Scientists Debate Robotic Hubble Mission

An anonymous reader writes "Some scientists are questioning whether the robotic mission to repair the Hubble Space Telescope is worth the risk and cost. After the Columbia disaster, NASA cancelled its shuttle mission to Hubble, and replaced it with a robotic mission. However, the price tag of the robotic mission is between $1 billion and $2 billion, almost the cost of a new space telescope. Optics expert Duncan Moore is unsure whether the mission will bring the most scientific return per dollar spent. Hubble director Steven Beckwith says the mission will lead to breakthroughs in space robotics."

Webb/NGST is NOT a radio telescope!

[Anonymous Coward]

Its a visual/IR telescope. Hubble is for shorter frequencies (visual to UV), but both are definitely optical devices.

Re:Critical problem with this argument

[Bootsy Collins]

The current state of the scope is that there is NO money for new telescopes other then the Webb telescope, but it's a radio scope and not an optical one (even though it's being sold as a Hubble replacement).

This was modded insightful? The Webb/NGST will be a near-IR telescope, not a radio telescope. As such, it is a partial replacement for the Hubble, as there is significant overlap in the wavelengths for which each were/will be used. If you consider perhaps the main purpose of the Webb/NGST to be high-z observations, then it's even more clearly a replacement for the Hubble.

Re:Critical problem with this argument

[levell]

For non-sciencey types, the light from a long way away (high-z in the jargon) gets "stretched" (red-shifted by the expansion of the universe) as it travels so light that was visible when it set out on its journey has a longer wavelength ("near infra-red") when it arrives here.

Re:Critical problem with this argument

[Drakin]

In this case, "robot" means a device very similar to the arm on the space shuttle, and identical to the one that is being built for the ISS. Remote controlled, in this case, from earth.

In fact, if they do decide to go ahead with the plan, they need to build a whole new setup, because the one that has been used in testing is the one for the ISS.

Re:Webb/NGST is NOT a radio telescope!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hubble is for shorter frequencies (visual to UV)

that's higher frequencies.

Re:Why crash it into the ocean?

[LMCBoy]

just to be pedantic, there are no propellant tanks on HST. Propellants leave icky residue on optics.

Re:Critical problem with this argument

[mforbes]

The problem with putting a telescope (or any other facility, for that matter) at L2, or any of the other Lagrange points, is that their location puts them out of the orbits reachable by the Shuttle for repair purposes. All maintenance would have to be done robotically, and considering the delta-V to return any robotic craft to LEO, it's likely that the service robots would be single-use only.

For those not space-science oriented, the Lagrange points (L1 through L5) are points in space around any two orbiting bodies where their gravity exactly (or nearly so) cancels out; as a result, other objects can be left in stable position at those points. It's even possible to put an object in orbit around a Lagrange point, even though there be no mass there. These are referred to halo orbits. SOHO, the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory is in such an orbit around L1, the postion directly between the Earth and Moon. More information [freemars.org] is [navy.mil] available [nasa.gov] online [uni-paderborn.de] (the last link is a PDF, sorry).

Re:Why crash it into the ocean?

[Jeff DeMaagd]

The replacement is a very specialized infrared telescope that won't be able to make the same kinds of observations that the Hubble has been making.

Re:Critical problem with this argument

[LWATCDR]

The other problem is that now we have several earth based telescopes that are as good as Hubble in the normal optical range. An exact Hubble replacement would be a huge waste not to mention that the cost of launching it would be high. Right now the ONLY launch vehical you could use is the shuttle. I would guess that it might be possible to modify it to fit on a Titan IV, Ariane V, or maybe Sealaunch "I am not sure if the Sealaunch has the lift". A robotic mission would be good since we would learn something. Frankly there are so many really good projects that NASA could be doing like liquid fueled fly back boosters for the Shuttle, improved shuttle, Heavy Lift vehical, crew return vehical. Too bad they are just sort of waisting away on the vine.

Hubble repair alternatives

[jfoust]

Those interested in the various alternatives to repairing or replacing the Hubble Space Telescope may be interested in this article [thespacereview.com] from a few weeks ago that reviews an interim "Analyses of Alternatives" report by a third party, the Aerospace Corporation. This report concludes that a robotic repair mission would cost about the same as a shuttle repair mission or building and launching replacement telescope(s), but carries a far lower probability of success. It should be noted that this is an interim report, and according to one source the final report may look more favorably on robotic repair options.