Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space The Almighty Buck United States Science

A Way to Save Hubble? 65

Posted by timothy from the whose-money-is-the-question dept.
An anonymous reader writes "The maintenance flight to give the Hubble Space Telescope a few more years has been cancelled, even though everyone agrees that HST does good work. But this article offers a way to save the space telescope, and to give those who think the space program should be privatized a way to prove they can do it."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

A Way to Save Hubble? More

A Way to Save Hubble?

Comments Filter:

  • If they don't want it... (Score:5, Funny)

    by kinnell ( 607819 ) on Wednesday February 18, 2004 @10:48AM (#8316046)
    Why don't they just sell it on e-bay?
  • They do it with whales, don't they?

    Come on, get your placards, dress up like monkeys, and decend upon
    Washington.

    The million monkey march!

  • Typical and misguided (Score:5, Insightful)

    by JackBuckley ( 696547 ) on Wednesday February 18, 2004 @11:02AM (#8316190) Homepage
    So, as always in America, we turn to privatization as solution for the failure or unwillingness for the government provision of goods and services. "If science is so valuable," the argument runs, "private industry can and should provide it."

    Rather than hope that some small or large corporation agrees that a profit can be made off of Hubble research, the government should take a stand and finance basic science for its own sake, instead of ruminating about a massive aerospace industry welfare program under the cover of an exciting bunch of missions to the Moon and Mars.

    Of course, I'm not so naive as to think that the government actually would change their priorities on this. After all, with all the tax cuts to the rich and a couple of expensive wars to fight, hard choices have to be made, right?

    And we still need our Federal mohair subsidy program, so it's time for Hubble to go!

    (I'm not bitter or anything)

    • Re:Typical and misguided (Score:4, Insightful)

      by kinnell ( 607819 ) on Wednesday February 18, 2004 @11:13AM (#8316300)
      the government should take a stand and finance basic science for its own sake

      You're forgetting that the US has a dwindling shuttle fleet. Apart from the cost and safety arguments, they're probably considering whether the scientific grounds outweigh the risks of losing manned access to space for strategic reasons.

      • Exactly, as others have stated O'Keefe is following the CAIB recommendations to the t. Think about it if you were in his shoes, sure a lot of geeks are rather miffed that Hubble is getting scrapped, however I believe he is freaked out about the huge PR disaster that would occur if the U.S. loses another shuttle.

      • Re:Typical and misguided (Score:4, Interesting)

        by geoswan ( 316494 ) on Wednesday February 18, 2004 @04:05PM (#8319668) Journal
        Shuttle mission cost half a billion dollars in the past. How much would it cost to build a robot to do the simplest things to extend Hubbles life?

        What exactly would Hubble need to keep working? Boosting to a higher orbit, because its current orbit is decaying? And Hubble's gyroscopes are wearing out, and will need replacing.

        So, how expensive would it be to build a robot that gently grabbed ahold of Hubble, gently boosted it to a higher orbit?

        Would it be possible for a robot like this to use its own gyroscopes to keep Hubble stable?

        Yes, I know there are also new lense modules, and similar, but they would require an astronaut to install them. Well, maybe they can wait until the safer replacement for Hubble is ready.

        Could the robot have enough fuel to move Hubble to orbit next to the ISS?

        There is supposed to be a replacement for Hubble, that may be ready in ten years or so. But it might not be ready. And it might not work. Hubble works. Maybe they should keep Hubble until they know the replacement works...

    • We'd all like the government to provide for science. As an astrophysics student at a government-funded university, I certainly think it should be the government's job.

      But our society doesn't always do that. Back in the 1960's, it wasn't the government that ran the show for science, though. Who discovered the Cosmic Microwave Background? Penzias and Wilson, two Bell-Labs scientists.

      My point is that, if some time ago private industry felt an obligation to science to "give back" to the scientific world that they got rich off of, maybe they ought to be encouraged to do it again...

      • Re:There are alternatives (Score:3, Interesting)

        by clintp ( 5169 )

        As an astrophysics student at a government-funded university, I certainly think it should be the government's job.

        As a taxpayer (who subsidises government-funded universities) I think the government's involvement should be limited to perhaps providing small subsidies to private corporation R&D budgets (tax breaks) in exchange for creating technology.

        Let the markets determine where the research should go, but provide encouragement to keep the products of the research in the public domain (or at least

        • As a taxpayer who doesn't fund the space program (different country) I think that the public/private argument is a hard one to make from any perspective.

          There is potential for huge amounts of money to be wasted and, let's face it, we have huge problems on earth that need solving a whole lot sooner than GUT [wikipedia.org]. But at the same time the space program has provided a huge number of benefits [nasa.gov] to humanity.

          Historically we have seen that markets tend to be poor innovators but good at creating markets for new techn

      • because of the principle of unintended consequences. Now, there are laws that state that a publicly-traded company's board and executives must to their best to maximize shareholder revenue, which on the surface sounds like a nice anti-fraud idea.

        The practice of it is corporations do relatively little basic scientific R&D anymore, and lay off masses of people at the first sign of financial difficulty.

        I even remember the TV ads Bell Labs ran when that discovery was made (I'm telling my age a bit, I'm

    • Re:Typical and misguided (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Snerdley ( 98439 ) on Wednesday February 18, 2004 @02:49PM (#8318766)

      I realize that I'm going to be hammered as a right-wing nutjob for this one, but I really can't let this pass.

      Professor Buckley, I have a big problem with a person such as yourself pontificating about how horrible privitization is, and how terribly the American government is treating scientists and researchers.

      Don't get me wrong: I agree with your line about the mohair subsidies.. and I hope everone here votes out the pork-barrel weasels in their districts.

      However, just once, I wish that a chronic academic such as yourself would realize that the government is not a source of money!

      Before I wrote this, I took a look at your Vitae [bc.edu] and confirmed what I suspected: You have always been payed by taxpayers! I found no private sector experience at all!

      Thank you for your service in the Navy! And I don't doubt that your service to your country/state/school/students in your other positions has been admirable. However, from what I have seen on your vitae, you have never:

      • Created Goods/Products
      • Started a business
      • Created a Job
      • Laid off an employee
      • Generated Revenue (other than for yourself)
      • Had to Create/Follow a Budget

      In fact, it seems your primary activity for the past few years has been to do research [pareonline.net] and write papers [pareonline.net] about other teachers! All of which has been paid for by either land-grant univerisities or our horribly stingy government.

      The contention that saving the Hubble is "Basic Science" is ludicrous: it is an incredibly expensive project that is nearing the end of its expected duration anyway. I'm certain there is more we can learn from Hubble, but we are talking about billions of dollars to save it for a few years!

      "Billion? With a B?"
      "...Yes, with a B."

      By the way, Professor, just why are you so bitter about this particular item? Have you ever actually used Hubble data during your search for better School Systems [bc.edu]? Or are you just like the rest of us: mesmerized and inspired by the amazing and beautiful pictures [stsci.edu].

      Professor, the case for saving the Hubble may be strong. I'm not qualified to make that call. However, our elected officials have decided that the massive cost involved in saving it is not something that our tax dollars will be used for. A part of me is delighted! It's the first time in months I've seen them say no to anything! If you have evidence that they're wrong: let's see it.

      Personally, I hope that the approach suggested in the article (you did read it, right?) is followed: let those who find this project crucial and needed say so with their pocketbooks. If they do, I (like most /.'ers) will delight in the images and wish them the best.

      However, I hope that you remember that there are those of us in the audience (even here at /.) whose blood boils when they read a comment such as yours! We aren't protected in our ivory towers: our jobs will go overseas if we don't bust our asses. We aren't rich, but those tax cuts saved many of us our jobs! They let others save more and helped to put their kids through your classes.

      So before you slam the government and therefore your fellow tax-payers, please remember that without them, your resume (oops, I mean Vitae would look pretty bare.

      --Bill

    • just one small point (Score:5, Insightful)

      by kippy ( 416183 ) on Wednesday February 18, 2004 @02:49PM (#8318775)
      Rather than hope that some small or large corporation agrees that a profit can be made off of Hubble research, the government should take a stand and finance basic science for its own sake, instead of ruminating about a massive aerospace industry welfare program under the cover of an exciting bunch of missions to the Moon and Mars.

