Repair Costs for Hubble Are Vexing to Scientists 508
wallstreetprodigy23 writes "Some scientists questioned whether a repair mission for the aging Hubble Space Telescope was worth a projected cost of $1 billion to $2 billion at a hearing of the House Science Committee on Wednesday.
Both scientists and legislators praised the orbiting observatory for the many contributions it had made to science since it was launched in 1990. But the telescope needs servicing to continue working...
"
Peanuts (Score:4, Insightful)
However, our parents always tell us they can't afford 10 cents for that yummy candy because they just bought a $40K car.
So true, so true. (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re:So true, so true. (Score:5, Insightful)
"If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free." - P J O'Rourke (1947- )"
Re:So true, so true. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So true, so true. (Score:3, Informative)
Less [newsbatch.com] than it does now?
I've heard estimates that suggest up to ten percent of spending on healthcare in the U.S. is related to billing and insurance issues--just figuring out who has to pay for what. Public health care at least solves that problem, plus it usually fixes a schedule of fees and precisely delineates what procedures are covered.
I am less against (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So true, so true. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Peanuts (Score:3, Informative)
Agreed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Agreed (Score:2)
"Isn't it great to live in a nation irresponsible enough to spend without limit on everything it wants or any intention of ever paying off it's debt -- and yet it still keeps getting more credit"
Re:Agreed (Score:3, Insightful)
Which is far more likely to lead to our downfall than any foreign enemy. It's the biggest open secret in the U.S. at this moment.
Re:Agreed (Score:5, Informative)
---
Hmm. Good Question. Lets ask some leading democrats:
---
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the Greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten time since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton N ational Security Adviser, Feb 18,1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry (D - MA), and others Oct. 9,1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engage! d in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chem! ical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9,2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years
Re:Agreed (Score:3, Insightful)
What had saddam done? harassed and attempted to shoot down US and British jets in the no fly zone, and kicke
Re:Agreed (Score:5, Interesting)
Bush's rhetoric toward Iran, considering Iran is a democracy.
Before you start accusing Iran of being *cough* *cough* a democracy, you need to consider the particularities of their political system:
a) The Guardian Councils can veto any elected candidates, prevent their candidacy, and any legislature they passes.
b) Half of the Guardian Councils are appointed by the Ayatollah directly, the other half by the head of judicial, who is also selected by the Ayatollah.
c) The Ayatollah is selected by the assembly of experts, and by convention, holds office for life, though they can be deposed by the same assembly.
d) The public elects the assembly of experts, but selection can vetoed by the Guardian Councils.
So while there is universal suffrage in electing the president and their representatives, the system is skewed towards concentrating lots of power in the Ayatollah and making him hard to dislodge. The elected President and legislative councils are powerless under the thumbs of the Ayatollah and his powerful Guardian Councils.
Nice, you failed to answer the question (Score:4, Insightful)
> Please tell me, how was invading Iraq "protecting
> ourselves
Pointing out that many Democrats considered Iraq a threat is nothing but a defense of Republicans' failed policies. "Well, some Democrats thought Iraq was a threat too...nah, nah, nah." How does this answer the original question of how invading Iraq really protected us?
I'm an independent, and disagreed with the invasion of Iraq as a way of protecting ourselves from WMD. When nearly every Republican AND Democrat voted for the resolution to go to war, I disagreed with both of them.
Demonstrating that Democrat politicians are just as stupid as Republican politicians doesn't help answer the original question. It does, however, show exactly how biased and politically-minded you are. Rather than trying to figure out whether a policy was wrong, or defend that policy, you immediately jump to defend what apparently is your political party of choice. In other words, honesty and objectivism are not important to you, only partisanship.
It is exactly this kind of thinking that allows politicians to make poor choices and not be held accountable for them. People like you resort to partisan hackery, rather than trying to fix the system or question the choices of the people they supported in the election.
Now, history will tell whether invading Iraq was worth the cost. I personally believe that WMD were not even the *primary* reason for invading, although they were the *primary* justification. That doesn't mean I don't see the invasion as having some merit. But it does mean I question whether invading was really done to protect the United States. Even if it was, I believe it was done on a much more general level, because we believe that controlling several key countries in the Middle East will allow us to more effectively combat terrorism.
Again I repeat, however, that the statements of a few Democrats do nothing to answer this question, but rather distort the issue by making it a question of party politics. There has been significant rebellion in govt. institutions and in society on the way intelligence was used and interpreted to come to a certain conclusion about Iraq's WMDs, from Republicans, Democrats and Independents. Recently, this sentiment was tapped in an attempt to take power from the reigning party, but that does not make it a Democratic issue.
Perhaps you should stop thinking as a Republican and start thinking as a person. Then you might be able to start to answer the question that was originally posed.
-Dan
Re:WMD are Still Hidden (Score:3, Insightful)
Dumbass.
You can hide a bomb, but you can't hide an entire program, along with the paperwork (everything in Iraq was heavily documente
Uhhh.... (Score:4, Informative)
You might take another look at the dates of the statements and when President Bush was first elected - or do you honestly mean to suggest that Bush is somehow 'accountable' for these Democrats coming to the same exact conclusions about Iraq and WMDs years before he became president?
Re:Agreed (Score:4, Funny)
You're so proud of him that you've decided to back him anonymously. Bravo. For all we know you might be the president.
Re:Agreed (Score:5, Funny)
Nah. If it was him, the message would be something like "We found the WDMs and made Iraq safe for democrity. That is why I am ^H^H^H^ back the Prepsodent."
Re:Agreed (Score:5, Informative)
> Ah, how soon we forget. The UN weapons inspectors found WMDs in Iraq
Then document it. I've read the Dueffler report. Even despite being a Bush-chosen war hawk, the best he could come up with was possible low-level "programs", and even that is doubted, given the evidence cited, by most experts.
> Hussein never accounted for them
Hussein did account for them; unfortunately, his account was "we unilaterally destroyed them". UNMOVIC/UNSCOM had detected evidence that various chemical weapons had been destroyed in the locations stated, but were unable to assess the quantity. When we invaded, they were working on a way to try and assess the quantity.
> Intelligence agencies all over the world felt Iraq had these WMDs
That's why the IAEA was near certifying Iraq as nuclear free, and why UNMOVIC was reporting significant process, right? Why the heads of both organizations were mad at us for invading? Why the US was pretty much laughed at for pushing many of the claims, such as the "uranium from Africa" and "aluminum tubes" claims. Any of this sound familiar to you?
> Hussein had failed to respond to numerous UN resolutions.
Funny thing - turns out that he was in compliance on most of the things that we asserted he was in violation of. Then, we go and invade, violating the very UN charter itself.
> The US tried to get UN action, but was blocked by France, Germany, and Russia,
> all of which had either economic or military ties to Iraq.
But economic ties a hundred times greater to the United States. This line of argument is pretty dumb, and I'm surprised that people still use it. The populace of France was 3/4 against the war; Germany, over 4/5ths. Russia, about 3/4ths. How dare a country do what it's citizens want!
> Oh, and don't forget that Hussein could have left Iraq before we invaded and
> the invasion would have been called off...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1079 76 9,00.html
http://www.iht.com/articles/116629.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3247461.st m
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/ 11
This can all be summed up here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Failed_Iraqi_p eace_in itiatives
> There were plenty of terrorists in Iraq.
Surely you will cite them, then!
> It was also well known that Hussein paid the surviving relatives of suicide
> bombers after each bombing.
And the Saudis ran bloody telethons for them.
> He certainly wished to do harm to the US and US interests.
He joined about 80% of the world in that regard.
> Plus he had openly defied us and the no-fly zones for years.
You mean, the no-fly zones that the French called harmful and pointless, which the Russians and Germans called illegal, which the Chinese condemned, etc?
How would you feel if, without a resolution, French military aircraft flew over America, shooting down anything that flew without their permission (and attacking US bases), and then when the US tried to attack them, they condemned us for "defying the no-fly zones"?
> Taking his regime out sent a clear message that the US is serious and
> not to be trifled with.
That's why Iran and North Korea are openly building nukes, eh? About the only message that it sent is "If the US says disarm, don't - they'll invade anyways, so you need your weapons". That and "Freedom is defined by a dozen deaths a day", "Democracy involves a couple dozen dead, the almost complete sitting-out of a religious/ethnic group (Sunni arabs), the blocking of anot
Re:Peanuts (Score:2, Insightful)
Before the pro-Bush posters come about trying to justify why another $80 billion is being sent down the proverbial black hole, think about this: this isn't the first nor will it be the last request from Bush for more money to finance his egotistical campaigns (excluding Afghanistan which is justified). In six months he'll be asking for another $40-50 billion and find some other excuse to justify the cost.
Now, back on point, if spending $1-2 b
Re:Peanuts (Score:5, Insightful)
1. $1-2 billion might not be a good investment for the Hubble. If that money is applied to the design of a replacement satellite, or possibly a replacement for the shuttles, then we might gain even more by NOT spending on the Hubble. It's a cost tradeoff issue, and is hardly a simple decision to make. It's a decision that can only be made when looking at the entire NASA budget (which Slashdot posts never do).
I'd personally like to see $1-2 billion go towards a replacement for the shuttles, since that would greatly reduce the maintenance costs for satellites down the line.
2. The anti-Bush rhetoric is getting old. There's many reason we should or shouldn't be in Iraq, but the fact remains that we ARE in Iraq. We should not leave anytime soon (most reasonable people can agree with that), since the entire thing would have been in vain. So, we're stuck with paying the $80 billion per year for the next few years.
At this point it does no good to complain about the extra money required for Iraq, since it's going there no matter what. It's far more important to determine how agencies will make better use of their reduced funding... like deciding if the Hubble should be repaired or if the money should be spent on something else.
Re:Peanuts (Score:4, Informative)
So here you go: http://www.nasa.gov/about/budget/
It's far more important to determine how agencies will make better use of their reduced funding... like deciding if the Hubble should be repaired or if the money should be spent on something else.
Or not at all, don't forget that most important option. It is not like this money is sitting in some big pile and will go to waste if we don't use it. We are borrowing from social security and foreign institutions in order to pay for a 400 billion dollar yearly deficit, so it is not just a matter of what to spend money on, it is also a question of whether the money should be spent at all.
Re:Peanuts (Score:4, Insightful)
People will not die if the Hubble Space Telescope is abandonded. People WILL die if we leave Iraq immediately.
That's why complaining about the money going into Iraq doesn't do any good. We simply CAN'T leave. The Hubble is completely different. We CAN abandon it without any major negative effects other than delaying our deep space observations (remember.. the stars will be there in 10 years if we can afford a replacement for Hubble then, at a cheaper cost if the shuttles are replaced).
Peanuts? No... Viagra (Score:4, Funny)
link here [sfgate.com]
As a friend of mine put it. The seniors have been screwing over the young for years... now they've got Viagra to help.
Re:Peanuts (Score:2)
$1 billion? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:$1 billion? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:$1 billion? (Score:2)
I vote for a new telescope that's easier to repair. Not that my vote counts.
Re:$1 billion? (Score:2)
Re:$1 billion? (Score:2, Informative)
$1.5 billion [nasa.gov]. But that was just to build it. NASA claims it would cost much less to service and repair the Hubble rather than to launch a new one into service.
Re:$1 billion? (Score:5, Informative)
JWST is designed to study the earliest galaxies and some of the first stars formed after the Big Bang. These early objects have a high redshift from our vantage-point, meaning that the best observations for these objects are available in the infrared. JWST's instruments will be designed to work primarily in the infrared range of the electromagnetic spectrum, with some capability in the visible range.
JWST will have a large mirror, 6.5 meters (20 feet) in diameter and a sunshield the size of a tennis court. Both the mirror and sunshade won't fit onto the rocket fully open, so both will fold up and open only once JWST is in outer space.
JWST will reside in an L2 Lissajous orbit, about 1.5 million km (1 million miles) from the Earth.
Lissajous orbit? Whooo - Loopy. (Score:3, Interesting)
Err, I think you mean it will be at the second Lagrange point (L2). [stsci.edu].
Actually, it'll be in orbit round the L2 point, but now I'm just getting picky.
I think you'll find that the French physicist Lissajous [google.com] had very little to do with orbital dynamics, and much more to do with fascinating sqiggly loop patterns that provide endless entertainment for thost supposed to be learning how to use an oscilloscope.
Re:Lissajous orbit? Whooo - Loopy. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:$1 billion? (Score:4, Funny)
Loss Leader (Score:2, Funny)
NASA should have read the contract, Hubble was a loss leader for the manufacturer. As we all know the profit is all in the servicing of it.
Hubble $$$
Replacement gyro - $5,000
Replacement screw - $0.05
Replacement nut - $0.05
House call - $1,000,000,000.00
Re:$1 billion? (Score:5, Insightful)
The loss of Hubble, while somewhat offset by new technologies that increase the abilities of ground-based telescopes, would still be an enormous blow to astronomers and cosmologists. It has been an extraordinarily useful tool, and to my mind, letting die and then pushing it into the ocean in 2012 is about a horrible fate as I can imagine.
Unfortunately NASA is burdened with that collosal waste of cash, the International Space Station. Hubble does more scientific work in a month than the ISS is every likely to do. If anything should be pushed into a decaying orbit, it should be that big fat waste of cash.
Story on a non-registration site. (Score:3, Informative)
Another Option (Score:5, Interesting)
The John Hopkins folks proposed a 'Son of Hubble' [spaceref.com] for that same cost. It would give the same or better scientific data gathering and also be designed to be fixed in an easier fashion, made with more modern tech, etc.
Re:Another Option (Score:2)
Re:Another Option (Score:2, Insightful)
It would be kind of sad to lose the Hubble after so many years of astounding imagery, but if we can have something even better launched in 5 years for the same price (or there abouts), well that seems to make sense.
My biggest concern is, can this really be built for $1 Billion, or is it going to turn into $3 Billion? Only to be scrapped because it's becoming "too costly" thus flushing billions down the crapper, as our government
Re:Another Option (Score:4, Informative)
Hubble Origins Probe: replace instead of repair?
An international team led by Johns Hopkins University astronomers have proposed an alternative [spaceref.com] to sending a robotic or manned repair mission to the ailing Hubble Space Telescope [wikipedia.org]. Their proposal is to build a new Hubble Origins Probe [jhu.edu], reusing the Hubble design but using lighter and more cost-effective technologies. The probe would include instruments currently waiting to be installed on Hubble, as well as a Japanese-built imager which 'will allow scientists to map the heavens more than 20 times faster than even a refurbished Hubble Space Telescope could.' It would take an estimated 65 months and $1 billion to build, approximately the same cost as a robotic service mission.
Re:Another Option (Score:2)
From TFA:
it would take an estimated 65 months and $1 billion to launch HOP
So if the old 'car' breaks down, which it will, you're SOL until the new car is ready.
The old saying "Time is Money" is very appropriate here.
Lawmakers are too scared for their own jobs (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Lawmakers are too scared for their own jobs (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Lawmakers are too scared for their own jobs (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Lawmakers are too scared for their own jobs (Score:2)
Re:Lawmakers are too scared for their own jobs (Score:3, Interesting)
Why don't people drive their cars for a 1,000,000 miles? Because eventually the maintenance costs greatly outweight both the costs and benefits of a buying a new car.
Same here....
Nuff said...
Re:Lawmakers are too scared for their own jobs (Score:2)
but wouldn't you think twice and harder if the new car's availability and price are vastly uncertain?
robotic repair crew? (Score:4, Informative)
What's a crew worth? (Score:3, Insightful)
The article mentions that they don't want to risk stranding astronauts at Hubble since there's no haven there to rescue them if something should go wrong. So they *have* to use robots.
I'd fly up there and do the repairs for $1M regardless of the risks. Ok, maybe I'd ask for $50M since there's so much money floating around... but really, I'm sure if NASA offered $1M and training, they'd have thousands of volunteers regardles
Re:What's a crew worth? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:robotic repair crew? (Score:2)
Let it go. (Score:2, Interesting)
I have a 15 year old car that I'm rather fond of due to all the good times I've been through with it, but when the next major repair becomes necessary, it's going to the dump.
Re:Let it go. (Score:2)
Of course, you might feel differently if your 15-year old car was the only car in the world. Or if dropping it at the dump was still going to cost you about half the repair price.
Re:Let it go. (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is that it still offers capabilities that nothing else can replicate, or will for some considerable period of time.
Yes, there are other telescopes that can do better than HST for some tasks, but there are still many tasks for which the HST is the best there is. Even if we consider planned future telescopes, they are all optimized for different things. The Webb telescope, for example, is optomized for infrared observations.
Yes, we should be able to build someting with the capabilities of the Hubble much more cheaply now, but nobody actually has funding to do such a thing, and I suspect the chances of such a project being funded are worse that a repair (even if the repair is more expensive).
If your 15 year old car were the only car ever built with the features you wanted, and nobody was willing to build another one, you might approach a major repair differently.
-Hil
What is truly vexing are the costs... (Score:5, Insightful)
New Telescope? (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe it's time to bite the bullet, be without data for a few years, and plan for something grander for the next decade.
Why not look at developing a fleet of Hubbles, each with perhaps a 2 year lifespan, and just keep launching them as the others break down? Or better yet, launch a number at the same time. Hubble often seems very busy, I'm sure people would crave the opportunity to collect even more data?
Of course, Hubble nostalgia is the one thing keeping funding going. Politically, you can continue to argue for Hubble repair, but not for the construction of new telescopes, even if they cost the same thing. The program would be never be approved or scrapped soon after the design phase.
Re:New Telescope? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:New Telescope? (Score:2)
Re:New Telescope? (Score:3, Informative)
Given that the Soyuz can't reach Hubble's orbit (in niether altitude or inclination)... No amount of money paid to them will get you there.
It doesn't matter how much or how little you spend for spares in this scheme.. Even if the Soyuz could reach Hubble (it can't) the cargo capacity of the capsule is about the same as your average tricycle. No
Re:New Telescope? (Score:2)
If my USB cable were a tad longer, I'd be happy to send my webcam into orbit!
Re:New Telescope? (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't forget (Score:2, Funny)
Don't forget to check the oil and rotate the tires while you are up there
Ready. Aim. Praise! (Score:4, Insightful)
I prefer to praise the humans who built Hubble versus Hubble itself. That damn Hubble gets all the m4d pr0pz.
The real questions that should be asked... (Score:3, Insightful)
that's what they want you to think (Score:3, Funny)
Re:that's what they want you to think (Score:3, Funny)
One Idea: (Score:2, Interesting)
Do what they do with old cars (Score:5, Interesting)
I suspect the Chinese could get it fixed for a lot less than $1 billion. It's called trickle down economics, I think.
Re:Do what they do with old cars (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Do what they do with old cars (Score:2)
But how about someone other than China? Their first mission would be to turn it 180 degrees and point it at us.
*LOL*
Actually, I doubt it'd focus well in that case but I do think this is a good idea.
China would launch 15 missions, 14 of which would fail and result in the death of 42 astronauts. But they'd succeed (both in fixing the scope and reducing population)
Take 'er down (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Take 'er down (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Take 'er down (Score:2)
Re:Take 'er down (Score:3, Informative)
The wheels of the space shuttle would collapse upon touchdown from the weight of the Hubble. It was never designed to land with cargo still in the hold.
Re:Take 'er down (Score:4, Informative)
Nope: NASA originally intended to recover the HST and stick it in the Smithsonian, as the parent suggested, see the second to last paragraph in this story [cnn.com], for example.
The retrieval mission was cancelled for various reasons, but collapsing wheels wasn't one of them.
It was never designed to land with cargo still in the hold.
The shuttle has landed with cargo still in the hold numerous times, albeit not anything that massed as much as the HST. Indeed, so called the shuttle's large 'downmass' capability was one of its big sells, and is still something unique to it.
Re:Take 'er down (Score:4, Informative)
To use any of the other shuttles would require major, major structural modifications to them-- probably more expensive than just repairing it and leaving them there. And, as another poster pointed out, shuttles aren't designed to land with cargo, so more modification would be needed to bulk up the landing gear and drag chutes.
Why? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why? (Score:2)
Re:Why? (Score:2)
the difference is, some will not think of those things in terms of "anything other than..."
what "other" things are you thinking it should have accomplished or we should accomplish in general? do you think "curing the lust for knowledge of the unknown" is not worthy enough on its own? if so, could you tell me why you think not?
Re:Why? (Score:2)
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
*sigh* This question comes up every time space exploration comes up, and everytime it's answered. Really, there should be FAQ's for
Discounting scientific knowledge, we have, briefly and non-comprehensively:
1) Satellite monitoring, navigation and communications technology.
2) Mass produced integrated circuits.
3) Major contributions to the environmental movement.
4) Advanced management techniques.
Re:Why? (Score:3, Funny)
The Hubble is being replaced... (Score:2, Informative)
What complicates the question are the breathtaking advances in Earth-based astronomy since the Hubble was conceived. During the 1970s when Hubble was designed, the conventional wisdom was that ground based telescopes would never have the resolution of space telescopes because the atmosphere seeing limited the resolution of g
as a scientist... (Score:2)
Accounting? (Score:5, Insightful)
Dr. Steven Beckwith, director of the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore, said previous shuttle missions to the telescope were charged in the $300 million to $400 million range, which was acceptable to scientists. If the cost suddenly went above $1 billion, Dr. Beckwith said, he would have to reconsider his strong support for a service mission."
So the Hubbell costs $300 million to service when you don't add the cost of the shuttle flight? I can't believe that NASA ever tracked the cost of their programs this way. Does it make any sense not to include the cost of the shuttle flight in the Science budget if that is the only purpose for the shuttle flight?
The Russians (Score:2)
Afterall, outsourcing is the lingua franca in Washington these days. Now, before I get modded, these are facts.
Why it is expensive... (Score:5, Interesting)
If we allow for a 0.5% probability of the loss of austronauts, the costs would drop dramatically. For example, they don't want to send the mission without another shuttle on "stand-by", because, if something is wrong, this mission will not be able to repair itself (unlike those, that are sent to ISS).
If lives can be and are lost for a good cause in Afghanistan, Iraq, in fighting domestic crime, and in firefighting, I say, we are overly protective of the space crews.
Re:Why it is expensive... (Score:3, Insightful)
This is of course a very controversial topic.
My observation is that most people put a dollar figure on life. However, anybody who openly talks about this is looked down upon. It is acceptable to be a bean counter, it just isn't acceptable to actually say that you are one, or that bean counting was the reason for a decision you made.
Kind of like a company I know somebody at. They were doing some testing to marginally improve
outsource (Score:3, Funny)
my coverage (Score:2)
Costs to Service Hubble - An Analysis (Score:3, Insightful)
- Shuttle Launch: $400-500 million
- Additional Hardware to meet CAIB requirements for non-ISS shuttle flights: $80-100 million
- Actual hardware and training to execute the mission: $300-400 million
- Potential Cost of Losing an Orbiter in an Accident: $2.2 billion
- Potential Cost of Losing Seven Lives in an Accident: Priceless (can you put a price on life?)
If this were a systems administration project like many of us geeks typically work on, we wouldn't be trying to sell the boss on a hugely expensive upgrade when we know damn well that we're going to be rolling out a completely new, cheaper, better system within the next couple of years. Sentiment aside, it just doesn't make sense to spend national resources and risk lives when we can devote our energies (and dollars) toward further improving ground-based telescopes and getting JWST aloft. Let Hubble give us the best it's got during its last few years, and then bury it in a blaze of literal glory as it burns up in the atmosphere.Sky-time market synthesis (Score:3, Interesting)
Replace Hubblle with ... hubble! (Score:3, Interesting)
Why not replace it with a brand new hubble, using the design of the original? I.e. reduce the costs of design, research and development by reusing what we already know works, of course use some obvious improvements (including avoiding the optics errors), but only replace something in the design if a better, proven, easy-to-upgrade or off-the-shelf alternative has been developed since Hubble was first designed/deployed.
Not simply a repair mission - two new instruments! (Score:5, Informative)
Alternative story link (Score:3, Informative)
For those wishing to avoid NYT's soul-eating registration, try:
Congress Debates Saving Hubble [cbsnews.com]
Re:If it's too expensive... (Score:4, Insightful)
With all deference to Burt Rutan and his accomplishments, he did in 2004 what NASA did in the 1950's and 1960's AND he used all the research findings that NASA discovered while doing it.
If NASA could have copied what others did, they could have done it cheaper too.
Burt Rutan had 40 years of areospace research to draw on. NASA had to do the reasearch and discover the stuff from scratch.
Don't compare apples and oranges.
Re:Now How Much: Who is Hubble Repair Worth? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Goodbye Hubble.. (Score:3, Insightful)
First, its not 70s tech. Thats why we go up there. About the only thing original on the telescope now is the telescope itself. The rest of it has been replaced with modern equipment. And the telescope and its supporting mechanics is the same level of tech we would put up today were we to launch a new one.
The cost of launching anything new will be at least the cost of a servicing mission. It will last 5+ years, which is how long Hubble will last with a servicing mission.
The