NASA Announces De-Orbit Mission For Hubble 488
maglor_83 writes "NASA has announced the end for Hubble. It plans on performing a "robotic de-orbit mission", and apparently its not due to the monetary costs associated with fixing it, but rather the risks involved. NASA's new goals are now manned missions to the moon, as a platform for Mars."
Scientific payoff (Score:5, Insightful)
Given current technology, I see a manned mission to mars as a financial boondogle.
Re:Scientific payoff (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Scientific payoff (Score:4, Interesting)
Like what? And what can we not do remotely? Why send astronauts there is what I am asking.
It's worth going there.
What I am saying is not that we should not go to Mars. I am saying that sending people to Mars right now would not have the scientific payoff that other investments in our space program might.
As for measurable, immediate scientific benefits, you have to look further than the end of your own nose if you're going to learn anything,
Yes, and your point is?
and you have to look further than the end of this week if you want to help humanity.
See my above comments on best bang for the buck.
Re:Scientific payoff (Score:5, Insightful)
Consequently, you really have no idea what kind of bang for the buck will be produced by, comparatively, setting up shop on the moon, and setting up shop on Mars.
Re:Scientific payoff (Score:5, Insightful)
This is trotted out every time that the space program needs justifying and guess what, its bogus. Non stick frying pans were being developed during the Napoleonic wars when the English embargo prevented the French getting their hands on enough cooking grease. Hence LeCreuset.
It gets even wobblier when you get to the old CERN home of the Web stuff. The folk who go on about that don't mention that CERN never assigned any staff to the Web project directly other than Tim during the time Tim was at CERN. There were three students who worked with Tim and another four people from another group who did the Web because they beleived in it. When it came to setting up the Web consortium the CERN director sent to bat for the Web project EU grant wise told the committee that the priority at CERN was physics and the Web was not considered important.
Even when you get to communications satelites the story is somewhat murky. Most satelites are being launched by the French or the Chinese and NASA has done its best to make use of those facilities as hard as possible.
If you want to research networking then give money to networking, if you want to research biochemistry give the money to biochemists. Do not give the money to a bunch of astrophyscists in the hope that they will solve your networking, fusion, and life sciences problems in their spare time. It does not work that way. The only way you can see a return on 'spinoff' research is if you have programs in place to identify and invest in them. NASA ditched all that years ago and there is zero chance of picking any of it up in the current budget cut environment.
There is no way that shutting down Hubble and spending the money on the space station is going to get even 1% of the science that Hubble has delivered already. The basic problem here is that NASA sees its mission as manned space exploration and that has very little to do with science.
There is one solution to the problem that has not been discussed much. There were two mirrors made, the bent one that is up there today and the reserve that was made (corectly) by Kodak for testing purposes. The Kodak mirror must still be in storage somewhere, there are duplicates of pretty much all the equipment. the parts could probably be bolted together to make a duplicate for $50 million or even less. The French, Russians and Chinese would probably put it into orbit for $50 million at commercial rates and given the cargo it could probably be done at no cost in return for telescope time.
The cost of Hubble is almost all in the design. Making a duplicate should be much, much cheaper.
Re:Scientific payoff (Score:4, Interesting)
First you're assuming that they actually have the correct engineering drawings. A GAO investigation of ISS revealed that although NASA had a system that was supposed to track the ISS engineering drawings, they didn't actually have the correct drawings.
Secondly, the cost of making a one-off of just about anything goes UP over time, unlike the cost of mass manufacturing items which goes down.
And third, I doubt that they would build another Hubble even if they could. They wouldn't be able to resist making a lot of changes to take advantage of advances in technology, so the design work would all get redone anyhow, resulting in no net savings.
Re:Scientific payoff (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Scientific payoff (Score:3, Interesting)
Possibly, I suspect that it is not completely functional and the main mirror may not be the optically accurate one made at a cost of $15 million or so.
But it would be a good starting point. I'll bet that even the Smithsonian would rather the thing was put to decent use.
The main problem is the mirror and assembling the whole thing in a dust free environment.
On the subject of plans, the ISS is a completely different botch up.
Re:Scientific payoff (Score:3, Insightful)
Well that begs an interesting question: why should NASA's mission be scientific? It is the national space agency, I don't see a problem with them working on manned space exploration.
Re:Scientific payoff (Score:4, Interesting)
Guess what -- THAT's bogus.
Great example, by the way. LeCreuset is nonstick cookware, I'll give you that. However, they do not use Teflon for their ceramic cookware. They did not invent Teflon or anything at all similar. They do USE Teflon, however, in their kitchen textiles, as a fabric protector. Because, that's right, teflon is useful for more than non-stick cookware! Hooray!
In fact, Teflon is among the (at the top of the list I believe, but I'm not willing to back that up) most slippery materials known to man. Not simply the cheapest or most widely available, it is extremely unique.
I do agree with you in general that the Hubble has delivered far more science than any manned mission ever has. However, I believe both have their merits, and both deserve funding.
Re:Scientific payoff (Score:3, Interesting)
Thank goodness you were in no way shape or form in charge of any basic research programme.
NASA and the space program may not be respo
Re:Scientific payoff (Score:3, Insightful)
That is bogus, there were plenty of applications that needed compact logic. The Air Force was a much bigger consumer of MSI and LSI t
Re:Scientific payoff (Score:3, Insightful)
But then you have to answer the next question: "What gain to we get from learning about the early state of the universe?"
Some people might argue that the pursuit of that knowled
Re:Scientific payoff (Score:4, Insightful)
You sort of prove the point... You never know what you will develop until you have a strong need. BTW Teflon has nothing to do with the space program. It was developed for the Atomic bomb project. It was uses for seals exposed to Florine.
"Even when you get to communications satellites the story is somewhat murky. Most satellites are being launched by the French or the Chinese and NASA has done its best to make use of those facilities as hard as possible. "
THis is just nuts. Of couse sommunications satellites where developed by Nasa and AT&T.
When you push the state of the art you never know what you will develop. IC based computers where developed for the Apollo program. Why never before? because no needed computer that small before. I mean why would you need a computer smaller than a desk or even a room?
Remote heart monitoring systems. Why would you need to check someones heartbeat remotely.
Yes the space station is a waste. Not because it is a bad idea but because it was cut and cut and is now just a shell of what it was going to be. Much like the Shuttle.
Re:Scientific payoff (Score:5, Insightful)
Hah! see my other post, Teflon was invented in 1938, before the Manhattan project started.
When you push the state of the art you never know what you will develop. IC based computers where developed for the Apollo program. Why never before? because no needed computer that small before. I mean why would you need a computer smaller than a desk or even a room?
The USSR did not develop ICs and still put rockets into space. In fact the ICs did not become important in space until after the Appolo program. They were pretty finiky until the 1970s.
Kilby was funded by Texas Instruments, Noyce by Fairchild. Both companies were working for the Pentagon, not NASA. The first applications for the ICs were in the US Airforce and the minuteman missile (1962). There is a big difference between using an IC in a missile where it has to work for no more than a few minutes and using one in a satelite or such.
There are certainly links between research fields but space is certainly not unique in having a spinoff effect and you do not get spinoffs without also doing basic research in the area in question. The World Wide Web put together ideas from twenty years of formal comp sci research with a different perspective to reach the breakthrough.
I don't see any reason why we should expect that diverting funds from worthwhile science like Hubble to worthless science like the space station is going to result in a net gain through the spinoff effect. Space has been enormously well funded for fifty years. Sending people to the moon does not create any seriously interesting new challenges.
Re:Scientific payoff (Score:3, Insightful)
I think building habitats on the moon; mining, prospecting for water, growing plants, building a rail gun launcher, etc, are all extremely interesting challenges; if not ones a theoretical physicist could get very excited about. But a farside lunar radio or light telescope might.
Re:Scientific payoff (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a different issue. What I am saying here is evaluate the programs on their direct merits first.
