Hubble loses another gyro

Page 2 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
Now come on.<br /><br />Hubbles doesn't just take pretty pictures.<br /><br />Those images have been doing real science for the whole lifetime of the Hubble.<br /><br />The list would be quite long. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
 
K

kdavis007

Guest
Sorry all it is doing is taking pictures.. If they are going to upgrade to have the Hubble to detect planets like Earth, then keep it.. Time let go of the Hubble..
 
H

holmec

Guest
There is no doubt that Hubble has and still can make great pics. And a great pic is worth giga bytes.<br /><br />JWST is slated to launch in 2013. If we loose Hubble today, it looks like we have to wait 6 years for its replacement, or the next gen of orbital telescopes as JWST represents.<br /><br />So is a 6 year wait acceptable? Or should we launch a Shuttle mission to replace the gyros?<br /><br />Frankly I'm on the fence with this one. The sooner the JWST is launched the less we will need Hubble. <br /><br />Also note we have other observatories in orbit and with 'Lucky' ground telescopes may start to compete with Hubble's quality. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>
 
W

windnwar

Guest
Lucky will improve ground telescopes but your still stuck with only being able to use it during a certain time of day and with clear skies. Thats the problem with ground telescopes. JWST will be a great telescope, but as we've learned with Hubble, until it's in place and operating normally we don't know what we will get. If it goes up and there is a launch accident, malfunction, etc then it'll be alot longer then 6 years before we have something decent in orbit again. HST is there, we have the stuff to keep it working for several more years and it still does alot more then take pretty pictures. Its aquired so much data during it's lifetime to date that people are still processing stuff from 4-5 years ago. There is a huge backlog of the data it's created to go through, while there is still alot more science left to it. I'd rather use a shuttle mission to get hubble capable of bridging the gap between now and JWST then use that mission for ISS that honestly probably will never turn out 10% of the science Hubble has over it's lifetime. I'm all for human spaceflight, but not servicing Hubble would just be a waste. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font size="2" color="#0000ff">""Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." --Albert Einstein"</font></p> </div>
 
A

askold

Guest
"P.S. for the cost of the Hubble Servicing Mission next year, NASA could have built a telescope with the same capabilities that Hubble currently has ..."<br /><br />People keep repeating this little bit of apocrypha. What is the basis for this claim? <br /><br />Does that include the launch costs? The new management center and data aquisition center? Hubble is an operational system - the "replacement system" cost/benefit analysis should include all costs.<br />
 
W

windnwar

Guest
Yeah I don't see them building a telescope near Hubbles capabilities and launching for anywhere near the price of the service mission. 4-5 times the cost, maybe but less then not a chance. And again it wouldn't launch for several years either. The same is true of government or many corps, its easy to get funding to maintain an existing peice of equipment then it is to get funding for an all new one. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font size="2" color="#0000ff">""Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." --Albert Einstein"</font></p> </div>
 
B

brellis

Guest
I wish they could stick an ion engine on Hubble so it can keep itself in orbit indefinitely, even if more equipment fails.<br /><br />That way, years down the road to manned spaceflight, some salvage company could go up and retrieve it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="2" color="#ff0000"><em><strong>I'm a recovering optimist - things could be better.</strong></em></font> </p> </div>
 
3

3488

Guest
It is vitally important IMO that Hubble is kept serviced. As pointed out already it would <br />cost several times Hubble's contruction & maintenance budget for a worthy replacement.<br />The JWST is a great telescope, but as mentioned, it could be destroyed in a <br />launch failure or the foldable mirror fails to deploy (remember Galileo's HGA)?<br /><br />The thing is, is that we know, Hubble operates flawlessly 99.9% of the time,<br />has & contnues to perform ground breaking science (my favourites has to be outer <br />planet observations, such as the Comet SL9 impacts with Jupiter, Saturn ring plane crossing, <br />Uranus ring plane crossing & weather studies & Neptune weather studies), which even <br />the best AO telescopes would have difficultuies in performing well, due to looking <br />through an unstable atmosphere, unreliable weather, daylight issues, etc<br />which of course are non issues for Hubble. <br /><br />With the final STS servicing mission with new equipment & new technology components, also<br />a severe orbital altitude reboost,<br />Hubble could last another 10 or even 15 years.<br /><br />That my two pennies worth.<br /><br />Andrew Brown. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080">"I suddenly noticed an anomaly to the left of Io, just off the rim of that world. It was extremely large with respect to the overall size of Io and crescent shaped. It seemed unbelievable that something that big had not been visible before".</font> <em><strong><font color="#000000">Linda Morabito </font></strong><font color="#800000">on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.</font></em></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://www.launchphotography.com/</font><br /><br /><font size="1" color="#000080">http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearth</font></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://web.me.com/meridianijournal</font></p> </div>
 
A

askold

Guest
Absolutely - it's baffling to me, how Hubble has earned this status as useless, disposable junk. I guess the space cadets see no value to anything that doesn't have an astronaut inside.
 
W

windnwar

Guest
I found this cost breakdown for the STS-103 service mission to Hubble. <br /><br />HST Program & STS-103 Costs<br />Servicing Mission Costs - HST <br />Planned Servicing Mission Hardware & Software <br />Gyroscope $8 Million <br />Fine Guidance Sensor $13 Million <br />Advanced Computer $7 Million <br />Other Flight Hardware $11 Million <br />Simulators/Testing $6 Million <br />Ops/Software Development $24 Million <br />Sub-total $69 Million <br />Costs for Flight Changes <br />HST Cost for Additional Servicing Mission $19 Million <br />HST Cost for Switching from Columbia to Discovery $7 Million <br />Sub-total $26 Million <br /><br />HST Total <br />$95 Million <br /><br />Servicing Mission Costs - Shuttle <br />Shuttle Flight Costs $110 Million <br /><br /><br />Total STS-103 Mission Costs <br />Shuttle $110 Million <br />HST $95 Million <br />Total $205 Million <br /><br />Even if the costs have tripled for the current mission, something I doubt, I don't see how you could build something better and get it in orbit for $600mil. They also have a potential fix for the ACS though its not been decided to include it during the service mission. If not the new WFC3 camera will be able to take over and in several cases improve on what was lost with ACS. Even as is, ACS working SBC channel can still do UV work that nothing on the ground can do at all. <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font size="2" color="#0000ff">""Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." --Albert Einstein"</font></p> </div>
 
E

erioladastra

Guest
"Sorry all it is doing is taking pictures"<br /><br />Huh? You have no idea what you are talking about. While the pretty pictures get the media attention - it is a small fraction of the science. In fact, us spectra folk were always annoyed when our time was blocked by some pretty picture <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />
 
E

erioladastra

Guest
"Can you elaborate on that? <br /><br />From the News conferences, etc, I thought there were 1 or 2 spare ISS missions post construction. <br /><br />Maybe it's a semantic thing regarding what the phrase "get the most critical stuff done" really means. Anything you can do to educate us would be appreciated. "<br /><br />Actually, I think themanwithoutapast did a great job. It is really mainly about logistics. There is so much stuff we need to get up there prior to great gap until CEV (you know that will be delayed, and Progress just doesn't have anywhere near the upmass). There are what I would consider critical spares that will not be positioned or even built because we don't have another shuttle mission to take them up. As to the 1-2 spares - that is kind of case of making due. However, every flight since Columbia we find in the weeks or months going up to a bunch of stuff we need to get up or down (you would be amazed at how much stuff is being stowed on ISS right now with no likely retrun possible).
 
H

holmec

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>we have the stuff to keep it working for several more years and it still does alot more then take pretty pictures.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />True but the means to get there is becoming increasingly dubious, that is the risk to a Shuttle mission.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>There is a huge backlog of the data it's created to go through, while there is still alot more science left to it.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Agreed, so why not wait? Let the analysts catch up.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I'd rather use a shuttle mission to get hubble capable of bridging the gap between now and JWST then use that mission for ISS that honestly probably will never turn out 10% of the science Hubble has over it's lifetime. I'm all for human spaceflight, but not servicing Hubble would just be a waste.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />And this is the crux of it all. Hubble is old. Its systems will still fail. I would not be willing to risk the lives of astronauts to span a gap in observatory technology since observation can still go on....on a more limited basis. <br /><br />I do think the ISS needs to be finished. So I'd put all my efforts in doing just that using the STS. We have commitments to other countries for ISS which is manned space flight vs the hubble which is unmanned. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>
 
W

windnwar

Guest
I agree on the risks since there is no iss lifeboat if there is an issue with the orbiter, i'm in no way saying the crew is expendable, just that if they believe the risks are low enough to do the mission, the science payout is much higher from Hubble then it ever will be with ISS. As to the commitments on the ISS i'd argue the commitments to the international astronomers that depend on Hubble is just as great. <br /><br />The quickest question is, name one thing science wise we have furthered ourselves with via ISS. Now match that up to Hubble, especially with the new camera capabilities it will have when this mission is completed. <br /><br />Manned spaceflight is important, i'm not one of those who believes we should stick with unmanned probes. I'm for manned spaceflight because of the ability for us to be able to do missions like the HST upgrades and service, robotically we don't have the ability to do what a person can. But as long as we can mitigate most of the risk, we shouldn't stop doing things because we can't mitigate all the risk. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font size="2" color="#0000ff">""Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." --Albert Einstein"</font></p> </div>
 
C

CalliArcale

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Agreed, so why not wait? Let the analysts catch up. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />The analysts do wait. Hubble time is scheduled out well in advance; it doesn't take a bunch of pictures and then sit idle while people decide what to do next. Of course, there is only so far out that you can usefully schedule, and some opportunities will present themselves that are just too good to pass up -- once in a lifetime events like the SL-9 impacts on Jupiter. But in general, your team has to come up with a good justification for the Hubble time you want, then demonstrate that you're going to be able to make full use of that time, before you'll actually get the chance to do so. Hubble time is very precious, and they do not wait for data to be analyzed fully. (You might plan a session where early results direct later observations in the session, but that's about it.) They try to keep it as close to fully utilized as is humanly possible.<br /><br />This may also be part of the reason the gyros wear out; they get worked pretty hard. <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>
 
E

erioladastra

Guest
"I agree on the risks since there is no iss lifeboat if there is an issue with the orbiter"<br /><br />There will be a shuttle ready to go as backup.<br /><br />"name one thing science wise we have furthered ourselves with via ISS"<br /><br />Not really a fair question. One could just as easily ask - name me one scientific discovery that HST has made that benefits the human on the street? Also, ISS was never purely about science - it is also about engineering and exploration. We can debate if each is worthy of their return but you can't really compare the two.
 
E

erioladastra

Guest
"and they do not wait for data to be analyzed fully."<br /><br />And after 12 months your data becomes public - so there is real strong motivation to analyze the data.
 
E

erioladastra

Guest
"Agreed, so why not wait? Let the analysts catch up. "<br /><br />That is not how it works. The data is analyzed as quickly as it can pretty much. Sometimes it means you need more data or that you really have to wait for more observations. But then there is also the case that over time you get smarter and people go back and analyze the data more. It is a continuous, iterative process that will never end. I am not sure what you are waiting for.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY