- Status
There is absolutely no way that the spare mirror at NASM is in any way, shape, or form flightworthy.
However, the third Hubble mirror built by ITEK is in perfect condition, and was installed at the Magdelena observatory in 2006 in the observatory's SINGLE MDM Hiltner 2.4m telescope.
http://www.astro.lsa.umich.edu/obs/mdm/technical/hiltner.html
picture of the third mirror, at MDM:
From Wiki, recent achievements of the SINGLE scope:
2.4-meter SINGLE Telescope
SINGLE - Scientific Instrument for NEO, GEO, and LEO Exploration
When the Hubble Space Telescope was being constructed, NASA commissioned three identical 2.4m primary mirrors, the one that flew, and two backups as insurance. One of the two backups is in the Smithsonian and the other is the primary mirror of the 2.4m telescope. MRO's 2.4m telescope is capable of slew rates of 10 degrees per second allowing it to be used to observe objects in low-Earth orbit. The telescope will also be used for asteroid studies and observations of other solar system objects.[1] The 2.4-meter telescope achieved first light on October 31, 2006 and commenced operations on September 1, 2008 after a commissioning phase. As of October 2008, the facility is under a multi-year contract with NASA to provide tracking of LEO objects and support the GLAST space telescope program in addition to other projects and educational endeavors.
2007 WD5 Tracking
During commissioning of the 2.4m Telescope, NASA asked MRO in December 2007 to conduct the tracking and characterization analysis of asteroid 2007 WD5. MRO scientists confirmed on January 2, 2008 that the odds of the asteroid hitting Mars had reduced from as high as a 1-in-75 chance to 1-in-28.[2] NASA and MRO scientists refined the odds to 0.01% a week later after further observations as the agency concluded that there was no chance the asteroid would impact the planet. Scientists also confirmed at that time that there was no chance the asteroid would hit either Mars or Earth in the next century; though the pass near Mars affected 2007 WD5's trajectory significantly and observers have since lost track of it, considering it 'lost'.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magdalena_Ridge_Observatory
http://www.astro.lsa.umich.edu/obs/mdm/technical/hiltner.html
picture of the third mirror, at MDM:
From Wiki, recent achievements of the SINGLE scope:
2.4-meter SINGLE Telescope
SINGLE - Scientific Instrument for NEO, GEO, and LEO Exploration
When the Hubble Space Telescope was being constructed, NASA commissioned three identical 2.4m primary mirrors, the one that flew, and two backups as insurance. One of the two backups is in the Smithsonian and the other is the primary mirror of the 2.4m telescope. MRO's 2.4m telescope is capable of slew rates of 10 degrees per second allowing it to be used to observe objects in low-Earth orbit. The telescope will also be used for asteroid studies and observations of other solar system objects.[1] The 2.4-meter telescope achieved first light on October 31, 2006 and commenced operations on September 1, 2008 after a commissioning phase. As of October 2008, the facility is under a multi-year contract with NASA to provide tracking of LEO objects and support the GLAST space telescope program in addition to other projects and educational endeavors.
2007 WD5 Tracking
During commissioning of the 2.4m Telescope, NASA asked MRO in December 2007 to conduct the tracking and characterization analysis of asteroid 2007 WD5. MRO scientists confirmed on January 2, 2008 that the odds of the asteroid hitting Mars had reduced from as high as a 1-in-75 chance to 1-in-28.[2] NASA and MRO scientists refined the odds to 0.01% a week later after further observations as the agency concluded that there was no chance the asteroid would impact the planet. Scientists also confirmed at that time that there was no chance the asteroid would hit either Mars or Earth in the next century; though the pass near Mars affected 2007 WD5's trajectory significantly and observers have since lost track of it, considering it 'lost'.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magdalena_Ridge_Observatory
Re: Hubble II
Yes the soft capture ring was one of the things accomplished on the first EVA. Not sure which EVA the imaging system is scheduled for.
RS_Russell":kml1y9ds said:
Yes the soft capture ring was one of the things accomplished on the first EVA. Not sure which EVA the imaging system is scheduled for.
Yes, the shuttle mission to Hubble is estimated to be around half abillion. But that estimate was also there where the talk was about current mission. In fact NASA has opted to prepare a spare mission for emergency crew retrieval and this bears pretty high costs on it's own.
Now, having the spare mirror is not the main argument. Look at the HOP proposal. Does anybody know, why it was discarded.
Now, having the spare mirror is not the main argument. Look at the HOP proposal. Does anybody know, why it was discarded.
Sorry, what is HOP?
BTW, the prepared rescue mission has only limited costs, since it is the next ISS flight, and only need to be moved to pad A and have the payload installed.
BTW, the prepared rescue mission has only limited costs, since it is the next ISS flight, and only need to be moved to pad A and have the payload installed.
Since wtrix chose to answer my question with a link, rather than a simple english response, for those that are curious, here is the decoding of "HOP":
The Hubble Origins Probe (HOP) is a proposed 2.4 meter free flying space telescope.The HOP concept is to replicate the design of the Hubble Space Telescope with a much lighter unaberrated mirror and optical telescope assembly, enabling a rapid path to launch, significant cost savings and risk mitigation. HOP will fly the instruments originally planned for the 4th HST servicing mission as well as a new very wide field imager, enhancing the original science mission of Hubble.
The Hubble Origins Probe (HOP) is a proposed 2.4 meter free flying space telescope.The HOP concept is to replicate the design of the Hubble Space Telescope with a much lighter unaberrated mirror and optical telescope assembly, enabling a rapid path to launch, significant cost savings and risk mitigation. HOP will fly the instruments originally planned for the 4th HST servicing mission as well as a new very wide field imager, enhancing the original science mission of Hubble.
wtrix":274954x0 said:
It wasn't ever "discarded"; that implies it was ever "accepted." Looks like it was just someone's poster idea.
wtrix":1pgdzgf2 said:
OK, great, thanx.
Key questions...
What will it cost? (I see no figures mentioned anywhere in the proposal)
Edit, OK I found it, about 1 billion (and this was proposed before the SM4 mission, so I'm sure costs will go up...also I find that estimate highly underestimated). That still leaves the second question.....
What currently scheduled missions are you willing to trade off to do this? Where will you get the 1 billion from?
I don't want to give up anything on the schedule.
Which ones would you pick?
MeteorWayne":1xwtce5b said:
I'm sorry. that happened cause I was unexpectedly in a hurry (boy was about to have he's evening pertion of computer use). Nonetheless, I have given this link in this thread earlier as well. But the description is correct.
OK, I understand. I always try and make it a practice (though don't always get to under time pressure) to follow the journal standard of decoding an acronym the first time I use it in a thread. That way anyone can look back to see what it means.
MeteorWayne":cz1utj7b said:
Look at this presentation here: http://www.pha.jhu.edu/hop/pptdocuments ... tation.pps
It was estimated to be between $747 and $991 mil.
I saw that already. The question I am asking is what currently funded missions would you give up for HOP?
MeteorWayne":1tue15mg said:
I understand Your "look in to the future" approach, but to me the question is: Why was Service Mission 4 decided instead of HOP in 2006?
The answer gives some clue about how the alternatives are weighted at NASA. Currently to me it seems that commetee decision making rules NASA. And that is as bad as it gets.
OK, then I see where we differ. You think there was a billion dollars in the NASA budget to do this (again since it's a moot point since the SM4 mission is underway).
I am asking what future comitted missions you would have sacrificed for that billion dollars.
Can you answer?
It really serves no purpose to examine what might have been. There's no doubt that the HOP mission would have cost far more than the SM4 one, if you examine all the costs (realistically). In case you haven't noticed, the 2006 planning is 3 years ago.
So it really comes down to what missions would you sacrifice to have enabled this in the past when it was rejected as a good use of NASA's limited budget.
The fact is, if we had an unlimited budget, we'd do this. If it was my taxpayer choice, I'd be all for it! The fact is, we don't. You have to make the best use of the limited money available.
I am asking what future comitted missions you would have sacrificed for that billion dollars.
Can you answer?
It really serves no purpose to examine what might have been. There's no doubt that the HOP mission would have cost far more than the SM4 one, if you examine all the costs (realistically). In case you haven't noticed, the 2006 planning is 3 years ago.
So it really comes down to what missions would you sacrifice to have enabled this in the past when it was rejected as a good use of NASA's limited budget.
The fact is, if we had an unlimited budget, we'd do this. If it was my taxpayer choice, I'd be all for it! The fact is, we don't. You have to make the best use of the limited money available.
MeteorWayne":1o7648c0 said:
Yes I can answer. The answer is none. No future missions need to be sacrificed in order to do that now. I'm interested in knowing why service Mission 4 was decided instead of making HOP.
Well, to state it bluntly - NASA had a $1bil choice to make and I want to know :
1. whether they made a wrong decision
2. if yes then why
3. how to avoid such wrong decisions in a future
Maybe it's a wrong thread for such a subject - it's more about managing NASA ang getting the public barking when needlessly emotional (everybody loves Hubble, so people started to write letters to save it) are about to be made.
If we had unlimited resources, we'd build a telescope with 100m mirror and petapixel camera instead of copying Hubble. For me it's by far not obvious that HOP would have been costlier than Service Mission 4.
I believe that HOP proposal wasn't considered at all because of the NIH (Not Invented Here) thinking somewhere in NASA management (HOP proposal was made by The Johns Hopkins University).
AFAIK, NASA considered following options regarding Hubble:
1. Leave it as it is
2. Send robotic mission
3. Send human mission
Nowhere have I noted that NASA has ever considered making a replacement. I'd be happy if someone proved me wrong.
See the HOP mission was a powerpoint presentation, not a real proposal. The fact is the Hubble was specifically designed to be serviced; it's a good thing to take advantage of that. I still thing that the < $1 billion cost for HOP was WAY too opimistic. And something would have needed to be sacrificed.
Just my perspective
Just my perspective
MeteorWayne":2ffvxg2r said:See the HOP mission was a powerpoint presentation, not a real proposal. The fact is the Hubble was specifically designed to be serviced; it's a good thing to take advantage of that. I still thing that the < $1 billion cost for HOP was WAY too opimistic. And something would have needed to be sacrificed.
Just my perspective
Sorry, but this is just an educated quess versus numbers. I repeat my previous question - If ESA can make a new 3,5m telescope for a billion, why can't NASA do a copy of it's proven model for approximately the same money? Is there any specific reason?
I believe that HOP proposal was quite realistic. It'd probably landed somewhere near the cost of the current mission ($1.2bil), but no more. Considering risk aversion it'd have been a preferred way.
Perhaps you missed the part that the 3.5 meter telescope is a 4 year mission. Hubble has lasted 19 years, and with this update hopefully will last 25 years in total. That's a whole different ballgame. Even this refurbish will last longer than that entire mission.
MeteorWayne":3rv79ins said:
The mission's longevity limit is not due to cost savings in building the spacecraft, but because the speciality of the telescope (IR observation of cold objets) which requires cooling the apparatus close to absolute zero on some places. That is done via carrying a tank of helium with it and boiling the substance off slowly.
Current Hubble repair will possibly give hubble another 5 years. But that may also be shorter if space debris takes it's toll or some other part of the telescope (that is not overhauled) fails.
Good point. There's no guarantee that a new Hubble wouldn't be smashed to bits any earlier than later than this one.
Actually, the overhauls is pretty darn complete for this mission. That's one of the reasons it was done. It's an almost new, and far more capable telescope for less than a replacement would have cost.
Actually, the overhauls is pretty darn complete for this mission. That's one of the reasons it was done. It's an almost new, and far more capable telescope for less than a replacement would have cost.
MeteorWayne":vfqfvaeq said:
Your statement is wrong. It's overhauled, but still 19 years old. Some failures were repaired with jump cable (sic!). Next failure on Hubble is not about 'if', but about 'when'. I state that replacement would have been cheaper, safer and better than repair. Thus far numbers are on my side. You have just thrown empty statements in. Absolutely nothing else.
~~I repeat my previous question - If ESA can make a new 3,5m telescope for a billion, why can't NASA do a copy of it's proven model for approximately the same money? Is there any specific reason?~~
Just to insert this here, but as I recall (and I worked with two individuals who were involved in the proposal at the time and whose names are on the poster) HOP was taken quite seriously. Please note the HOP team was not a JHU-only group. Indeed, the work of putting together the proposal by the team was actually funded by NASA. Members of STScI as well as current Hubble PIs were involved. That being said, HOP was an insert into what is called the decadal queue. Those are missions as dedicated based on funding. Needless to say there are lots of good proposals out there, and the HOP team is not the first to look at engineering models (em's) and ask: could we fly these? When most hardware is made for space applications they build the prime, which flies, and the em, which is the one they build first to work out the bugs. In many cases the em is almost as good as the prime.
In looking at the budgetary schedule HOP takes a minimum of 6 years to build, and that schedule included no schedule fat for unforeseen events, such as vendors not delivering in time or technical glitches. Strictly speaking, nothing in the HOP build is off the shelf as we may normally think of it. Even the cables and electrical wiring used in a satellite are extremely sensitive and require specialized test sets to verify. In fact, IIRC, the HOP schedule only had about a month for environmental testing prior to delivery, which is excessively optimistic. So, the 65 month build cycle for HOP was a tad optimistic. If we were building HOP today it likely would not be ready to launch in 2010. Likely 2012 or later. This also happened to Kepler, which had an initial launch of 2007. It slipped two years for a variety of reasons.
At any rate, I found the testimony of Joe Taylor of Princeton on this subject of interest. He testified before Congress about HOP. He specifically went to Congress to answer your question above.
In testimony in Feb, 2005 Dr. Taylor said:
"I have been asked to answer the following questions from my perspective as the co-chair of the committee that produced that report:
1. To what extent, and in what ways, was the Decadal Survey premised on the Hubble Space Telescope having additional instruments that were to be added by a servicing mission? Would the loss of the Hubble cause you to entirely rethink your priorities? Would that change if the Hubble Origins Probe or a similar rehost mission is launched?
2. How important are the contributions that would be expected from extending the life of the Hubble Space Telescope when compared to advancements expected from other astronomical programs at NASA to be launched in the next decade, such as the James Webb Space Telescope?
3. Should either a Hubble servicing mission (whether by robot or by Shuttle) or a new telescope such as the Hubble Origins Probe be a higher priority for funding than other astronomical programs at NASA?
In the balance of my testimony I shall address all three questions. "
And then he answers them:
"One option that I have not yet mentioned is to host the Hubble replacement instruments COS and WFC3 on a new satellite like the proposed Hubble Origins Probe (HOP). According to the team proposing HOP, the cost for such a mission would also be roughly $1 billion, and the telescope would be ready by 2010. The proposal also calls for an additional wide-field imaging camera. Such a satellite offers significant promise; however, to start work on it would in essence insert a new priority into the mission queue, without benefit of the kind of comparative review undertaken in the survey. From the point of view of the survey committee, I believe that neither a $1 billion servicing mission nor a $1 billion rehosting satellite should be a higher funding priority than the astronomical science priorities NASA is currently working on.
Our nation’s science enterprise has been well served by having open, broadly based mechanisms for setting priorities in astronomy, and by closely following the wise decisions made in that way. A project similar to the Hubble Origins Probe could easily be included in the next Astronomy Survey, and would likely be a strong contender then. As you know, I am also a member of the Committee on Assessment of Options to Extend the Life of the Hubble Space Telescope. I heartily endorse that committee’s recommendation that NASA should pursue a Shuttle servicing mission to Hubble so as to accomplish the objectives of the planned SM-4 mission. However, I do not favor such a plan, much less the launch of a new satellite to host Hubble’s replacement instruments, if it would require major delays or re-ordering of NASA’s present science priorities. With such a course of action, I believe that NASA would squander the excellent reputation for scientific judgment and leadership that it has so rightly earned over the years. "
Link:http://www7.nationalacademies.org/ocga/testimony/Hubble_Space_Telescope_Repairs_2.asp
So what he is saying here is that they have a set allotment of programs with a budget. He is only in favor of SM4 or HOP if either does not cause a hiccup in the decadal queue. Based on the very tight budgets HOP was not considered to have good ROI at present, although it might be featured in the next decadal queue.
It doesn't come down to whether HOP was a good idea/bad idea or NIH, it really came down to available resources. Hubble is a resource they wished to maintain. This wish came from both the scientific community and the public. NASA had the ability to fund and stage SM4, which is now ongoing. In terms of keeping the decadal survey on track, SM4 and a functional Hubble were the best options.
HOP was a good idea, but like so many proposals the money wasn't there and circumstance simply altered its chances. I'm neither a NASA-basher or huge NASA-supporter, but they do have to operate with what is given them under the direction of a variety of influences.
Also, I appreciate your enthusiasm for the HSO. May 14th was a great day for astronomy with SM4 activities and the launch of Planck and Herschel. HSO is a cool European-built observatory, but astronomy is a collaboration of people and nations. NASA maintains a Herschel Science Center with the purpose of supporting HSO and to support scientists in gaining access to the data. So when the Europeans or Russians launch such a system everybody wins. If NASA is not building a certain telescope to do something, others may be, and all of that data is shared. Indeed, there are many PIs and MIs from the States who have access to Planck and Herschel.
Also, please understand that ESA did not create, build, and launch HSO in only a few years. Indeed, the initial HSO proposal and prototype instrument work began in 1982. Planck was conceived circa 1990 and did not receive funding until 1999. As with any space project, engineers and scientists can spend decades working before any instrument sees first light.
But thanks for this interesting thread.
RSR
Just to insert this here, but as I recall (and I worked with two individuals who were involved in the proposal at the time and whose names are on the poster) HOP was taken quite seriously. Please note the HOP team was not a JHU-only group. Indeed, the work of putting together the proposal by the team was actually funded by NASA. Members of STScI as well as current Hubble PIs were involved. That being said, HOP was an insert into what is called the decadal queue. Those are missions as dedicated based on funding. Needless to say there are lots of good proposals out there, and the HOP team is not the first to look at engineering models (em's) and ask: could we fly these? When most hardware is made for space applications they build the prime, which flies, and the em, which is the one they build first to work out the bugs. In many cases the em is almost as good as the prime.
In looking at the budgetary schedule HOP takes a minimum of 6 years to build, and that schedule included no schedule fat for unforeseen events, such as vendors not delivering in time or technical glitches. Strictly speaking, nothing in the HOP build is off the shelf as we may normally think of it. Even the cables and electrical wiring used in a satellite are extremely sensitive and require specialized test sets to verify. In fact, IIRC, the HOP schedule only had about a month for environmental testing prior to delivery, which is excessively optimistic. So, the 65 month build cycle for HOP was a tad optimistic. If we were building HOP today it likely would not be ready to launch in 2010. Likely 2012 or later. This also happened to Kepler, which had an initial launch of 2007. It slipped two years for a variety of reasons.
At any rate, I found the testimony of Joe Taylor of Princeton on this subject of interest. He testified before Congress about HOP. He specifically went to Congress to answer your question above.
In testimony in Feb, 2005 Dr. Taylor said:
"I have been asked to answer the following questions from my perspective as the co-chair of the committee that produced that report:
1. To what extent, and in what ways, was the Decadal Survey premised on the Hubble Space Telescope having additional instruments that were to be added by a servicing mission? Would the loss of the Hubble cause you to entirely rethink your priorities? Would that change if the Hubble Origins Probe or a similar rehost mission is launched?
2. How important are the contributions that would be expected from extending the life of the Hubble Space Telescope when compared to advancements expected from other astronomical programs at NASA to be launched in the next decade, such as the James Webb Space Telescope?
3. Should either a Hubble servicing mission (whether by robot or by Shuttle) or a new telescope such as the Hubble Origins Probe be a higher priority for funding than other astronomical programs at NASA?
In the balance of my testimony I shall address all three questions. "
And then he answers them:
"One option that I have not yet mentioned is to host the Hubble replacement instruments COS and WFC3 on a new satellite like the proposed Hubble Origins Probe (HOP). According to the team proposing HOP, the cost for such a mission would also be roughly $1 billion, and the telescope would be ready by 2010. The proposal also calls for an additional wide-field imaging camera. Such a satellite offers significant promise; however, to start work on it would in essence insert a new priority into the mission queue, without benefit of the kind of comparative review undertaken in the survey. From the point of view of the survey committee, I believe that neither a $1 billion servicing mission nor a $1 billion rehosting satellite should be a higher funding priority than the astronomical science priorities NASA is currently working on.
Our nation’s science enterprise has been well served by having open, broadly based mechanisms for setting priorities in astronomy, and by closely following the wise decisions made in that way. A project similar to the Hubble Origins Probe could easily be included in the next Astronomy Survey, and would likely be a strong contender then. As you know, I am also a member of the Committee on Assessment of Options to Extend the Life of the Hubble Space Telescope. I heartily endorse that committee’s recommendation that NASA should pursue a Shuttle servicing mission to Hubble so as to accomplish the objectives of the planned SM-4 mission. However, I do not favor such a plan, much less the launch of a new satellite to host Hubble’s replacement instruments, if it would require major delays or re-ordering of NASA’s present science priorities. With such a course of action, I believe that NASA would squander the excellent reputation for scientific judgment and leadership that it has so rightly earned over the years. "
Link:http://www7.nationalacademies.org/ocga/testimony/Hubble_Space_Telescope_Repairs_2.asp
So what he is saying here is that they have a set allotment of programs with a budget. He is only in favor of SM4 or HOP if either does not cause a hiccup in the decadal queue. Based on the very tight budgets HOP was not considered to have good ROI at present, although it might be featured in the next decadal queue.
It doesn't come down to whether HOP was a good idea/bad idea or NIH, it really came down to available resources. Hubble is a resource they wished to maintain. This wish came from both the scientific community and the public. NASA had the ability to fund and stage SM4, which is now ongoing. In terms of keeping the decadal survey on track, SM4 and a functional Hubble were the best options.
HOP was a good idea, but like so many proposals the money wasn't there and circumstance simply altered its chances. I'm neither a NASA-basher or huge NASA-supporter, but they do have to operate with what is given them under the direction of a variety of influences.
Also, I appreciate your enthusiasm for the HSO. May 14th was a great day for astronomy with SM4 activities and the launch of Planck and Herschel. HSO is a cool European-built observatory, but astronomy is a collaboration of people and nations. NASA maintains a Herschel Science Center with the purpose of supporting HSO and to support scientists in gaining access to the data. So when the Europeans or Russians launch such a system everybody wins. If NASA is not building a certain telescope to do something, others may be, and all of that data is shared. Indeed, there are many PIs and MIs from the States who have access to Planck and Herschel.
Also, please understand that ESA did not create, build, and launch HSO in only a few years. Indeed, the initial HSO proposal and prototype instrument work began in 1982. Planck was conceived circa 1990 and did not receive funding until 1999. As with any space project, engineers and scientists can spend decades working before any instrument sees first light.
But thanks for this interesting thread.
RSR
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 191
-
-
-
-
If space is curved around the sun, how can planets orbit in the same plane ?
- Started by Marvas
- Replies: 0
-
SpaceX launching Starship Flight 7 today: Watch it live- Started by Admin
- Replies: 2
-
Goodnight, Gaia! ESA spacecraft shuts down after 12 years of Milky Way mapping
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram