quote: Early last month, House of Representatives Science Committee Chairman, Sherwood Boehlert, bracketed the conundrum that Congress faces about the space observatory -- in essence, the people's telescope:
"I would dearly love to save the telescope. It has outperformed everyone's fondest hopes and has become a kind of mascot for science, maybe even for our planet. One can't help but root for it," Boehlert said.
...
The group's key finding: To ensure continuation of Hubble's scientific output and to prepare for its eventual de-orbiting, NASA should send a space shuttle mission, not a robotic one.
"If enough money isn't made available to do an adequate Hubble servicing," Black continued, "do we want to take money from other missions... or say, 'Thanks, Hubble, you have done the best you can. Now let's move forward and use the money available and open up new horizons.'"
Now I'm not sure how much it's going to cost to fix the problems with Hubble, but I think that if there's not another telescope that is at least nearly as powerful as the Hubble existing or going up sometime soon, then it should be repaired.
As far as opening up new horizons, on March 10th there was an article posted that said: "Using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope, they made the first direct measurement within our Milky Way Galaxy, and concluded stars cannot get any larger than about 150 times the mass of our sun."
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
I’m on the IV&V for this project. Looks like it’s going to be neat.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
How firm is that 2011 launch date Jay?
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Wasn't some of this already talked about in the 'interesting space-related news' Thread? Yeah, we need to bump that...
FG
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
I’m not sure how firm the date is but everything seems to be going on schedule and we haven’t found any major problems yet. Everything is still early though, but looking well.
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
I got my April Popular Science last night and they highlight this problem. I remember them saying the JW will lauch by 2007 (I'm going purely off memory).
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
They highlight the top ten projects aimed at replacing Hubble.
Posted by kaioshin00 (Member # 3740) on :
Is this JW telescope stronger than the Hubble?
Posted by Mormo (Member # 5799) on :
Jay, what's "IV&V"? I am glad to hear about replacement orbital telescopes on the horizon, that's great!
My drunken rant (a wake for a dead cousin, btw) was based on the fact that NASA had cancelled a shuttle mission to save Hubble, and claimed safty concerns yet refused to do a risk analysis. It seems like it was just administrative fiat to me.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Well, I might not be sure about the 2011 being firm but I’m pretty positive that we won’t be done early and launch in 2007. That’s just not how things work, especially in government projects. Heck, there are some scheduled parts of the project that don’t even start until after 2008.
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
The other thing is, why can't we have JW and Hubble both (aside from the obvious budgetary issues)? Time on Hubble is a precious commodity to begin with. In pseudo capitalistic terms, the demand for the telescope is much larger than it's supply. A CS progfessor I had at JHU had as his day job writing and improving the telescope usage scheduling software for the STI (??).
-Bok
EDIT: In situations like these, I'm remeinded of the scene with Camilla, Gonzo, and Richard Prior in The Muppet Movie.
[ March 16, 2005, 11:24 AM: Message edited by: Bokonon ]
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I'm glad that there's a new telescope on the horizon, but as long as Hubble, with normal maintenance, is able to do scientifically productive work I think it'd be a waste to deorbit it. I agree with Morbo that the decision to sacrifice Hubble without even doing a risk analysis smells more than a bit off.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Oh, and yes, th JW is going to be Hubble-on-performance-enhancing-drugs.
The Barry Bonds of astronomical research.
-Bok
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Hubble is old technology that is being replaced with JWST. The 386 example that Adam gave is very accurate. Do you still buy LP’s even though there is CD’s with better quality? Sure you like to remember the LP’s but you don’t keep it in the forefront when you need to be concentrating on your CD collection.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I don't think the analogy is all that apt. The Hubble can still do lots useful science, though if it is sucking up a large portion of the space telescope budget (I use that term broadly, since the HST is pretty much the _only_ space telescope), then it should make way for the JW. That being said, much as a leftover 386 could be of some use in, say, doing a distributed cure-for-cancer project, the Hubble can still be useful (for the foreseeable future) as a supplement to the cutting edge science of the JWST.
It may be a 386, but the Hubble can still check email and browse the Web fine.
-Bok
[ March 16, 2005, 11:36 AM: Message edited by: Bokonon ]
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Do you still buy LP’s even though there is CD’s with better quality?
Do you throw away your turntable and do without music for 6 years because industry press releases say that CD players will be available at the end of that time?
[ March 16, 2005, 11:38 AM: Message edited by: Noemon ]
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
::nod::
What Bok said.
Posted by Mormo (Member # 5799) on :
quote: Time on Hubble is a precious commodity to begin with
Bok This is a key point--having a new and improved telescope will not diminish Hubble's usefullness entirely. If it could be maintained via shuttle it could have continued productivity well into the 2010s.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
NASA administration is being typically moronic about the matter. If ya can launch a booster to successfully attach itself to the Hubble to deorbit the darn thing, then ya can launch&attach a set of gyroscopic stabilizers to keep it running.
