You are not logged in.
Number 200 but hopefully it will not crash as more discusion is still needed since the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee Adds Money for Hubble Rescue.
The Senate appropriations subcommittee that funds NASA inserted $250 million for a Hubble Space telescope rescue mission into the agency’s 2006 budget legislation and gave NASA a total of $16.4 billion, $60 million less than the president’s budget request.
Now couple that with the already appropiated funds whether they have all been used on the deorbit booster or are still mostly available and half of a shuttle rescue mission has been paid for.
It would appear that congress is trying to save face with the american public on this issue.
Offline
It seems that congress is siding with the anti-scientific Hubble Huggers
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
It would appear that the lead Hubble hugger isMikulski Includes $250 Million for Hubble in Federal Spending Bill Will ensure funding for servicing mission
edit
This article gives somewhat contradictory numbers as to what has or is available for a mission.
Offline
"Partial" funding?
I.E. forcing NASA to divert hundreds of millions of dollars anyway to fix Hubble?
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
$250 million for a mission that will cost probably about $1500 million gives me only one impression.
They want NASA to divert funds from somewhere and so gain political capital from it. There can only be one place this money can come from and that is the CEV and the space exploration iniative. If NASA has to pull over a billion dollars to make an unprepared mission then the Moon Mars iniative will fail or be dealt a body blow it may never survive. It also leads to if you could cut then why not now politics. It leads to needing to fly another mission for the shuttle and could creep the shuttle past its retirement date. The worst thing though is that this underfunded cash if not used to put together and fly a mission to hubble will also lead to political gain as the next time that Griffin and NASA go cap in hand to pay for the next part of the Iniative they will be met with but we funded a mission to save the Hubble and you did not do that. So why give you money for what we have not asked you to do.
This is nasty politics and has nothing to do with science. It makes the committee look like "good guys" and whatever NASA does into a weaker bargaining position and weakens the Moon Mars program.
Chan eil mi aig a bheil ùidh ann an gleidheadh an status quo; Tha mi airson cur às e.
Offline
Sure makes one wonder on who's numbers are right for what it really does cost for shuttle use....
Offline
space.com/astronotes/astronotes.html
The idea of hooking a special deorbit module to the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) has apparently been scuttled by NASA.
“It does not look like a propulsion module will be necessary for a shuttle servicing mission,” said Chris Shank, special assistant to NASA chief, Michael Griffin, at the 8th International Mars Society Convention, held August 11-14 at the University of Colorado at Boulder
Seems like some one has confused the two ways of servicing the Hubble...
Offline
You would think that astronomers wanted whats good for astronomy. Not Nostalgia.
Idiots
"...all I ask is a tall ship, and a star to steer her by."
Offline
While good astronomy cost it has now become more apparant that Nasa can not necessarily count on the shuttle after the Discoveries return to flight. Now with the one two punch being felled by Huricane Katrina Hubble's shuttle mission is growing increasingly by the day a no go as Hubbles life continues to slip away.
Scientist still needing Hubbles abilities have shifted gears in order to try an extend Hubbles life as much as possible. Health Checkup: Engineers Work to Stall Hubble's Death
To keep the Hubble Space Telescope going, officials are changing how it operates and contemplating other actions for the aging observatory.
Engineers recently shut down one of the orbiting observatory’s three operational gyroscopes in an effort to preserve the operating life of the third gyro, thereby pushing Hubble’s science observations into mid-2008.
Other life-extension ideas are being studied – even downshifting Hubble onto one-gyro mode.
Offline
Unless the ISS is simply canceld or it falls from the sky before 2010 or something, the Shuttle repair mission to Hubble just isn't happening. If it was very likly either a major ISS componet or the ISS mission before, it certainly is now.
Its time to let it go... the astronomers' science is simply not important enough to warrent another servicing mission.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Nasa is moving forward with the training and mission planning for a Hubble rescue from demise of old age as it were.
[url=http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0512/05hubbleservicing/]Servicing the Hubble:
Shuttle mission plans refined[/url]
Preparations for a shuttle mission to upgrade and repair the Hubble Space Telescope in late 2007 or early 2008 are picking up steam as engineers map out the details of a five-spacewalk flight designed to keep the venerable observatory alive and well through at least 2013.
The lessening of foam strike incedence on launch gives a warm feeling to those that have provided an arm for ispection of the shuttle's tile system if the need arises but the question of repair is still open.. The flight to Hubble under that senerio does mean that a backup shuttle rescue plan is still warranted and needed for Hubble's servicing mission for it has no safe haven.
