Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

The Hubble Lives On

Posted by Zonk on Tue Oct 31, 2006 11:03 AM
from the still-flying dept.
Space NASA Science Technology
tanman writes "CNN reports that NASA Administrator Michael Griffin has agreed to send astronauts on one final mission to repair the Hubble Space Telescope. No date was reported for the mission, other than before the shuttle fleet is retired. From the article, 'A rehab mission would keep Hubble working until about 2013. It would add two new camera instruments, upgrade aging batteries and stabilizing equipment, add new guidance sensors and repair a light-separating spectrograph. Without a servicing mission, Hubble will likely deteriorate in 2009 or 2010.'"
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] NASA To Determine Hubble's Fate 192 comments
clickclickdrone writes "According to the BBC NASA is debating whether or not to send astronauts in to space to service the Hubble telescope. Without intervention it is thought to be good for another 24-36months. Given the quality of images and data it has produced since it's launch, it sounds like a no brainer to me but the people who hold the purse strings are rarely predictable when it comes to spending money."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

The Hubble Lives On 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • I hope they get another Hubble Deep Field picture. I'd be happy if NASA just provided us with a bunch of those.
  • With USA abandoning the Hubble and ISS, theres not much to be done in space. The Hubble at least should stay and take pictures, if nothing else. The pictures will motivate politicians and voters to pay for bigger projects.
    • "With USA abandoning the Hubble and ISS, theres not much to be done in space."

      What are you talking about? What about the James Webb Telescope. [nasa.gov] We ought to be able to see the start of the universe with that sucker.
      • The JWST is significantly different from the HST, in that the former is purely an infrared telescope. It will not be serviceable or upgradable, either, as its orbit will be at the L2 Lagrange point -- nearly a million miles from Earth.
    • The pictures will motivate politicians and voters to pay for bigger projects.
      Today Senator Pork Barrel said
      All that money for a few lousy pictures! I don't care how pretty they are, we need to cut back on federal expenditure to fund the war on terror.
  • This is a good first step, but is it too late? Don't they have a new deep space telescope on the books already?

    I'm sure the smart folks at NASA know what they are doing, and they actually know what programs are scheduled... If they need to fix Hubble to bridge the gap then let us get it done.

    • This is a good first step, but is it too late? Don't they have a new deep space telescope on the books already?
      James Webb Space Telescope [nasa.gov], scheduled for launch in 2013, if everything goes as planned. It won't.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by CheshireCatCO (185193)

      You, sir, have more faith in NASA's bureaucracy than I do. Having had to battle their system and watched one bone-headed decision after another, I salute your optimism but fear that it is misplaced.

      There is a new telescope in the works, but it's not due to launch until 2013. (This is the James Webb Space Telescope [nasa.gov].) It does not duplicate what HST does since it will primarily be an infrared telescope.

      • Having had to battle their system and watched one bone-headed decision after another.

        Please enlighten us. Not a troll or flame bait. Respectfully, I'm genuinely curious.

    • There would be a five year gap between the projected death of Hubble and the operation of the the New Space Telescope. And we know how Murphey's law complicates the situation.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Chris Burke (6130)
      This is a good first step, but is it too late? Don't they have a new deep space telescope on the books already?

      Yes, but it isn't exactly a replacement for Hubble, it's newer and better tech but also designed for different uses.

      I had heard previously that once the gyros were repaired and it had its orbit boosted that Hubble would last until 2020. It would be fantastic to have both HST and JWST operating at the same time. The article says only 2013 (when JWST is theoretically going to be launched), which ma
      • The gyros have always been the major weak point of the Hubble, and IIRC, they have been replaced on every mission. I would be astonished if the new group lasted much past 2013.

      • JWST [wikipedia.org]. However it only does infrared imaging, whereas Hubble covers the visible spectrum.

        "Only" does infrared? Actually, there is more information to be gathered in the infrared than there is in the visible. Developments in earth-based telescopes mean that they are catching up on Hubble, though Hubble still has some unique capabilities. But because the atmosphere absorbs IR, they are blind in that range. And there is just as much bandwidth and just as much interesting information out there in

        • Actually, there is more information to be gathered in the infrared than there is in the visible.

