Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
NASA Space Science

Hubble Future Is Cloudier After Katrina 114

Posted by CowboyNeal from the up-in-the-air dept.
XorNand writes "The AP is reporting that Katrina has further jeopardized the already tenuous future of the Hubble space telescope. The hurricane damaged the Michoud Assembly Facility in New Orleans, where the shuttle's fuel tanks are built, and the Mississippi-based Stennis Space Center, where shuttle engines are tested, NASA officials said."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Hubble Future Is Cloudier After Katrina More

Hubble Future Is Cloudier After Katrina

Comments Filter:

  • Just as well (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Data Link Layer ( 743774 ) on Saturday September 10, 2005 @09:20AM (#13525990)
    Who really needs to see in space when we have to fund a meaningless war

    • Re:Just as well (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Koiu Lpoi ( 632570 ) <koiulpoi@gma i l .com> on Saturday September 10, 2005 @09:27AM (#13526015)
      I agree completly. Our nation has a problem when half of all discretionary spending is spent on the Military. As opposed to things like education, or scientific research, or disease prevention, or relief efforts (remember the embarrassingly little we gave to the tsunami victims?), or a thousand little other things.

      And don't get me wrong, this isn't just liberalspeak. Our lovely 'liberals' in congress want to continue the war too.

      On a lighter note, IIRC the James Webb Space Telescope was going to replace Hubble anyways.

      • Re:Just as well (Score:5, Informative)

        by wpanderson ( 67273 ) on Saturday September 10, 2005 @10:51AM (#13526279)
        The JWST is not a direct replacement for Hubble, the science overlap between the two has led experts to ask that Hubble be retained once the JWST is in service, and the JWST has been delayed countless times. Current plans have the JWST being deployed two to three years after the Hubble's decommissioning.
      • To hell with discretionary budgets. Get rid of most of the Federal entitlement trash programs that should never have been Federal to begin with. Then you suddenly have more than double the available budget to work with, after dropping taxes to compensate for increased State costs. As evidenced by the hurricane, the Federal can't find its ass with both hands. Let's have the money stay in the State and City/Town, where it was supposed to stay. Things will work better.

        Also, the purpose of the Federal is n
        • If you believe that the federal government's job hasn't changed in 200 years, then yes, you're 100% correct.

          Of course the Government's here for national defence. But it's INTERNATIONAL to have military bases across the globe.

          You want *our* country to be put first? Bring all our boys and girls back from those hundreds of bases, and then you can defend this country all you want.
          • Actually, I'd love to see that happen. We have so many people on military bases in so many other countries for poor reasons. We fight conflict after conflict that isn't in the defense of our country. It needs to be fixed.

            Actually, I do believe the basic job of the Federal hasn't really needed to change over the last 200 years. There was a very good division of power that was set up, and has been largely erased. There are very few new Federal functions that should rightly be forced upon all States. Mos
            • Good, you're a classic conservative. I can at least respect that.

              Although, remember, the constitution didn't give the courts the power of Judicial Review. The original constitution was a bit imperfect (although, it's pretty good, as constitutions go.)
              • Yeah, agreed on judicial review. We could have basically the same function without having it codified, but I don't trust people to not argue that it's unconstitutional on the basis that they think everything needs to be enumerated.

                You can get the same basic function through court precedent, though. If a higher court consistently throws out cases involving a certain law, and always accepts appeals of that law, then you know that if a lower court rules with it, it will be overturned. You can shortcut this
                • You are the first person I've ever heard say any of that properly and eloquently.
                   
                  And yes, ISC really needs to be reworked. It seems that they can pass absolutely any law that's needed... through interstate commerce.
    • I am sure as my friends uncle was hanging in the rape room in the 80's watching his wife and daughter being abused by 20 men he thought " Well at lease there is money for Hubble"

  • In other news.. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 10, 2005 @09:21AM (#13525994)
    "To be honest, we really don't know what the impact will be," said Preston M. Burch, Hubble program manager at the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, which oversees Hubble's day-to-day operations.

    In other news:

    Effects of Katrina on children with learning disabilities in Australia still unknown!
    • "Effects of Katrina on children with learning disabilities in Australia still unknown!"

      Will someone PLEASE think of the children?!

    • Re:In other news.. (Score:4, Funny)

      by MooseByte ( 751829 ) on Saturday September 10, 2005 @09:40AM (#13526054)

      "In other news: Effects of Katrina on children with learning disabilities in Australia still unknown!"

      Well put. Yeesh, from TFA it doesn't seem Hubble's future is really any cloudier than before. It doesn't say the two key facilities were wiped out, only damaged. Several months delay in the overall Shuttle schedule seems likely - people want to be back to work pursuing normal lives ASAP, and the gov't will be pushing hard to make it happen (14 days after finally waking the fsck up).

      Unless FEMA gets involved, in which case I predict our space program will be limited to airing repeats of the Thunderbirds [postershop.co.uk] for decades to come.

      • Unless FEMA gets involved, in which case I predict our space program will be limited to airing repeats of the Thunderbirds for decades to come.

        I don't think FEMA (the agency) is the problem. Until very recently, for quite some time FEMA has been there when needed. The problem is the super-bureaucracy that is Homeland Security that swallowed FEMA and the political lap-dog hacks that were appointed to head FEMA in this grand and glorious new scheme. Guess what? Adding another layer of bureaucracy does

    • The real answer:

      The delay in manufacturing will be maybe a month or two from now. The delay to shuttle launches is already 6-8 months. Net change in delay: zero.

      The answer NASA officials would like to give:

      "We know the delays are just a fantasy, but if we wait long enough the Hubble will crash and burn. At which point, we cry a lot on TV, but there won't be a damn thing scientists can do. We get all our real money from Defense contracts anyway."

      Effects of Katrina on Children with Learning Disabilities in Au

  • NASA needs to fix this (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ReformedExCon ( 897248 ) <reformed.excon@gmail.com> on Saturday September 10, 2005 @09:23AM (#13526000)
    I'm down on NASA a lot. I think they are an unfocused government agency that is spread too thin and doing things out of the realm of their league. In that criticism, I am very unsatisfied with the shuttle program. I think that sending people into space is a complete waste of time and money for NASA. They have ceased to learn anything except that they are more and more afraid of flying every time they go up. Space travel should be a private enterprise, possibly assisted by government funds, but essentially researched and implemented by private companies.

    But NASA should be around doing research. They should be at the forefront of space science. Part of this is the establishment of space telescopes. And so Hubble falls right in line with this mission. The more information NASA can gather about the universe, the more all of us benefit. The more they spend on pure research, the faster everyone (including private enterprise) can benefit and that pushes space travel forward.
    • Space travel should be a private enterprise, possibly assisted by government funds, but essentially researched and implemented by private companies.

      What is the benefit for private enterprises to go to space? Where is their profit?

      • Re:NASA needs to fix this (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Millionaires are paying their way with the Russian space agency. The Russkies are probably making a decent profit on each individual paying passenger. Why don't we ask them what the margins are like?
        • Strange, I was under the impression that none of those individuals that were planning on paying the russians to take them on a mission ever made it into space... As for the GP... I dont see NASA doing anything BUT research, I dont know what he's reading about... While I'm sure a lot of their funds go into the shuttle program, I'm sure that it isnt a majority of their funds. Just look at AMES research center and JPL. http://worldwind.arc.nasa.gov/ [nasa.gov]
          • Ames just had a LOT of budget cuts. There are a LOT of things going on at NASA right now with the new Director. Check out www.nasawatch.com for more info. I have worked for NASA twice and I do agree that the STS has outlived it's usefulness and should be replaced rather than being a "black hole" to throw money into. There are several good lauch systems that can be used to get supplies to ISS and people as well. Experiments can be done using satellites, ISS materials can be launched on Delta, Titan or Energi

          • At least one made it:

            Mark Shuttleworth [wikipedia.org]

            Btw. he started and funds Ubuntu. A geek, indeed!

      • Satellites. Mining rights. Research facilities. Communications.

        Back in the early days, people predicted space would almost entirely be a private project; there's a lot of money to be made out there, and governments aren't the people to be making it.

        Besides, people want to go live on Mars. I'd pay the transit fee. If it was affordable. Affordability requires a market, safety requires regulations. NASA could be that regulator, well, it could be for US types.
    • When you show me one private company (or even a consortium of private companies) willing to invest 16.2billion/year on space programmes I will jump on that bandwagon. But until a reasonable return, from the perspective of a private company, can be achieved, I doubt we'll see NASA programmes go to private investors.
    • Sure, all we need now is a corporation willing to spend tens, even hundreds of BILLIONS on making spaceships.

      Bear in mind that no private organisation has made a spaceship yet. And that no company in the world has NASA's budget, and they haven't managed a new spaceship in decades.

      And on top of all that, there's zero money to be made in space. So what you need is a multi-billionaire with a space-fetish and no brains.
    • First off, satellites, surface to space, and random space experiments are exactly what NASA does. It isn't out of their realm, it *is* their realm. It isn't out of their league, because everything involving space is their league. What NASA is is that agency that sends people to space. Your first paragraph says absolutely nothing that isn't wrong, except for the opinion you put forth in the last sentance.

      While private enterprise picking up space travel would be great, it isn't going to happen for a very

  • Sad (Score:4, Insightful)

    by qw(name) ( 718245 ) on Saturday September 10, 2005 @09:25AM (#13526005) Journal
    It's sad that this may have to happen. Some of the most beautiful pictures ever taken were taken by Hubble. But, higher priorities have come up and Hubble must take a back seat to human life.

    • Re:Sad (Score:2, Informative)

      by ReformedExCon ( 897248 )
      I'm not sure it's about money. From the article, it seems more that they aren't sure what they are going to do about the fuel tank assembly facility which was damaged during the storm. Unfortunately, the article didn't mention whether they would rebuild the facility or just push off any repairs indefinitely.

      Now, I believe that they are going to put off the repairs indefinitely. They will probably let Hubble die gracefully and just focus on the next space telescope mission (Webb).

      It is absolutely frustrat
      • I totally agree with you. NASA was always one of those organizations who inspired young people, myself included, to study science so that they could understand how scientist unravelled the mysteries of the universe.

        I suppose the really sad thing is how NASA has become so unfocused in their endeavors these past 15-20 years.

    • Re:Sad (Score:5, Interesting)

      by mc6809e ( 214243 ) on Saturday September 10, 2005 @09:47AM (#13526077)
      It's sad that this may have to happen. Some of the most beautiful pictures ever taken were taken by Hubble. But, higher priorities have come up and Hubble must take a back seat to human life.

      This is probably true, but we shouldn't be lured into believing that all human life must be preserved at all costs.

      It's an ugly, uncomfortable truth, but if all resources went simply to preserving all human life there would be no progress. Instead there would be a race to reproduce until the entire world was full of people all living on the edge of survival - all "surplus" seed corn having been eaten before being planted for the next harvest.

  • Considering the fact (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Wierd Willy ( 161814 ) on Saturday September 10, 2005 @09:27AM (#13526012) Journal
    That the current administration is flat out against any technology that cannot be used for warfare or expansion of their personal corporate empires they will use any excuse to avoid repairing or upgrading the Hubble at all. Faith based government is directly inverse to scientific process unless some politically well connected buisiness needs the money.

    NASA has long been considered a waste of money by the conservatives, HST is just another scientific boondoggle as far as these guys are concerned.

    Count on them finding some fancy excuse to de-orbit HST within the next 6 months.
    • I'm a conservative (NOT republican..there is a diff) I was and still am a BIG hubble fan, and it's a shame they have wasted an opportunity with hubble by sidelining it for the WASTE that is called the ISS. If we don't figure out where we came from, how are we to know where we are going? Personally, I think the ISS is just an excuse to keep the shuttle flying. I personally hope they "safe" the hubble, and hopefully some private industry can take over the repairs. It's apparent that NASA doesn't want to save
    • NASA has long been considered a waste of money by the conservatives, HST is just another scientific boondoggle as far as these guys are concerned.

      Count on them finding some fancy excuse to de-orbit HST within the next 6 months.

      The only people I've heard who want to get rid of Hubble are the ones that want to put the money into replacing it with another telescope. Of course, don't let that stop your anti-Bush dick waving.

      • The only people I've heard who want to get rid of Hubble are the ones that want to put the money into replacing it with another telescope. Of course, don't let that stop your anti-Bush dick waving.

        This administration has always presented itself as anti-science, anti-intellectual, and anti-government.

        Anti-government IS anti-constitution. Grover Norquist said "I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub."

        This is q

  • For crying out loud, (Score:3, Interesting)

    by freetipe ( 913682 ) on Saturday September 10, 2005 @09:28AM (#13526020)
    let's get private enterprise into the space race. Granted, Virgin Galactic [virgingalactic.com] are already there, but here's a revolutionary plan: scrap NASA and the federal space agnecy. Fulfill the obligations to the ISS and other programs, and then direct NASA's budget to federal subsidies for private enterprise. There must be thousands of businesses that want room on zero-gravity flights or orbital labs, and thousands of tourists who'd be willing to pay for an orbit round the earth. A subsidy to get things kick-started may be just what's needed.
    • Federal subsidies for private enterprise? Kindly explain why my taxes should go to make money for someone who may be my business competitor. As soon as tax dollars go to bolster company profits they cease to be private enterprise - and there is not the same oversight as with properly accountable government bodies.

      Since this is basically already how NASA works, giving money to private companies to supply goods and services, then giving a larger proportion of that cash direct to private enterprise is going to

    • Interesting. So what you're saying is that private enterprise has some way of protecting their facilities from natural disasters that isn't available to the federal government?

  • so long hubble :( (Score:2, Interesting)

    by p51d007 ( 656414 )
    It's a shame that we put all of our eggs in one basket with the shuttle. Yes, it was a grand design in the 70's, but keeping something like this going, without designing something more economical as a replacement is a shame. Hubble, once fixed of it's poor eyesight, has unlocked a lot of the uknown universe to our eyes and imagination. It's just a shame that it will die without being upgraded. Maybe they can put it in "safe mode" before it dies out and perhaps a private company in the future can do the u

  • Hubble v politics... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MosesJones ( 55544 ) on Saturday September 10, 2005 @09:33AM (#13526032) Homepage

    Hubble is about discovering how the universe is created and changing the way we view science and astronomy. Its pretty cost effect for what it has delivered and its one of the things that has had people looking at Space and going "WOW".

    Unfortunately this clearly doesn't sit well with the US leadership as it doesn't give them people to shake hands with. Its so much better to build a $231m bridge in Alaska named after a senator than fund something that is considered a success by the global scientific community.

  • Given most packagable work units get privatised out in any kind of givermental work thesedays, one would assume that more than one tendered and geographicaly resiliance isn't always just about computers and having a DR site.

    Given they have only just announced this and given the `omg, its comming right for us" was well known a few days in advance and the perchant of forcasts to go OTT on major weather effects on forcasts they must have known that statisticaly it was at least something to start thinking about

  • Science or funding ? (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I really wonder... NASA isn't the only space agency capable of getting people up there, and if it really is about the best interest in science whats so difficult in asking other agencies to help out here?

    It saddens me that NASA is stooping so low that they're now even jeapordizing a great piece of equipment for reasons I can only explain / comprehend as greed.

  • What? (Score:4, Funny)

    by jafac ( 1449 ) on Saturday September 10, 2005 @10:01AM (#13526119) Homepage
    How could it's future be cloudy? I thought Hubble was a space telescope. You know? Above the clouds?
  • I understand that there's some ballistic efficiency from launching nearer the Equator, like from Florida, which brings increased risk from storms. But I also know that the Johnson Space Center in Houston was built during the Texas president's administration, as he fed billions in pork barrel spending to his home state, rather than any special geographic advantage to actually operating Mission Control.

    And that building Shuttle tanks and testing Shuttle engines along the Gulf Coast positions them for easy del
    • But those facilities could be anywhere, really - even farther up the Mississippi, or the Hudson for that matter...

      Yeah. But then where would they find the state enviromental regulators who'd look the other way when toxic waste is dumped (or the big ol' body of water into which to dump it) or the cheap, non-union workforce?

    • Saving fuel is actually a very important consideration in space flight, for reasons that go well beyond cost. When the shuttle launches, a whole lot of the weight that it's carrying is fuel for the rest of the trip. If moving the launch somewhere else would require 10% more fuel (I just made that number up), no only do you have to pay for that extra gas, you've also decreased the payload capacity by the weight of that fuel, plus probably some increases in the structural weight of the craft to deal with the
    • That's why Boeing teamed with Ukraine and I believe a Netherlands organization to do Sea Launch from the Equator. Ukraine supplied the rocket (Zenit) and Netherlands supplied the support ship and launch platform. Boeing provides the operations. But it is definitely not capable of heavy lift. Our only real choice then is to invade Brazil.

      Weather is not the only concern, though the Cape Canaveral does have more weather issues than most (Central Florida leads the US in lightning strikes). You also have t

  • Simply put, it provides a means for the gov't to avoid a brain-drain of aerospace engineers into the private sector or foreign interests, in the event that the nation (military) should ever require them en masse. Much of the nation's military and scientific budget is spent on keeping key scientists and engineers employed in order to maintain a quickly accessible stable of high level technical expertise. So, you wind up with an obsolete, lingering shuttle program, with little to remind us of the glory days o
    • I'm not sure how you go from

      Keep a large group of very smart people employeed in the US.

      to

      The shuttle becomes obsolete.

      Why just not use that pool of very smart people to upgrade/improve the shuttle? Are they just sitting around with nothing to do?
      • -Why just not use that pool of very smart people to upgrade/improve the shuttle? Are they just sitting around with nothing to do?-

        Good point, and I wish I had the answer. Could be that they don't want to compete directly with the newly emerging private space enterprises, could be any number of things that I am not aware of.
        Please understand, I am not trying to defend the actions or position of NASA as it exists, just looking for a possible explanation like many of us for such a great expenditure in nation
    • Your father's right.

      My experience with (post Second World War) government technologists is that they come in three flavors: marginal contributors overseeing military projects, top-flighters working on basic research through some of the many Vandemar Bush partnerships, or administrators who come back to government after long careers as bench scientists or the equivalent.

      Hubble supports only the first of these groups -- the star technologists and administrators have already moved on to other projects. Curren
  • Is there any Hubble replacement planned? I would welcome the death of Hubble if it meant a shiny new telescope built on the moon...
    • Yes, there was...
      But like with all things, repair is easier to get funds granded than new building new stuff...
      The sad thing is, you could build a brand new telescope and send it up with a heavy booser for the same cost it would take to get the shuttle up to make another half assed repair

  • Hubble (Score:3, Informative)

    by guildsolutions ( 707603 ) on Saturday September 10, 2005 @10:40AM (#13526236)
    The hubble issue really saddens me. I really enjoy going to the daily space picture page that nasa has, and a lot of the pictures there come from the hubble hertidge. Hubble has made so many great breakthoughs that if it cant be repaired, then replace it with something that is easier to maintain and is better.

    Space picture of the day:
    http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/archivepix.html [nasa.gov]
  • and probably better too.  And if its not cheaper, it won't be
    a lot more than fixing whats up there - and who knows when the
    next thing goes wrong with the aging Rubble.

  • from Omicron Persei 8, your outerspace mirror INFURIATES AND ANGERS us...but know this Humaans!!

    as you use this to spy on us, we too have used it to watch on you, Ahhah ahha..mehh..You ARE A PUNY PUNY RACE!!!

  • Private Enterprise will save Basic Science? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Starker_Kull ( 896770 ) on Saturday September 10, 2005 @12:59PM (#13526790)
    Riiiiiiight. Look, there are some very unrealistic ideas about what private enterprise will and will not do. While private individuals are motivated by more than money (thrill of exploration, I did it first, I'm doing it better than my rival over there, etc.), the reality is most private individuals who HAVE the money to burn on something this expensive probably have focused on ACQUIRING money for a large portion of their lives. To expect a large subset of money-minded entrepreneurs to suddenly give up their business-like ways and focus on something with little or no fiscal return (like the Hubble) is unrealistic.

    In addition, if there is so much potential to private space exploration, why hasn't it been done before? Rocket technology really hasn't changed much since the 60's, and sufficent cheap computing power to figure trajectories has been around since the 80's. The answer? It's hard and expensive, with a very high failure cost, and a small to nonexistent return potential. This is not the kind of thing that draws in money.

    I dearly wish that we would focus on basic science (i.e. does not need to be driven by a possible marketable product in 5 years) in the U.S.A. again - the era of Big Science was inaugurated with the Manhattan Project (when those funny talking European immigrants with thier scribbles on a blackboard built the most powerful bomb in the world), has been strong for many years as the link between U.S. world supremacy and science leadership was not questioned, but perhaps is beginning to close. The tone set by the present leadership (sneering at "reality-based" media, desiring "equal-time" for creation research, bragging about how a "C" student can become the president, etc.) does not bode well for the long term future of scientifc research here.

    I guess when you know how the Universe was created according to the Bible, you don't need a Hubble to figure it out.

    Sigh.

  • Scapegoating (Score:3, Insightful)

    by rijrunner ( 263757 ) on Saturday September 10, 2005 @01:26PM (#13526940)


    Let's get real here. They had already been put in an indefinate hold over the foam issue before Katrina. And, a 6 month delay for that was just as fatal for any shuttle flight to Hubble. They won't even be able to finish ISS in the remaining timeframe. Now, NASA can point at something outside its control and say "This is why Hubble was scrapped".

    The odds of a Hubble mission before Katrina: 0.01%
    The odds of a Hubble mission after Katrina: 0.005%

    Yeah.. you're right.. it is half as likely now..
  • Wouldn't it have made more sense, instead of getting rid of the Hubble, to instead focus the thing on Iraq to search for those WMD?! I mean, with the power to see distant galaxies like that, we probably ought to have been able to pick out the mole on Saddam Hussein's left testicle! Finding WMDs would have been no problem whatsoever!
  • Keeping the Hubble repair mission alive so many months past it original launch date has had another unfortunate side effect. The cost of the marching army for Hubble is killing off many smaller projects.

    NASA's new Full Cost Accounting has the laudable goal of making it possible for NASA to account accurately for the cost of its missions, but it also means that when things go wrong, some program has to pay. Keeping a large program alive, kills many small ones.

    I think the problem in a lack of sophistication

Slashdot Top Deals

The truth of a proposition has nothing to do with its credibility. And vice versa.

Close