Of course money has been allicated in the last few years for Hubbles mission by congress but whether or when it gets done is still a valid question for these congressman to still keep asking. Instead congress should have been funding Hubble replacement in the HOP IMO.
Of course this is all tied into the shuttle being processed back to the launch pad in a 60 to 90 day max window. But even that would not be soon enough for the shuttles power resources would not last that long.
A servicing mission's ambitious goals
The five space walks would achieve these goals:
Installation of the Wide Field Camera 3 (in place of the current Wide Field Planetary Camera 2), providing high-resolution optical coverage from the near-infrared region of the spectrum to the ultraviolet
Installation of the Cosmic Origins Spectrograph, sensitive to ultraviolet wavelengths. COS will take the place of a no-longer-used instrument known as COSTAR that once was used to correct for the spherical aberration of Hubble's primary mirror. All current Hubble instruments are equipped with their own corrective optics
Installation of six new nickel-hydrogen batteries to replace the power packs launched with Hubble in 1990
Installation of three new rate sensing units, or RSUs, containing two gyroscopes each to restore full redundancy in the telescope's pointing control system
Installation of a refurbished fine guidance sensor, one of three used to lock onto and track astronomical targets (two of Hubble's three sensors suffer degraded performance). The refurbished FGS, removed from Hubble during a 1999 servicing mission, will replace FGS-2R, which has a problem with an LED sensor in a star selector subsystem
Attachment of new outer blanket layer - NOBL - insulation to replace degrading panels
But then say thee we have done this one what about the future when we need to fix it some more:
NASA has no plans to launch a propulsion module. Engineers believe the observatory will remain in orbit through at least 2020 and possibly longer. As such, a propulsion module will not be needed for more than a decade.
The pages from spaceflight continue for several more beyound this.
The questions for Hubbles serviving mission for why we should or why we should not do it comes down to answering just a few.
Cost of a replacement from spare parts against repair
Cost effectiveness of shuttle use if done versus robotic
Do not do a shuttle mission but do the replacement in HOP is a no brainer IMO...
Offline
While Griffin is still on record as wanting to forfill the Hubble rescue mission with the shuttle.
I am wondering if the fact that equipment intended for it has been damaged if this will cause no mission to occur?
New Hubble Space Telescope Hardware Damaged On The Ground Wednesday, September 13, 2006 an eye bolt supporting a lifting rig failed while off-loading the Wide-field Scientific Instrument Protective Enclosure (WSIPE) dropping the rig onto the WSIPE.
With the damage if it is more costly to repair than to replace it may also have an impact for also not being able to do the HOP mission as well.
Offline
I am wondering if the fact that equipment intended for it has been damaged if this will cause no mission to occur?
New Hubble Space Telescope Hardware Damaged On The Ground Wednesday, September 13, 2006 an eye bolt supporting a lifting rig failed while off-loading the Wide-field Scientific Instrument Protective Enclosure (WSIPE) dropping the rig onto the WSIPE.
"Protective Enclosure" does not sound irreplaceable or that expensive compared to the Wide Field Camera 3, hopefully there is enough time to repair or replace it.
[color=darkred]Let's go to Mars and far beyond - triple NASA's budget ![/color] [url=irc://freenode#space] #space channel !! [/url] [url=http://www.youtube.com/user/c1cl0ps] - videos !!![/url]
Offline
Griffin needs to smart about this, The Hubble maybe on his back for 10 years
or more if he doesn't plan this out. Along with the sevicing mission, they should include a Decommision to High Orbit module.
When the next serice mission needs to ocurr in 2 years, the public needs
to be informed that the Hubble will turned into Permanent Space Monument, when
a fixed date of deommissioning is is announced. It should be kicked up to a 7,000 mile high orbit at that date. END OF STORY.
This is kind of like Taxidermy on a beloved pet of US Public.
Offline
All the effort spent over the hubble which is actually a very old instrument. Seriously, the design of the hubble dates all the way back to the origins of the Space Shuttle in the 1970's. It's ~30 years old design wise. Even if it was a ground based instrument, we would be looking at replacing it by now. And in space it is even less cost-effectivness to service a device. And if we do service it now, when does it end? The Hubble won't be getting any younger, yet the arguments for preserving it don't seem to be loosing any momentum, will we be fighitng about this again 10 years from now?
I truely wish it was possible (as originaly planend) to return the Hubble to Earth to sit proudly in the Smithsonian or something, but it isn't. Lets let the old boy die with some dignity instead of dragging it along for another 10 years or, god forbid, kicking it up into a "graveyard" orbit where it will never be recovered.
