Mount Palomar space images now twice as clear as HST

robnissen · Sep 8, 2007

Or better yet, a Shuttle could capture Hubble and return it to Earth for display in the Smithsonian. They could charge extra to see it and some of the proceeds could go to funding NASA. This way, it's not entirely a money draining affair, being useful beyond it's technological limits. I am in complete agreement that Hubble is a national treasure which should be maintained. Thus, I am very happy that NASA changed its mind and has scheduled another servicing mission. But your plan is not realistic. The servicing mission will cost $900 million! So, unless you think there are ONE MILLION people who will pay $900 PER PERSON, to see Hubble, another serviceing mission merely to capture Hubble makes absolutely no sense.

JonClarke · Sep 8, 2007

You also have to factor the cost of not flying. The equipment has been built, the crew trained. These are shunk costs, completely lost if not used. At present, Hubble with enter uncontrollably. It is a large satellite with masisve components. There are risks to life and property of this. There is the cost of lost of investment if Hubble is not serviced. Hubble represents a massive investment. if we don't get the maxium return out of it. Lastly there is the loss of observation time, its primary justification, if it comes down before replacments are available. For the reasons every body that has looked at the issue has recommended that the servicing mission fly. Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> 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 Arthur Clarke </div>

signalhill · Sep 9, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> But you have to realize, it is highly unlikely that in our (or our grandchildren's) lifetimes there will ever be a better space telescope in the visual/near IR/near UV spectrum than the Hubble. We will never see anything like her ever again.<hr /></blockquote> How have you arrived at this assumption? In our grandchildren's lifetimes? A telescope will not be replaced?

signalhill · Sep 9, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />If we apply your logic to other areas of space exploration we should cut off communications with the MER's. They have completed their primary missions, they are costing money to keep them up and running. They needed babysitting through a dust storm. But most agree future funding for those Rovers is essential, and we would be idiotic to stop them while they are delivering valuable science.<hr /></blockquote> The MERs do not require Shuttle-based service visits. The MERs are where they need to be regardless. Unless an unmanned robot system can service Hubble, or another Shuttle fleet redesigned, it's doomed anyway with the current Shuttles' scheduled mothballing coming up very soon. A successor telescope would be engineered to current needs and standards and not require gigantic ancillary support systems to keep it functioning through the decades. Hubble, like it's Shuttle brethren, is a planned obsolescence in orbit. It's eventual deorbiting will be as spectacular as it is sad. It will be like watching a mighty ship going down with a crew aboard.

MeteorWayne · Sep 9, 2007

That is correct. It seems unlikely to me that the money will be spent in that way. There's only so much money to go around, therefore we don't usually spend it on repeat missions with the same capabilities as previous craft. All current space telescopes on the map, drawing board, or power point aim at different parts of the EM spectrum, or focus on different subjects than just being our eyes in space. That is Hubbles unique gift. I may be pessamistic, but I'm probably not wrong. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

signalhill · Sep 9, 2007

Right. The emerging technologies for orbital scopes are largely targeting the non-visible spectrum or extremely far objects. But this, I suspect, is why they are ramping up resolutions for ground-based scopes. We will lose one aspect to gain perhaps many more. Hubble was intended to deliver resolution and clarity beyond any such ground capabilities but that is now being reversed. Now the upsell of Hubble is that it can deliver 24/7 viewing conditions whereas terrestrial scopes cannot. But that isn't enough apparently. To enjoy this luxury, Hubble is a luxury ill afforded. With the impending demise of Shuttle technology, and with the alleged disdain for continued support with unmanned robotic maintenance programs, only to service one specialized piece of equipment, Hubble's sustenance is inevitably going to run out. And it's too bad. Like Galileo, on a fateful day sometime in the next decade, Hubble will sadly and probably reluctantly be directed into the atmosphere where it's gleaming structure and suite of sensitive instruments will be cremated in a spectacular aerial funeral. It will be sad.

Smersh · Sep 9, 2007

MeteorWayne Please take 200 quatloos out of petty cash Just wondered, how many quatloos will be deducted from my account, following the following statement of mine that nobody seems to have noticed (or been too polite to comment upon ...) Smersh If telescopes like Palomar and Hale can be used to observe extrasolar planets, using technology like Lucky, that will be super cool, no doubt! <img src="/images/icons/blush.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <h1 style="margin:0pt;font-size:12px">----------------------------------------------------- </h1>Lady Nancy Astor: "Winston, if you were my husband, I'd poison your tea." Churchill: "Nancy, if you were my wife, I'd drink it."Website / forums </div>

anthmartian · Sep 9, 2007

SignalHill : We will obviously have to agree to disagree on this. This is my last post on the subject as a result of that. You keep stating how sad it is that Hubble will be no more one day. I am not really getting that impression though. You seem to be quite looking forward to that day. Especially in the way you seem to keep coming up with poetic and colourful descriptions of its demise! lol The day Hubble is no longer in orbit, or in working order will be more than sad, it will leave a gap that will not be filled for a very long time. If you have what seems to be an under appreciation of Hubbles contribution to space science and astronomy. I would take a few weeks out and start googling and re tracing just what it has done. That alone though will not uncover the whole story. Who can calculate the many young minds which have been captivated by the Hubble data and will doubtless go on to do great things. You are obviously of the opinion Hubble is now obsolete. I don't accept that, and never will. The money and effort being spent that you cite as a reason to stop, is in reality proof of how important and indespensible it is. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "Traveling through hyperspace ain't like dusting crops, boy! Without precise calculations we could fly right through a star, or bounce too close to a supernova and that'd end your trip real quick, wouldn't it?"Han Solo - 1977 - A long time ago in a galaxy far far away.... Click Here And jump over to my site. </div>

signalhill · Sep 9, 2007

I'm not denying it's massive contributions to science. It's legacy is guaranteed. In this soon-to-shift paradigm of space flight, as a workable platform it is obsolete. It is a vestige of the already obsolete Shuttle Low Earth Orbit Going Nowhere Era of the Dinosaurs. Blame the whole Shuttle era for Hubble's lame-duck condition as well as how our entire manned space flight program has been declawed for the past 25 years or more, a near waste of resources and valuable time. The Shuttle's mothballing cannot come any sooner. We could have already been to Mars and back several times by now had the Apollo Program been allowed to evolve. But no. They wanted a delta-winged space truck to consume nearly the majority of NASA's effective manned flight budget by keeping us firmly Earth-bound. As complex a system as the Shuttle is, it was a step backwards from Apollo's premise of bold pioneering to outer worlds. However, were an alternative maintenance system devised to supplant the Hubble's Shuttle-dependency, then I see no reason why it should be deorbited. It's as simple as that. But this is easier said than done. Proposals for such remote control missions to maintain Hubble's instruments and maintain it's orbit have been shot down by the very bureaucracy that will determine it's suicide path to the destruction that awaits it. Upon deorbit, the radiant fireball of fragmenting material will streak across the skies on a spectacular ballistic mission of no return, some years after the Shuttles have already been on display outside of the Smithsonian for kids to see and point at, ending the era finally, symbolically, and literally. Unless NASA can get out of it's own way, after the 2008 repair mission, Hubble is living on borrowed time. Unless they finally approve a robotic maintenance system, Hubble is a dead man walking. Evidently it can remain in orbit until 2020. Maybe by then they will hav

MeteorWayne · Sep 9, 2007

I think you demean the Hubble. To me, it appears you do not appreciate the value of the scientific data returned by the craft. That's just my view, your's is certainly valid. Suggesting that we would have been back and forth to Mars several times if Apollo hadn't been cancelled seems a simplistic view to me. The bottom line is Apollo was cancelled because the elected officials of the US decided the money was not there to spend. I think they were shortsighted and stupid, but that doesn't change the fact that they had control of the pursestrings. That is a political, not a scientific decision, but is just as real. And brutally effective <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

signalhill · Sep 9, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />I think you demean the Hubble.<hr /></blockquote> I demean it's unfortunate dinosaur-level design dependent upon a backwards Shuttle paradigm. The actual data acquisition is unparalleled. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />To me, it appears you do not appreciate the value of the scientific data returned by the craft. That's just my view, your's is certainly valid.<hr /></blockquote> I bemoan the level of myopia involved by having Hubble Shuttle-dependent when that program could not have possibly gotten us to the planets with humans to begin with. It was obsolete before it was launched. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Suggesting that we would have been back and forth to Mars several times if Apollo hadn't been cancelled seems a simplistic view to me.<hr /></blockquote> It's the more accurate view, in my opinion. The Shuttle is a going-nowhere program. It never had anything to do with going to the Moon or to Mars or to anywhere but in circles. You design a going-in-circles space program paradigm, you remain going nowhere. This is what we have done for 25 years. Valuable time spent down the drain. The Shuttle program is the Dark Age of our space history. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />The bottom line is Apollo was cancelled because the elected officials of the US decided the money was not there to spend. I think they were shortsighted and stupid, but that doesn't change the fact that they had control of the pursestrings.<hr /></blockquote> We agree fully here. They were stupid and had this bright idea that instead of continuing manned flight to the planets, we should spend even more money on going absolutely nowhere. Most of the experiments aboard the Shuttle could have been done on or near the Moon, under a manned flight paradigm that would have simply evolved more robusty and

robnissen · Sep 10, 2007

There is the cost of lost of investment if Hubble is not serviced. Hubble represents a massive investment. if we don't get the maxium return out of it. Lastly there is the loss of observation time, its primary justification, if it comes down before replacments are available. I agree with everything in your post, but you misunderstood the point of my post. We definitely need to go forward with a Hubble servicing mission, even though its cost is (pun intended) astronomical. My point is, that to have a SECOND $900 million shuttle mission merely to put the Hubble in mothballs in some museum is absurd. My understanding is that the next shuttle mission will address the deorbiting problem, and that Hubble should eventually have a controlled descent ending up in the Pacific. (Hopefully NASA will be better at controlled descents by then, that it was with Skylab, where it missed the Pacific Ocean by a whole continent and wound up in Western Austrailia.)

robnissen · Sep 10, 2007

I agree with everything in your post, and especially this: The Shuttle is a going-nowhere program. It never had anything to do with going to the Moon or to Mars or to anywhere but in circles. You design a going-in-circles space program paradigm, you remain going nowhere. This is what we have done for 25 years. Valuable time spent down the drain. The Shuttle program is the Dark Age of our space history. The shuttle was never anything more than corporate welfare for the aerospace industry, and other than indirectly through Hubble, has resulted in virtually no important science. Having said that, I am still glad we had the shuttle program. I don't believe there was going to be a political choice between the Shuttle, and manned trips to the Moon and/or Mars. I think the political choice would have been between the Shuttle and NOTHING. The only way Congress was going to appropriate money was if it could be sold as a corporate welfare/jobs program. In a perfect world, we should have immediately built on the successes of Apollo and built a moon-base and then manned trips to Mars. But that wasn't going to happen. The choices were an EXTREMELY flawed Shuttle program, or NO MANNED spaceflight. As between those two options, I am glad the politicians chose the flawed Shuttle program.

JonClarke · Sep 10, 2007

The shuttle was never anything more than corporate welfare for the aerospace industry, and other than indirectly through Hubble, has resulted in virtually no important science. I am sorry, this is rubbish. The Shuttle and the spacecraft it has launched have done an enormous amount of science. Hubble, along with the other Great Observatories Chandra, Compton, and Spitzer, have revolutionised our understanding of the universe. Magellan mapped Venus, Galileo Jupiter, Ullysses the Sun, SRTM the Earth's topography. The Shuttle itself was a major experiment in applied sciences, extending the boundaries of metallurgy, materials science, aerodynamics, computing and many other disciplines. Thousands of sientific papers have been published on shuttle research. There is valid criticism of the shuttle program, much of it with 20/20 hindsight. but to say that it was us coporate welfare is simply wrong. Saying virtually no important science has resulted is not only wrong, it is ignorant. Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> 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 Arthur Clarke </div>

JonClarke · Sep 10, 2007

My point is, that to have a SECOND $900 million shuttle mission merely to put the Hubble in mothballs in some museum is absurd. That is why is not going to happen. Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> 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 Arthur Clarke </div>

signalhill · Sep 10, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />The shuttle was never anything more than corporate welfare for the aerospace industry, and other than indirectly through Hubble, has resulted in virtually no important science. <hr /></blockquote> Right yes, you see it for what it really is. The science conducted as well could have been done under a different system of travel. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> In a perfect world, we should have immediately built on the successes of Apollo and built a moon-base and then manned trips to Mars. But that wasn't going to happen. The choices were an EXTREMELY flawed Shuttle program, or NO MANNED spaceflight. As between those two options, I am glad the politicians chose the flawed Shuttle program. <hr /></blockquote> That is also unfortunately true, as well. I agree. Yet I would wager that after, perhaps a few years after, the decision to keep us in the Shuttle going-nowhere paradigm, many insiders realized that it was exactly what you just said. And it HAS stunted our space program. More than likely MOST of the science conducted on Shuttle missions could have been conducted in an Apollo/Soyuz type of system that would have also been capable of traveling to the planets. The shuttle NEVER had this in mind EVER and has held us back as a humanity. The shuttle program should have been canceled long ago.

signalhill · Sep 10, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> There is valid criticism of the shuttle program, much of it with 20/20 hindsight. but to say that it was us coporate welfare is simply wrong. Saying virtually no important science has resulted is not only wrong, it is ignorant. <hr /></blockquote> The equivalent science gleaned from Shuttle flights could have just as well been carried out within a manned program to the outer planets. a LEO system could easily be adapted from an Apollo paradigm. Apollo was all about going into low orbit about a body. And yet it was actually about going to another body unlike the Shuttle. It is my view that the Shuttle program was largely a stunting and a hindrance to our manned space programs, wasting decades stuck only near Earth when we could maybe already be looking to Jupiter. But no.

anthmartian · Sep 11, 2007

I do appreciate what you are saying. I have always believed the Shuttle had the look of being designed by a committee. I have always felt it was an expensive option, especialy when the re-usable tag was used so often, which implied cheap back in the day! It has contributed to an era of manned flight in earth orbit. But, that is exactly what is was designed to do though. If it's reign as the only manned vehicle was so long due to design, or if planners felt there was another vehicle looming for more exciting, and adventurous missions i do not know. maybe the shuttle was designed to be the work horse one cog in the wheel of mans exploration of the solar system. I feel that blaming the Shuttle for mankind not being at Jupiter is a bit of a stretch though. I have not seen anything anywhere near approaching the level of shielding required for a human not to perish at the Jovian system on any drawing boards anywhere. btw, if the Shuttle had ever travelled anywhere near as far as this topic has flown away from it's original subject, maybe we would need that radiation shielding at Jupiter for shuttle crews! lol <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "Traveling through hyperspace ain't like dusting crops, boy! Without precise calculations we could fly right through a star, or bounce too close to a supernova and that'd end your trip real quick, wouldn't it?"Han Solo - 1977 - A long time ago in a galaxy far far away.... Click Here And jump over to my site. </div>

signalhill · Sep 11, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> It has contributed to an era of manned flight in earth orbit. But, that is exactly what is was designed to do though.<hr /></blockquote> But of course. That is the whole disdainful tootsie roll; a step backwards. Unless you somehow construe abandoning the outward bound pioneering Apollo program (which would have eventually been able to go to Mars as it is essentially being revived) for the stalled-at-Earth Shuttle program to be progressive, it's "reign" was due to bureaucratic self-justification once it was built. "Let's build a space truck that will only go around the Earth. And let's forget about going anywhere for almost 30 years while we find reasons to keep it flying." <blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> I feel that blaming the Shuttle for mankind not being at Jupiter is a bit of a stretch though.<hr /></blockquote> We'd be eying Jupiter, as stated. We'd have already had 25 extra years of manned flight to the Moon and probably to Mars by now. That "25 to 30 years to Mars" would have already been here! Insofar as the original topic, Hubble could have been ferried up to orbit by another means. And now Mt Palomar has exceeded it insofar as resolution. Even more insulting! lol

robnissen · Sep 11, 2007

Saying virtually no important science has resulted is not only wrong, it is IGNORANT. I really don't appreciate being insulted. I am really disappointed in you Jon that you believe insulting people who disagree with you is acceptable behavior. Now onto the merits: Hubble, along with the other Great Observatories Chandra, Compton, and Spitzer, have revolutionised our understanding of the universe. Magellan mapped Venus, Galileo Jupiter, Ullysses the Sun, SRTM the Earth's topography. Agree completely, but with the exception of servicing Hubble, all of those satellites could have been launched much cheaper with conventional rockets. Indeed, Hubble could have been serviced much cheaper with conventional capsule rockets carrying astronauts. Shuttle should get NO credit for any of that science. And if the shuttle did not exist, more money could have been spent on numerous additional wonderful programs like these. The Shuttle itself was a major experiment in applied sciences, extending the boundaries of metallurgy, materials science, aerodynamics, computing and many other disciplines. Thousands of sientific papers have been published on shuttle research. Sure, but at what cost. Let me answer that: $179 BILLION!!!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_program So lets say there were 1790 papers published related to the space shuttle, that is a mere $100 MILLION per paper. And, if I'm off by a factor of ten and there were 17,900 papers published, now we are down to a mere $10 MILLION per paper. Pardon me if I am not impressed by a program that costs $10 to $100 Million per paper. I am curious if you can point to even ONE paper that you believe was worth $10 Million in funding in "metallurgy, mate

signalhill · Sep 11, 2007

You're awesome! And as well, Apollo, in it's short life span, went to the Moon NINE TIMES! NINE! Imagine how soon we may have gone to Mars had it continued! It makes me sick to the stomach thinking about this. And we lost 3 men, and it wasn't even during an actual flight mission. Now take the laughable folly of the Shuttle. We went virtually absolutely nowhere to advance our manned space program and lost 14 people! Furthermore, during the Shuttle's hiatus after the 2nd disaster, guess how we got to the ISS? The older and more reliable and cheaper Soyuz capsule! The Russians! It unequivocally proved that the Shuttle was further pointless and unecessary. In lots of ways it made us look entirely stupid. Essentially what we have in the Shuttle is a space station that happens to be able to return to Earth over and over again. That is all that it really is or ever would be. Instead of the Russian "Mir" paradigm, where cosmonauts would stay for months, which is actually far more valuable for studying extended effects of space travel, we opted for a very temporary short-duration "glider station," with ZERO versatility outside of that mode.

qso1 · Sep 12, 2007

RobNissen: But the shuttle was a HUGE waste of resources. Me: At $179B dollars, we spent more than that in just two years on the thing (War or rebuild) in Iraq and hundreds of billions each year on the deficit spending that was supposed to have been so carefully controlled. Waste is relative in government spending. IMO, it would not matter what shuttle costed because the money will be wasted at far higher levels elswhere. Having said that...we have Hubble which revolutionized astronomy and because space is still a difficult and expensive proposition...its good to see ground based astronomy starting to catch up to Hubble capability. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

qso1 · Sep 12, 2007

SignalHill: Now take the laughable folly of the Shuttle. We went virtually absolutely nowhere to advance our manned space program and lost 14 people! Me: Not that it will matter but IMO, this line of reasoning misses one important point. Would Apollo have been considered a folly if there had been 115 Apollo missions which almost certainly would have increased the probability of more fatal accidents? Keep in mind...the shuttle came into existence precisely because in the early 1970s, it was considered folly to continue with Apollo because of the cost. Apollo with 11 missions total...was estimated at $25 B dollars in 1970 or so. Take those 1970 dollars and convert them to 2005 dollars and you get about $130B dollars. Of course, this includes 11 flights and development of Apollo but the shuttle had 115 flights at $179B dollars and its a folly? The shuttle made one lasting contribution to human spaceflight. It proved operation of reusable craft was possible, even practical if only barely so. The shuttle was a stunning technical success but an economic failure. Sometimes we as humanity have to go through tough growing pains to reach a certain level. That level in this case would be putting into service, a vehicle that can be reused like the shuttle but much more economically so. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

qso1 · Sep 12, 2007

SignalHill: Furthermore, during the Shuttle's hiatus after the 2nd disaster, guess how we got to the ISS? The older and more reliable and cheaper Soyuz capsule! The Russians! It unequivocally proved that the Shuttle was further pointless and unecessary. In lots of ways it made us look entirely stupid. Me: In case you haven't noticed...there are parts of ISS that only the shuttle can take to orbit, most of which were taken to orbit prior to the Columbia disaster. I love it when critics of the shuttle use this example...it never occurs to them that the Soyuz can have accidents too. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

marcelo_pantorilla · Sep 12, 2007

it is a good service to science to student and descoveries.

Mount Palomar space images now twice as clear as HST

robnissen

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

signalhill

Guest

signalhill

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

signalhill

Guest

Smersh

Guest

anthmartian

Guest

signalhill

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

signalhill

Guest

robnissen

Guest

robnissen

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

signalhill

Guest

signalhill

Guest

anthmartian

Guest

signalhill

Guest

robnissen

Guest

signalhill

Guest

qso1

Guest

qso1

Guest

qso1

Guest

marcelo_pantorilla

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page