• We hope all of you have a great holiday season and an incredible New Year. Thanks so much for being part of the Space community!

New Hubble Telescope Proposed

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

chmee

Guest
From http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3217961/<br /><br /><i>Today's congressional hearing on the fate of the Hubble Space Telescope gave scientists an opportunity to promote the idea of sending up a whole new Hubble observatory instead of fixing the old one.<br /><br />The concept, known as the Hubble Origins Probe, or HOP, would take a couple of the instruments already built for the nearly 15-year-old Hubble Space Telescope, then add yet another imager funded by the Japanese. All those goodies would be put on a brand-new, free-flying spacecraft equipped with a lightweight next-generation mirror, then launched into orbit on a Delta or Atlas rocket.<br /><br />Mission cost is estimated at $700 million to $1 billion — as little as half the cost of a shuttle servicing mission to Hubble or a robotic rescue. At today's hearing, one of the leaders of the HOP team said the plan provides a cheaper and less risky option for keeping the Hubble legacy alive.<br /><br />"Though we support any option that will maintain the Hubble mission, the Hubble Origins Probe is the best choice not only for continuing that tradition of discovery, but also for taking it one step further," Johns Hopkins University's Colin Norman told the House Science Committee.<br /><br />The HOP team says it would take a little more than five years to get the telescope ready for launch. By that time, the original Hubble might well have gone dark, though it likely would still be in orbit.<br /><br />The two instruments that had been slated for installation on the Hubble are the Cosmic Origins Spectrograph and the Wide Field Camera 3, which would sharpen the telescope's sight in ultraviolet and visible-light wavelengths, respectively. The Japanese-funded instrument would be the Very Wide-Field Imager, a supercharged sky-mapping camera. The way the HOP team sees it, these instruments would complement the infrared cameras on the James Webb Space Telescope, which N</i>
 
N

najab

Guest
If they wanted to, they could probably get the flight-spare HST mirror. I assume it's been kept in a clean-room facility.
 
N

nacnud

Guest
So? The hardware belongs in space. <br /><br />If there is an opportunity to use it, then use it. However the cost of launching an old heavy mirror compared to a new lightweight one might make it cheaper to make a new mirror.<br /><br />Still I wish NASA would do this rather that a robotic repair mission<br />
 
N

najab

Guest
My objection was that if it's on display in the Smithsonian, it's likely that its surface isn't in pristine condition.
 
N

nacnud

Guest
Could use some windolene:)<br /><br />Yeah you’re right, it probably is borked <br /><br />The technology developed for the Herschel would probably result in a better mirror anyway. I do find it a shame that some much space hardware is built but never gets used for its intended purpose.<br />
 
S

scottb50

Guest
How long and how expensive is a new mirror? The fact remains the structure and systems on Hubble still seem pretty healthy and since it was designed for servicing it could last indefinitely. Maybe if you figure two or three five year missions the cost of servicing Huble is not that great.<br /><br />As I understand it the upgrades waiting to go up would greatly enhance capabilities and would probably last for 7-10 years of productive use. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
N

najab

Guest
><i>The fact remains the structure and systems on Hubble still seem pretty healthy and since it was designed for servicing it could last indefinitely. Maybe if you figure two or three five year missions the cost of servicing Huble is not that great.</i><p>Yes, it could be upgraded a few times more. But is it really cost effective? For the cost of a manned servicing mission you can get a pair of new telescope - which is really the better option?</p>
 
N

najab

Guest
><i> Your first robot mission better work perfectly, since there will be no second chance.</i><p>The same is true for a manned docking mission - mess up capture and they could set it tumbling. Autonomous rendezvous and docking has been done by the Russians for years. I'm reasonably confident that the US can develop the technology.<p>Speaking of which, I'm ashamed to ask this, but did the DART mission fly yet?</p></p>
 
S

scottb50

Guest
It seems that the main body and the mirrors are the most important parts of any telescope. Those arre already in place all you need to do is change out equipment which was designed to change out.<br /><br />If you could replace it that would be great, but just look at the current record of simply trying to get people to Space. Are we on about the fifth of sixth program that NASA has killed? <br /><br />The boxes that could be plugged into Hubble are sitting, somewhere. Build another telescope, or cancel it in a year.<br /><br />The bottom line is no matter what, another Skylab would not go over, especially if the debris lands on Europe or the U.S. Whether it is attaching a deorbit booster or refurbishing the Hubble and keeping it in use something has to be done. The cost of either is comparable. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
B

bobvanx

Guest
Although the inclination is a bear, build and launch the new 'scope so a CEV from ISS can service it.
 
S

SpaceKiwi

Guest
As with most everything space-related, the prime ingredient needed is political will. I agree with the basic premise that building a replacement orbital telescope which compliments James Webb seems very attractive and possibly cost-effective.<br /><br />However, unless you have a cast-iron guarantee that a replacement will happen, it's risky and disappointing science-wise to let Hubble fall into the Pacific. Perhaps the widespread feeling for Hubble would see enough momentum developed in order to guarantee a replacement is built.<br /><br />If you have the will then the funding would be found, I believe, even within the tight constraints of the NASA budget. <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>
 
S

scottb50

Guest
So your saying ditch it? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
V

viper101

Guest
I don't understand the need to de-orbit hubble with some sort of docking module - so many vehicles have been allowed to simply fall from the sky (solar max comes to mind). What makes the need to control this one so much more urgent? <br />
 
N

najab

Guest
<i><p>P.S. Due to the low inclination of it's orbit I see the risk of property or people damage to be very small.</p></i><p>Might I remind you that HST makes a visible pass over my house at least one or two times a day! <img src="/images/icons/shocked.gif" /></p>
 
M

mrmorris

Guest
<font color="yellow">"...HST makes a visible pass over my house..."</font><br /><br />Ah -- but think of the opportunities here. HST falls undirected and hits your house. You'll be fine cause you'll be <b>outside</b> the house looking for signs of its re-entry. You can then immediately turn your house into a Hubble museum and charge big bucks for people to see the wreckage. After all -- think of all the interest in boosting Hubble into a mothball orbit. That's simply in the hope that in a few decades we can (maybe) spend a few hundred million dollars to bring it back to Earth to put in a museum. It won't be any more non-functional after its firey re-entry than it would have been using that plan. As an added bonus -- you get free delivery!! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />
 
S

SpaceKiwi

Guest
Granted I'm in a contrary mood but, if they are determined to de-orbit Hubble, let's save some big bucks and let gravity do its thing. Is the statistically low risk of hitting something really worth spending all that money on a de-orbit module, when it could be put towards building an additional CEV or whatever?<br /><br />Into every life a little risk (or Hubble) must fall. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />And najaB, should Hubble regretably total your house, make sure you have an ambulance-chasing lawyer on speed-dial and wait for the lawsuits to make you a very rich man! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <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>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS