Poll: Servicing Hubble - Is it worthwhile?

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

shuttle_rtf

Guest
I keep hearing the occasional voice noting a dislike to NASA planning a HSM (Hubble Servicing Mission) in the 19 remaining flights of the STS program manifest (as it stands at the moment). So, time for a poll.<br /><br />Running the same poll on NSF<br />http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=697&start=1<br />Where this poll is linked back to here, so both sites can view both polls.<br /><br /><span method="POST" action="/dopoll.php"></span>
 
S

spaceiscool

Guest
everyone wants the shuttle scrapped before it murders more people. use the billions and billions of spare money to do something better and research light speed travel. otherwise whats the point, we all know where the iss is, we all know where mars is. nasa is boring.
 
S

shoogerbrugge

Guest
wouldn't it be an idea to spend the money on the HSM be spend on the Webb Teloscope or other more veratile but less expencive teloscopes.
 
S

SpaceKiwi

Guest
Absolutely, yes. Whatever way you cut it, this decision should be a no-brainer for NASA. There is a lot of life and useful science for Hubble yet. <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>
 
T

tap_sa

Guest
Undecided. Don't know enough details. Is Hubble unique compared to future space telescopes? If not then maybe the money could be spent better.<br /><br />How long it has until decision must be made, if there's still lots of years then perhaps a HSM-competition would be in order? If NASA does the job it cost at least, what, half billion? Offer 100,000,000$ prize for it. NASA would save huge heap of money yet the prize would be enough to boost private orbital activity. IMO Bigelow ASP is a bit too low, doing manned flight is not just five times harder than X-Prize suborbital jump.
 
S

spacester

Guest
Hmm... interesting perspective, Tap_Sa. <br /><br />I love the idea of prizes and I agree that Bigelow's ASP $$ may be too low to be effective. But I don't see Hubble as something that can or should be done by anyone but NASA and that means shuttle. Even if such an alternate method could be developed in time which is highly doubtful, it's NASA's hardware and responsibility. An idea definitely worth discussing, but I'm sceptical.<br /><br />The bottom line for Hubble to me is two-fold on related points.<br /><br />First, it's the only space-based visible light instrument we have or will have for a very long time. The Webb instrument will not have visible light instruments. Some people seem to think visible EM is nothing special, just another span of frequencies, but that's just not so IMO.<br /><br />Secondly, it's the HUBBLE fer cryin' out loud. It's the instrument everyone knows and loves and the one that has shown the average citizen the wonders of the universe as never before. To not keep that thing going is simply irresponsible IMO. Yes, perhaps those monies would go elsewhere (not a certainty by any means) but there is no higher purpose for the money than doing cutting edge science the public knows and loves. The sciences are under siege in America and Hubble is needed for the defense of the sciences. <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
M

mattblack

Guest
>>everyone wants the shuttle scrapped before it murders more people. use the billions and billions of spare money to do something better and research light speed travel. otherwise whats the point, we all know where the iss is, we all know where mars is. nasa is boring.<<<br /><br />"Out of the mouths of babes", eh?<br /><br />I'll order you a Millenium Falcon or Federation Runabout at once shall I?<br /><br />GOOD GRIEF!!! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>
 
L

lampblack

Guest
Lightspeed travel?<br /><br />Sheesh... why don't we just research warp drives and teleportation beams while we're at it?<br /><br />We've gotta crawl before we can walk or run. Right now, space programs worldwide are still getting a handle on the crawling thang.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>
 
E

erioladastra

Guest
Even with shifting the money, you couldn't get Webb up anytime soon and you want to have something on-orbit. Plus HST can really provide some unique data collection (e.g., UV or X-ray, 24 hour continuous observations) that make it worthwhile to keep it going. If practicle.
 
V

vt_hokie

Guest
There was talk way back of replacing Hubble's delicate mechanical rate sensing gyros with ring laser or fiber optic gyros. Obviously that's not going to happen, but I wonder if rlg's or fog's would've lasted longer than the mechanical ones that seem to be the Hubble's weakest link (perhaps along with batteries).
 
V

vogon13

Guest
IIRC, the RSGs are not the problem gyros, its the reaction wheels (gyros) used for aiming the entire telescope (it has no station keeping thrusters) that have been 'hinky'.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>
 
S

spaceiscool

Guest
i dont think its hard, look at the things we dont know about! its all secret but we are many years ahead of what the public know.
 
V

vt_hokie

Guest
No, it's rate sensing gyros that are the problem. I actually don't think there are any attitude control "reaction wheels" on Hubble, only magnetics. <br /><br />Then again, it must have at least one wheel, perhaps providing stiffness in the pitch axis?
 
S

strandedonearth

Guest
Chances are, the physics that could lead to FTL travel won't work in a gravity well, and would only be evident once outside the gravity well... the SOLAR gravity well. A long way and a lot of research to go until then...
 
S

spaceiscool

Guest
but not imposible correct? it wasnt long ago they said the sound barrier was imposible to break.
 
S

spacester

Guest
spaceiscool, the point is that FTL is impossible by all known science and furthermore there is no reason to expect that it will suddenly be "discovered" no matter how much money we throw at it.<br /><br />FTL is a fool's errand; we need to develop our space hardware rationally, not just based on what would be cool.<br /><br />To speak of FTL as like the sound barrier is what I call "Analysis by Analogy", which is a completely stupid way to go about rational decision making.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
S

strandedonearth

Guest
Yes, what spacester said. I don't know what the 'showstopper' was for the old engineers who claimed that it was impossible to break the sound barrier, but for light speed (c) the (mathematically proven) showstopper is the infinite energy needed to accelerate to c, and another infinte amount to accelerate past c. <br /><br />Any far-fetched but vaguely mathematically plausible way around the lightspeed barrier requires, say, a black hole, or some other way of warping space-time. It's highly unlikely but conceivable that physicists may discover new phenomena that can only occur in the extremely low gravity fields between stars. So it's all closer to science fiction and wishful thinking than science fact.<br /><br />I was mainly thinking that we'd be more likely to find a way around the lightspeed barrier with research in deep space rather than deep in a gravity well. Possibly requiring interstellar space. If ever at all. <br /><br />*looks at topic*<br />On the other hand, Hubble may be just the tool to spot relativistic or warp effects happening in the cosmos :p<br />
 
S

spaceiscool

Guest
i dont think i like the word impossible. sceince always beats that.
 
D

dobbins

Guest
The first time a man made object broke the sound barrier happened thousands of years ago. The crack of a whip is a small sonic boom caused by accelerating the tip past the sound barrier. Long before Yeager's flight bullets were going faster than sound and shortly before the flight the V2 flew faster than sound. Getting a manned craft to do it was no more than a technology problem, not one that violated any laws of science.<br /><br />The light barrier is totally different, we haven't even gotten to the whip stage and our current understanding of the laws of physics being an impossibility. We are a lot farther from breaking the light barrier than the ancient Romans were from breaking the sound barrier.<br /><br />
 
S

shuttle_rtf

Guest
Seems like good support. I'll round this up before I go. (polls started at the same time, current result also at the same time).<br /><br />SDC:<br /> Yes, I wish for Hubble to be serviced <br /> 23 (76%)<br />No, I do not support a HSM <br /> 6 (20%)<br />Undecided <br /> 1 (03%)<br /><br />NSF:<br />Yes, I wish for Hubble to be serviced 42 Votes - [85.71%]<br /> <br />No, I do not support a HSM 3 Votes - [6.12%]<br /> <br />Undecided 4 Votes - [8.16%]
 
D

dobbins

Guest
The people who really are astronauts have stated they would volunteer to fix Hubble even if it's a high risk mission.<br /><br />
 
D

dobbins

Guest
Congress has stated that the funds will be used for Hubble. If there is no Hubble mission then the funds can't be transfered to something else.<br /><br />I don't know why some people have a problem understanding that NASA is limited to doing what the politicians tell them to do. If Congress gives NASA a billion dollars and orders them to build an atomic powered potato digger with it, then that stupid potato digger is the only thing that NASA can spend that billion dollars on, and it better build the stupid thing if it doesn't want a budget cut or a restructuring mandated by law.<br /><br />
 
Status
Not open for further replies.