[ March 16, 2005, 12:48 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Actually, replacing the gyros is a very delicate thing. They are housed inside the scope, I believe.
-Bok
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
And the JamesWebSpaceTelescope doesn't even operate on the same frequency spectrum as the Hubble. The "replacement"argument is like saying you can throw out the stove cuz you're gonna buy a refrigerator in a few years.
[ March 16, 2005, 12:56 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
The gyros don't have to be placed inside. Attaching them outside will accomplish the same thing. Equal and opposite reaction is still equal and opposite reaction. The difference between inside attachment vs outside attachment is about as significant as the difference between the using the E in the first phrase vs using the e in the second phrase.
[ March 16, 2005, 01:31 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
PopSci also diagrams the size of the mirrors on the JW when set against the Hubble's single (distorted) mirror. I'd highly suggest you read the April edition.
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
Note: I said read, not buy! I'm not trying to sell.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
It’s completed its primary mission. Sure it’s a nice piece of hardware, but with limited budget and safety concerns taking a forefront it’s just not going to be saved. I’d like it if they kept it up and going, but I don’t think it should be a primary mission since it’s going to be replaced anyway. I always thought that they should bring it down in a space shuttle so that it could be put in a museum. But who knows what will happen with limited $$$. I half wonder if the threat to crash it is an attempt to bring in private investors or other donations so that money can be raised from other places then the limited government funds.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Okay, throw out the scratched-up ol' stove cuz you're gonna get a BIG new refrigerator. It's still nonsensical.
[ March 16, 2005, 01:19 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) could be powerful enough to "see" objects 400 times fainter than those visible with Earth-based telescopes—potentially snagging a peek at objects 15 billion light-years away.
By contrast, the Hubble can see objects 60 times fainter than those visible with Earth-based telescopes.
How about throw out the fire pit because you’re getting a top of the line state of the art food replicatetor.
Cook outs are still nice though, but I don’t want to be required to use them when I can see better with the other.
[ March 16, 2005, 12:51 PM: Message edited by: Jay ]
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
So how will you cook your food for the 6 years between the time you get rid of your firepit and the day your replicator arrives?
[ March 16, 2005, 12:51 PM: Message edited by: Noemon ]
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Horse puckys, Jay. Try reading the article you posted. Just cuz your uneducated, anti-science, "it's fun to blow stuff up" President thinks deorbiting is a good idea don't make it so.
[ March 16, 2005, 01:59 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
So you want to waste money on keeping old technology a float which would most likely affect your technology development? Ok, sure. Why not. Anti Science. Yeah sure. Getting a permanent base on the moon and getting a man to Mars is so cave man like. This thread has certainly gotten flushed……………
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
I hope they save Hubble. I actualy grew sort of attatched to it.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
All you've demonstrated, Jay, is that you don't know the difference between a sports binocular and an infrared hunting scope.
[ March 16, 2005, 01:47 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
aspectre, Jay's political opinions have very little to do with anything in this thread. This happens to be, if I read correctly, his area of expertise. He's been very rational and informative on this issue.
You, on the other hand, are being an ass. Please stop.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Science ain't a matter of rallying a concensus of uninformed opinion.
[ March 16, 2005, 01:47 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by solo (Member # 3148) on :
I agree with Noemon. What do you do for the 6 years in between?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:aspectre, Jay's political opinions have very little to do with anything in this thread. This happens to be, if I read correctly, his area of expertise. He's been very rational and informative on this issue.
Agreed. aspectre, you're acting like you're just looking for opportunities to take cheap shots at Jay.
I don't know jack about space telescopes, but I doubt very seriously that Jay is the only person who holds his opinion or that the only reason he holds it is because of politics. Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
I have? Ok…. Might be my bias in knowing that JWST will eventually put Hubble to shame and this sort of discussion will be a moot point. Yes, it’s totally different technology in JWST and this cutting edge view will help researchers in all types of new discoveries. As I’ve been saying, there is a limited amount of money and they have to pick and choose. Do you realize how many different projects are going on right now? http://www.nasa.gov/missions/timeline/current/current_missions.html We’re not just going into space so we can say we’ve climbed Mt Rushmore. We’re learning things and making discoveries and developing new technologies. Yes, Hubble takes pretty pictures, but the JWST pics will be even better and further away. I’m not even sure we can imagine what we’ll see.
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
quote:JWST will reside in an L2 Lissajous orbit, about 1.5 million km (1 million miles) from the Earth.
Like a halo orbit. So the satellite orbits in the same plane as the earth and the sun, and the gravity of the sun causes the satellite's orbit to oscillate?
1.5 million km is a long way out. Were not talking about shuttle-serviceable are we? And it'll be out there for a long time? They had better get it right the first time!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: As I’ve been saying, there is a limited amount of money and they have to pick and choose.
Well, again, this is only because we've decided to not fund Hubble repairs. Why?
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Ummm, Jay is working for the JWST program.
-Bok
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
Alright, I reviewed PopSci. It says 2011, my bad.
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
The site mentions the risk involved in servicing the HST as the main concern.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
It makes me mad/sad to have the government abondoning one of the greatest peieces of science ever. And it could be run for decades still! Long live Hubble!
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
I don't know what all the hubble is about...
If the new and improved model can be deployed and function successfully, we can decommission Hubble if we can't find another use for it.
But a bird in the hand is better...etc.
However, given the penchant of over-promising and under-delivery inherent with government projects, I'm all in favor of maintaining the existing systems until the new system passes it's shakedown.
Call it the M-16 syndrome.
-Trevor
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Servicing the Hubble doesn't just mean fixing what's broke on it. The servicing mission would replace gyros, mirrors, and programming in the telescope to make it more powerful than before.
The main issue I see in congress is the risk of sending a shuttle up to service it, especially after what happened with the Columbia. As far as I'm concerned, space flight isn't necesarily supposed to be safe. Space is the frontier, and the frontier is always dangerous. Astronauts know what they are risking when they go up there, and they want to save the Hubble too. Let them do it. Let's get as much mileage out of this thing as possible.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Personally, were I an astronaut, I'd be rather ticked about having the entire friggin' fleet grounded indefinitely.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It's not indefinite, they are launching Atlantis in April.
Posted by Mormo (Member # 5799) on :
quote:JWST could be powerful enough to "see" objects 400 times fainter than those visible with Earth-based telescopes—potentially snagging a peek at objects 15 billion light-years away.
By contrast, the Hubble can see objects 60 times fainter than those visible with Earth-based telescopes.
How about throw out the fire pit because you’re getting a top of the line state of the art food replicatetor.
Jay, your metaphor doesn't hold water. There is plenty of demand for Earth-based telescopes, which according to your quote have, at best, 1/60 of the resolution of Hubble. Basically, Hubble becomes the #2 optical telescope the day JWST come on-line. So what? If there is demand for the #100 telescope, don't you think the #2 might have some use? You also say:
quote: So you want to waste money on keeping old technology a float which would most likely affect your technology development?
Another way to look at it is spending money to get the most out of the billions already invested in Hubble, instead of using it like a disposable camera.
The article I read and linked to in the "space news" thread said the Hubble shuttle repair missions were scrapped due to (possibly BS) safety concerns, not because Hubble had out-lived it's usefulness. It hasn't, and will still be useful when the new telescope is working, unless NASA lets it deorbit and burn up.
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
It looks like every HST service mission has involved docking with the thing and towing it to higher orbit. That's probably the tricky part.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Hey, I’d love it if it stayed up. All I’m saying is that they have to pick and choose. And I’d much rather them go with new and improved. NASA does cutting edge stuff and leaves the other stuff for the researchers to work out. I really truly believe this is a PR stunt to get some kind of public funding going. The “Save Hubble Fund” Look at the 10 million given for the X project. But you gotta have the press to get the funding and I bet this is their way to start the ball moving. Think of it, you could privatize Hubble and get the funding from those who want to have scope time.
Posted by kaioshin00 (Member # 3740) on :
quote: Lawmakers and scientists agree that Hubble has been a tremendous tool for space research since it came into service in 1990, but they recognize that its expenses are a problem as Washington Washington faces a huge budget deficit.
With repair costs possibly reaching two billion dollars, Congress will have to mull Hubble's future as it tackles the 2006 budget.
According to US media, the Bush administration has decided to eliminate funding for a mission to fix Hubble and extend its life until 2010, when the infra-red James Webb Space Telescope is to take its place.
So I wouldn't say the rescue missions were scrapped just for safety reasons.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
quote:Another way to look at it is spending money to get the most out of the billions already invested in Hubble, instead of using it like a disposable camera.
Exactly.
Posted by Mormo (Member # 5799) on :
From what I can tell,the reasons for scrapping the repair missions were safety concerns, followed by cost. It may be it's too expensive to maintain--I'm just saying it would still be a valuable asset to astronomers even after JWST goes up.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Think of it, you could privatize Hubble and get the funding from those who want to have scope time."
Well, that's a bit of a shell game, given that most people who want scope time are paid with tax money. Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
The good ol circle of life………
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
It's my impression that the equipment that is needed to fix the hubble has already been built and paid for. Does the two billion dollar price tag referred to above include money already spent, or is that an additional 2 billion dollars? Also what percentage of NASA's budget is that?
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Long live Hubble!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)