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
Offline
Amen to that, Hubble has had a good long life but now that life, as a practical matter, is at an end. Fixing free-flying space telescopes have infact never been cost effective, not even the first Hubble mission to install corrective optics was a very good investment, it would probably have been easier to just build a new telescope and put it atop a Titan-IV.
The rationale for "just one more!" servicing mission is far weaker than this even; Hubble has exceeded its 15 year operational life, which means that the chance of it still working for any useful length of time is now below the acceptable threshold. To put it another way, if we built a new telescope with the same chance of failure as the present aged Hubble, NASA would not launch it since the risk would be too high.
Even if NASA does send up one more mission, there are components of Hubble that were never intended to be nor can be replaced on orbit by astronauts. Hubble was originally intended to be brought back to Earth for periodic servicing by Shuttle infact before the downmass limits were cut after Challenger. Thus, even if NASA does go up, some of Hubble's parts will still be aged antiques that could fail soon. So what is there to be gained really?
This is doubly compounded with the advent of more advanced technologies than what was available in the 1970s, lighter gyroscopes, super-sized CCD cameras (incompatible with Hubble's optics), and that spare Hubble parts (including a second main mirror) are in storage. Why go up to fix the antique when you can build a brand new telescope with far more life and superior performance for comperable cost? No risk of Shuttle astronauts/vehicles either.
Boosting Hubble into a high orbit serves no real purpose, its too small to see, and after it stops working it will slowly ease its way out of the public conciousness. High orbit requires much more fuel and attitude control, and is hence much more expensive. A simple deorbit rocket will be expensive enough, and infact I hope that NASA will forgo the usual unfounded parinoia about deorbiting space debries and let Hubble fall on its own.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
I'll give you a reason, and a frustration. One interest I have is asteroid mining, but Near Earth Asteroids since they're much easier to get to. Astronomers tell me there's no way to tell the difference between true metallic and estantite chondrite using spectra observed by ground based telescopes. It requires short wavelength spectra to discern; such as UV that's blocked by the ozone layer. I want to use Hubble's STIS (Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph) to image M-type NEAs as they pass close to Earth. This will tell us definitively what those asteroids are. There really isn't any other instrument in space that can do the job. From NASA's website "it ceased operations due to failure of an electronic component in August of 2004." The frustration is that Service Mission 4 (SM4) had scheduled to replace that instrument with the Cosmic Origins Spectrograph (COS). This means if SM4 happens, we still wouldn't get access to this instrument.
As I write this there is good news. This website describes SM4. The update as of September 1, 2006, states
If SM4 is approved, the astronauts may also attempt the repair of the Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph (STIS), which was installed on Hubble during SM2 in 1997. STIS is the most advanced spectrograph ever flown in space, but it ceased operations due to failure of an electronic component in August of 2004. The capabilities of COS and STIS complement each other extremely well, and should STIS be repaired, the pair of instruments would bring a “full set” of spectroscopic tools to Hubble for use by astrophysicists in their research. Key to fixing STIS is the on-orbit replacement of one electronics board inside the main electronics box. The Hubble Program and NASA astronauts have been working together to develop manual techniques that astronauts would use to change out the board in orbit.
Ooh! Ooh! So there is a chance I could request an observation target using STIS?
Offline
Why go up to fix the antique when you can build a brand new telescope with far more life and superior performance for comperable cost?
Good question. My guess is the bottom line cost. The incremental (bean counting) cost of launching an STS flight appears on the balance sheet around $300m whereas IIRC the cost of a replacement instrument (there is a detailed estimate somewhere) is over $1000m. NASA needs every cent for VSE and keeping those poor starving scientists fed. Finding the extra $700m is beyond even Griffin and he can't say no to the STSI community's demand for access to a Hubble class instrument in orbit until JWST is ready
[color=darkred]Let's go to Mars and far beyond - triple NASA's budget ![/color] [url=irc://freenode#space] #space channel !! [/url] [url=http://www.youtube.com/user/c1cl0ps] - videos !!![/url]
Offline
Oh bah, near earth asteroid mining? We'll think about that some time... some time well after we're on Mars. And maybe the astronomers can't, but is there no way to estimate by density? And what of the Dawn and other asteroid missions packing spectrometers? Why should we bother identifying the composition of NEAs?
$300M for the launch itself and another $100-200M for mission planning, and thats still more than Hubble is worth. A few more years with the ailing scope', much of its functions aproximated by adaptive optics ground telescopes, that could still fail at any time... Or a few year gap for a brand new telescope with at least tripple the life, the superior wide-field imager (that adaptive scopes' can't match), and in a higher orbit away from the thin wisps of atmosphere in lower LEO. There will be plenty of money to build the Hubble-II once JWST is finished.
