NASA to Reconsider Hubble Decision 331
blamanj writes "It's not dead yet. With cries of opposition coming in from all quarters, NASA has decided to review its earlier decision. Adm. Hal Gehman, chairman of the board that investigated the Columbia shuttle breakup last year, will 'review the (Hubble) matter and offer his unique perspective,' NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe said"
Space now belongs to developing countries? (Score:5, Informative)
The site owner's response may show where future advances in space will occur. It looks like it's boiling down to a (deceptively) simple question: will you risk your life for your dreams? More importantly: will your country allow you to take that risk?
Brazil's answer seems to be, "yes". Meanwhile, here in the US, we're too busy killing ourselves in our SUVs [thedetroitproject.com]. And don't get me started on 500+ dead and hundreds of $billions spent on the other side of own ball of rock!
Thank God (Score:5, Informative)
Hell, just click over to the hubble site here http://hubble.nasa.gov/image-gallery/ [nasa.gov] and you'll see star formation.
Just don't take away the tool that has cleaned a small bit of grease off the window to the universe and let us see what's out there. We need more photos to help 'instruct' some people down here that already are too big for their own good.
Re:I dont understand (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I dont understand (Score:3, Informative)
Is repairing the Hubble worth 5 astronaut's lives? (Score:5, Informative)
On the other hand, the Hubbe is arguably the most successful astronomical project ever conducted and NASAs second most successful project after the moon landing.
Re:Bring it down if you don't continue using it. (Score:5, Informative)
ESA has something to say ? (Score:4, Informative)
Hubble Hubble Boil and Trouble (Score:5, Informative)
If Hubble is going to come home on its own around 2007, that does not mean we have 3 years to make a decision. With every orbit Hubble gets a tiny bit closer to Earth. It isn't going to take a left turn in 3 years and suddenly be on collision course. We need to do something in the next year or so before the orbit decays to the point that a boost won't move it high enough. That and this is mostly about repair and replacement parts as previously stated - which brings me to:
There was a Hubble plan. NASA has had a plan all along to successfully and responsibly keep Hubble going. Obviously, some unexpected and tragic events have changed that plan.
However, U.S. folks posting with a gripe about NASA's bad planning with Hubble and the International Space Station need to re-direct their energies and complain to their congresspeople - they are the ones holding the purse strings, and they are the ones who cut the Hab module for the ISS. Each of us share the burden of what "popular opinion" is, and that is the only thing we can do about keeping plans on track.
Kulakovich
Orbits (Score:3, Informative)
IIRC they were considering sending a robotic booster to de-orbit the Hubble. To do that they would boost in the opposite direction to the orbit which would lower the perigee.
Re:Are Hubble pictures undoctored (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Backup mission (Score:2, Informative)
Re:I dont understand (Score:4, Informative)
What I think we should be developing, in addition to a shuttle replacement, is robotic repair vehicles that we could use in case of a backup, or in cases of hardware that we really don't want people risking their lives for.
We're working on technologies for that right now, through things like NASA's Demonstration of Autonomous Rendezvous Technology mission [nasa.gov] and DARPA's Orbital Express program [darpa.mil]. Right now we don't have good sensors for bringing two crafts together under robotic or tele-robotic control. With luck, we'll have them working and working well in the very near future.
And yeah, I am a rocket scientist.
Re:Bring it down if you don't continue using it. (Score:3, Informative)
So as much as I agree with your sentiment, I think I can understand the reasons for the decision not to bring it back down intact.
Re:Why not boost Hubble to space station orbit? (Score:1, Informative)
Hubble and ISS are in totally different orbital planes (28 and 51 degrees respectively, if I haven't had too much crackrock recently). And plane changes are incredibly expensive in terms of delta-V.
Re:I dont understand (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Ditch Hubble and build another one (Score:4, Informative)
Uggh, this fact doesn't seem to be sinking in here on /.
NGST is infrared, just like SIRTF. After Hubble's demise, there will be a serious gap in the spectrum available to space-based observatories (SIRTF/JWST for IR, FUSE for far-UV, Chandra for X-Ray). But no optical wavelengths.
At this point someone usually mentions that ground-based adaptive optics can produce image resolution comparable to Hubble. This ignores two factors.
One shouldn't consider killing Hubble in favor of JWST, but look at the whole picture and see if this scientific gap of killing Hubble is worth the price savings and added safety of not servicing it. IMHO, the answer is no.
Re:Bring it down if you don't continue using it. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Ditch Hubble and build another one (Score:3, Informative)
and possibly also the booster add-on that was discussed recently.
Well, we *do* have to orbit Hubble in a controlled manner. It's massive enough that there's a possibility some of the components might reach Earth intact. The political fallout of not even attempting to controllably deorbit Hubble would be, um, nasty
Ergo, the booster will be built regardless. As long as we're going to put a (unmanned, probably) booster up there, why not use it for a greater purpose than destroying the most productive orbital instrument we've already launched? Putting the booster up in the first place is the most expensive part; the additional fuel cost (use an ion engine, maybe?) is negligible when you consider the total cost of the operation.
SB
Re:Space now belongs to developing countries? (Score:2, Informative)
The gyroscopes do fail too quickly. The first set of 6 was actually found to be defective and failed too quickly. They were all replaced in a servicing mission, and now there are only 4 still working.
To the mod-bomber - shame on you.