Hubble 2

[Cougar*BkS*]

First of all, anyone know when it is going to be lauched, becaused I have looked at many sites, and they all seem to have conflicting reports on when the approx date is. Also, I would like to hear some people's opinion and it...I mean why bring down Hubble 1 to make way for Hubble 2...Doesn't it make sense to have both up there incase one of them malfunctions?? I realize there is a money issue but from what i hear, it really doesnt cost that much to keep the Hubble telescope up and running. Anyway, thought I'd drop a line on the coolest universe web-site I've found (besides NASA :P )

[Dave Mitsky]

The James Webb Space Telescope is scheduled to be launched in 2012. It is a 6.5 meter infrared telescope so the public will have to forego the pretty optical images they've come to expect from the HST.

Whether the safety issues regarding servicing the HST a final time are real concerns is up for you to decide.

Dave Mitsky

[setiman]

For Hubble (HST) fans and supporters. Please do not give up, yet. All kinds of special efforts are being made to keep the HST alive and well. To get an idea of what they are considering and trying visit the following link.

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/future/

I am in almost daily email contact with Steven Beckwith the Director of the Space Telescope Science Institute (Hubble's Research Resource) and I know they have not given up yet.

The New York Times has also come out strongly in favor of keeping Hubble up and running.

By the way, as most of you know. Hubble's pretty pictures are just the icing on the cake. Its the science that makes the real dessert.

Cheers

:D setiman

[Fraser]

Does Steven feel there's anything we can do to help save Hubble? Losing the telescope would be a scientific disaster.

[antoniseb]

Losing the telescope would be a scientific disaster


As far as the final Hubble upgrade is concerned, I believe that it must be privately funded, since there are no currently planned scientific missions that I would want to give up for the sake of extending Hubble. Politically, things are framed so that we have an either/or situation with the public money.

Does anyone have the ear of someone with $600M that can be spared for this project?

[Duane]

Whether the safety issues regarding servicing the HST a final time are real concerns is up for you to decide.


I appreciate what you are saying Dave, but I think the issue is whether or not the safety issues are dire enough to prevent a servicing mission. If the mission was only to recover the Hubble, I would say it's not worth it. If it was a mission to refurbish it with the instruments that are already (almost) finished, then in my always humble opinion, it would be worth it.

As far as the final Hubble upgrade is concerned, I believe that it must be privately funded

This is problematic for a number of reasons.
While I would love to see the mission funded privately, the issue is still that it would have to be done by the shuttle, and I can't see NASA agreeing to send the shuttle on a private mission because of the safety concerns. O'Keefe has already said the issue is not one of funding.

I fervently hope that they decide to do one last servicing mission. Perhaps it could be set up as a volunteer mission for the astronauts. If they can find a crew to volunteer to go despite the risk, then let them try. And I am pretty sure that there would be a lineup for the chance!

Keep telling NASA and the US government that we the people(well you the people, as I'm, not an American) want this done. With enough support, maybe they will try.

[Stargazer]

Originally posted by antoniseb@Mar 6 2004, 02:48 AM
... I believe that it must be privately funded...
Hehehe... Could you imagine the HST being privately funded by McDonalds? :unsure:

Every image then generated by the HST would have the big M logo appearing in the bottom corner and of course there would be future naming rights of new discoveries - <_<
the Big Mac galaxy
the McNuggets nebular
the Quarter-Pounder-W/Cheese super-nova.
:rolleyes:

[damienpaul]

The extrasolar moon named McChicken orbiting an extrasolar gas giant named Big Mac!

from the Aussie Burger with no class

[Tom2Mars]

The private and NASA estimates for a manned Mars mission range from a low of perhaps $30 Billion to a high of $300 Billion.

The plans I've been working on could save from 70% to 90% of future Mars mission costs.

Even if my approach is only correct by a few percent, I could still save NASA more Mars money than a Hubble upgrade would cost.

If anyone can set up the meeting, I would be glad to show NASA how they can have their cake with icing, and maybe some ice cream on the side.

I am not kidding.

[damienpaul]

or a McSundae on the side, sounds delicious Tom, but what are you talking about?

[Duane]

Yes I agree, Tom what are you talking about?

[antoniseb]

Originally posted by Tom2Mars@Mar 6 2004, 03:41 AM
The plans I've been working on could save from 70% to 90% of future Mars mission costs.

I am not kidding.
Hi Tom2Mars,

Do you have a URL to your plan?

BTW, Concerning private funding, I sort of had some of the MicroSoft billionaires in mind. The we'd end up with extrasolar planets named things like MS-Longhorn-2006. No better than your moons named Mayor BigCheese
, but funded none-the-less.

Concerning whether it is a matter of funding, I guarentee that if it were approved, funding WOULD be cut from something else, like the Pluto-Kuiper express for example.

[Tom2Mars]

A brief response now, I have some things to do for about 4 hours:

All the money spent on space is spent here on Earth. You have a bunch of space engineers living and working in conventional houses and offices(wasting energy and water). They run back and forth to work in cars that consume vast quantities of fuel...basically living and working in conditions which have nothing whatsoever to do with the eventually desired space habitat or Mars base they are working on.

To be brief, I ran the numbers and it looks like 90% of the money which goes into the salaries of the space engineers(or anyone else for that matter) is pretty much waste and inefficiency.

If the design and assembly of space projects were to be conducted in well-designed, efficient communities, you could build and operate those project sites for about 10% of conventional costs.

If the design experience is shared with private builders, tens of thousands of homes & offices could be built before space habitats are constructed, and the resulting economies of scale will reduce the the complexity and costs of space development even further.

As an Apollo once pointed out at a conference, "the Saturn on the pad is nothing more than a bunch of metal and parts, made by people." Even the hydrogen and oxygen is really nothing more than water. It is our interractions and needs which dictate what gets done and for how much. There is a lot we can do to reduce the complexity and costs of those interractions.

[Spacemad]

If it was a mission to refurbish it with the instruments that are already (almost) finished, then in my always humble opinion, it would be worth it. Duane Posted on Mar 5 2004, 04:55 PM

I was pleased to read that a motion has been introduced into the House requesting a major investigation into the the cancellation of the next Shuttle mission to HST by O'Keefe. Although he is adamant that no future mission go to service the HST perhaps Congress, after studying the results of the investigation, will overturn his decision & decide that the mission should go ahead so that HST will continue to do science & give us nice pictures to boot! :P

[Tom2Mars]

Spacemad, that is somewhat comforting news.

antoniseb, Sorry, no URL with everything on it at this point.

If you knew any Microsoft billionaires personally, that would certainly be convenient. Fortunately, my plan doesn't require billionaires, nor would it require millionaires, nor would it require government or international funding.

However, if Nasa was interested in trying out a different strategy, something which could drastically reduce costs through savings, maybe we could see an end to that nasty little word- "or". Mars "or" Kupier. Robots "or" humans. The main point about doing something for 10 times less money, is that you can then do 10 times as much with the same money.

If each year, there are always a handful of missions which can't be done, then you only have to crank up the efficiency a little bit to save enough money to cover those few extra missions.

Someone here(how do you search for words?-help me) posted one of my favorite stories about Nasa spending millions on the space pen, while the Russians, who didn't have the money, used a pencil.

That one is a classic. Much can be done.

[setiman]

;) There are two key elements, other than honest science, influencing our space exploration policies. These are: politics and big business. Announcing a very ambitious manned space exploration mission gives hope to a lot of people living in key aerospace industry regions (CA, TX, to name two). People vote, right?

It has been awhile since the aerospace industry has had anything like what is being proposed. We are talking lots of business spread over most of the U.S. (vendors to the industry are all over).

I am not knocking this, except that looking at NASA's proposed FY05 budget and their complete reorgination (both of these are on the web) seem a bit lopsided and out of balance with broad space exploration (manned and unmanned) goals.

I am for manned exploration, with a purpose. I am not sure about sending a man to kick Martian dirt around and verify what Spirit and Observer have already told us, to wit: 'yep, there WAS water on Mars at one time." Besides our ancestors fled Mars, why would we want to go back? :lol: :lol:

setiman

[Tom2Mars]

setiman, Cynical but accurate!

Show me the money! Where's the beef?

Yeah, the budget doesn't correlate does it? Think I'll go put on The Who, 'Won't Get Fooled Again"


Oh, and by the way, I found it. Chook beat me to the posting of the Russian pencil story in "What's your plan" forum topic.
(This is classic - "America spent millions on developing a pen to use in space while the Russians successfully used a pencil."

Just shows the benefits of KISS .)[QUOTE]

[Dave Mitsky]

Originally posted by Duane@Mar 5 2004, 04:55 PM
Whether the safety issues regarding servicing the HST a final time are real concerns is up for you to decide.


I appreciate what you are saying Dave, but I think the issue is whether or not the safety issues are dire enough to prevent a servicing mission. If the mission was only to recover the Hubble, I would say it's not worth it. If it was a mission to refurbish it with the instruments that are already (almost) finished, then in my always humble opinion, it would be worth it.

As far as the final Hubble upgrade is concerned, I believe that it must be privately funded

This is problematic for a number of reasons.
While I would love to see the mission funded privately, the issue is still that it would have to be done by the shuttle, and I can't see NASA agreeing to send the shuttle on a private mission because of the safety concerns. O'Keefe has already said the issue is not one of funding.

I fervently hope that they decide to do one last servicing mission. Perhaps it could be set up as a volunteer mission for the astronauts. If they can find a crew to volunteer to go despite the risk, then let them try. And I am pretty sure that there would be a lineup for the chance!

Keep telling NASA and the US government that we the people(well you the people, as I'm, not an American) want this done. With enough support, maybe they will try.
Duane,

The Columbia was the only shuttle capable of returning the HST to Earth so that issue is moot.

My point, which I suppose I should have spelled out, is that the current administration's real concerns, IMO, are about finishing the ISS orbital money-pit. Non-military scientific research has a low priority at the Bush White House.

Dave Mitsky

[Dave Mitsky]

Originally posted by setiman@Mar 5 2004, 01:21 PM


By the way, as most of you know. Hubble's pretty pictures are just the icing on the cake. Its the science that makes the real dessert.

Cheers

:D setiman
No argument there from my point of view. However, in Joe Q. Public's mind the science is most likely a far second to the ghee-whiz aesthetics of some HST images.

Dave Mitsky

[Duane]

I didn't know that about Columbia Dave, thank you :)

And yes, I agree with you, the "moneypit" is the real objective of the current NASA management.

[Duane]

Interesting newsflash on CNN this morning. The report showed the most recent deep-space image aquired by Hubble with an explanation that it is the deepest view yet obtained.

The story then went on to say that this could be the last such picture obtained given NASA's decision not to send a final refurbishing mission to the Hubble.

Seems to me that the STSI is taking their case directly to the American public :lol:
Good for them I say! :D

[tanichols]

I just read Dave Mitsky's comment about a Moot Point and that Columbia was the only Shuttle that could return Hubble to Earth.

I don't think that's the case. Remember, Hubble was launched by Discovery

AND Columbia, I believe, has a tighter cargo bay than the other shuttles and is a lot heavier than the other shuttles. That's why it didn't do any ISS missions because of weight issues. However Columbia WAS slated to do an ISS mission in 2005 that exchanged crews and only carried a light logistics resupply module into orbit and back home. Columbia couldn't do the big assembly missions like taking the big modules into orbit because of weight issues.

And both Discovery and Endeavour all did HST Servicing Missions. So why couldn't they bring HST back?

Is there some piece of Info I don't have that shows that Discovery, Endeavour, or Atlantis couldn't bring HST back?

Regards,
Ted A. Nichols II

[setiman]

:huh: Re: CNN and Hubble pictures. Unless something has happened in the last 36 hours, the Hubble Team will continue to do extensive research up to the last gasp. At the same time, they are reviewing all sorts of ways to keep Hubble up and running with or without a shuttle service mission.

My source: Steven Beckwith - Director, Space Telescope Science Intstitute.

Losing Hubble is important because it looks at the Universe a different way. By camera with its Deep Space camera, and also with Ultra-Violet light sensing. The James Webb Space Telescope will not produce pretty pictures. It will look at the Universe within the Infra-red spectrum. It will not launch until 2011 anyway.

Regardless, taking the Hubble issue to the public is the right move. If you want to help, write or call the House Science Committee and voice you opinion. If you want more read info on the entire decision process go to AURA.org and read all the stuff there including O'Keefe's abrupt notice of the cancellation.

Don't give up on Hubble, and let them know it. Keep in mind a lot of scientists that use Hubble are from around the world. Their institutions and governments help pay to keep Hubble in operation.

Cheers

:) setiman

[Dave Mitsky]

Originally posted by tanichols@Mar 10 2004, 09:02 AM
I just read Dave Mitsky's comment about a Moot Point and that Columbia was the only Shuttle that could return Hubble to Earth.

I don't think that's the case. Remember, Hubble was launched by Discovery

AND Columbia, I believe, has a tighter cargo bay than the other shuttles and is a lot heavier than the other shuttles. That's why it didn't do any ISS missions because of weight issues. However Columbia WAS slated to do an ISS mission in 2005 that exchanged crews and only carried a light logistics resupply module into orbit and back home. Columbia couldn't do the big assembly missions like taking the big modules into orbit because of weight issues.

And both Discovery and Endeavour all did HST Servicing Missions. So why couldn't they bring HST back?

Is there some piece of Info I don't have that shows that Discovery, Endeavour, or Atlantis couldn't bring HST back?

Regards,
Ted A. Nichols II
Ted,

I'd seen that bit of information, which was apparently false, somewhere on the Internet. It just goes to show that you shouldn't believe everything you hear in cyberspace.

Didn't the Columbia take part in the 3B servicing mission?

http://www.hubblesite.org/sci.d.tech/team_...mission3b.shtml (http://www.hubblesite.org/sci.d.tech/team_hubble/servicing_missions/mission3b.shtml)

http://snegazers.brainiac.com/snegazers/ar...3/msg00001.html (http://snegazers.brainiac.com/snegazers/archive/0203/msg00001.html)

Dave Mitsky

[tanichols]

Dave,

I'm having trouble understanding whether you're saying the piece of information I provided is false or the piece you presented?

I'm definitely interested in trying to figure this out... Any further clarification would be appreciated.

Here are some pages that discuss the weight limitations of Shuttle Columbia:
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/sts10...ate_020125.html (http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/sts109_update_020125.html)
http://www.floridatoday.com/news/space/sto...802columbia.htm (http://www.floridatoday.com/news/space/stories/2002b/121802columbia.htm)

And yes to answer your question, Columbia did service HST on the mission before the ill-fated STS-107. Hubble was put in an upright position on a "servicing" table to be worked on.

But the whole HST assembly did fit in Discovery in a laid down position for the launch of HST and HST didn't get any "bigger" since it got up there, so I don't see why another one couldn't bring it back. I think they'd all be qualified to do so?


Regards,
Ted A. Nichols II

[setiman]

Originally posted by fraser@Mar 5 2004, 03:38 PM
Does Steven feel there's anything we can do to help save Hubble? Losing the telescope would be a scientific disaster.
[QUOTE]

Fraser, from a technical standpoint they are scrambling to come up with a number of alternatives, and they have seriously looked at a joint shuttle mission to the ISS and then to the HST. The necessary proximity for this occurs only every two years and I am not certain where we stand on the next orbital proximity. I think it may be too long of a delay.

John Glenn has raised all sorts of noise and Congress is up in the air about the entire program, but at this point mostly noise and no solutions.

Would you believe that the only person who can tell Sean O'Keefe to change his mind is the President. This is an election year and I think heat from the public could force that to happen.

I would be happy to call the NYTimes and ask how much a full page add would cost for people to in essence do a petition to the President. I bet we could get enough signers at $5. a pop to buy the ad. What do you say? I will also ask Beckwith what he thinks. If you want send me email to speed up organizes this, then we could put it out here for everyone to consider. wfrobey@lifenet21.org

[Duane]

If it would help, I would be willing to try to organize something here in Canada. Don't know if that would be a help or a hindrance though...... :(

[setiman]

:D Canada would, of course, be welcome. I have emailed Steven Beckwith, but I have not heard back yet. I have also emailed the NYTimes for details. I will do an update when I get some replies and details. I am also waiting to hear back from Fraser since this venue could be a significant contact point.

The real decision will rest with Beckwith and the Hubble Team. If what we want to do interferes or imperils their efforts, we will need to respect their wishes. Keep in mind Europe is a big player in the HST research effort so there are those interests as well as Canada and the UK.

