NASA Debates How And When To Kill Hubble Telescope 555
Amy's Robot writes "The Washington Post reports that after 13 years of wear and tear, the Hubble telescope may be on the way out. NASA and some outside scientists have become involved in a heated debate about how and when to end the Hubble telescope program. Keeping Hubble in service until 2020 would require an extra maintenance visit by astronauts at a cost of at least $600 million. Some even worry the batteries could fail by 2010, since the next maintenance visit has been delayed by the Columbia accident and space station priorities. Is it worth maintaining our old friend Hubble, or should NASA let him go out in a blaze of glory?"
For the time being. (Score:3, Interesting)
Hubble Slide Show (Score:5, Interesting)
Bring it Back? (Score:2, Interesting)
Could they bring it back down? (Score:4, Interesting)
They should bring it back. (Score:2, Interesting)
This may sound idealistic, but whether they choose to prolong the mission or not, NASA should definitely consider bringing back the Hubble. It has tought us so much about the universe, and it's such a great piece of History that it's worth to be displayed in a place like the Smithsonian.
R,Is it possible... (Score:2, Interesting)
Hubble trouble? (Score:3, Interesting)
Seriously, without knowing how much work is involved, would it be possible for NASA to retreive Hubble with a shuttle after a routine mission had been completed? Hubble has taught us so much it deserves to be retained in a museum somewhere. In a way, it's been as important to astronomers and astrophysicists as perhaps the Wright brothers' flyer was to aviators. It would be a crying shame to let it just burn up in the atmosphere.
Re:Could they bring it back down? (Score:3, Interesting)
Hubble 2.0 - the design principle (Score:5, Interesting)
To me, it seems like destroying Hubble is not a fitting end to a tool that has built so much for us for over a decade.
So I wonder, why are devices like Hubble not built to be retooled - built with some type of standard socket connections so batteries, comupters, lenses, etc. could be more easily upgraded by swapping out major units and bolting them together on a frame just like a computer?
Would a shift in design principles not be the ultimate homage to Hubble, that it would live on as inspiration for developing space exploration devices that were upgradable?
Re:$600 Million (Score:2, Interesting)
Not the same, but you can't ignore the price.
A way to save it...? (Score:5, Interesting)
The next generation is already being worked on. (Score:4, Interesting)
Therefore a logical decommissioning date would be just after the new scope is up and checks out functionally.
Has anyone thought about automating this stuff? Make these things modular so unmanned robots can do the servicing and updating. Embed little marker tags into the craft so an approaching repair-bot can find its way around, like those robots that follow colored lines on the floor.
Cold Storage Option (Score:5, Interesting)
There have been several options listed
a - burn it up
b - bring it back (maybe if the transporter survives the trip)
c - patch it (and give up other items)
and myabe others I missed in the convoluted article.
But one I didn't see in the article was to give it a good hard shove and put it into solar, or translunar orbit.
If this option were followed there would be a chance that it could be retieved later when bugdets were better, or could serve as a permanent exhibit in an solar space museum if we ever get serious about getting off this rock in a more permanent way.
The destruction of our orbital heritige is a symptom of our throw away society, the mass has been moved the hardest part of the journey.
Why waste the effort spent by turning it into terrestrial litter.
Turn the whole station to point the telescope? (Score:3, Interesting)
Or develop some multi-billion dollar, space-qualified gimbal mounting.
Nah, the attitude/orbital requirements for the scope and the station are just too different.
Plus the vibrations from the space station everytime someone sneezes or touches anything would probably ruin your images.
E-bay... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:At least until there is a replacement (Score:2, Interesting)
Check out the pictures [harvard.edu] taken using the other end of the spectrum, namely X-rays.
Take the wonderfully violent Crab Nebula [harvard.edu] for instance. Just marvellous.
What about its power source? (Score:3, Interesting)
for those who don't know, the whole point of a nuclear reactor is to provide lots of heat to boil liquids for a turbine generator. You wouldn't need to do this if you can use all those microwaves and hard radiation floating around space. con: water is heavy. pro: water blocks radiation and it never needs replacing
Re:Cold Storage Option (Score:4, Interesting)
I believe that until the Colombia crash, NASA had planned on bringing HST back onboard a shuttle. Unfortunately, Colombia was the only orbiter still setup to carry the HST in the cargo bay. The other three orbiters have ISS docking modules in the cargo hold and don't have room for Hubble.
The JungleBoyRe-entry vehicle? (Score:3, Interesting)
Hubble still has four working gyros (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Must die? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Well... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Could they bring it back down? (Score:3, Interesting)
In fact, at a meeting in Washington this past summer to debate the future of HST, one of the most interesting presentations was by the editor of Sky and Telescope. He pointed out that despite the optimistic timelines for launching new satellites, not a single one has come in on schedule, and in fact HST itself was delayed for seven years beyond the projected launch date. "few [amateur astronomers] will put any faith in NASA's claim that HST's successor will be in orbit by 2011."
And HST was built with only modestly new components. The next space telescope is now being designed with some very new technology -- including the biggest mirror ever lofted into space -- and you think there will be no delays or unforseen difficulties?
His final point was that much of the science as well as amateur community benefits and takes interest from the very existence and productivity of Hubble, and to take away a working observatory for the mere promise of one "next year" or "in 5 years" would be a big blow to astronomy.
for his report, see here [nasa.gov]
Re:Makes me feel old (Score:2, Interesting)
And now, under orders from a White House (filled to bursting with creationists), some nickel and diming paper-pushers are considering frying it like a corn dog at the state fair. And let's not discuss how they are stripping down the James Webb telescope.
So, I guess it makes me feel older. Good run while it lasted though.
Bemopolis
Re:Well... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Could they bring it back down? (Score:3, Interesting)
Wouldn't that be a fun newscast... What are the ownership laws over space objects, anyway? I suppose there must be a treaty of some sort to discourage satellite hijacking. How about abandoned space junk?
Re:Must die? (Score:1, Interesting)
this was inevitable... (Score:1, Interesting)