Save the HST Petition

[Dave Mitsky]

There's an online petition to save the HST at http://www.savethehubble.org/petition.jsp

Dave Mitsky

[moosemanuk]

personally I think Hubble should be recaptured and brought back to Earth, preserved as a museum object. But I tried to sign the petition, and however much I would like to it won't let me because I don't live in the States (required fields: State, and Zip)

Regards
Moo$e

[Josh]

Yeah. It's a definite Smithsonian piece. What are they thinking??? If we are unable to sign the petition becase we're not USAian then get all your friends who are american (internet, family, friends, whatever) to go and sign it.

[BobbyD]

I can't believe NASA won't bring Hubble back for a respectable conclusion to its mission.It could even be studied as a "long duration"piece of space hardware...exposed to the rigors of exposure to space. I was even thinking how awesome it would be if some private corporation could 'purchase' the Hubble Telescope and continue funding its incredible mission of discovery!!!It deserves so much more than a fiery re-entry!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Bridh Hancock]

Bridh Hancock, another non-U.S.Alien, logs in to plea for the Hubble. "Oh, what that facility has achieved! It must not be junked. Bring it to Earth with love and great care, or leave it up, and perhaps build an extra-terrestrial museum around it, for when we are a space-going people, who will visit, see, and wonder", writes Bridh from Down-Under. 21-01-04.

[zephyr46]

This discussion sounds familiar !

[kashi]

Who cares though? With Adaptive optics we don't need it anyway!

[damienpaul]

Obviously people do care about it, at the very least preserving it as part of our space exploration history. It is familiar zephyr, because there is a similar thread in Story Comments.

[Athena]

Hubble was a big inspiration to me. I'm upset enough about just letting it burn up, but not even servicing it so that it can live out its full life is unacceptable. They can't risk one shuttle mission? That's crazy. I'm sure they can find people more than willing to do what is needed.

[kashi]

You would potentially sacrifice peoples' lives for the sake of preserving a piece of metal?

[Dave Mitsky]

I don't have a problem with NASA deorbiting the HST when it has clearly outlived its usefulness. I believe that if it's serviced Hubble can continue to do meaningful science well past the beginning of the next decade when hopefully the James Webb Space Telescope can take up the mantle.

To ask a crew to risk their lives in the problem plagued space shuttle just to return the HST to a museum is lunacy, IMO.

Dave Mitsky

[Josh]

I wonder how many astronauts would think it's lunacy. I wonder how many of them would jump at the chance to go and get it. I don't think, from the people I've spoken to who come in contact with astronauts everyday, that any of them would have any problems with going and getting a treasure like Hubble.

[kashi]

Servicing a valuable piece of scientific equipment I don't have a problem with. Risking people's lives for America's self-gratification is however another matter entirely. It has taken enough pictures to feel a museum anyway!

[Josh]

Am I american? No. It has nothing to do with America's self gratification. It has to do with preserving a part of history. We learnt so much about the universe from the pictures that "piece of metal" took. It'd be good to be close to that in some way in the future. A piece of glass between me and Hubble at the Smithsonian would be one of 'those' experiences. People of religions go to visit sites of importance because it makes them feel closer to their god (and the rest of the people in their religion). People go to sites like that of the Bali bombing and Twin Towers so they can feel closer to loved ones. Being close to Hubble would be somehow similar (and no i'm not equating Hubble to a god). The same as it would be for people to be at the launch pads of Apollo 1 or Challenger. Granted some people don't get that sentimental about history and things that have affected their lives. But then again, some people do. It's, in my opinion, one of those human things or needs to be close to the things like this that they love. Watching a launch on TV is one thing, but being there is entirely different. It makes it real. So, thinking it's emotional or misplaced sentiment is fine, but casting it off as mere american self indulgence is plain wrong.

[jimmy]

Thank You Josh!
However, is it possible to return it to earth unharmed? It's pretty big, would they have to dismantle it?
Kashi, I hope you're not anti-American.

[moosemanuk]

I suppose to return even some small pieces of the Hubble would be ok if they couldn't bring the whole thing back - it just seems a shame to me that something that has served mankind so faithfully (albeit an inanimate object!) is going to burn up in our atmosphere sometime soon.

Moo$e

[Matthew]

Well its not too bad for Australia, we'll probably get it, after re-entry. Like Sky Lab.

[kashi]

Yay! I don't need to build a telescope now.

In all seriousness though, think about the families of those who died in Columbia/Challenger. How would you like to tell them about your thoughts with regards to potentially sacrificing lives for a museum exhibit (or two museum exhibits if another shuttle was to fail and send more astronauts to their deaths)?

Imagine this:

"this exhibit is dedicated to the crew of shuttle Atlantis who died trying to retrieve a disfunctional piece american history"

Retrieving it would most likely take several dangerous missions. I can't believe that people would even consider it.

[Duane]

Sorry, but I don't see sending a single mission to the Hubble for it's final servicing as all that risky. After all, every flight before Columbia did not have the ability to repair itself on orbit, which means the problem happened once in more than 100 flights.

The fleet is going to be retired anyway. The new intruments and other equipment necessary for the final service are already at or near completion. It seems incredibly short sighted to me, to not do the last mission, extending the life of the observatory by 7 or more years. Once we reach the point of gyroscope or other degradation after one last service, then send the craft into a controlled burn up.

As for bringing it back, sorry can't agree with that either. IMHO, if a mission goes to it, that mission should only be to service it, or the mission should not be done. It is far too heavy and dangerous to try and load into a shuttle bay for return to earth, and it would be a waste of money for a risk not worth taking. Hubble's legacy will be it's archives of many thousands of pictures, not the machine itself.

[Bluewolf027]

Personally I hardly think that sacrificing people to fix a telescope is worth it.

Obviously Duane there is a risk involved in servicing the scope or the shuttle program wouldnt have to be retired. I do not think that fixing a piece of equiptment is worth risking anyones lives especially since as it sits now the Hubble will most likely last until 2007 or 2008 and the launch of the bigger better James Webb telescope is scheduled a mere three years after that for 2011. :lol:

[jce1975]

Originally posted by Dave Mitsky@Jan 22 2004, 08:27 AM
I don't have a problem with NASA deorbiting the HST when it has clearly outlived its usefulness. I believe that if it's serviced Hubble can continue to do meaningful science well past the beginning of the next decade when hopefully the James Webb Space Telescope can take up the mantle.

To ask a crew to risk their lives in the problem plagued space shuttle just to return the HST to a museum is lunacy, IMO.

Dave Mitsky
I don't think the Hubble has outlived its usefulness. First, the servicing includes very nice upgrades to enhance the Hubble's abilities by 10 times over its current levels. Second, we will have no "visual" telescope in space if it is gone! The James Webb is an infrared telescope. Plus, $167 million has already been spent on the servicing parts ... why waste them?

This is a great article to read about this topic:

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/hubb...ure_040121.html (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/hubble_future_040121.html)

Hope this helps!

James

[kashi]

Originally posted by Duane@Jan 24 2004, 05:04 AM
Sorry, but I don't see sending a single mission to the Hubble for it's final servicing as all that risky. After all, every flight before Columbia did not have the ability to repair itself on orbit, which means the problem happened once in more than 100 flights.

The fleet is going to be retired anyway. The new intruments and other equipment necessary for the final service are already at or near completion. It seems incredibly short sighted to me, to not do the last mission, extending the life of the observatory by 7 or more years. Once we reach the point of gyroscope or other degradation after one last service, then send the craft into a controlled burn up.

As for bringing it back, sorry can't agree with that either. IMHO, if a mission goes to it, that mission should only be to service it, or the mission should not be done. It is far too heavy and dangerous to try and load into a shuttle bay for return to earth, and it would be a waste of money for a risk not worth taking. Hubble's legacy will be it's archives of many thousands of pictures, not the machine itself.
I agree with you 100%. Servicing it is okay, but bringing it back to Earth would require several missions with high risk.

[davepet]

Here, here, Josh. Well said.

Hubble IS a part of our history, not JUST American history, but WORLDWIDE history.

I'm not American, nor am I anti America. However, I think that without Hubble scientists wouldn't have learned as much as they have.

Don't forget, that Hubble was launched in the first place because ground based astronomers complained that they couldn't see far enough into space because of there being too much pollution for them to see deep space objects clearly enough.

Withought Hubble, they wouldn't have learned what the Universe was like 13 BILLION years ago.

I say, if it is possible, preserve Hubble at all costs, and bring it home to be put into a museum. Imagine being able to tell your kids one day, 'Remember me telling you about that telescope in space? Well this is it.'

But then again, this is only my humble opinion.

[DippyHippy]

The STScI has been inundated with calls from the public with regard to HST... I've posted a link to the story in Other Stories, but here it is:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...c/hubble_plea_1 (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=624&ncid=624&e=2&u=/ap/20040125/ap_on_sc/hubble_plea_1)

They're going to set up a website so people can post their suggestions about it online. I think it will be terrible to just let the HST die - especially if NASA continues with it's plan to just let it burn up in the atmosphere.

[Dave Mitsky]

Originally posted by jce1975+Jan 23 2004, 09:01 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (jce1975 @ Jan 23 2004, 09:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Dave Mitsky@Jan 22 2004, 08:27 AM
I don't have a problem with NASA deorbiting the HST when it has clearly outlived its usefulness.  I believe that if it's serviced Hubble can continue to do meaningful science well past the beginning of the next decade when hopefully the James Webb Space Telescope can take up the mantle.

To ask a crew to risk their lives in the problem plagued space shuttle just to return the HST to a museum is lunacy, IMO.  

Dave Mitsky
I don't think the Hubble has outlived its usefulness. First, the servicing includes very nice upgrades to enhance the Hubble's abilities by 10 times over its current levels. Second, we will have no "visual" telescope in space if it is gone! The James Webb is an infrared telescope. Plus, $167 million has already been spent on the servicing parts ... why waste them?

This is a great article to read about this topic:

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/hubb...ure_040121.html (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/hubble_future_040121.html)

Hope this helps!

James [/b][/quote]
You completely misread my post. I said, "when it has clearly outlived its usefulness", which implies a future date when any additional servicing missions would be clearly useless. Did you even read my second sentence?

BTW, I am well aware that the JWST is does not operate in the visual wavelengths. Part of the positive PR (i.e., the pretty pictures that please the public) that NASA so desperately craves will be gone when the HST is no more.

Dave Mitsky

[jamerz3294]

Dave; PLease don't take this the wrong way (I always hate reading that as a preface, heheeh), but I also interpreted the comment in the same way as James.
I do agre that servicing the Hubble would be in Astonomy, and the USA's best interest for a variety of reasons. And I really do agre that at some point in time the telescope will be beyond repair, and then we need to make a decision at that time about what to do with it.
A minor point regarding the solution of deorbitting the telescope is that it would only take one mision, and the astronauts would not even need to evacuate the craft in order for the deorbiter engine (and guidence system) to be attached. If NASA decides to bring it back to earth intact, then astronauts likely would have to place it in the bay of the shuttle for transport.

[Spacemad]

I do agre that servicing the Hubble would be in Astonomy, and the USA's best interest for a variety of reasons. And I really do agre that at some point in time the telescope will be beyond repair, and then we need to make a decision at that time about what to do with it.

I would really like to see NASA do the SM4 on Hubble. I've been able to see such fantastic photos that it would be difficult to imagine how they could be improved on by 10 times! :o

Being the only space telescope that takes pictures in the visible band (which we can see of the electromagnectic spectrum) we, the general public, & the astronomers, would be deprived of these wonderful photos if Hubble were to be desorbited in the next few years.

Even so I don´t think more human lives should be put at risk- however many astronauts would be willing to go back & install SM4!

[Dave Mitsky]

Let's get one thing perfectly straight. Irrespective of any possible mission to service the HST, which at this point is not going to happen due to safety concerns and perhaps more to the point the political need to complete the ISS, NASA has absolutely NO intention of bringing the HST back to Earth intact via a shuttle.

Dave Mitsky

[tycho1981]

Why not let ISS repair/upgrade hubble telescope? I don't know this theory is possible but ISS have a advanced robotarm that can walk over ISS. this can grip the hubble telescope as space shuttle do. But do ISS have a exit entrance for spacewalk?

Progress or ATV craft can deliver tools+spacesuits and hardware to ISS.

what do you think of this?

[Spacemad]

Tycho, haven't you read, in other posts, as well as in the Universe Today newsletter, that ISS & HST are in completely different orbits & can´t be brought together? In fact I remember reading only a few days ago that the drag from the upper atmosphere would made Hubble liable to fall to Earth in an uncontrolled way - something nobody wants, least of all those of us that would like to se it continue another decade in space!

[r53lang]

I do so hate to kvetch, but when going to sign petitions it's very frustrating to be locked out of the loop because I am Canadian. Isn't the space effort and the Net all about being a citizen of the world? So why do the must fill fields only have US addresses? There's another 200+ countries in the known world, please don't leave us out.

Unless these petitions are for registered American voters only....

[Polly V]

There's a 1:20 model of HST in the Smithsonian as we speak. It's quite impressive, I can't image what it would emcopass to bring the real one back. The only way the "real" HST will be in the smithsonian, is as bits of pieces of what is left when it finally out lives its usefullness and comes back down to earth as so may pieces of of space technology have done in the past.

Don't miss understand me, I believe there are many educational institutions that can use the HST for years to come, but going to retrieve the HST and bring it back just isn't going to happen.

[Dave Mitsky]

Originally posted by r53lang@Jan 30 2004, 05:06 AM

Unless these petitions are for registered American voters only....
Seeing as how it was American taxpayers that footed the bill for the HST I suppose that's an accurate assumption.

Dave Mitsky

[jamerz3294]

I just spent the day Kennedy Space Center, and the feeling there, is that a service flight to the telescope is possible.

[imported_James]

I deplore waste and trashing Hubbell by burning it up in the earth's atmosphere should be considered criminal. Park unused satellites (including Hubbell) in the Lagrange orbit, put it in orbit of the moon, or even crash it on the moon so it can be recovered as material for space industry. This could be the start of a salvageable stockpile of refined metal that could jump start the whole idea of industries in space. Another thought: Hubbell could be taking close-up shots of the moon as it spirals in for a crash landing on the moon. Perhaps some of those pictures could be of the junk left on the moon (to prove once and for all that the moon landings were really on the moon).

May the future be kind to you
Boycott SPAM

---===---

[John L]

The Hubble was not designed to last forever. It was designed to give us the best pictures we could get with the technology of the time, but not to last forever. There are new telescopes going up all of the time and we have several planned to replace different aspects of the Hubbles job, and go beyond it. You'll look at the images from the several telescopes going up in the next ten years and realize that we've gained by advancing rather than simply trying to hold on to something that was past its time.

And the last thing we want, James, is to clutter up space with tons of satellites in orbits that may one day be useful, especially the Lagrange points. We want to put solar observatories at the one between the Earth and the Sun, a space station at the one between the Earth and the Moon, and various astronomical observatories at the one byond the Moon, and the two that precede and follow the Earth's orbit. I think we should be cleaning up space so that it will always be usable, not cluttering with more useless garbage.

[Spacemad]

Originally posted by John L@May 25 2004, 02:58 PM
The Hubble was not designed to last forever. It was designed to give us the best pictures we could get with the technology of the time, but not to last forever. There are new telescopes going up all of the time and we have several planned to replace different aspects of the Hubble's job, and go beyond it. You'll look at the images from the several telescopes going up in the next ten years and realise that we've gained by advancing rather than simply trying to hold on to something that was past its time.

And the last thing we want, James, is to clutter up space with tons of satellites in orbits that may one day be useful, especially the Lagrange points.
:) Hubble was of course designed for a decade or so of science but it was also built in such a way that future servicing would be possible, indeed it has been upgraded successfully on several missions, & the next servicing mission was well into its schedule when the unfortunate accident of Columbia took place.

I would like to see Hubble upgraded to last another decade but at the same time I don´t want to see more human lives lost in the process.

The new telescopes planned for the future will not be taking images in the visible wavelengths - all the different wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum need to be used to give us complete info on the universe. The Spizler is giving us tremendous information on star-birth & what lies beyond the clouds of dust that Hubble can´t penetrate. Which proves my point that all wavelengths should be explored. :)

[John L]

The James Webb Space Telescope (formerly the Next Generation Space Telescope) is a visible to infrared telescope with a 6 to 7 meter primary mirror. This will be able to do the visible light work that the Hubble does now, but with a mirror of twice the diameter. You can see detailed information on it at this site (http://ngst.gsfc.nasa.gov/) and this site (http://www.esa.int/export/esaSC/120370_index_0_m.html).

[Spacemad]

:) It would seem that at last things are beginning to move at NASA & O´Keefe is taking the idea of a robotic mission to fix Hubble much more seriously than before! I´ve just read about it on Space.com´s website.

[Deep_Eye]

Make your way to the topic called 'NASA to research robotic missions to save Hubble' in the Other Stories Forum for some good news.

[zephyr46]

or, alternativly, Spacedaily : NASA Administrator Calls For Robots To Save Hubble Space Telescope (http://www.spacedaily.com/news/hubble-04h.html) :)