          That may be, but there is information to be gathered in the visible that cannot be gathered in the infrared. We need both, and more besides.

            • IIRC the JWST has very poor visible light capability. AFAIK only the FGS-TF [stsci.edu] imaging unit can even support visible light, and it is intended to pull in only narrow frequency bands at a time. The other three imaging units are all infrared (mid and near.) This unit is also used for attitude guidance.

  • Hooray! (Score:3, Informative)

    by MtViewGuy (197597) on Tuesday October 31 2006, @11:11AM (#16658867)
    I am very happy that they've decided to launch one final Hubble servicing mission. This will allow the HST to operate until the James Webb Space Telescope is launched in 2013.
      • Just a guess. None of the astronomers I talk to actually believe JWST will launch in 2013 if ever. I believe it is on the "schedule" but the funding allocated to it is nowhere near enough to build and launch it in that timeframe.
  • From the article:

    "The shuttle mission will likely be in early 2008."

    Now that's not exactly a launch date but I would say it is better then "No date was reported for the mission, other than before the shuttle fleet is retired."

  • One final mission (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 31 2006, @11:13AM (#16658911)
    CNN reports that NASA Administrator Michael Griffin has agreed to send astronauts on one final mission
    Their sacrifice will be appreciated.

  • Service Lifetimes... (Score:3, Funny)

    by steve-o-yeah (984498) on Tuesday October 31 2006, @11:13AM (#16658923) Journal
    Support for Hubble SP1 has expired. Please upgrade to Hubble SP2.
    • Actually this will be Hubble SP4. They've done 3 repair missions so far. Marc
    • Thank you for choosing to download Hubble SP2. Before we can continue, Hubble Genuine Advantage needs to confirm that your copy of Hubble SP1 is a valid one. Do you wish to continue?

      Yes No Cancel
  • Awesome. I grew up in love with the idea of the Hubble. A remote optical platform from which to shoot insanely high-quality and far-reaching deep space photos is a powerful tool we should not let to waste.

    The willingness to keep the Hubble alive in the midst of so much strife in the world today has made me feel just a little bit better about today.

  • Backup for the shuttle (Score:3, Insightful)

    by TubeSteak (669689) on Tuesday October 31 2006, @11:14AM (#16658947) Journal
    Unlike the remaining 14 shuttle flights needed to finish space station construction, astronauts going to Hubble wouldn't have a refuge in the event of a catastrophic problem like the one that doomed Columbia. NASA would have another shuttle on the launch pad, ready to make an emergency rescue trip in case of trouble.
    Are they doing this because they're afraid of risking the shuttle or is NASA afraid of risking the astronauts?

    Manned spaceflight would never have gotten off the ground if NASA had exhibited such risk averse behavior almost 50 years ago.

    • Re:Backup for the shuttle (Score:4, Insightful)

      by MightyYar (622222) on Tuesday October 31 2006, @11:28AM (#16659201)
      Are they doing this because they're afraid of risking the shuttle or is NASA afraid of risking the astronauts?

      Obviously the astronauts. They'd hate to lose another vehicle because it would probably end the shuttle program. However, the American people do not like 7 dead astronauts and neither does NASA. We would mourn astronauts more than the shuttle.

      Manned spaceflight would never have gotten off the ground if NASA had exhibited such risk averse behavior almost 50 years ago.

      This is probably a fair statement, but there is no need to take risks like that to accomplish the current goals in space. We don't accept 1950's technology or safety standards in construction, aviation, automobiles, or health care - I see no reason to accept it in space. You certainly could argue that our goals are not lofty enough.

      You DO still see that risk-taking spirit, though. Spaceship One was pretty seat-of-the-pants.

