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

GCNRevenger · 2005-03-10 09:27:26

I think its time for O'Keefe, not the acting NASA head whoever that may be, to take a trip to Congress and clearly illustrate the folley of fixing Hubble... The risk of bad public reaction is no longer a big enough reason, there is a risk that a Shuttle-Hugger interim ex-astronaut NASA head will decide to launch Shuttle! It is time to end this insanity.

Hubble needs Shuttle, it was designed for regular servicing missions to keep it operational... it will always be "just one more SM!" from the Hubble Huggers until the thing literally falls out of the sky.

And if SM4 does fly, then HOP will not. Then the astronomers will be out of luck when Hubble fails again, since there will be no more Shuttle to service it (God willing)... Don't they realize how close they are to not having a future beyond Hubble?

PS: (Yes, I do hate the Space Shuttle, no need to ask)

LtlPhysics · 2005-03-12 19:53:09

NASA Urged to Spend Funds on Hubble Fix

WASHINGTON (March 11) - Two congressmen urged NASA's acting administrator Wednesday to ensure that all of the $291 million appropriated to NASA in the Fiscal Year 2005 Omnibus Bill is spent on servicing the Hubble Space Telescope.

In a letter to Acting NASA Administrator Frederick Gregory, Reps. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., and Alan Mollohan, D-W.Va., asked him not to eliminate the possibility of a manned repair mission.

"Significant progress has been made toward a robotic servicing mission for the Hubble, and we expect NASA to continue that progress, although not limiting the mission only to a robotic option," the letter states. They noted that they expect to see a design review and operating plan soon.

The Hubble Space Telescope is managed and operated by the Goddard Space Flight Center in Hoyer's district and Mollohan is the top Democrat on the Appropriations Subcommittee on Science, State, Justice, and Commerce.

While NASA has sent several repair missions, experts say another is needed because the batteries and gyroscopes probably will fail between mid-2007 and 2010. But after the 2003 crash of the space shuttle Columbia, a manned mission to repair Hubble has been in question.

Mad Grad Student · 2005-03-12 21:08:11

It's starting to look like the whole argument is pretty moot anyway. NASA is sloughing funds from across a wide range of missions, Hubble is just the most publicly-visible. It's likely that Voyager, Ulyssess, Hubble, and many other ongoing missions will go the way of JIMO in order to pool more funds for the VSE. Not the most desirable outcome, but it's what we have to live with.

I'm certainly not a fan of dumping Hubble, but it looks like that's what the issue is going to come to no matter what. Hopefully a mission like HOP will be launched to fill the gap.

LtlPhysics · 2005-03-12 22:08:50

Who knows how it will end up? The prevailing feeling here is that there's no point in a Hubble mission, that you can only paste tape on it, milk it for another four years. Smart money would assemble a new one, good for ten years, and launch it into a higher orbit.

I have heard that the LaGrange points have collected some dust, over the billions of years. Is that a clean enough area to deploy telescopes?

GCNRevenger · 2005-03-12 22:12:26

I am of the opinion that JIMO was a red-herring to begin with... it didn't really make any sense, that its fundtion would have been much better served by smaller individual probes. What it did do was put money into building new space reactors and to perfect heavy ion engines, which would come in handy for a sustained Lunar presence.

SpaceNut · 2005-03-24 06:24:25

Part of the problem for Hubble is with congress in that they may force a repair even if it does not economically make sense but is the question of investment more than just what it takes to build the item. One could argue that repairs are not part of investment but for most it is the sum of all that creates investment.

One the flipside of it when we are done with the shuttles we will have invested not only the design, build, launch, refurbishment, retrofit or upgrade dollars only to mothball them to a museum. I for one would love to see them but is it the right thing to do when so much cash has been utlized to making them fly.

GCNRevenger · 2005-03-24 09:44:12

"...congress in that they may force a repair even if it does not economically make sense but is the question of investment more than just what it takes to build the item. One could argue that repairs are not part of investment but for most it is the sum of all that creates investment."

What? No, a dollar spent on Hubble is a dollar spent on Hubble. There is nothing about Hubble that exempts additional money spent on it from rational analysis of the bennefits of that expenditure.

SpaceNut · 2005-04-01 06:04:24

NASA Review: Hubble Headed For Deorbit-Option Only

I say why waste the 300 million plus to do only this a de-orbit atmospheric burn up. Save the money and apply it to the HOP unit instead.

Commodore · 2005-04-01 10:27:31

A well aimed anti-satillite missle shot just before it begins its plunge should break it up enough to ensure that the peices are small enough to burn up.

SpaceNut · 2005-04-01 11:01:04

Robotics review results in bad news for Hubble NASA is ‘not contemplating’ a continuation of plans to fix telescope robotically

Live vote:

What do you think about the idea of sending a robotic mission to service the Hubble Space Telescope? * 9827 responses
In light of the Columbia tragedy, it's the best option.
18%
This is beyond a robot's capability: The shuttle should go instead.
46%
We should concentrate on disposing of Hubble safely and moving on to the next space telescope.
26%
None of the above.
10%

Palomar · 2005-04-01 11:18:21

*Flip a coin.

Will they? Won't they? The dog continues chasing its tail.

--Cindy

GCNRevenger · 2005-04-01 11:21:25

Not really... the argument has "no fix" as the default position at the moment, and I dont think that a compelling alternative will be found within the year or so that Hubble has left before mission prep would have to start.

I say NASA ought to just let it fall, that the risk is acceptable, but NASA probobly won't do that.

Ian Flint · 2005-04-01 11:56:05

If NASA can secure funding to build a replacement - and replace it soon - then let it fall. Without a replacement secured, they should send a shuttle to repair it.

clark · 2005-04-01 12:01:20

Ian, why? Is the Hubble really that important? How does Hubble advance human space exploration in any amount?

The problem I see is that the Hubble is a great exscuse to keep the Shuttle around- sine only the Shuttle can fix it. If we are content to wait longer on going beyond LEO, then saving Hubble for a few more years is the way to go. However, the science it is doing can be or is being replicated by terrestrial telescopes.

If we fix it now, then in another 5 years, when it needs another repair, we will face the same situation as we get ready to retire the shuttle. Just put the entire issue to rest. The way forward dosen't include the Hubble.

GCNRevenger · 2005-04-01 12:31:46

If NASA can secure funding to build a replacement - and replace it soon - then let it fall. Without a replacement secured, they should send a shuttle to repair it.

By secured do you mean actually launch the replacement telesocpe and do the usual shake-down before Hubble fails? If so, then your requirement isn't reasonable, because Hubble has only about 2-3 years of life left in it without a service mission, maybe less. It is unlikly a new telescope can be ready by then.

If by secured you mean that NASA is actually going forward with the plan, the #2 Hubble mirror dusted off, and an Atlas-V purchase order signed and money changing hands, then there is the question if any UV/Vis space telescope is worth it at all. Ground-based telescopes can already match Hubble in the IR and some visible work, which reduces what makes Hubble unique.

But more then that, a Shuttle mission will be so expensive that it would eat up much of the money that a replacement telescope would cost. Hubble's lack of unique abilities that cant' be done with ground-based telescopes with adaptive optics, and the several year haitus between UV/Vis space telescopes, is not worth sacrificing Hubble's replacement. Not to mention the human risk and the disruption to the ISS plan of a Shuttle flight.

I think that a UV/Vis space telescope is a good idea, they can still take UV images, low-noise images, and ultrawide field images that adaptive optics telescopes can't. However, Hubble's need for regular servicing, the liklihood that it will fail even with a service mission, and its incompatibility with an ultrawide field imager make it a bad investment to fix it.

