Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Science

Saving Hubble 69

Posted by michael from the hubba-hubba-hubble dept.
tassii writes "In this article on Space.com, Hubble Space Telescope operators plan to ask Russia for help in keeping the observatory alive and will even consider accepting private donations, which have already been offered. The upgrades are already built, waiting for installation. The Wide Field Camera 3 and the Cosmic Origins Spectrograph cost a combined $167 million and will provide unprecedented peeks into the formation of the cosmos, astronomers say. Maybe there is still some hope for the Hubble."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Saving Hubble More

Saving Hubble

Comments Filter:

  • Great Idea! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 22, 2004 @12:28PM (#8056542)
    Let's ask Russia, they have TONS of extra money.

  • Just do it... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by hookedup ( 630460 ) on Thursday January 22, 2004 @12:30PM (#8056579)
    Retrofit the hubble with some rockets. And send the thing sailing out into space. I wonder what kinds of images it would get once it left our solar system. Anyone know how far the hubble can transmit currenty? Or would that also need to be upgraded if we were to send it out into space.
    • why would the images be better when it leaves our solar system?

      • Re:Just do it... (Score:4, Interesting)

        by PateraSilk ( 668445 ) <tedol.isostandardstudio@com> on Thursday January 22, 2004 @12:46PM (#8056783) Homepage
        why would the images be better when it leaves our solar system?

        Long-baseline parallax observations of stars for more precise mapping of the local spiral arm, for one.

        Possibly long-baseline infereometry, for two (although it might not work in this instance--I'm not so savvy here).

        • although we would be able to do better parallax at that distance, it would still be a frigtening short distance, and still only useful for the closest of stars..
        • Yesterday newscientist.com had an article about errors in paralax measurements of nearby star clusters. Basically, they measure the angle to point at the nearby star cluster at 2 different times, six months apart so that the earth is at opposite ends of it's orbit giving the most accurate data. They *must* have considered this being smart astronomer people, but if the whole solar system were moving, relative to the star cluster or vice versa then that would have to be taken into account....
          • They *must* have considered this being smart astronomer people, but if the whole solar system were moving, relative to the star cluster or vice versa then that would have to be taken into account....

            Well, some of them are smart and, yes, they have considered this. The technique goes under the name "secular parallax". One minor problem is that not only is the solar system sailing through space, so are all the other stars. By observing the position of many stars over a period of many years it's possibl

    • "Retrofit the hubble with some rockets. And send the thing sailing out into space."

      Wouldn't that really anger Dr. Forrester?
      • Ah. Speaking of TV...

        Someone should get one of the bright sparks who cancelled the old Star Trek, before its time, to tell Bush what a mistake that turned out to be. :-)

    • Re:Just do it... (Score:3, Funny)

      by mph ( 7675 )
      Given that it's solar-powered, I don't think that sending it farther from the sun would work out too well.
      • Given that it's solar-powered, I don't think that sending it farther from the sun would work out too well.

        Very true :) Given the current state of things, it is even too risky trying get into Mars orbit, since we know what happens to things going there? I think the best place other than an Earth orbit would probably be the moon, though I am just wondering whether the necessary orbit would be too small for proper astronomy (ie moving too much to stay centered on a given subject)?
        • I think the best place other than an Earth orbit would probably be the moon, though I am just wondering whether the necessary orbit would be too small for proper astronomy (ie moving too much to stay centered on a given subject)?

          What's the point of moving it anywhere, given that when the gyros are bust the thing can't be pointed anyway?

          Paul

  • Common sense revolution (Score:4, Insightful)

    by addie ( 470476 ) on Thursday January 22, 2004 @12:32PM (#8056596)
    I'm glad to hear this. With Bush's talk lately of putting millions into the manned space program, and the cancellation of a shuttle service mission to Hubble, it was beginning to look like the cash for un-manned "boring" space programs was going to dry up.

    Having other countries involved, especially one with decades of expertise like Russia, and encouraging private investments (more like donations really) is exactly what space exploration needs.

    We need to focus less on government sponsored, election engineering, military application thoughts and more on collaboration for world betterment. And world betterment can come from scientific discovery, not just decreased drug costs and disposal of cash crop models (though these are high on the list too).

    I hope Hubble continues working for decades to come. It's a nice piece of equipment.

    • Re:Common sense revolution (Score:4, Informative)

      by Wintensis ( 722822 ) on Thursday January 22, 2004 @02:25PM (#8058291)
      It's a nice peice of equipment, but it's not going to last for decades to come.

      Parts are wearing out (two of the 6 gyros have already failed - and that's AFTER some of them have been replaced on shuttle missions), and it actually uses consumables (like orientation thruster propellant), so it always HAD a limited lifespan. In fact - it's projected life span is just about up.

      There WERE plans to capture it, bring it home, 'refurbish' it, and redeploy, but the shuttle is required for this. It looks like Hubble will limp along for a little, but it's not expected to survive past 2007.

      In fact, NASA has been planning on replacing it for decades - that was always the original plan. I don't know how much the James Webb Space Telescope [nasa.gov] has been affected by the shake up in NASA, but it's been meant to replace the HST for a while now.

    • Re:Common sense revolution (Score:2, Informative)

      by CXI ( 46706 )
      To service Hubble, NASA would need to have 14 astronauts and two shuttles on the pad ready to launch at the same time. For the cost of that, you could launch another Hubble or two. That is the primary common sense reason they decided to cancel the mission, including the fact that a replacement will be available in only a few years.
    • Is it possible to bump the HST up to join the ISS?
    • Is it practical in terms of expense?
    • How would that affect the HST's performance?

    My thinking is along the lines of 'one destination=cheaper than two'...

    • Is it possible to bump the HST up to join the ISS

      You've got it backwards.

      HST is, IIRC, at the nearest LaGrange point to Earth. It's a heck of a hike there and back, and missions have been cancelled to hubble simply because it's so @#$#!ing far out.

      ISS, OTOH, is at an unstable LEO--so that Soyuz rockets can reach it.

      I would hope that, in the next 20 years or so, we move the ISS to where Hubble is, not the other way around.

      • Whaddayaknow? The HST is at about 600km, and the ISS is at about 375km. (God bless Google)

        OK, would there be any issues with lowering the HST to join the ISS?

        • I believe that HST and ISS is in a very different orbit angle. Getting one or the other to change would be a huge delta-v (meaning a lot of enery). Not very practical. ISS is constantly losing altitude. It would require a shuttle nudging more often, and with the combined mass of HST and ISS, this would be more difficult. Plus, what would be the point? The cost of maintaining HST is in the support facilities (communications, engineering, science) on the ground, not where its orbit lies.

          • Doesn't the HST require regular parts replacement? I seem to recall the gyros don't last forever. Getting a crew of mission-trained astronauts to 600km to do those repairs probably has a lot to do with the need for those support facilities.

            I suspect it'd be a whole lot cheaper if all it needed once in orbit were directions on where to point and an earthside antenna to pick up its transmissions.

        • OK, would there be any issues with lowering the HST to join the ISS?

          Yes. The big one is orbit maintenance: the ISS needs periodic boosts (several a year) from the Shuttle or Progress supply rockets to stay at the correct altitude. At 600km, Hubble doesn't need more than one boost after every repair mission.

          The other worry is stationkeeping: Hubble and the ISS may start out near each other, but one of them (probably the ISS) will have higher atmospheric drag than the other, so they will tend to drift.
        • would there be any issues with lowering the HST to join the ISS?

          Yes. The reason given for scrapping the HST service mission was that in the event of a problem, the space shuttle would not be able to reach the (relative) safety of the ISS. If the shuttle alone can't go that way, dragging the HST along seems rather far-fetched. IIRC it's not the altitude that's the problem, but that one is in a far more polar orbit than the other.

          - nic
      • Um... the LaGrange points?

        A little knowledge is a dangerous thing...

        Check this [l5news.org].

        "They lie at equal distance from Earth and Moon, in the Moon's orbit..."

        The stable L-points are as far away as the MOON!!! L4 and L5 are the stable ones - in that they are 'self-correcting' - put something in L4 or L5, knock it out of position, and as long as you didn't knock it TOO hard, it will return to the L-point. The others are like balancing on a pin. If you 'slip' you keep getting pushed AWAY from the L-poin

  • Preserving hubble (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Charles Dart ( 731692 )
    It would be such a shame to let the Hubble burn up in the atmosphere. I think the proposal to park it next to the ISS would be ideal. In fact why not attach it to the station. It could then be repurposed when it has become obsolete. Imagine the ISS as the nucleus of the first interplanetary craft, it's gonna need long range sensors right?

    • Re:Preserving hubble (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Nice thought but... The ISS is hot (IR), noisy (radio) and so close to earth that optical-QRM elimination would be a nightmare. HST's performance would suffer significantly were it parked next to. If it were attached, there would be the additional problem of vibrations transmitted from the ISS to the HST, blurring images.

  • (OT) Much better article title (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    "Saving (Privately?) Hubble"
  • CNN [cnn.com] is reporting that the Spirit rover has failed to transmit data from Mars for 24 hours. At least Hubble is still working.

  • Donations (Score:3, Funny)

    by bay43270 ( 267213 ) on Thursday January 22, 2004 @12:56PM (#8056920) Homepage
    Do they take pay pal?
  • More science out of Hubble would be great. I hope someone will find a way to keep it operational and producing public data, and I don't much care who does it. But if we can't save it for science, we should at least save it for history.

    With the shuttles out of the question, we don't currently have the ability to bring it down in one piece... or even safely. It appears that all agree we should send up a robot tug of some sort to gain control of Hubble's orbit and keep it from falling on Topeka.

    If we're goin

  • JWST (Score:5, Informative)

    by Maeryk ( 87865 ) on Thursday January 22, 2004 @02:59PM (#8058782) Journal
    The James Webb Space Telescope is destined to go up in 2011.. so its not like losing hubble (eventually) will be the end of the great astrophysical observatories.

    The problem with Hubble is its size.. if it comes back into the atmosphere in a de-orbit, the mirror and the titanium ring holding it will probably make it to terra firma in pretty much one piece.

    I _REALLY_ dont want that landing on my house!

    At the very least, they need to keep nudging the sucker.. or put a controllable burn-pod on it so they can bump it up remotely, rather than doing the catch and release job they have been with teh Shuttles.

    The main reason.. according to a couple of sites I read.. is if something fails on the shuttle while it as at the ISS, they can get home in the "lifeboat". If it fails while they are at Hubble, they are skrewed.

    man..can you imagine if cars, or trains, or airplanes were held to the same safety measures as NASA is now holding itself to?

    You wouldnt be allowed to leave the house without a bubble on.

    Maeryk

    • Re:JWST (Score:3, Interesting)

      by moosesocks ( 264553 )
      The main reason.. according to a couple of sites I read.. is if something fails on the shuttle while it as at the ISS, they can get home in the "lifeboat". If it fails while they are at Hubble, they are skrewed.

      This gives me an interesting idea... Would it be possible to place a soyuez capsule in orbit right next to the hubble or even attach it to the hubble?

      That being said, it brings up concerns that such a device isn't carried with the shuttle on ALL shuttle missions. The capsule itself is really qui

      • Re:JWST (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Maeryk ( 87865 )
        That being said, it brings up concerns that such a device isn't carried with the shuttle on ALL shuttle missions. The capsule itself is really quite tiny, and would be able to transport the crew back to earth in the event of shuttle problems - plus, all of the crew execpt the pilot could return via. the capsule, preventing another columbia-like disaster.

        Has there ever been a "space disaster" in which one of these would actually work? I know the two shuttle missions.. there wasnt time to implement it if it
        • Actually, if I remember correctly, they didn't bother doing any other diagnostics on the Columbia wing because they didn't have a backup plan that would have allowed them to do anything anyway, and as such, why bother? If it blew up, well, thems the breaks. On the other hand, if they had a capsule available to evac the crew, then there would have been a choice, and decisions may have been made differently. Just a thought, but your point was valid.
      • Soyuz cannot be launched to Hubble because of the low inclination of the later. In other words, Hubble never flies over Kazakhstan where Soyuz is launched. But there are plans to build a launch complex for Soyuz in Kourou, French Guiana. Of course, manned operations would require additional facilities, but the rescue ship can be launched without crew.
    • Originally NASA had planned to have a mission to fit thrusters to hubble to bring it down in a controlled fashion. As it stands they seem to be planning on doing a controlled landing like they did with spacelab... i.e. "spacelab splashed down safely into the pacific" reading more into this it crashed into Australia. I think I read somewhere that there was a one in seven chance of Hubble hitting civilisation.
      • Originally NASA had planned to have a mission to fit thrusters to hubble to bring it down in a controlled fashion. As it stands they seem to be planning on doing a controlled landing like they did with spacelab... i.e. "spacelab splashed down safely into the pacific" reading more into this it crashed into Australia. I think I read somewhere that there was a one in seven chance of Hubble hitting civilisation.

        Problem is, AFAIK, any attitude jets on Hubble are only enough to orient it.. and I'm not sure they
        • It would be pretty damn cool, but i have a feeling it's not gonna happen at the moment. With NASA cancelling missions due to the lack of fail-safe points. Sounds like we still have a few years to design a replacement space-shuttle. Jon

  • Hubble Service Missions (Score:3, Informative)

    by mknewman ( 557587 ) * on Thursday January 22, 2004 @04:21PM (#8059731)
    Hubble is going to run out of gyros (you know, the Greek rolled up sandwich) in about 3-4 years. They are looking at ways to conserve them, shut some down for long term storage and such, but other consumables such as batteries have limited life and eventually it will just die. I doubt that a service mission could be done without the shuttle. There are way too many issues with the servicing missions (not to mention the size of the boxes that they want to install in it) that the Russians wouldn't be able to do it for us. It's quite an extensive undertaking. I do object to the cancelation though, I think they should do one more mission and include a pre-orbited return booster so that the final kit of instruments can be used, keep it going till the Webb 'scope comes online, and then splash it. The risk of having astronauts doing the service without the station as a long term refuge appears to be too high for NASA. Marc
    • There is not enough room in the shuttle bay for the return booster and all the instruments. I suspect the return booster could be boosted to close to Hubble though and the repair mission done, then fetch the booster and attach it. Not sure how having a big booster attached would affect the life of the gyros though, as the extra mass would definately affect it. Also not sure of the shelf life of a booster like that once it's in space. Marc
  • Why doesn't NASA just ask for donations? Think about it, I know I am not the only one on /. who would throw in a few greenbacks for Hubble? Even if it does not completley cover the costs at least it is something. Heck make it tax deductable and I am sure a few people outside of /. would begin to take notice...
    • but how can you be sure that it will be spent on Hubble?
    • I remember the story of when the US Navy wanted to decommission and get rid of an old wooden ship, and one Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote a poem bemoaning the ship's fate: "Aye, tear her tattered ensign down, Long has it waved on high, ..." and lots of children got very interested and sent in lots of pennies, and the USS Constitution (Old Ironsides) is still a commissioned ship in the United States Navy in Boston Harbor.

      An appropriately structured campaign, via schools, teachers, et al, to sell the Hubble t
  • There is no way the Russians can send a manned mission to Hubble in the near term.
    • They have no launch facility that can reach Hubble's orbital inclination. (Well, in theory they can, but only if they can get China to allow them drop spent rocket stages on them.)
    • Hubble is at an altitude considerably above the maximum achievable by the Soyuz
    Both of these can be overcome in time (3-5 years), but only with a great deal of money.
  • NASA has made the point that this WAS NOT a problem of money. The money is there. It is a problem of shuttle safety. There was a review process for the next 2 HST servicing missings. NASA asked the community what it wanted to do about HST in the next 10 years and the astonomy community CLEARLY stated that HST was essential and needed to remain operational AT LEAST until JWST come along. Even that, JWST is not a replacement for HST and HST can produce wonderful observations which cannot be obtained any othe
  • The "decision" by O'Keefe to "dump" it is ill advised, short sighted, and as I will highlight below, quite a flawed one. It is simplistic (overly simple) to decide as they have.

    I am quite knowledgeable in the area of Spacecraft, reentry considerations, and thermal protection systems.

    Both times the Shuttle has blown up has been due to misoperation! NOT due to inherent flaws in the Shuttle. The first time was due to flying it in TOO cold an environment (the O rings), which NASA WAS aware of. The second time

Slashdot Top Deals

If all the world's economists were laid end to end, we wouldn't reach a conclusion. -- William Baumol

Close