    • On the other hand, 50 years ago, they could rely on simple and therefore more reliable systems.
      The shuttle is just not the good choice, it was designed to be reused (and therefore be less expensive and more available) and it ended up being overpriced and dangerous.
      This reminds me of the Spirit of St Louis. Every other plane used to try to cross the atlantic ocean had three engines but in the end couln't fly with only two of them because of the weight of the gas, what was supposed to be an advantage can be y
    • 50 years ago we were fighting for dominance over the russians. Now we are just exploring space. Human lives can be lost in the fight for dominance over another country (see: war) but for the peaceful pursuit of space? Politicians and the general public say no.
      • Human lives can be lost over just about anything a person deems is worth risking it for. People can lose their lives camping, skiing, driving to work in the morning, eating (see: Heimlich manuever. see also: obesity), or by just plain growing old. People can lose their lives helping other people (firefighters, police). People can lose their lives exploring mountains, caves, or the Great Barrier Reef (RIP Steve Irwin). People can sure as heck lose their lives exploring space. Death is a part of life. It's fo
        • What politicians and the general public should not accept is if NASA were to lie to their employees about the risks of what they do. Frankly, I don't think it's possible to convince well-educated engineers, scientists, and pilots working in a field where several percent of their colleagues have died on the job that there are not significant risks to their job.

          Agree. I have several friends in NASA and there is no misconception of the dangers involved. But the motivations from the 60's are not there anymor
    • Are they doing this because they're afraid of risking the shuttle or is NASA afraid of risking the astronauts?

      The astronauts. The reason they have the backup shuttle ready to go is so that in the event that the shuttle servicing Hubble undergoes irreparable damage during the mission and would not be able to safetly re-enter the atmosphere, the other shuttle can be launched to pick up its crew.

      At which point the original shuttle would most likely be lost. The astronauts would be safe, though, which is the

    • Manned spaceflight would never have gotten off the ground if NASA had exhibited such risk averse behavior almost 50 years ago.

      Apollo did have such risk-averse behavior. The mission could be aborted at almost any point without losing the astronauts. The only point in the whole mission where a single engine failure was fatal were the few seconds just before landing on the moon.

      • They have to be more risk-averse these days because the shuttle hardware is way more fragile and complicated than Apollo-program-era hardware.

        particularly due to the fact that the Apollo stuff was single-use-only the ablative heatshield was designed to work for one re-entry then get turfed, whereas the tiles in the shuttle need to withstand more re-entries, and is apparently difficult to tell when they need to be replaced.

        this is likely the reason why NASA is opting for replaceable one-time-use heatshields

  • Good! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by GreggBz (777373) on Tuesday October 31 2006, @11:18AM (#16659029) Homepage
    The cost of a shuttle mission, from Wikipedia. [wikipedia.org]
    is between $60M and $1.5B.. let the debate ensue. Not to be rude, but I'm ignoring the slight potential for human loss.
    So many more people die in Iraq or Alaskan Crab Fishing or.. well.. you get the point.
    I'm sure there will be other missions and shuttle maintenance and general program costs in 2007 whether we fix the Hubble or not. So, it's logical to factor the cost of this mission kind of inversely, thinking rather, how much will we save if we do not repair the Hubble? Probably not a whole $1.3B estimated one way in the link above, much less.

    Regardless of how you intemperate the numbers, I think this is a good idea because:

    The Hubble works, and we have experience servicing and fixing it, so it's much more likely that all of this will go smoothly.
    We can get this done soon, whereas development of a another new telescope will undoubtedly take many times longer.
    The Hubble is very meaningful. It's still returning good science and inspirational pictures.
    It's functioning keeps a quite few scientists employed, and that's a good thing.
    It's good press. NASA needs to flourish. I think the "new NASA" is just starting to hit it's stride, despite an
    otherwise depressed national consciousness. We've had lots of enormously meaningful and successful unmanned missions lately, so yay NASA.
    • The cost of a shuttle mission, from Wikipedia. [wikipedia.org] is between $60M and $1.5B.

      Let's just outsource it to India or China. No wonder we haven't been getting anywhere. What's really sad is that the US could fund a global version of NASA and have 4 groups with 4 Billion a Russian, Chinese, Indian, and US group and they'd get the most bang for their bucks from the others. Maybe that would be an idea for obtaining a voting blocks in those countries, by sponsoring a man power intensive space program in
      • The always underestimate life expectancies. I think what they really mean is "it'll be good for three years before X breaks where X is, eh, pretty much anything that requires a servicing mission".