      Aerospace welfare is keeping the shuttle and space station fantasy of space exploration alive. NASA employed a small army just to keep the shuttles in working order and ISS is just too pathetic to contemplate. Manned missions to planetary bodies is the correct direction for space exploration. That's where the science can be done. All the astronomy that Hubble did could be dwarfed by a lunar telescope array.

      NASA is finaly breaking out of 30 years of aerospace welfare. The new space push [moontomars.org] is finaly something done right. Let's just hope they stick to it and do it correctly.

  • At least.. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by herrvinny ( 698679 ) on Wednesday February 18, 2004 @11:14AM (#8316314)
    At least we should boost Hubble to higher orbit, so when NASA gets additional funding, it can try again to bring it down. Putting it in a museum somewhere would really be a inspiration to many children to go into science.

    • Re:At least.. (Score:1, Redundant)

      by lcde ( 575627 )
      I'd agree. Seems like quite a waste to watch it fall in the ocean.

    • Re:At least.. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by barawn ( 25691 ) on Wednesday February 18, 2004 @03:28PM (#8319207) Homepage

      At least we should boost Hubble to higher orbit, so when NASA gets additional funding, it can try again to bring it down. Putting it in a museum somewhere would really be a inspiration to many children to go into science.

      C'mon, that's crazy. It's like suggesting we should've brought Mir down in pieces in a shuttle or something. Hubble's an old space telescope, and we've thrown many old space telescopes away.

      You could build a replica for a fraction of the cost that it would take to bring it down. That'd be good enough for inspirational purposes.

      The only reason that people are averse to doing it now is because somehow "Hubble" got a lot of public support, but it really doesn't deserve it. It's just an old telescope. Sure, it does good science - but so does any instrument if there are people operating it. The point is "is it worth spending money on something when that money could be better spent on a better replacement?" and the answer to that is "no".

      NASA never should have let Hubble get into the public's eye this much. The pretty pictures can come from pretty much any other telescope (Spitzer put out a few nice ones over the weekend) - there's no reason to keep fawning over Hubble.
      • C'mon, that's crazy. It's like suggesting we should've brought Mir down in pieces in a shuttle or something. Hubble's an old space telescope, and we've thrown many old space telescopes away.
        Yep... and plus, we won't get another chance for a free taco [spaceref.com] otherwise. :)
    • Someone should buy it, bring it down, and use it to spy on the girl nexdoor.

  • M & M (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jefu ( 53450 ) on Wednesday February 18, 2004 @11:23AM (#8316381) Homepage Journal
    This article is really just a piece of propaganda aimed at supporting the Moon/Mars (M&M) drive put forward by the current administration. It dismisses the notion of supporting the Hubble because of the risk involved and only really suggests a private foundation as a straw man.

    I think the important part of the thing is in the next to last paragraph where he says "a permanent presence on the moon will provide a far better platform for a space telescope, and it is likely a telescope will be put there." And he implies it is only ten years off - though putting a permanent presence on the moon is probably 10 years off at best and expanding that to a good astronomical telescope would probably stretch another 10 or 20 years. If it even goes through and is not abandoned after the election. (Any bets on Republican support for such an endeavor if a Democratic president is supporting it?)

    Oddly enough, I can't recall having seen anything in the M&M proposals saying anything about putting a telescope on the moon (though it is an option that I've heard astronomers favor).

    • though putting a permanent presence on the moon is probably 10 years off at best and expanding that to a good astronomical telescope would probably stretch another 10 or 20 years

      Um, we got to the Moon in 7 years last time and that was with vacuum tubes. Don't you think we could build the telescope during that ramp up time too?
      • Um, we got to the Moon in 7 years last time and that was with vacuum tubes. Don't you think we could build the telescope during that ramp up time too?

        No. We can't. Space travel is just as expensive as it was when the Saturn V rockets where the hippest thing on the block. The truth is that missions to the moon would not be that much more advanced than they were thirty years ago. They *would* probably replace the vacuum tubes with CMOS-based logic circuitry, and some of the materials would be more adva
        • Weapons on the moon, my favorate consipricy theory.

          Tell me this, why would you put nuclear weapons on the moon when they would take at least a full day to reach any ground based target? We've got weapons on the earth that will reach any target on earth a a couple hours.
    • Agreed. The article is a whole load of nothing. "We can't save the Hubble. But we could get the money to do what we can't do". I'd rate it lower than the average slashdot comment (reading at -1). The submitter was smart to stay anonymous...

      For once I'll say: don't RTFA! Oh well, you weren't going to anyway, right? :)

    • and Roger Angel testified to the Senate that a lunar telescope could be 100 times as powerful as Hubble. It's been out there, just wasn't in the main announcement.
  • How about pointing it at Mars and using the Hubble as a giant Pringles can?

  • on the moon? think again -- (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sdedeo ( 683762 ) on Wednesday February 18, 2004 @02:35PM (#8318621) Homepage Journal
    The first warning sign was that we were being told to listen to someone who uses the word "technopolitical" in his job description. The second was that he was writing for the National Review Online, a magazine that has decided to throw it's lot in with "lie through the teeth" conservatism.

    In the article, the author writes, with all the assurance that this is not just his belief, but rather a fact to be "remembered":

    But it is worth remembering that a permanent presence on the moon will provide a far better platform for a space telescope, and it is likely a telescope will be put there.

    As the slashdot saying goes, "BZZZZZT!" In fact, astronomers and instrumentation people have considered "moon bases," and concluded that there is absolutely no good reason to go all the way up to the moon (a very expensive trip between gravity wells) instead of putting your telescopes in low Earth orbit. The most enthusiastic moon astronomers want to do radio stuff -- not replicate Hubble's optical work.

    Does the Lunar Surface Still Offer Value As a Site for Astronomical Observatories? [lanl.gov], by three members of JPL, Goddard and UT, and published in Space Policy (I guess NRO wasn't taking articles then) provides the full story.

    • Does the Lunar Surface Still Offer Value As a Site for Astronomical Observatories?, by three members of JPL, Goddard and UT, and published in Space Policy (I guess NRO wasn't taking articles then) provides the full story.

      Hmm, do the authors have a bias for space telescopes, I wonder?

      All of their arguments are correct - for now. The problem is in one word scale. Physically, extremely large telescopes aren't really feasible to send into space - to LEO or to the Moon, regardless.

      However, oddly enough, the
      • However, oddly enough, the moon - being basically made out of the same stuff Earth is - has all the raw materials to make mirrors. So the idea isn't to send a telescope from the Earth to the Moon. The idea is to build it on the Moon in the first place.

        The idea of using in situ resources is great. But I wonder if it will really be a short term or medium term solution (on the scale of twenty years, say.) We have certainly been talking about asteroid mining &c, but I wonder if the costs for sending up

        • The idea of using in situ resources is great. But I wonder if it will really be a short term or medium term solution (on the scale of twenty years, say.) We have certainly been talking about asteroid mining &c, but I wonder if the costs for sending up infrastructure are feasable?

          The benefit is that we're talking about things that can directly feed money back into the economy again. Small-scale manufacturing? There are tons of places that would want that!

          How much money would it cost to build a small
    • How about putting a decent-sized asteroid (perhaps a km in diameter) into one of the stable LaGrange points? That seems like it might be a decent base for accumulating stuff, placing telescopes, building launchers, etc., with the possibility of some raw materials for in-space construction, without much of that pesky gravity well problem.

  • the obvious solution (Score:4, Interesting)

    by WormholeFiend ( 674934 ) on Wednesday February 18, 2004 @03:30PM (#8319223)
    we have roughly 3 years before the HST becomes unusable.

    also, the construction of the ISS, IIRC, is not "complete" yet.

    wouldnt it be obvious to build another, better Hubble-like telescope and attach it to the ISS instead of some other planned component, or if the ISS vibrates too much, maybe have it tethered?

    the ISS has permanent people on board to fix, or at least to do in situ assessments, should any problem arise.

    plus the Progress can provide supplies if parts are needed.

    could a ISS-based telescope be built in 3 years?

    • wouldnt it be obvious to build another, better Hubble-like telescope and attach it to the ISS

      I don't know if this idea has been considered, but what is commonly referred to as the "successor" to Hubble (I'll explain below why it's not), the James Webb Space Telescope, is built so that it won't need servicing missions. Hubble was built to be upgraded, as it's great seeing power comes from not having to look through an atmosphere and from having great cameras. (The cameras are what gets upgraded and repl

  • Retro Space Taxi (Score:3, Interesting)

    by stuffduff ( 681819 ) on Wednesday February 18, 2004 @03:54PM (#8319561) Journal
    NASA says no shuttle flights to anywhere but the ISS for safety reasons. What about using a shuttle flight to take one of the existing space vehicles to serve as a space taxi to carry astronauts and material to and from the Hubble. Take a modified Gemini capsule, (it was made for testing orbital rendevous and docking procedures) give it a modified support module to carry the fuel and spare parts for doing the orbital adjustments and let them 'taxi' over to the Hubble when the orbital mechanics are favorible, accomplish the support mission and catch up to the ISS on the way back. While it is rocket science; it is with small modifications that can be made to previously proven vehicles; not a multi billion dollar idea. If they can't make it back they can always reenter the old fashioned way. If they do make it back then we have a relatively inexpensive space taxi for future use. Hell, you could fit 2 Gemini capsules and service modules in the shuttle cargo bay and have room left over!
    • And how many technicians, scientists and engineers do you still know working that know how that works... The problem is that we've lost alot of the knowledge on these systems and its not just as simple as rebuilding them from the plans. All the manufacturing and support systems have moved on so that makes the designs as good as dead.
      • You could be right. But we can always hope that someone out there can still whip out a slipstick and calculate a transorbital dx burn. After all it was a much simpler era. In Reno they compete in air races in 50+ year old hardware. And us, well we're not launching it from the bottom of the gravity well, it gets an aerodymanically insulated ride up into space inside the shuttle, it gets 40 years of improved technology in the recertification process. And it gets 40 more years of experience in tracking an
    • Mine was to use a soyuz and a progress to carry the equipment this would be a very cheap solution and would cost around 100 million to implament less thena shuttle mission which runs 300million.
      Also lockheed martin's CEV/OSP can have custom service modules.
      Boeing's retro apollo design also could be given a special mission module. Heck apollo was suposed to had a vesion for earth orbit science missions that added nice things like 15 cubic yards more living space and a real bathroom like the shuttle's.
      It was
  • I doubt that raising money for Nasa will be enough to change their minds on the Hubble issue. (Though if I thought it could, I'd be the first to donate!)

    Nasa is basing its refusal of the Hubble mission on safety issues. And since it has already made this clear, it would be a huge PR error to change their minds now... I think cancelling the Hubble mission is Nasa's way of telling the public "yes, we care about safety". Whether or not the Hubble mission is significantly more dangerous than the ISS missions

  • Flaw in the ointment (Score:3, Interesting)

    by A nonymous Coward ( 7548 ) * on Wednesday February 18, 2004 @10:59PM (#8323128)
    The argument against the Hubble maintenance mission is that it would not have the ISS as a safe house if the shuttle makes it to orbit but is not safe to come back down in. Therefore any mission to other than the ISS requires making up the repair kit that the safety board recommended.

    Well hogwash! The safety board didn't say build the repair kit only if you go elsewhere, they said build it period. It would still be a good thing to have, even if the crew can hideout in the space station. Second, if no shuttle goes to Hubble, they have to build a special remote operated tug to match orbits with Hubble to bring it down under control, rather than let it wobble around and possible land big chunks on people. But a repair mission could install a much simpler de-orbit rocket as part of its mission, and I bet the costs would be a lot less, compared to designing a one shot remote operated booster.
  • Why not move Hubble from its current orbit and attach it to the ISS. If we have a few years, a small amount of thrust to relocate Hubble to the ISS should be sufficient. The big advantage would be that a combined Hubble / ISS platform could be serviced by the ISS crew, thus reducing some of the risk of servicing Hubble with the limited shuttle flights. I will even supply the duct tape.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Being against torture ought to be sort of a multipartisan thing." -- Karl Lehenbauer, as amended by Jeff Daiell, a Libertarian

Close