Suggestion for Hubble

[scottb50]

So we own the Moon or Mars and evryone else is excluded? Come on its the 21st century, if you want to carve the Pondersosa out of Mars fine, but who really cares?<br /><br />I would say the laws of the sea would better apply, land on an asteroid and you can claim it, but I don't remember the Astronauts claiming the Moon for the United States. Aren't there real important reasons to get into Space beside's establishing ownership? I own my house, but if they find oil under it, not likely, Chevron could put me on the street, is that right? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[kdavis007]

Well we should have claimed the moon in the name of the US. Screw the UN.

 

[scottb50]

A very nice 13th century attitude. Are you related to Cortez?<br /><br />Wait, Domini, Domini, Domini, your all Catholics now. Wagons Ho. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[erioladastra]

"How about getting over the Hubble??? "<br /><br />It just doesn't make any sense. ISS is in a lower orbit than HST. ISS has reboost capability, HST does not. So you would have to attach some engine. Observations would not be possible during reboost. Your choice is a dirty fast rocket or a clean slow one. Neither good. The ISS environment, even if not super close, is not clean or good for HST. As discussed, you can't attach or tether HST to ISS. Any time something is jettesoned, dropped or falls off ISS it would be come a ticking bomb for HST. Of course that all assume HST could survice the transfer (ISS ain't going to move!) and that it could still function with an unwieldy lump attached affecting its CG.<br />

 

[kdavis007]

No, to me space exploration is about sending humans to the Moon , to Mars and beyond. Not to take pretty pictures.

 

[kdavis007]

Wrong, sending humans to the Moon and Mars is about space exploration...

 

[najab]

><i>Wrong, sending humans to the Moon and Mars is about space exploration...</i><p>Seeing as it is currently impossible to send humans to other galaxies, telescopes provide the only way to explore them.</p>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Seeing as it is currently impossible to send humans to other galaxies, telescopes provide the only way to explore them.</font>/i><br /><br />You just don't know about some of that Area 51 technology. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /></i>

 

[kdavis007]

Galaxies pics are ok, I prefer to see pics of planets beyond our solar system...

 

[shyningnight]

<Galaxies pics are ok, I prefer to see pics of planets beyond our solar system... <br /><br />And you're going to get those pics without a telescope.. how? <br /><br />I am very marginally in favor of NOT doing another repair/upgrade to the Hubble.. But only becuase I want to see proper spending on a NEW AND IMPROVED space telescope (besides the James Webb).<br />The process should be; "build it, run it, break it, learn why it broke, build a better one. " not "study it for 20 years, build it, let it sit on the ground another 10 years, launch it, realize you screwed it up, fix it, then instead of bringing it to a close after a good life, keep pouring money into it like a '75 pinto with mostly bondo body work".<br /><br />Yes, the Hubble is CONSIDERABLY more useful, and more attractive, than a Pinto...but I really DO think it's time to MOVE ON! Build a NEW Space Telescope with what we've learned. I know that will leave us WITHOUT for years while a new one is built... but poor planning in the past is a poor excuse to piss away so many millions/billions in the present to keep HST going.<br /><br />Paul F.<br /><br />

 

[spacester]

Correct me if I'm wrong, folks, but the JWST will NOT have optical observing cababilities.<br /><br />So if Hubble is out of commision, the pretty pictures stop. The science doesn't stop, but public involvement and support just might come to a grinding halt. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nacnud]

I don't think the pretty pictures will stop but they will have to be in more false colour than now. i.e. spectral information will be in the IR range rather than the Visible range.

 

[yg1968]

Paul,<br /><br />There is no plans for a Hubble replacement. So servicing Hubble is the best option that is available for the years to come.<br /><br />If you ask me, Hubble should be serviced by the Space Shuttle for now. But, in the future, a new Hubble should be built it with a servicing robot probe ready to service it. Eventually, this technology will be necessary.

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"...the pretty pictures stop...."</font><br /><br />The Spitzer Space Telescope is also an IR-only device. It still produces some stunning pictures.

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"There is no plans for a Hubble replacement"</font><br /><br />The Herschel Space Observatory will be launched before a servicing plan for Hubble could even take place (Feb 2007). <br />It has a primary mirror larger than Hubble.

 

[shyningnight]

yg1968;<br /><br />Trouble is, as I see it, continueing to service the HST guarantees that NO new replacement telescope gets even PLANNED, much less built.<br /><br />As long as Congress can say "what do you need a NEW telescope for, the Hubble is still working!", there will BE NO NEWER BETTER SPACE TELESCOPE that fills the same role. <br /><br />Now, I know that the budget doesn't work like this, but I think that ideally, the money and resources put towards servicing the Hubble should be redirected to a more immediate program to build a replacement with those sorts of features like you say... learn from having maintained the Hubble, and build in BETTER features for long term maintenance... (having a full set of spare gyro's on board comes to mind...).<br /><br />I DO hate to see the Hubble come to and end...<br />But it really IS time. Like being faced with a new transmission for a '82 car or walking for a couple months while you save up the down for a new car... walking to work sucks, but it's time for a new car.<br /><br />Paul F.

 

[spacester]

So am I the only one that thinks we need to preserve our ability to observe in the visible spectrum?<br /><br />How can telescopes that do not process visible light be said to be a replacement for HST? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[najab]

In my uninformed opinion, as a visible light instrument HST has been made (almost) obsolete by advances in adaptive optics on ground-based telescopes. The real area where the loss of HST will be felt is in the near-infrared. AFAIK, there aren't any replacement observatories with this capability on the drawing boards.

 

[nacnud]

I don't think ground observations can match the Hubble deep field cameras or its UV capabilities.

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"So am I the only one..."</font><br /><br />No -- there are several others on the board that want to preserve Hubble at all costs. For that matter -- if you eliminate the last three words -- I'm in the pack as well. Unfortunately, the last three words *can't* be eliminated, and I don't feel the costs of preserving Hubble are justified. <br /><br />- Herschel will be launched in < 2 years.<br />- JWST is scheduled for 2011.<br />- As najaB noted, GB observatories are eating into much of the observational areas that Hubble was king of when it was launched.<br /><br />While it's true that GB observatories can't match the deep-field views of Hubble because of the Earth's rotation -- the Herschel *will* be able to.<br /><br />Again -- while it's true that nothing matches Hubble's UV capabilities, I'd much rather the US contributed funds to make the World Space Observatory a reality than to try fixing Hubble. The WSO is UV-specific -- much more capable than Hubble, and would have as its sole purpose UV observations rather than being allocated a timeslice (mainly filled by visible and IR obersvations).<br /><br />In short -- Hubble is not irreplaceable.

 

[kdavis007]

Well here is an idea on preserving the Hubble:<br />1. Form a company to take over the Hubble Operations.<br />2. Charge people to view the pictures of the Hubble Space Telescope.<br />3. Contract out a compnay to service the Hubble.<br /><br />Case solved...

 

[lwblack]

You know, I remember a NASA that was always looking for something new to do. They had a 'can do' attitude about everything they did. Todays NASA is armchair space exploration. Fixing the hubble is not really about money or sacrifice. It's about NASA deciding what they dont want to do. If I had employees like that, they would get the 'you're fired' tomorrow. The entire group. They have been on their larels so long now they are doing the 'pork barrel' spending right along with congress. What happened to the test pilots of old that wanted to go everywhere and do everything and NASA and the US Govt backed them 100 %.<br /><br />

 

[slowsteps]

the problem, as i see it, is messed up governmental budgeting priorities. congress just approved another $80 billion for the "reconstruction" of afghanistan and iraq (i.e. right into the pockets of halliburton). Hubble, and all the other NASA programs must suffer because of our "need" to kill people. they're axing the Voyager project right as I and II are about to leave the heliosphere. Sagan must be turning in his grave.

 

[kdavis007]

I would rather have the money being spent on humans going back to the moon and go to Mars. That is real space exploration.