So, the real question is if all these bennefits are worth telling the whiney media-centric tantrum-prone astronomers to get with the program and mind their station in the scheme of things. Astronomy isn't even really NASA's problem, it ought to be the NSF or something, and they believe themselves more than they really are. There will be a gap, just like there will be for manned flight between Shuttle and Ares-I/Orion, but on the whole the nation will come out ahead.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
JWST is optimized for IR, it can't do UV. The ozone layer blocks UV so ground based telescopes can't see that spectrum. Adaptive optics can't get you light that just isn't there. Dawn will orbit Ceres and Vesta, two of the largest main belt asteroids. Neither are NEAs.
NEA mining has the potential for near term profit. From a commercialization stand point, you could argue for NEA mining before a manned Mars mission. It doesn't enable a Mars mission, it just makes money. For more details see my talk on the DVD from the 2005 Mars Society conference.
Offline
Why yes I know that, my point is that UV astronomy of NEAs is not going to be important for a long while, after JWST is deployed and its former development dollars are available to build Hubble-II. By "gap" I mean between having any sort of space telescope, to appease the "we explore by sitting on the couch" astronomers who go and whine to reporters, Discovery/Nature/Science et al, and Congress when NASA doesn't do things their way.
Asteroid mining? Ha, a pipe dream, it may never become economical and it certainly won't until the latter half of this century. Therefore, bothering to go prospecting now at the expense of other enterprises is foolish.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Seems like this job should fall under the Air Force Budget, since detecting Near Earth Asteroids is part of the defense of the homeland. Searching for threatening asteroids falls under the category of defense, and should not count as part of NASA's budget.
Offline
I think you are missing Roberts, point and it is a decent one. The Hubble is not needed for simple detection of NEA, our conventional systems on the ground can do that quite well currently, but it might be well suited for doing spetroscopic analysis of nearby asteriods to determine their composition. I'll grant that this might be a very valid reason for a Hubble like telescope. Asteroid mining concurns aside, the data is probably valuable in and of itself.
However, that doesn't necessarily mean that we need the Hubble to accomplish this. Those asteroid aren't going anywhere. They will still be in orbit 10, 20, 30 or 100+ years from now. It's not a time critical issue. The Hubble, on the other hand, is not likely to be around for the next 10~15 years new service mission or not. So for a prolonged study of the compositoin of NEA Hubble is still not the best investment. A purpouse built device, placed in an appropriate orbit would no doubt both last longer, give better results, and would likely be less expensive.
I understand the anxiety people face with respect to their work. They want to get results and action today (or yesterday if possible) and not weight 5 years or so untill a better device can be built. In most fields of study human time is valuable enough that it is worth it to pay extra cost to get instruments to our people quickly. Unfortuantly, this is not the case in astronomy. The stars are not going anywhere, neither are the asteroids. Even asteroid mining is serveral decades out at best. And building telescopes, especialy space telescopes is monumently expensive. It may be painful to wait, but economicaly it is the best solution.
On the positive side, pushing to get new instruments instead of trying to recycle the old is probably a positive thing for astronomers in the new end. Congress is not going to fund a program for a new (and better) space telescope as long as we have one currently up there in orbit. In the search for new and better instruments to explore our universe, scientist should always be pushing for new toys instead of upgrades or life-extensions of the old. Happily, in this case the quest for new & better instruments and economic realities are harmonious. So by not pushing to extend the life of the old Hubble, we may end up getting new and better instruments that we never would have recieved had it stayed up in Orbit.
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
Offline
Why go up to fix the antique when you can build a brand new telescope with far more life and superior performance for comperable cost?
Good question. My guess is the bottom line cost. The incremental (bean counting) cost of launching an STS flight appears on the balance sheet around $300m whereas IIRC the cost of a replacement instrument (there is a detailed estimate somewhere) is over $1000m. NASA needs every cent for VSE and keeping those poor starving scientists fed. Finding the extra $700m is beyond even Griffin and he can't say no to the STSI community's demand for access to a Hubble class instrument in orbit until JWST is ready
Here is the cost breakdown that was posted before for the HOP replacement to Hubble.
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 66730% Contingency 174
8 Atlas 521 Launch Vehicle 150
Total 991
Offline
I am wondering if a smaller telescope with the spectrometer can be built and brought allow with a shuttle mission for launch from the ISS to high orbit.
As for the argument that they have been there and will still be there for a long time is sort of the same one that gets used for why we do not need to explore space.
I disagree for if we are afraid to make steps into space than how can we ever expect ro run...
Possibly homeland security or the air force should belly up to the table with at least some resources to make NEO study possible.
Offline