Ian Flint · 2005-04-01 13:03:43

By 'replacement' I don't just mean another hubble. I would expect an improved telescope. I just don't want to have a period of 15 to 20 years without any space telescope after hubble comes down.

Perfect situation:
1. Get congress to approve funds for a new space telescope ASAP.
2. Use hubble, without servicing it, as long as possible or until replaced.
3. Let it die.

Bad situation:
1. Let hubble die.
2. Tinker around with possible replacements.
3. Wait forever to get a new telescope in space.

I wish planners would be smart and start funding and building replacements (applicable to any space asset) before old age became an issue.

GCNRevenger · 2005-04-01 13:16:14

Hubble wasn't supposed to get old. Originally, Shuttle was intended to service Hubble regularly until on-orbit servicing was no longer practical due to componet age. Then Shuttle, had it been able to carry the originally designed heavy payloads back down to Earth, could have brought back Hubble when it begins to wear out. Then you just bring it back down and refurbish it... But Shuttle can't bring Hubble back down and Shuttle isn't going to be flying but one more service mission before end-of-flight.

LtlPhysics · 2005-04-02 00:13:16

From what I have read here, the current Hubble has developed a few problems that cannot be addressed by a routine shuttle overhaul. Let it go, build a Hubble II with the major elements that already exist. Use an expendable rocket, launch it to a higher orbit and get 10 years out of it.

Is that too simple?

RobertDyck · 2005-04-02 03:05:41

Be careful what you read. There are many here who want to argue for scuttling Hubble. Of course they'll make it sound like "Hubble has developed a few problems that cannot be addressed by a routine shuttle overhaul". The service missions are quite comprehensive. Service Mission 4 (SM4) is described in detail http://hst-jwst-transition.hq.nasa.gov/ … 1.pdf]here.

There's also a report from HST-JWST transition http://hst-jwst-transition.hq.nasa.gov/ … .pdf]FINAL REPORT OF THE HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE POST-SM4 SCIENTIFIC REVIEW PANEL. This one argues strongly for SM5 in 2007-08.

Michael Bloxham · 2005-04-02 03:31:11

Ian, why? Is the Hubble really that important? How does Hubble advance human space exploration in any amount?

Can I just say how angry I am at this whole 'Human space exploration' thing. To me, it does not matter, humans or robots, it is simply a matter of which is more efficient. And NASA must decide for which situation humans might get the job done more efficiently: Whether it be concerning manned Mars exploration, or, in this case, servicing the Hubble.

NASA will always do well when it has a clear goal, a clear objective, in mind. That goal in 1961 was to land a man on the moon within the decade, and NASA did a reasonable job. After that, NASA hasn't really had a goal, hence the mandness that is the Shuttle/ISS.

But today, the goal should not be to return a man to the moon, or to land a man on Mars.

The goal should be simply this: To answer some damn-good questions, and to do so as effectively and efficiently as possible. Not some wishy-washy contestable 'human space vision'.

-Mike

RobertDyck · 2005-04-02 03:57:28

For some of us the goal is human settlement of space. Science is a means to achieve that goal, not the end in itself.

Grypd · 2005-04-02 04:59:33

The goal of science is to improve Human life to give us more of an understanding of ourselves or our surroundings and to improve our capacity to expand.

We have expanded right across this planet it is time we moved on and go to the final fronteir and science will be our tool to do it. It is not the goal of expansion to do science but to help us expand

GCNRevenger · 2005-04-02 10:50:23

Ian, why? Is the Hubble really that important? How does Hubble advance human space exploration in any amount?
Can I just say how angry I am at this whole 'Human space exploration' thing. To me, it does not matter, humans or robots, it is simply a matter of which is more efficient. And NASA must decide for which situation humans might get the job done more efficiently: Whether it be concerning manned Mars exploration, or, in this case, servicing the Hubble.
NASA will always do well when it has a clear goal, a clear objective, in mind. That goal in 1961 was to land a man on the moon within the decade, and NASA did a reasonable job. After that, NASA hasn't really had a goal, hence the mandness that is the Shuttle/ISS.
But today, the goal should not be to return a man to the moon, or to land a man on Mars.
The goal should be simply this: To answer some damn-good questions, and to do so as effectively and efficiently as possible. Not some wishy-washy contestable 'human space vision'.
-Mike

*Shakes head* I believe that you are ignoring the fact that humans are hard-wired to be explorers. It is literally in our blood... The trouble is that none of us really has the reasources to explore, so we make do with exploration by proxy.

Proxy explorers have been all over the Earth, and have bascially been everywhere worth going to. We need a new destination... And in the farther future, who knows, humanity will then be able to fulfill its other programming... to expand.

Also, there are atoms in space that we do not have on Earth in any great supply. Going to get them would be swell for our continued wealth and health... And you can't do that with robots.

srmeaney · 2005-04-02 11:07:57

If the Hubble can see the other side of the Universe, Where are the images of the planets in the neighboring star system? If we can calculate the existance of planets orbiting stars based on the wobble of the star, why do we not look at the closest star? Why send a Sattelite to Mars to photograph the surface when THe hubble could have done the job?

Hubble is little more than an overpriced Nikon. Even so, it is still as valuable as the Space Station (not from a financial perspective but rather a sociological one) and should be maintained until everything it can reveal is. That is why the Buggered mirror must be replaced, not juryrigged with duct tape and a bifocal.

GCNRevenger · 2005-04-02 11:08:23

Be careful what you read. There are many here who want to argue for scuttling Hubble. Of course they'll make it sound like "Hubble has developed a few problems that cannot be addressed by a routine shuttle overhaul". The service missions are quite comprehensive. Service Mission 4 (SM4) is described in detail http://hst-jwst-transition.hq.nasa.gov/ … 1.pdf]here.
There's also a report from HST-JWST transition http://hst-jwst-transition.hq.nasa.gov/ … .pdf]FINAL REPORT OF THE HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE POST-SM4 SCIENTIFIC REVIEW PANEL. This one argues strongly for SM5 in 2007-08.

*Ptphfff* Yes Robert, be careful what you read.

OMG, how lame... This OSS board is still in la-la land, Shuttle this and Shuttle that, oblivious to the realities of the STS situation.

I want to also point out, In Great Big Bold Capital Letters, that this OSS board was not conviened to discuss alternatives to Hubble. Its sole purpose was to study the possibility of a 5th service mission, and works on the assumption that Shuttle will perform SM4 AND be available for another mission until decades' end. They also are working on the notion that the OSS will only have to pay about $120M share for a Shuttle mission.

I repeat, the board was not studying the question between service mission four, Hubble-II , or no space telescope: the board exclusively focused on a the viability of a 5th service mission.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#101 2005-03-10 09:27:26

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

#102 2005-03-12 19:53:09

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

#103 2005-03-12 21:08:11

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

#104 2005-03-12 22:08:50

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

#105 2005-03-12 22:12:26

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

#106 2005-03-24 06:24:25

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

#107 2005-03-24 09:44:12

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

#108 2005-04-01 06:04:24

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

#109 2005-04-01 10:27:31

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

#110 2005-04-01 11:01:04

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

#111 2005-04-01 11:18:21

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

#112 2005-04-01 11:21:25

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

#113 2005-04-01 11:56:05

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

#114 2005-04-01 12:01:20

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

#115 2005-04-01 12:31:46

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

#116 2005-04-01 13:03:43

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

#117 2005-04-01 13:16:14

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

#118 2005-04-02 00:13:16

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

#119 2005-04-02 03:05:41

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

#120 2005-04-02 03:31:11

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

#121 2005-04-02 03:57:28

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

#122 2005-04-02 04:59:33

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

#123 2005-04-02 10:50:23

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

#124 2005-04-02 11:07:57

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

#125 2005-04-02 11:08:23

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

Board footer