A New Twist on Hubble Repair Mission

[JonClarke]

At more than 2 billion for a mission is Hubble worth repairing? What type of new observatory could we get for that money?<br /><br />Everything has to come to an end sooner or later, even Hubble. Hubble is well past its useby date.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[SpaceKiwi]

Unquestionably, yes, the Hubble is worth repairing ... or more correctly, servicing.<br /><br />Prior to the Columbia tragedy, the consensus of all involved parties was that valuable science would continue to flow from Hubble into the second decade of this century. Therefore, it was decided to undertake a program of Shuttle servicing missions, including the cancelled one. This, I believe, established the correct "use-by" date for Hubble.<br /><br />The arguments in favour of retaining Hubble have all been well-made previously. I would only reiterate the point that the scientific value of Hubble's extended mission has remained unchanged pre and post Columbia. It is not Hubble's "worthiness" as a scientific platform that is motivating its proposed early retirement. Only timidness on the part of legislators. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><font size="2" color="#ff0000">Who is this superhero?  Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!</font></em></p><p><em><font size="2">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</font></em></p><p><font size="5">Bring Back The Black!</font></p> </div>

 

[bobvanx]

>>use by date<br /><br />Palomar, Wilson, Lick, these are also past their "use by" dates, yet brand-new science is coming out of them, as we learn more ways to build sensors, and discover more things to look at.<br /><br />I know Hubble is a National Asset, but couldn't we sell it on Ebay?

 

[najab]

><i>Assuming the exploration program and the CRV are a good...</i><p>BTW, the CRV (Crew Return Vechicle) was cancelled a few years back. It was replaced by the OSP (Orbital Space Plane) which has been retasked and renamed the CEV (Crewed Exploration Vehicle).</p>

 

[rogers_buck]

Why not put a rocket in the thing and just fly the stricken shuttle to the ISS? A tow truck...

 

[rogers_buck]

You beat me to it. That's what I get for not reading the whole thread before posting. (-;

 

[thalion]

<<The question is do we continue optical astronomy within your lifetime or not? And comparing the results with IR and UV dedicated instruments that are in work is a whole other matter. They each answer the QUESTIONS raised by the other. >><br /><br />Ditto. Great post!<br /><br />

 

[najab]

><i>Another thing, I know that Russia was interested a while back for using fsb-2 to start another space station. . .Have they also expressed interest in sending that module towards the ISS aswell?</i><p>The last idea I heard of was attaching it to ISS as a commercial module for space tourism and private research. The problem is that since the Shuttles were grounded the 'extra' seats on the Soyuz flights haven't been availble for sale, so they are short on cash as a result.</p>

 

[yg1968]

I don't understand this hesitation to repair Hubble. If the billion dollar saved was put to building a true Hubble replacement, I would be in favour of it. But it is not, I imagine that the money saved will be put towards exploring Mars.<br />

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Does anybody know of a good website to get quality Russian space news in english?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />The best one I know is RussianSpaceWeb. It's also got a wonderful collection of articles about Russian space hardware, with some nice pictures, and information about every Russian space launch. <br /><br />EDIT: A quick note: they give the *Russian* designations for missions to the ISS. That means that what NASA called ISS-16P (Progress 16) is referred to as Progress M-50, because that's the real designation of the vehicle. (The NASA naming convention is unified across all vehicles travelling to the station. The Russian convention carries over from the very first flight of each vehicle class, regardless of destination or mission.) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>