        -l
  • the Charismatic Megafauna problem would affect NASA?

    Since Hubble's replacement is already under construction [nasa.gov], and since ground based scopes like Keck [keckobservatory.org] exceed Hubble's capabilities, what is the benefit of dropping hundreds of millions of dollars repairing it?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by CorSci81 (1007499)
      Keck does exceed Hubble's capabilities for most practical and scientific purposes, and definitely with the dramatic improvement of adaptive optics technology some of the impetus for an optical space telescope is gone. That said, AO isn't perfect so there are still some uses for Hubble. AO can correct for a great deal of atmospheric turbulence, but Hubble still provides more stable images than current AO. Things like the deep field images still aren't terribly practical with a telescope such as Keck becau

    • Re:Who would have thought that (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Explo (132216) on Tuesday October 31 2006, @12:10PM (#16660005)
      Regarding the replacement (well, close enough, even though the JWST is more focused on infrared observations); yes, it's hopefully going to be launched to the space around 2013 or so. However, Hubble won't last that long and it would be quite inconvenient to have a gap of several years between them without any comparable IR/visible light telescopes in space.

      Regarding the ground-based telescopes, while adaptive optics and other fancy things allow them to outperform Hubble in some ways such as resolving power, there are still things they can't do. The ground-based telescopes are unable to observe anything for a significant part of the time because sun is happily shining on the sky and reflecting off the atmosphere. Likewise, no matter where you place the telescope under the atmosphere, weather will occasionally be an issue and atmosphere also tends to absorb some of the wavelenghts, although that's not a big issue on visible light. Additionally, atmospheric glow, no matter whether it's from reflected light pollution or natural [wikipedia.org], makes observations of very dim targets more difficult on the ground.
  • FTA "....upgrade aging batteries..."

    I certainly hope they are not sony or dell batteries!

  • One of my dance partners works fairly high up in NASA, and he said that this morning's announcement is actually telegraphing NASA's intention to cancel the Webb space telescope. Its funding is expected to go instead to the Mars missions... indeed, Mars is going to suck up the funding of practically everything else.

  • This is why we're in space. It's not to "fully exploit space" and, as such must "control it." We've learned a lot in very recent history. Since I was a child, the robotic missions to the far reaches of the solar system have taken us from very primitive knowledge to a better understanding of the nature of the universe and all the cool stuff out there. NASA being used to push political rhetoric gets in the way. This is a good development.
    • The JWST is going to live at a Lagrange point (L2) making it very difficult to attempt any servicing. So they have to use technologies that are tested and resilient to the harmful affects of the environment it will be living in.
    • Some are less than that. The infra-red CCD is 64kilopixels, only 256x256 but has taken some gorgeous pictures. The number of pixels isn't everything, but more what you can do with those pixels and how sensitive they are. A coworker has an awesome picture on the wall that he took with the Hubble as a grad student that used about a week of time on the Hubble using the infrared camera to photograph the Orion nebula to see star formation.

      Also, more pixels isn't always better. It's the quality of those pixel
    • Then again, the Mars Rover duo was only intended to last 9 months ...I think they pulled a Scotty on that one mate.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by stevesliva (648202)
      I wonder if the "injured" Mars Rover will continue to "live" come spring on Mars - once the sun comes out and its solar panels activate.
      Yes. [planetary.org]
      • From your Link :
        A decision had been made [early on], because of what was an expected lifetime for these vehicles [90 days guaranteed] that we would represent the data that was received and plans created using 3 digits," Matijevic expounded. "Obviously, that's not going to work when we hit Sol 1K. Recognizing that we were going to survive that long meant coming up with a modification of all the scripts that we use routinely here on the ground to process the data and the plans in order to adapt them to a 4-d
    • The nominal operation life was 90 days. Its now over a thousand. NASA often decides to kill projects when the cost exceeds the benefits and not when the spacecraft stops working. The next rover lands May 2008, so that could be the cutoff.
    • The Iraq war has absolutely nothing to do with reductions in NASA's budget. Pubic interest has. Nobody has really cared about NASA or what it does since the Moon landing.

      Their budget has been dropping since the mid-70s - you might as well blame it on Vietnam.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.