NASA Gives OK to Fix Hubble Telescope 278
Erick writes "NASA has decided to rescue the Hubble. This will come as great news to all of those who have advocated for fixing the ailing 'scopes sensors, gyros, etc. The article states that nine to 12 months of planning will precede a mission to the Hubble Telescope."
Want extra funding? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Want extra funding? (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, I second that. Make it like Junkyard Wars [discovery.com] or something.
BTM
Re:Want extra funding? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Want extra funding? (Score:2)
Re:Want extra funding? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Want extra funding? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Want extra funding? (Score:3, Insightful)
How else can you keep people tuned in for a room full of dirt and old bottles..
Re:Want extra funding? (Score:2)
We need cooler people, and cooler stuff (Score:3, Insightful)
How many kids would be studying their asses off if they k
Pfff simple (Score:2)
If people can watch hours and hours of nobody's talking about nothing they can watch a spacewalk.
Personally I don't think it is the audience. I think it is the tv-producers that are the ones to stupid to watch anything wich requires more then 2 braincells.
Story Musgrave !!!! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Want extra funding? (Score:3, Informative)
Unfortunately, there is no spacewalk planned. The approval has been given for a robotic mission only. Presumably this means that people actually believe it can be done by a robot, which hasn't been clear up to now.
Re:Want extra funding? (Score:5, Insightful)
And for once, there would be a reality show that isn't complete drivel. Hell, even I'd watch it, and I'm one of the few that usually finds watching TV to be painful.
Re:Want extra funding? (Score:2)
Your not alone, I havn't watched TV for longer than 10 minutes at a time in years
A well made movie is different though (usually watch those on the computer)
You're fired... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:You're fired... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Want extra funding? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Want extra funding? (Score:3, Funny)
I'd watch that!
Actually, maybe she's already in training, which explains the bruises (link omitted, as I can't find one that doesn't feature porn banners. Its a wierd world)
Re:Want extra funding? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Want extra funding? (Score:3, Insightful)
p
Cool (Score:2, Insightful)
Nothing gives me more pride than to see a project for which I was a team leader for stay in the game against all odds.
Re:Cool (Score:5, Funny)
I'm sure all the astronomers of the world thank you. Someone had to be in charge of catering.
Re:Cool (Score:2)
My answer is quite different from yours: A sense of humor. Three moderators got it...
Re:Cool (Score:2, Informative)
NASA LIES!!! [partly OT] (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:NASA LIES!!! [partly OT] (Score:3, Funny)
Wonder if any of the X prize teams will be in a position to go up and fix the Hubble before NASA get around to it?
Um, no (Score:2, Insightful)
2. Bush isn't trying to kill NASA.
3. The word "spatial" refers to "space", moron, so while that may not be common use, it does indeed make sense, technically.
4. You're the "whacko". Sorry. If all you can see is 100% conspiracy, evil, and malevolence in everything Bush or his "cronies" do, then you're the only "whacko" around here.
Re:NASA LIES!!! [partly OT] (Score:2)
Unfortunately, I think the guy's got a point. I don't like what he's saying, but he's got the Bush administration's modus operandi down to a 'T'. We are trading off a lot of valuable science for a Mars mission that will probably not take place. The likely result will be that neither the pure scientists, nor those of us who are Mars-mission advocates, will get what we're after.
Re:NASA LIES!!! [partly OT] (Score:2)
If I were president, I would never trust NASA to make my world-domination-super-weapons. After thirty years and one-hundred-billion dollars, they'd give me a pop-cork gun than explodes and kills everyone in five feet of it.
The Ansari-X-Prize contest demonstrates clearly that it's time for the US to outsource our world-domination weapons engineering to commercial
corporations.
Initial t
This is awesome... (Score:5, Insightful)
On a related topic, for which Hubble was sort of a contributor, check out The Perfect Machine (The Building of the Palomar Telescope) [amazon.com].
Re:This is awesome... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:This is awesome... (Score:2, Insightful)
What we need is more politics, and less science. Politics makes the world go around, and politics is what is going to pay for all of the pure research we like so much. We've had too many years of wonderfully smart people trying to sell super-colliders to lawyers -- we should have learned something by now.
Focus on promoting space travel and lowering cost-to-orbit, and the rest will work itself out.
Re:This is awesome... (Score:5, Insightful)
Although you may believe that the hot air given off by all the politians in the world is enough to sustain a steady orbit and rotation of our planet it is in fact gravity and momentum which does this, which are scientific principals.
While valuble in avaiation hot air does not fund research or industry that is economics which is just a fancy branch of mathematics which is
Have a nice day
Re:This is awesome... (Score:2)
Think of the kittens
Minor quibble (Score:2)
Mathematics is not science. It's an allied field but since the ultimate criterion of truth is different, the disciplines are different.
Re:This is awesome... (Score:5, Informative)
The Superconducting Super Collider was canned for political reasons. The congress wanted to crack down on something for budget reasons, and there were 2 big targets: the International Space Station or the SSC. Remeber how each of these projects are a tiny amount of the goverments budgets. They needed to make an example out of one of them to "show" that they were serious about the budget. They cracked on the SSC because it was less "interesting" to the public, even though it was more important scientifically. They were going to look, among other things, for the Higgs Boson. It would have attracted thousands of scientists from around the world.
Then the same politicians crippled the Space Station by putting it in an orbit that would let them cooperate with Russia, but made it useless for its original purpose. They broke the Space Station for a public show of how happy things are politically with Russia.
I disagree, we haven't had years of smart people selling super-colliders.
Basic science is hard to grasp for the general public. What is its application? Who knows? But, the point is that to build new technologies, a good strating point is to understand nature a bit better. Don't forget the basic science, without it the rest wont work itself out.
Re:This is awesome... (Score:2)
Re:This is awesome... (Score:2)
Re:This is awesome... (Score:2)
Re:This is awesome... (Score:2)
Re:This is awesome... (Score:3, Informative)
The scientists who wanted it, thought it should be built in Illinois, so that Fermilab could be used as an injector ring. It would have been merely an expansion of Fermilab, and thus, would have saved taxpayers BILLIONS of dollars in construction of new facilities (and would have allowed scientists who already live there to stay living there). Additionally, there already existed in Illinois, several firms with lots of experience in deep tunnel boring projects (fo
Re:This is awesome... (Score:2)
This is all very nice and important, and applied. But by doing that, things like the Hubble wouldn't have never been built. Applied science is easy to sell. Basic science on the other hand give a country an edge that is very hard to quantify in dollars and cents, but that it spills over to applied science.
Re:This is awesome... (Score:2)
Not so fast.... (Score:5, Interesting)
They have 9-12 months to design a robotic space mission. Then how many years will it take to build it and implement it? By the time this "mission" is underway, Hubble will have been floating dead in space for years and will probably have tons of other problems that will make this mission obselete.
This sounds more like a way to funnel money to people studying robotics than a way to save the Hubble. An interesting thing to do would be to see which companies are supposed to develop these robotics and what connections they have to the administration.
Cost vs Risk (Score:5, Insightful)
I also fail to see how Mr. O'Keefe, who heads NASA, can postpone shuttle missions citing danger to the astronauts' lives. If it seems imminent that another disaster will occur on the next flight, I would understand, but surely we've found ways to resolve the latest problems. Astronauts don't go into the business of space flight thinking they'll have "safe" jobs, and I would think that as long as they're ready to fly again, the administration would be eager to get them back in space.
Re:Cost vs Risk (Score:5, Interesting)
I would remind these people that $1 billion souunds like a lot, but it's equal to the cost for 2-3 shuttle launches, and probably not much more than we've spent on previous HST servicing missions. It's certainly far less than has been wasted^W spent on the ISS.
Re:Cost vs Risk (Score:2)
That Was A Hoot (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeah, just like Microsoft saves a buck while producing the best software, or Ford saves a buck by producing the best car...
Private industry is no panacea. Particularly since the main client will continue to be the US Government and nobody has ever accused government contractors of producing the best product. As one astronaut once said "I try not to think about the fact that every part of the rocket underneath me was built by the lowest bidder."
Re:Cost vs Risk (Score:2)
Re:Cost vs Risk (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, it's not as though we've got a huge stable of shuttles ready to be deployed. We've only got two left Discovery and Atlantis, and there's no way we'll build any more like them, I'd wager. And, I'd also wager that NASA has essentially lost the ability to build any new launch vehicles because of the attrition of layoffs and retirements of skilled people to pull it off. (There haven't been any new des
Re:Cost vs Risk (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Cost vs Risk (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Cost vs Risk (Score:2)
NASA really should have entered that eBay auction for Russia's Buran...
Re:Cost vs Risk (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Cost vs Risk (Score:2)
The first one says:
"They gave their lives in service to their country in the ongoing exploration of humankind's final frontier. Remember them not for how they died, but for those ideals for which they lived."
The other plaque says:
"In Memory of those who made the ultimate sacrifice so that others could reach for the stars. Ad Astra Per Aspera (A rough road leads to the stars)"
There is also the date a
Re:Cost vs Risk (Score:2)
I think you really missed my point. I agree we should be out there exploring space, and we really need to do more, go back to the moon, preferably Mars, etc. B
Re:Cost vs Risk (Score:2)
Besides, even after the Shuttle is phased out the HST can still be maintained: a service crew can fly up on a small spaceship and the parts could be brought up on the next generation of unmanned launch vehicles, which means
Re:Cost vs Risk (Score:5, Insightful)
On a side note I think that should be a project to go alongside the space elevator: A bare-bones launcher made just to hold astronauts, life-support, and creature comforts. Let the "shuttle" then go Lego style over pieces sent up by the elevator, potentially becoming enormous.
Oh yes, and I hope we have the best of the best of the best working on this project or else we'll just be throwing money down the drain.
Re:Cost vs Risk (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Cost vs Risk (Score:3, Insightful)
How long a space elevator takes is very much a factor of how much people take it seriously. You don't take it seriously, yes it will take decades. You take it seriously, it might take one.
Re:Cost vs Risk (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you talking about the spectrograph that broke last week? Hubble was working perfectly up to that point.
Agree with you on the weak-kneed approach to space exploration. If we don't want to risk any more lives, then we should get the hell out of space. And also out of sea exploration, defense, and about 99% of what humans do.
It's a dangerous world; we must decide whether to face it or crawl into a hole. O'Keefe apparently is more interested in public relations than doing what the agency is chartered to do.
Re:Cost vs Risk (Score:2)
I also fail to see how Mr. O'Keefe, who heads NASA, can postpone shuttle missions citing danger to the astronauts' lives. If it seems imminent that another disaster will occur on the next flight, I would understand, but surely we've found ways to resolve the latest problems. Astronauts don't go into the business of space flight thinking they'll have "safe" jobs, and I would think that as long as they're ready to fly again, the administration would be eager to get them back in space.
You cannot fault Mr.
Secret documents reavel the future of Hubble (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, and they'll be renaming Hubble to Huugle.
Re:Secret documents reavel the future of Hubble (Score:2)
Results returned: 0
Re:Secret documents reavel the future of Hubble (Score:2, Funny)
Good for Nasa (Score:5, Insightful)
As an armchair astronaut (is there such a thing?) I applaud NASA's decision to keep the Hubble Space telescope operational. I have been fascinated over and over again by the images it produces. I think it may be one of the things that can keep NASA in the public eye and help it to get funding for more space exploration. I just hope that the repairs go well.
Cheers,
the_crowbar
Re:Good for Nasa (Score:3)
Science and space should be fun and exciting... that's what Hubble is. It keeps the public interested in science, which makes it easier to get funding for, say, Mars missions.
Someone's finally making sense... (Score:4, Insightful)
Thank God! (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, why should we deorbit Hubble if it doesn't already have a replacement up there?! Doesn't make sense.
Re:Thank God! (Score:2, Interesting)
I expect to hear that in the next few days, since the new fiscal year is coming up, that both of the future space science projects that I work on will have budget cuts, if not be mothballed entirely. This will be directly as a result of this Hubble decision.
Great, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
We can get humans there (Score:2)
Re:Great, but... (Score:2)
I would love to see humans go up an do it s
Even Discovery (Score:5, Insightful)
Even Discovery Channel perpetuates the same error.
James Webb can't replace the Hubble. They see at different wavelengths. Webb can't even be reached once launched, let alone be repaired.
I know people here at /. know these things, but to see even so-called science channels misleading the public is disheartening.
Re:Even Discovery (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, in between documentaries about the Bermuda Triangle and Area 51.
Re:Even Discovery (Score:2)
Re:Even Discovery (Score:3, Insightful)
Uh... if Webb can get there, then it's position CAN be reached.
Sure, it's out of range for the plausible human spacewalk profiles, but that doesn't mean a disposable repairbot can't be shot to LaGrange.
The reasons the Webb is less repairable are multiple: It costs less than half what Hubble did, and only 3x that of a rocket launch, so replacement isn't cost-prohibitive over repair. And since spacewalkers can't reach it, it was built to be
Re:Even Discovery (Score:2)
Where's our priorities? (Score:5, Insightful)
The Hubble on the other hand has a proven track record of sending back fascinating images that have advanced the astro-sciences.
There are no plans to replace Hubble with a space based telescope that takes images in the visible wave lengths.
So, where are we sending astronauts?
Yay! (Score:4, Funny)
Must be a Tuesday... (Score:3, Interesting)
The cynical side of me says that they're holding it hostage for better funding and popular support, because it's such an icon. The last time they announced that they were junking it I didn't believe them for a second... and now, surprise, looks like it has a new lease on life.
Soyuz rocket prepared w/ Windex and screwdriver (Score:5, Funny)
Additionally, NASA will supply the two astronauts assigned the project a bottle of Windex and a roll of Bounty paper towels to clean the Hubble optics. If the budget permits, a Philips head screwdriver and one of those fancy Sears/Craftsman "GRIP" wrenches will also be thrown in to the duffle bag the astronauts are carrying with them for the flight.
IronChefMorimoto
Re:Soyuz rocket prepared w/ Windex and screwdriver (Score:2)
Those things are worth their weight in gold, I use mine daily
Amazin (Score:5, Insightful)
Nuttles
Christian and proud of it
Re:Amazin (Score:2)
Re:Amazin (Score:2)
I agree. There's something ridiculous in holding a belief in Genesis, which is packed with scientific and factual errors. Since that book was written by God (or so the christians say), surely he could've gotten one or two things right...? Our scientists have better answers than God, apparently.
Fix the old, replace with new? (Score:4, Informative)
The real reason (Score:4, Funny)
Re:The real reason (Score:2)
Every time I see "Hubble"... (Score:2, Insightful)
Great (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Great (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, adaptive optics give us better visible-wavelength pictures from the ground now. The Hubble is useful for wavelength bands that the atmosphere absorbs.
overloards (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure everything we do is space is good. (Score:3, Insightful)
Everything we do in space is good... barring of course bringing the damn military and weapons into space.. that wont go well for anybody...
Re:More Money Down the Drain (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:More Money Down the Drain (Score:5, Insightful)
It costs about 300 million every year to operate (for a total cost of four billion two hundred million) so I would guess about 6 billion dollars so far. Using various web resources I estimate US military spending for the same time period to be three trillion four hundred seventy-four billion four hundred million.
So I estimate that Hubble cost 1/579.1 of what what is spent on the US military
(thanks google calculator)
Re:More Money Down the Drain (Score:2, Interesting)
US has 5% of the world's population and 50% of the world's spending on military and it's not enough ?
Re:huh? (Score:2)
Re:Overused quote of the day (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Overused quote of the day (Score:2, Funny)
--Scooby Wan Kenobi