Hubble has provided real direct benefits, albeit mainly in the cultural field. We know more about the origins of the universe, w
What we are capable of (Score:5, Insightful)
What can we not do remotely?
First of all, consider that everything both rovers, combined, have done to date could have been done easily in a day by one human scientist with a buggy. Possibly even on foot.
Now consider what the rovers have not been able to do, such as going on steep slopes or overly sandy surfaces for fear of getting stuck - things a human could have just walked right over to.
Now consider the things that are just unthinkable for rovers to explore, like really complex canyon-laced terrain. You just can't send rovers there at all.
What is to be gained? A deeper understanding of geology and the forces that shape planets - perhaps offering new insights into our own planet. Possibly of course other lifeforms if they probe deep enough. And all the variety of technology that makes working on Mars practical, like improved propulsion systems, life support systems, etc.
But basically it would be a fantastic boost for the human spirit. Look at how riveted so many people have been to Rover progress, and the Titan mission. Lots of people know about these things and it excites them. It could help to really raise a new generation of engineering minded youth, whereas right now I'd warrant a lot of good potential scientists end up as MBA's or lawyers right now. After all, what is compelling or cool abotu going into science?
If you want a planet full of lawyers, by all means lets shut down manned space flight and just sue each other for IP infringements every time we make a sandwich. But frankly I hope for a more inspired future.
I know it may sound crazy to you, but I would quite happily take a trip to Mars knowing I would only live a day and there was no hope of return. And I think there are a lot of other people like that. Let people with the will to explore go forth and inspire others in turn.
Re:Scientific payoff (Score:3)
The combined cost of Spirit and Opportunity was $820 million dollars. [space.com]
The potential cost of a manned mission to Mars, using off the shelf technology and launching today: $20 billion dollars. [mit.edu]
Which means you can send 48 rovers similiar to Spirit and Opportunity to Mars, with the same payload.
The "rovers being able to stay longer" is a somewhat unqualified statement at the moment. Sure, they have
Re:Scientific payoff (Score:4, Interesting)
Karma to burn, so...
Zubrin is a barking mad cult leader labouring under the messianic misapprehension that he and only he can get us to Mars. Anybody who says otherwise is a fool and a communist.
If you read his statements made after the release of the basic outline of the current Bush space plan, he stops just short of calling treasonous any effort to go to the Moon as a first step or staging post rather than directly to Mars. He's not interested in consensus building, just his own (dubiously costed and hand-wavingly engineered) master plan. There are a growing number of people in space advocacy who consider him as mad as a bus. In a field full of dogmatic fantasists, he dwarfs all others for sheer cultish zealotry.
Mod me "-1 uncomfortable truth shut up shut up lalalalala"
Re:Scientific payoff (Score:5, Informative)
No, it wouldn't be. Basic space elevator is essentially just a tower to geostationary orbit. Earth, rotating just over once every day (!), that's an orbit radius of 42,000 km. The Moon's equivalent orbit with it rotating once a month (albeit with lower gravity) is about 90 million km, assuming this back-of-the-envelope calculation is right.
The best place for a prototype space elevator would be a small asteroid with a fairly high rotation rate - you could probably get away with a few tens of kilometres if chosen carefully...
Re:Scientific payoff (Score:5, Informative)
It might be in itself, but you're forgetting something important: Lagrange points. The link below explains how a lunar space elevator can be done.
http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/lunar_spa
Not only would it be possible, the entire cable could weigh just 6,800 kg according to the article's calculations.
(It's been a slashdot story, but the usual searches wouldn't find it)
Re:Scientific payoff (Score:4, Informative)
Lunar Space Elevator Instead? [slashdot.org]
Space Elevator Prototype Climbs MIT Building [slashdot.org]
Re:Scientific payoff (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, truth of the matter is that they are going to do the 20+ shuttle flights to finish the space station, whose science results have pretty much been limited to 'hey some moss grows in circles in space', and explaining to highschool kids how astronauts live out there. doing valuable circular-growing moss research and all.
But the risk and cost of single flight to keep Hubble operative is too high, and the 20+ for the space station are worth the cost and risk?
Right. I'm not convinced.
This is not about Mars, or the Moon. Mars and the Moon are just decoys. They are only mentioned to make people drool like you are doing.
Most likely, NASA will never get sufficient funding (and balls) to actually go do it. If it's too risky and too expensive to go fix something in orbit, that has been specifically designed to be fixed, then please tell me, how can flying people to the moon and another planet be affordable and safe?
Double standards, that's the only way.
Not really (Score:3, Insightful)
Or one of a number of ground-based scopes that are doing just as well thanks to increases in technology.
Re:Scientific payoff (Score:3, Insightful)
Uhmm, no, actually the Hubble is now obsolete.
[Please read all of this before modding me down.]
Its generated a lot of pretty pictures, yes. Why are those pretty pictures interesting and valuable? Because they let us look back in time to the early period of the universe. Thats why Hubble was created, not because the public would like the computer-enhanced pretty pictures (you didn't think those pictures we
Re:Scientific payoff (Score:5, Informative)
--
Cheers, Gene
Re:Scientific payoff (Score:3, Funny)
Not that financial boondogles have stopped this administration from doing anything.
Re:Scientific payoff (Score:5, Insightful)
Given current technology, I see a manned mission to mars as a financial boondogle.
This is why we go to the moon first. Of course we can't do it with current technology, and if we keep sending up robots, without the incentive to develop better and faster propulsion, etc., that's all we'll ever have - current technology.
Get people up to Mars successfully, and we won't waste any more missions because of stupid "convert to metric" errors and the like that have doomed most of the robotic Mars missions to date.
No more sending up a robot, finding a tantalizing piece of data, and then waiting 5+ years to get the next round of questions answered. This is tedious and silly! Put PEOPLE on the ground with the right equipment for a year, and your precious "science" will start to ROLL in instead of TRICKLING in like it does now!
(sheesh!)
Step 1: Moon base.
Step 2: Build the next generation of spacecraft on the moon
Step 3: Launch Mars mission from the moon, where the gravity well is shallower.
Re:Scientific payoff (Score:3, Insightful)
The only thing you gain by having people on the ground is reduced latency. However, it's hard to justify the tremendously increased cost of sending humans along when late
Re:Pure nonsense (Score:3, Interesting)
Your "ATV" wasn't designed to explore mars autonomously, or otherwise it
Re:Scientific payoff (Score:5, Interesting)
A better idea would be to build two orbiting radio telescopes in Earth's orbital path, on opposite sides of the sun and with the same orbital velocity as that of Earth. This essentially fixes the Earth and the two telescopes in place relative to each other and keeps line of sight communications between Earth and each of the satellites at all times. Massage the resultant data together via the wonders of very long baseline interferometry and you effectively have an single radio telescope the diameter of Earth's orbit.
Re:Scientific payoff (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Scientific payoff (Score:3, Informative)
NASA's sole purpose isn't science (Score:3, Interesting)
Your argument though reminds me a little bit of something I once saw, which said that all/most space advocates were either Saganites, O'Neillians, or Von Braunians (each named after a famous figure in the space field). The descriptions are as follows:
Saganites: "Look, but don't touch
Re:Scientific payoff (Score:3, Insightful)
Your assertion regarding Hubble returning more scientific data per dollar is specious. The Apollo program has resulted in hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars worth of scientific data and technological advancement and products. Even as recent as the last 9 months has some of the original Apollo data been used to cr
Re:Scientific payoff (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Scientific payoff (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Scientific payoff (Score:4, Insightful)
Well you never know...
Given Creationism's recent gains, and the growing power of the Religious Right in the administration, one might believe that yes, indeed, Hubble is being brought down to set back science.
When? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:When? (Score:2)
Re:When? (Score:2)
I guess powering them might be a problem...the addon unit would need it's own solar panels, be position
There is no deorbit module (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:There is no deorbit module (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh man, you seriously need to have another chat with your dad. Hubble can point itself in any direction thanks to its gyros. But it doesn't have any engines. It couldn't deorbit itself if it wanted to. They have full control over where Hubble looks, but not where it goes. To deorbit Hubble you need a robotic deorbit module (aka a rocket).
