. Call me a Hubble Hugger: I'd love to be in a position, agewise, to go on that mission.

SpaceNut · 2005-02-21 05:56:09

Here is the HOP link for a document providing the cost to do Hop on pg 2.
The low estimate is $747M and the high is $991M with a program time of 60 to 65 months to launch on an Atlas 521 with long flairing.

There are many pro's and con's to the Hubble argument but the only one that will matter in the long run regardless of the path to which we finally choose will be cost and not the benefit of having done anything for or with Hubble for any of the other paths that are not taken.

John Creighton · 2005-02-21 21:36:25

Nice link spacenut. I like this quote:

VWFI
COS
WFC3
With a spectral range from the near-infrared through the
ultraviolet (110 - 1700 nm), a field of view
more than an order of magnitude greater
than HST (198 arcmin2), provided by the
Very Wide Field Imager, and a UV
sensitivity two magnitudes deeper than
HST/STIS, HOP will be a powerful observatory indeed.
The Very Wide Field Imager on HOP will detect thousands of extra-solar planets and the Wide Field
Camera-3 will characterize the metallicities of planetary host systems, helping decipher how and when
planets form.

It just gets harder and harder to understand why people continue to defend the Hubble. The HOP is cheaper and vastly superior. It still is called the Hubble so the brand name should still help astronomers market there science. If there is a slight gap in the visible or ultraviolet capabilities, I don’t see why infra red telescopes cannot fill that gap for a few years. Anyway, if the HOP is launched at 2010 might there be a chance that Hubble will survive on its one to fill that gap? Maybe even ground based telescopes will reach optical parody with Hubble one before it fails.

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-22 06:54:47

It not only gets hard to understand HST SM4 supporters, its impossible to understand their position... because there is no basis in reality for it.

A telescope with double the life what SM4 would add to HST

Ten times the field of view, a quality that AO scopes' on Earth will never have.

A hundred times the UV wavelength range, which is something else AO scopes' will never have, since AO is harder as wavelength decreases.

No risk to astronauts or an invaluble Shuttle orbiter, and no disruption to the booked-solid ISS assembly schedule.

Low technical risk since tried & tested HST spares are used, the main mirror, two of the cameras, and assorted other componets.

Low fiscal risk since HOP is a variation on the known HST design, which HST engineers know inside and out, after the multiple sucessful service missions.

...Virtually everything HST can do, high-resolution imaging over a narrow field of view at near-IR/vis/near-UV, will probobly be matched by Adaptive Optics telescopes on Earth by the end of the decade, even IR scopes' have already reached parity.

If you are interested in astronomy and not sentimental Hubble-Hugging, then you would come to the conclusion that we need HOP, because it can do things that AO telescopes cannot. If HST SM4 flies, which will be using parts that HOP would and will cost at least as much as HOP to build, then HOP will never be built.

The superior, correct choice is clear

Palomar · 2005-02-22 07:00:58

*It seems the fate of Hubble has already been decided by the U.S. government.

Thus, it seems further attempts to disuade "Hubble Huggers"
(yes, anyone who has valued and appreciated this scientific powerhouse and the science discoveries it has yielded "must be" merely emotionally wrung out and sentimental ) is a bit pointless.

As is name-calling itself. In fact, I think name-calling is a definite indicator of emotionalism.

We're just a small group of people who interact here on a regular basis, with varying opinions. I sincerely doubt anything anyone says here has influenced the ultimate decision, nor do I fancy the powerbrokers in the gov't are reading our posts and are influenced thereby.

--Cindy

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-22 10:59:22

I am angry and emotional because of the parade of people rejecting the reality of the situation for whatever reason, mostly sentimentality, not because I am emotional about the facts... Even if I were, my emotions change nothing about the facts.

dicktice · 2005-02-22 20:05:53

And, I'm angry because no one seems to be taken with the idea of leaving the launcher "first stage" behind: It being a maglev railcar that carries the second stage and/or orbiter up a strato-volcano to 20,000 feet to separate at just under Mach-1, and then slides regeneratively down the mountain for another railcar carrying another space (whatever) vehicle to be switched onto the mountain track to be lanched next, etc. Oh, well, I can always include it in a story....

SpaceNut · 2005-02-24 21:06:58

Well it would seem that the Hubble debate will be prolonged for at least a year possibly 2 for now.

Gyro sacrifice may extend Hubble's life

Engineers are testing whether the Hubble Space Telescope should clip its own wings in an attempt to survive as long as possible without a servicing mission. Preliminary results suggest the new, scaled-down operating mode will buy the telescope an extra year of life - possibly until the end of 2008 - without sacrificing too much science.

It would appear that the work on software that would allow the telescope to run on only two gyros, making the third a further standby. Is a success from the 20 to 23 February, first full-scale test of the new system by using data from only two gyros.

SpaceNut · 2005-02-24 21:28:04

Mikulski spearheads efforts to save the Hubble telescope

Hubble has been on the front page for the past 10 years. "It is hard to rectify how something that generates so much attention and goodwill will have its plug pulled
Hubble revolutionized the study of astronomy with its striking images of the universe. The most notable of Hubble's discoveries include the confirmation of dark matter, observations supporting the current accelerating universe theory, and studies of extra-solar planets.
The battery life will also run out between mid-2007 and 2010. Finally, if a shuttle or other means does not reboost the HST, it will reenter the Earth's atmosphere sometime between 2010 and 2032.
However, not all of the telescope will burn up on reentry as parts of the main mirror and its support structure are expected to survive, leaving the potential for damage or human fatalities (estimated at a one in 700 chance of human fatality for a completely uncontrolled reentry). Without repair, the Hubble Telescope is expected to have major failure by the end of 2007. If nothing is done to save the Hubble, NASA says that it will dispatch a robotic mission to de-orbit it safely to the ocean by 2010 or 2013 at the latest.

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-25 10:07:41

"Hubble has been on the front page for the past 10 years. "It is hard to rectify how something that generates so much attention and goodwill will have its plug pulled"

No, an unmanned space telescope with the name "Hubble" has been on the front page for a decade. A new telescope (with the same name and shape even) will pacify the "ooh pretty pictures" public... The outcry over HST's end will be short and half-hearted by the public at large, especially when they are reminded how old it is.

"And, I'm angry because no one seems to be taken with the idea of leaving the launcher "first stage" behind: It being a maglev railcar that carries the second stage and/or orbiter up a strato-volcano to 20,000 feet to separate at just under Mach-1, and then slides regeneratively down......"

Hardly, your pitiful "realtivising" of this situation is nonsense... the choice between HST SM4 and HOP is obvious, self evident, and beyond any rational reproach. To support HST-SM4 is illogical, irrational, and anti-scientific.

Euler · 2005-02-25 13:23:48

The studies seem to indicate that a new telescope would deliver significantly more capability than Hubble, while being less expensive and less risky than a Hubble servicing mission, and would probably last longer than a refurbished Hubble as well. In light of these facts, does anyone dispute that it would be a much better investment in terms of science/dollar to build a new telescope than it would be to service Hubble?

If you accept that the HOP is a better investment, why continue to support Hubble? When it comes down to it, funding for astronomy is really a zero sum game, so if you want to preserve Hubble then you will just be delaying the production of something better.

dicktice · 2005-02-26 19:10:14

CGNR: Re. "Hardly, your pitiful "realtivising" of this situation is nonsense... the choice between HST SM4 and HOP is obvious, self evident, and beyond any rational reproach. To support HST-SM4 is illogical, irrational, and anti-scientific."

I gather that the above has something to do my plaintive cry for more discussion about maglev rail launching up the sides of stato-volcanos--since you quoted it in part--but what the heck does it mean? Is realtivising even a word? And anti-scientific: Shouldn't that be unscientific? By the way, there's a movement in Canada to impose some kind of a fine on e.g., scientists and engineers, for each undefined acronym in any technical paper for descimination outside their speciality. It started out in fun but, like Murphy's Law, it seems to be catching on. Now, to return to the subject of Maglev railcar first-stage replacements...

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2005-02-06 10:22:30

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

#52 2005-02-06 12:37:29

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

#53 2005-02-06 13:42:39

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

#54 2005-02-06 14:25:41

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

#55 2005-02-06 17:01:54

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

#56 2005-02-06 17:32:36

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

#57 2005-02-06 18:42:19

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

#58 2005-02-07 06:02:43

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

#59 2005-02-07 06:46:27

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

#60 2005-02-18 23:56:13

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

#61 2005-02-19 10:11:37

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

#62 2005-02-19 23:18:36

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

#63 2005-02-20 11:16:39

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

#64 2005-02-20 11:38:48

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

#65 2005-02-21 05:56:09

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

#66 2005-02-21 21:36:25

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

#67 2005-02-22 06:54:47

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

#68 2005-02-22 07:00:58

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

#69 2005-02-22 10:59:22

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

#70 2005-02-22 20:05:53

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

#71 2005-02-24 21:06:58

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

#72 2005-02-24 21:28:04

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

#73 2005-02-25 10:07:41

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

#74 2005-02-25 13:23:48

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

#75 2005-02-26 19:10:14

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

Board footer