Is a hubble rescue worth it?

gregoire · Nov 15, 2004

It's estimated that the cost of sending Dextre up to save hubble will be $1.6 billion including launch costs etc., and will extend hubbles life by about 5 or so years. For the same amount of loot you could probably build a 50M earth based telescope with state of the art AO in less than a decade. It would outperform hubble in many functions and would probably last more than 100 years. Since spacebucks are at a premium, what's the underlying logic to saving hubble?

Saiph · Nov 15, 2004

one thing the ground based telescope can't do better: Ultraviolet and infrared (specific regions at least) astronomy. That stuff can't really get to the ground, so detection is moot. In general I agree though, build another space telescope in the IR and UV capabilites, and send it up. That should be cheaper. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

tom_hobbes · Nov 15, 2004

Let's stop quibbling over loose change and do both! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> (I admit, I can't even conceive of that kind of loose change...) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I wish I could remember But my selective memory Won't let me - Mark Oliver Everett </div>

askold · Nov 15, 2004

It's too bad they can't bring it back down - I'd like to see it hanging at the Smithsonian.

tfwthom · Nov 15, 2004

Lot of money to spend on Hubble, saving Hubble is going to take money away for more advanced scopes planned. To name a few: Future Missions Space Interferometry Mission Proposed Launch: 2009 Purpose: Space-based optical interferometer to study stars and detect extra-solar planets Terrestrial Planet Finder Proposed Launch: 2014 Purpose: To search for Earth-like planets that might harbor life. Terrestrial Planet Finder will take family portraits of stars and their orbiting planets and determine which planets may have the right chemistry to sustain life. Kepler Planned Launch: 2007 The Kepler Mission will search for Earth-like planets with the "transit" method. A one-meter diameter (39-inch) telescope equipped with the equivalent of 42 high quality digital cameras will continuously monitor the brightness of 100,000 stars, looking for planets that cross the lines-of-sight between Kepler and their parent stars. What program do we scrap to keep Hubble? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> www.siriuslookers.org </div>

bobvanx · Nov 15, 2004

The thing I can't wrap my head around, is this: The observatory at Lick, or Palomar, gets an optics upgrade and does brand new, invaluable science, every decade or so. We'd never consider tearing down the 200inch reflector (they even just had it re-silvered!!!). 15 years ago, when AO was a gleam in a mad genius' eye, all these old scopes looked all used up, and light polution was making their science less useful. Orbital was the way to go! Anyway, I don't have a proper appreciation, I guess, for the intrinsic value of a piece of hardware. My gut feeling is that if we can keep upgrading a terrestrial 'scope so it does better and better science, then why not an orbital 'scope? People smarter than I look at the Hubble and see a few tons of metal and silica, ready to be phased out. I look at other 'scopes, and notice that they often have three or four useful lifetimes before being truly outdated.

glutomoto · Nov 16, 2004

Strap on a solar powered ion engine, and slowly boost HST into a long term orbit, designed to save it for a time when we might be able to salvage it. And to help preserve it from the ravages of space, it might be nice to have a large plastic bag. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

CalliArcale · Nov 16, 2004

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Ultraviolet and infrared (specific regions at least) astronomy. That stuff can't really get to the ground, so detection is moot. In general I agree though, build another space telescope in the IR and UV capabilites, and send it up. That should be cheaper.<hr /></blockquote> When Hubble comes down, we will lose a major source of UV data. Spitzer can observe in IR (and does so better than Hubble, because that's it's specialty), but right now Hubble is the main UV observer. Of course, Swift will observe in UV (as well as IR and visible) but its mission is much more tightly constrained -- it won't be available for the kinds of observations Hubble does. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "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." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

Saiph · Nov 16, 2004

Right, We lose a big platform. But it may be more cost effective to design and launch a new telescope than to spend $1.4 billion on repairs. Just looking at the options. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

CalliArcale · Nov 16, 2004

Sorry, I wasn't at all clear about my post. I was trying to elaborate on what you said, not refute it. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> I think it would be awesome to have a dedicated UV-only instrument in orbit. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "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." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

gregoire · Nov 16, 2004

Not sure what the fascination with the word "facts" is about but......I never said that a ground based observatory was a panacea for all astronomy. It certainly is affected by weather, atmosphere & light pollution to name a few things, but a 50m light bucket with a 100 or more year lifespan makes up for many of these shortcomings. As for a manned shuttle mission......it ain't gonna happen dude, and that's a "fact". Cheers

erioladastra · Nov 17, 2004

Something to keep in mind, while I would love to see HST go on for many more years, it was a mission with a 15 year lifetime, a lifetime which it has met. So anything more is gravy. While a 50M light bucket is great there are still things it can't do that a space telescope can. Period. There is a great deal of astronomy that a 50M or even a 100M telescope wouldn't help with. When I did research with a UV/X-ray target for 3 days uninterupted - HST was the only option. One example of many. As to reboosting HST and waiting for a future time when we can afford/able to fix it is not practical. Systems are beginning to fail and eventually you will lose the scope itself and not likely to recover it. Now sadly, I really don't think this will succeed. To develop the needed auto rendezvous/docking in time will cost a lot of $. By the time they really scope it all out they will either say it is too much and descope the plan, or keep trodding along and just be too late. I hope I am wrong but seen this too many times now.

CalliArcale · Nov 17, 2004

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />They could save it if they chose. DC just does NOT have the will to save it.<hr /></blockquote> On my more cynical days, I find myself wondering whether they're actually out to destroy Hubble, not just that they don't care. <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "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." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

glutomoto · Nov 18, 2004

Re: As to reboosting HST and waiting for a future time when we can afford/able to fix it is not practical. Systems are beginning to fail and eventually you will lose the scope itself and not likely to recover it. I meant that as a method of preserving hopefully most of it for museum display, thats what the baggie was for. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Search

Is a hubble rescue worth it?

gregoire

Guest

Saiph

Guest

tom_hobbes

Guest

askold

Guest

tfwthom

Guest

bobvanx

Guest

glutomoto

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

Saiph

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

gregoire

Guest

erioladastra

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

glutomoto

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page