Poll: Servicing Hubble - Is it worthwhile?

[barrykirk]

I know that hubble is just a mechanical device, but we've advanced our knowledge of the universe a lot with it. Not only that, but the images it's returned have become part of our society. Some of those images would be recognized by a large portion of the population.<br /><br />That is a good reason for the sentiment for it.<br /><br />What is the longest period of time that anybody expects the hubble to still be in orbit. And i'm not talking about performing useful science, but just in orbit.<br /><br />50 years?<br /><br />I know that it's an impossibility in the current launch environment, but if the hubble is still in orbit in say 50 years? Will we have the technology to return it to earth and put it in the Smithsonian.<br /><br />I think that we do owe it more than just a burn up on re-entry and thanks for all the science.<br /><br />Right now Hubble is still doing useful science, so we don't want to bring it back just yet. But at some point in the future it's science mission will be over and it would be nice to bring it back.<br /><br />

 

[vt_hokie]

<i>"Will we have the technology to return it to earth and put it in the Smithsonian."</i><br /><br />Not if NASA doesn't have the ambition and vision to embark on a "VentureStar" type of program again, and wastes all of its money on 1960's style capsules.

 

[spacester]

<img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[barrykirk]

Notice that I mentioned a time frame of 50 years....<br /><br />The hope is that 50 years isn't near term. The hope is that in 50 years we will have other launch techniques than rockets.<br /><br />1) Space tethers<br />2) Space Elevators<br />3) Light Launch rockets.<br /><br />Etc.<br /><br />Venturestar is near term technology.

 

[nacnud]

The ablity to return mass to Earth that the STS has is something that I don't think will be repeated for a while. The only alternative on the horizon is ballute technology which could be developed to return the HST, and other large objects, to Earth.

 

[barrykirk]

That ballute technology is interesting. I would like to understand it better.<br /><br />If it works out really well, than it would take the wind out from under the wings of the spaceplane people? Or would it?<br /><br />Maybe somebody would be willing to pay for a Falcon style rocket to deliver a ballute to hubble for it's last mission?

 

[dobbins]

Better than blowing it on another 1940s style space plane that never flys.<br /><br />http://www.friends-partners.org/partners/mwade/graphics/a/a9z23.jpg<br />

 

[dobbins]

The politicians ARE doing what the majority of the people tell them to do. Your desire to dump half of NASA is no more than the viewpoint of a tiny but loud minority.<br /><br />Your assumption that everyone agrees with you is wrong. Your assumption that the funds that are taken away from programs that you dislike will automatically be applied to ones you like is wrong.<br /><br />

 

[vt_hokie]

<i>"Better than blowing it on another 1940s style space plane that never flys."</i><br /><br />That thing looks pretty cool, actually! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <br /><br />Capsules aren't inherently better just because they're easier and cheaper, unless your sole measure of worth is simplicity. If it is, then the simplest and cheapest solution is to stay on the ground and never try to improve technology!

 

[dobbins]

Capsules have the best weight to volume ratio, and the safest mission profile for everything except the final few minutes of a mission spent on landing after reentry. It's foolish to toss those advantages away to keep chasing after a design that has failed to produce a working vehicle over and over.<br /><br />

 

[vt_hokie]

Dyna-Soar would have worked, had it not been cancelled in favor of NASA's flag and footprints missions to the moon. The space shuttle, despite its flaws, works and provides unprecedented capabilities. Buran worked, but the Russians couldn't afford to keep it going after the Soviet Union collapsed. VentureStar could have worked as a two-stage system, although SSTO is probably out of reach for now. NASP could work, in theory, and maybe it will someday. For now, scramjet propulsion could be used on a "mothership" first stage vehicle. CRV would have worked, had NASA not foolishly cancelled it. X-37 will work, I'm sure, if they follow through with the orbital vehicle! And I think Kliper will fly as well!

 

[dobbins]

NASA didn't have a thing to do with Dyna-Soar being cancelled. McNamara did it in.<br /><br />If the money that has been wasted on space planes had been invested in lowering the cost of ELVs we would be in a lot better shape.<br />

 

[radarredux]

Support mission.<br /><br />Besides the science value, there is a strong public relations value. The National Academy of Science came out in favor of a shuttle mission, Congress has repeatedly encouraged a shuttle mission, the general public seems to support the shuttle mission, and I believe I have even read that NASA astronauts support the shuttle mission to the Hubble.<br /><br />Of all the proposed cutbacks to support the transition to the new aspects of the VSE (retirement of the shuttle earlier than originally planned (approx. 2020), reduced configuration of ISS, drastic reduction in science on the ISS, many other cutbacks across NASA), I believe only the proposed Hubble cutback generated outrage from the general media and public.<br /><br />Even if you don't agree that the science is worth the cost, keeping high-profile science organizations, Congress, the media, the tax payer, and the public happy carries some value.

 

[barrykirk]

Correct me if i'm wrong. But the only space planes that actually flew, the space shuttle and the buran are very expensive.<br /><br />Russia couldn't afford buran, so even though it was technically re-usable, it never was re-used.<br /><br />We all know the shuttle is extremely expensive. Everything else is a paper exercise.<br /><br />Now having said that, a lot of stuff that would have worked was cancelled at the paper exercise point. So, that in and of itself isn't a bad indication.<br /><br />And as for the shuttle itself, yes it is overpriced per pound to orbit. So let's examine why that is the case.<br /><br />Here are a few that I can think of.<br /><br />1) Bureaucratic inefficiency at NASA.<br />2) The silly large crossrange requirements imposed by the airforce.<br />3) Their is a tremendous penalty in launch mass for a winged vehicle that can return a large mass to earth.<br /><br />I'm sure there are other reasons, but I just came up with those willy nilly.

 

[barrykirk]

I wrote letters to my congressman asking to have hubble saved.

 

[dobbins]

Even if I didn't like the Hubble I would still support a service mission for one simple reason. If NASA doesn't have a broad base of support it will get even less funds than it gets now.<br /><br />I do wish these space brats would realize that NASA isn't a private play toy that is only supposed to cater to one segment of the space community.<br /><br />

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Correct me if i'm wrong. But the only space planes that actually flew</font>/i><br /><br />Both the X-15 and SpaceShipOne made it into space, if only on sub-orbital flights.<br /><br />You identified several reasons that the shuttle can be considered unsuccessful. Had NASA, the Air Force, or anyone else focused on a spacecraft with a small payload (e.g., primarily a small crew) and smaller cross-range, such a system would probably have been much more successful. Even for early 1970s technology.<br /><br />Since then, we have had 30+ years of technology development. Eventually someone will develop a more reusuable spacecraft with faster turn around times and requiring smaller crews. And then seven years later a space elevator will be completed, and the "space plane" will be retired as obsolete. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /></i>

 

[haywood]

No Mattblack...<br />Lets all just chip in and give him an unlimited pass for all the sci-fi movies he can watch.<br />I guess the "real thing" doesn't push his buttons.<br />But his heart's in the right place.<br />

 

[haywood]

When I want you to speak for me orrery21, I'll ask you.<br />

 

[realist]

No, I do not support Hubble at all. It gives delusions of life on other planets. That is blasphamy as the bible says there is but one god that created the one planet which he breathed life into. Hubble is an instrument of satan that gives hopes of false Gods.

 

[spaceiscool]

ha ha. that is funny.

 

[nacnud]

<font color="yellow">And then seven years later a space elevator will be completed, and the "space plane" will be retired as obsolete. <br /><br /><font color="white">If only! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Unfortunatly that depends on the material scientist to make a cable first. Still why not just save the money on the space planes as their going to go out of date and spend the money on getting cheap rockets <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /></font></font>

 

[mariecurie]

No, he is quite serious.<br /><br />And it's terrible that we have failed somewhere so completely to have created such a one.<br /><br /><font color="black">Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity. <br />Martin Luther King, Jr</font>

 

[kdavis007]

Dude, I believe in god and I think that god created other lifeforms? Do you believe that the Earth is flat???

 

[erioladastra]

"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? "<br /><br />Actually thre are 6 gyros for control. Magnetometers are only used as a backup method for determining position.