For more information, see this page [cbd-net.com]:
[Off topic] While Googling for the above I found this generated ad:
Re:There is no deorbit module (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:There is no deorbit module (Score:4, Interesting)
CGRO was designed to be de-orbited at its end and had a thruster. I guess NASA really was planning to bring the Hubble down with the Columbia, since it has none of that.
(*) when the Sun is very active, it puffs up the scale height of the atmosphere. In turn it increases the particle density in the low earth orbit, which leads to a greater drag force.
Re:When? (Score:3, Informative)
2. There is more equipment on the Hubble that is failed or will soon fail than just the Gyros. The batteries, some of the subsystems, and probably the gas canisters used to b
Gee, I hope ... (Score:5, Funny)
What's wrong with Hubble (Score:2, Interesting)
What's the deal?
Re:What's wrong with Hubble (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What's wrong with Hubble (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What's wrong with Hubble (Score:4, Informative)
While they could restart the repair cycle, NASA no longer feels that repair flights are safe, because, unlike when the Shuttle visits ISS, there are no good rescue options given Hubble's orbit.
Re:What's wrong with Hubble (Score:3, Funny)
Farewell, old friend.... (Score:2)
Moon as a platform for Mars? (Score:2, Insightful)
The moon doesn't have an atmosphere, Mars does. The moon has 1/2 the gravity of Mars. (1/6g vs. 1/3g.) The moon is three days away, Mars is six months, minimum. The Moon has a 28-day sol, Mars has a 24.75 hour sol. Mars has water, the moon's water is still under question. The moon has huge temperature swings; Mars..
Re:Moon as a platform for Mars? (Score:2, Interesting)
it's a lot harder to launch from earth to mars than it would be to launch from the moon to mars
build a moon launch base, build a mars lander vehicle from the moom.. no athmosphere to require you to go like 18X sound to break free (pulling number from ass)
plus the moon probably has stuff we could use for fuel and whatnot
plus if we go to mars it cant be just for a couple days, we need a base.. the best way to to learn how to build a working base in space is to practice on the moon.. that way if you f
Re:Moon as a platform for Mars? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Moon as a platform for Mars? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Moon as a platform for Mars? (Score:4, Insightful)
A rocket/shuttle/anything uses up pretty much ALL of its fuel just to get off the ground. If we could land on the moon, not only could we go faster (full fuel + no air + moon swinging around) it would be safer because the mission would have spare fuel to use on the way to Mars. Plus you have enough fuel to get back since you would be using a capapult+rockets to get on your way.
The billion taco question is... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:The billion taco question is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Situation 1: Target is missed. It still captures the public's imagination, gets people talking, makes people like you bring up the event years later. To marketing departments, this kind of exposure is exactly what they love.
Situation 2: Target is hit. They have to give away upwards of 300,000,000 tacos. Except, no where near everyone would go, and those that do would likely order a drink, burrito, or other side dish. Even if none of them did, it's still eyeballs and foot traffic, not to mention amazing amounts of publicity. That, and the promotion was insured.
That silly little $40,000 blow-up target is one of the best things that company every did for itself, second only to a talking dog.
Re:The billion taco question is... (Score:3, Informative)
I first saw this Taco Bell hit-the-target-win-a-prize thing this past year during the baseball playoffs. Game 3 of the NLCS (Cardinals vs. Astros) had one of these targets in Homer's Landing in Busch Stadium. Nobody hit it.
NASA has it wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:NASA has it wrong (Score:2)
Well, I know this isn't actually true, but from the John Q Public point of view, the space station crews aren't actually doing anything except fixing the thing they're sitting in and in which they're not doing anything (except eating, apparently).
Of course, the space station, if funded and built as intended, would be a lot more bustly, but as it is now... no wonder no one thinks about it. You bet they'd be watchi
and one giant leap... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a pity to lose such an excellent scientific tool without a replacement either in train or already deployed
Re:and one giant leap... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not the end. (Score:5, Insightful)
We will put up a satellite to replace the Hubble. Space isn't going anywhere.
Re:It's not the end. (Score:2, Informative)
images it can obtain will make the Hubble images look like
junk. Let's move on to the future rather than dwell on the past!
Re:It's not the end. (Score:5, Informative)
Basically, JWST is not a full Hubble replacement. A good thing to launch? Yes. But we'll definitely lose some capabilities in the bargain.
If they get rid of hubble... (Score:2, Funny)
So shortsighted (Score:2, Insightful)
This makes utterly no sense. (Score:5, Interesting)
This sort of mission was almost *routine* three years ago...and now it's "too risky". Those NASA people sure have turned into wusses. >.>
Re:This makes utterly no sense. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:This makes utterly no sense. (Score:4, Insightful)
Plus you're talking about a space agency that goes trolling on eBay for parts to older systems. If they're going to do a moon mission, they're going to have to modernize. Which means re-making a lot of what they had done with a lot of different technology providers.
Re:This makes utterly no sense. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:This makes utterly no sense. (Score:3, Insightful)
1. They had pretty much all the funding they could possibly want.
2. Much greater safety paranoia. When the crew of Apollo 1 was killed, NASA fixed the problem and moved on with the program. They didn't paralyze their manned spaceflight program, go into a period of national mourning, and launch congressional investigation committees.
3. Von Braun and the other German rocket geniuses who essentially designed and built the rockets they used are just about all dead. Granted, there'
Re:This makes utterly no sense. (Score:3, Informative)
funny.. (Score:2)
Re:funny.. (Score:3, Funny)
will someone deorbit NASA? (Score:2)
If they say it's not about money... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's about money.
The budget Bush just submitted cuts the Hubble.
Risks too High? (Score:3, Insightful)
OK, fine, and I admit Hubble is probably too expensive to patch up and the money would be better spent on a new telescope.
But since sending Astronauts to Hubble is too risky they're going to send Astronauts to MARS instead? This does not compute.
It's official... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not saying that exploration should cut corners and put people in unnecessary danger, but there are astronauts willing to risk going up to do things like this. Face it, shooting somebody into the sky on a giant bomb is inherently unsafe, and that's something you've just got to accept. I understand that another accident for NASA would cut approval and potentially cost them far more money, and I'm saying that that's the problem. Trying to be unnecessarily safe is going to cost them far too much money, and that's money that they most likely don't have and won't have to spend.
(I was referring to the Mars mission as well)
We're going to the Moon! (Score:5, Insightful)
It's gonna be just the ISS. They'll spend billions designing amazing machines, the budget will be cut 50%, they'll redesign, the budget will be cut another 50%, they'll redesign again, then they'll put up a half-arsed end result that barely meets its mission requirements.
Then the astronauts will hang out on the moon, kicking rocks and wondering what the hell they're doing there. They'll do a trial collection of Helium 3, but there won't be any point, because there's no use for Helium 3, even if we could get it back to Earth.
Eventually, the engineers will admit publicly that getting to the moon doesn't contribute to getting to Mars in any meaningful way, but boy oh boy, the contractors sure made a shitload of cash off the project, didn't they?
And isn't that what American politics is all about?
Goodbye (Score:2)
Goodbye Hubble, you will be missed =(
Baby with the bathwater? (Score:5, Insightful)
1) captured the public imagination. How many posters have you seen bearing pictures from SOHO, Chandra, or any IR camera? How many kids turned on to astronomy after seeing a Keck picture?
2) is known to a huge swath of the public. How many know of SOHO?
3) has a very positive track record. How much bad publicity has Hubble generated for NASA? It was recovered heroically from its intial flaws and has performed stunningly ever since.
In its place:
1) a cosmologists dream machine (read: pictures in the IR that show little blobs of the early universe). Not for public consumption.
2) no inspiring name has been fielded though there is time to fix that. NGST? But Hubble was the first so NGST faces an uphill battle.
3) a telescope many people don't want so money can be diverted to a mission fraught with more danger and potential bad publicity than a space walk.
So getting the axe is: a popular, inspiring, positive public face for NASA. In its place, an item on the drawing boards to free up cash for a truly extreme mission. Begging the question, can NASA make any good decisions?
Re:Baby with the bathwater? (Score:3, Insightful)
You're forgetting, they have to answer to the US Government. So I guess your actually getting at the question of whether the US Government can make any good decisions.
I leave the answer as an exercise for the reader (Hint: No.)
-S
PS. To be honest
I know I'm showing my age by mentioning this... (Score:5, Funny)
Seeing as the Government usually can't hit the broad side of a planet, its a pretty fair bet that making myself a target ( again ) will prevent any possibility of me getting hit by Hubble when it crashes.
Cue SNL video of John Belushi smashing his SkyLab model into a Globe of the Earth
M.A.R.S. Mars, bitches! (Score:4, Funny)
Googled Videos [google.com]
tektites, anyone? (Score:3, Interesting)
A tragic end to a great piece of work. (Score:5, Interesting)
While I was in undergrad at UT, I was an officer in the local SEDS chapter, where Dr. Hans Mark explained that the mirror was known to be flawed before it was launched. When the Challenger exploded, NASA shut down everything. Hubble remained, unrepaired, in a dark warehouse somewhere. When they got the HST program back up and running, they'd long forgotten their problem with the mirror.
HST was a great idea, but there were some big screwups attached to it.
In the great NASA tradition. . . (Score:3, Insightful)
Skylab
Hubble
Whenever you get something that's a really huge engineering success or scientific success -- or both -- you proceed to scrap it. Then apply the money saved to other programs that are on their way to becoming hopeless boondoggles (re: shuttle, ISS, Moon-Mars initiative).
Why not boost Hubble to higher orbit? (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps even bring it down safely for museum display?
It seems like a waste to send the booster all the way up there just to destroy the telescope.
Re:Why not boost Hubble to higher orbit? (Score:5, Informative)
Hubble was scheduled to be brought down and put in the smithsonian. In fact, the display mount is already in the air & space museum (or was a couple years ago when I visited). The problem is that the Colombia was the only shuttle decked out to down mass the Hubble. All the other orbiters are setup with an airlock and docking port for the ISS. Hubble won't fit in the cargo hold of those orbiters now.
NASA doesn't want robots (Score:4, Interesting)
Once some of the ISS modules were relatively complete and ready for launch, NASA rounded up a group of dignitaries to bless it (I can't think of another reason why they were called in, and you'll see why I had more interesting things to ask about..), and he noticed an engineer really screwing up a docking procedure. He asked why they didn't just have a simple bit of robotics to handle it (any of a billion implementations would work great for something this trivial), and the answer was that NASA had dictated from high up that a human must be the operator for a wide class of tasks.
So there you have it! The space industry has some luddite motivations, which is absolutely terrifying. And unfortunately the great success of JPL/Caltech's probes gives more justification of their _small_ budgets (wow! you're so great you can keep being great with only $10 !!); I guess a large set of the administration still feels a need to justify 'manhood'. fucking retards.
we know the real reason (Score:4, Funny)
if the truth were to get out that it was all a cold-war hoax, it would send american self-esteem into a crisis.
Why don't they do a robotic mission for fixing? (Score:3, Interesting)
Quoting from an online article: "NASA had considered a robotic servicing mission, but now doubts the technology would be mature enough before Hubble suffers a fatal equipment breakdown."
Well, let me get this straight. They don't want to repair the Hubble with a manned mission. Well, OK. Assuming no planned repair, the Hubble is guaranteed to fail anyways. So, what's the risk of trying a robotic repair mission? They are spending the money to make a robot to bring down the Hubble, so why not at least try a robot that will attempt to repair the Hubble? If it doesn't work, oh well, it was coming down anyways, right?
My God, it's quite evident that NASA has SO lost any initiative to take any risk at all now.
A long, sad night... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Back To The Future (Score:2)
Re:Makes no sense to me (Score:3, Insightful)