Astronauts, Robots to Save Hubble 213
BungoMan85 writes "Astronauts who serviced the Hubble Space Telescope, among others, feel that NASA's administrator Sean O'Keefe shouldn't be too quick to abandon the now 14 year old space telescope because of safety concerns arising from the Columbia disaster." And an anonymous reader writes "At the insistance of congress, NASA is looking for a way to save the Hubble. "It's the most unpopular decision I could have made," Sean O'Keefe said of his decision to cancel the shuttle mission planned to fix Hubble. He has authorized his engineers to pursue the possiblity of a robotic rescue mission. This could be a great opportunity for private industry contractors."
NASA botched robotic servicing last time (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I would have to agree... (Score:5, Informative)
If they can upgrade what's already there to new technology, why launch a new one? I'm sure the idea of replacing it completely has been considered and the costs weighed.
Telescopes are not computers... (Score:1, Informative)
As far as capabilities are concerned, building a whole new telescope wouldn't be substantially different than just upgrading the existing one. Well, except for the slight cost of designing, building, and launching a new telescope. And doing it again in five or ten years sensor technology has advanced some more.
Another reason to keep Hubble around: in five years when there's better cameras and sensors, we can just send up a shuttle to upgrade Hubble. Can't do that with Hubble's proposed "replacement" (I forget the name...), what with it being way out at L2 and all. No way to repair a warped mirror either, so if that happens again we're stuck.
Re:Why is everyone suddenly so eager to save Hubbl (Score:5, Informative)
No, we should not just let it go, especially not when we've already spent $200 million on the instruments that are supposed to be installed in the next mission. HST is quite possibly the greatest scientific instrument anyone's ever built. You don't just throw it away unless you really have to.
Or is this really about hating Bush's attempt to bring a man to Mars, and undermining it anyway possible just because he's Bush?
Look, no one believes that Bush is serious about a manned mission to Mars, least of all the man himself. His proposed reshuffling of the NASA budget to pay for it is sub-laughable.
I can't see why people are suddenly spendthrift when a Republican president wants to do something, but we can spend billions on welfare and hike taxes up to strangulating levels without anyone complaining under a Democrat.
Please, get serious. What are these "strangulating" tax levels you are talking about, and under whose administration did they occur? If you look at this page [taxpolicycenter.org], you'll see that tax rates have not appreciably changed since 1980. In fact, that same chart will show you that most people's taxes were actually lower in 2000, when the Man You Love To Hate left office, compared to 1992, when he took office.
Maybe people seem spendthrift because the Bush administration is mangling our budget with explosive spending programs coupled with irresponsible tax breaks for the rich. This results in (suprise, suprise) huge deficits which our children's children will be paying for. This isn't "just party politics"; fiscal conservatives are crying foul about Bush Economics as well.
Re:I would have to agree... (Score:3, Informative)
The James Webb cosmic observatory isn't ready yet (Hubble's successor), and won't be until 2011, whereas Hubble was due for retirement in 2005. That's an automatic 6 year wait, which is absolutely devastating to our scientists. On top of that, what happens if the rocket smokes on the pad and the James Webb observatory is no more? Another 6 year wait? These are things we need to think about before deciding Hubble's fate, which, IMO was never given a thought outside of the costs of getting three men up there to service the thing.
Re:Why is everyone suddenly so eager to save Hubbl (Score:5, Informative)
One of the things that has made the Hubble truely unique is the ability to be serviced. Each service mission has improved the telescope's capabilities tremendously. The Webb, for all its grandure, once it is up, it is up. No serviceing mission to bolt on a new camera, no trips to fix the optics. What we get day 1 is what we get day 100 and day 1000.
In the meantime, we will have at least six years without an optical range space telescope. That's six years of supernovae, six years of gamma ray bursts, six years of star formation, six years of light echos and six years of deep field astronomy that simply WILL NOT HAPPEN.
This is rediculous. Fix the damned telescope.
Re:I would have to agree... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Why is everyone suddenly so eager to save Hubbl (Score:3, Informative)
Hmm, you may want to check the data you linked to (I had ditfully transcribed it but apparently too many numbers triggers slashdots lameness filter *shrug*):
As for the average tax rate (average rate you pay for each dollar in a tiered tax system such as the one the US has), correct me if I am wrong but 7.54% is less than 10.58%, 14.36% is less than 15.67%, and 20.33% is less than 20.90%.
Those are the numbers I get if I follow the yearly rows for 2001 vs 2000. It seems you are paying less in 2001 vs 2002.
The only place you payed more is on your marginal tax rate (Marginal tax rate [investorwords.com] is the tax rate on the last dollar you pay taxes on - that is the highest rate you qualify for) if you make half the median income. I would bet that has more to do with moving into a higher tax bracket than anything (median income changes each year, typically so do where the brackets are placed). If that marginal tax rate is on the last 300 dollars of income it's not very relevant.
By your link the last time the 1/2 median income people payed that little tax was 1967 (mostly in the 12's and 13's so 7 is a good deal different), median income 1974 (stays a little under 17 mostly, once more 14 percent is a signifigant amount of money when talking yearly income), and double median income 1998 (it fluctuates from 20 to about 21 from 1978 on). Most would consider that to be different from virtually unchanged since 1980.
So where do you get taxes rose in 2001 vs 2000? Heck income rose and tax rate went down, that meets most peoples definition of "more money in my pocket" or "less payed in taxes"
Re:Why is everyone suddenly so eager to save Hubbl (Score:2, Informative)
I do think this aspect is out of context, though.
Re:Why is everyone suddenly so eager to save Hubbl (Score:5, Informative)
This is actually a logical falacy. I learned about this in a decision theory class I was in for a while at Cornell University. Previous investments should not directly affect economic decisions like this, only the current situation. That is, just because we spent lots of $$$ to make Plan A work does not mean we should continue with Plan A even if Plan B does the same thing for less additional money.
Imagine that you buy a truck for $10000. You then end up putting several more thousand dollars into it for repairs (like we did with the hubble). You even got a nice big turbocharger to put on it for when it's fixed next... however you get a bill saying it'll cost $4000 to fix the truck. And it's getting old. And lets say truck technology has advanced so much that for $4000 you can get a nice brand new truck that's even better. Rational decision-making dictates you would purchase the new truck - despite how much money you put into it in the past.
I'm not suggesting that we currently have an alternative to Hubble that does the same thing for a better price, however previous investments SHOULD NOT dictate our policies, only the current scientific/economic facts.
Disclaimer: I work for NASA/JPL, but as a software engineer.
Cheers,
Justin Wick
American Amnisia (or: Tight-ass Times) (Score:4, Informative)
No, it's not really that possible or easy. It would take a lot of energy to change orbits that radically. Things don't go around the Earth at the same height (and I'm not talking a few hundred feet, either) the same direction (angle), and for that matter, the same speed. Hell, some orbits are highly eliptical and some are circular. To match an orbit with an object you pretty much have to launch into that orbit. Slight corrections can be made in-flight, like moving up close to it, but this also pushes you to a higher altitude due to your increased speed. Likewise, if you slow down, you tend to fall as well. The Hubble is quite a ways out there IIRC, now imagine the ISS being on the other side of the planet when the crew needs to get there, and you quickly see how this becomes pretty impossible. Unfortunate, but that's physics for ya.
PS: Gratuitous rant about America becomming more tightwad'd every day has been *BAHLEETED!*
Re:How about the Russians? (Score:2, Informative)
Isn't that the reason why the ISS is in such a high (steep) orbit, unlike the Hubble - and why anyone servicing Hubble can't take refuge in the ISS if anything goes wrong?
This looks like a job for... (Score:2, Informative)