The bottom line, one phone call from the White House to Sean O'Keefe would mostly likely do it. Now getting that phone call to happen is the challenge.

Thanks for the offer to help. I will keep you posted.

:)

[Dave Mitsky]

Originally posted by tanichols@Mar 12 2004, 07:53 AM
Dave,

I'm having trouble understanding whether you're saying the piece of information I provided is false or the piece you presented?


I was referring to what I said to Duane.

Dave Mitsky

[dshan]

Originally posted by fraser@Mar 5 2004, 03:38 PM
Does Steven feel there's anything we can do to help save Hubble? Losing the telescope would be a scientific disaster.
It would only be a scientific disaster if we don't have a plan to replace it. As I've said in a couple of other threads here it's a waste of money, time and effort to try to save Hubble. It would be much cheaper, and open up better scientific opportunities, to launch one, two or even more "Hubble mark 2's" than to try to extend the life of the current one. Heaven would be having the JWST AND a couple of modern new Hubble's to cover the IR, visible light and UV parts of the spectrum.

Here's an article by an expert who seems to agree:

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/hubble-04e.html

[setiman]

There is no plan to replace it, and even though you and the Dr X or the referenced article make some good suggestions, they are not in any plan. That notwithstanding, the current HST fills a very essential role and should be sustained as long as possible. Possible = some plan to have a Hubble 2. Keep in mind the JWST is NOT a Hubble 2. It is intended to fill an entirely different research role.

The other problem is what I call hipshot budgeting, that is everybody has a dollar figure in mind, but none are derived from the realities of initiating any new program. For example, at the moment the entire SEI is no more than vaporware and will remain so until there is money in the pot.

More and more the SEI is suspected of being a campaign politics ploy. Now that is most unfortunate, because it is pulling the wool over the eyes of some very creative and brilliant engineers and scientists.

Bottom line, for the sake of keeping touch with whats out there and in the absence of any replacement candidate, It Is Time To Make Sure The HST keeps flying.

Cheers and thanks for the input.

[zephyr46]

Dshan I just saw that article, Hilarious!

Wouldn't it make sense to have a crew on the space station that could shuttle out to the Hubble and back again when they are finished, and maybe assemble other components of the station and other satelites. Some sort of a space vehicle that doesn't come back to earth? Isn't the lunar module still up there somewhere? and the LEM if NASA can't afford to put a new one up there?

[Tom2Mars]

More and more the SEI is suspected of being a campaign politics ploy. Now that is most unfortunate, because it is pulling the wool over the eyes of some very creative and brilliant engineers and scientists.


Smart people can only be misled because they are passionate about their work and they are desperate to do it.

Just another sign that it is time to fill the void, and provide real opportunities as an alternative to empty promises. I'm working on that as fast as I can!

[setiman]

Zephy46, what you mention was actually proposed and considered. This included moving the HST to a synchronous orbit with the ISS so that it could be regularly serviced. As a plan, it is still on the books, but to many loose ends to bring off, I suspect.

[Spacemad]

Originally posted by setiman@May 7 2004, 11:56 AM
This included moving the HST to a synchronous orbit with the ISS so that it could be regularly serviced.

:unsure: I understand that to put Hubble in a synchronous orbit to the space station would produce unacceptable drag on the space telescope. Even if it were possible, & acceptable to the scientific community, we would still be left with the means of getting it there!! Which, I believe, in essence are the same as getting it back to Earth or into a higher "parking" orbit namely some expedition by a shuttle or a robotic mission to attach a booster to disorbit it or send it into a higher orbit. Either of which could, in theory, service it & thereby extend its useful life.

[setiman]

Yes, that is the logic used in the arguments against even trying to move the HST. At the moment robotics is a touted solution; however, it exposes a vital scientific instrument to untried, experimental technology.

I am all for robotics, but they need to be tested in a less critical environment first.

Assuming everything went according to how money flows and Congress acts, it will be a long while before any other space telescope covers the immense area covered by Hubble. We need to keep it in place as long as possible.

Please note the JWST, although a promised "addition" to the space telescope family, is NOT a replacement for the Hubble. It will be looking elsewhere and using different technology. JWST is still essentially on the drawing board so its ultimate launch and operation is somewhere over the horizon regardless of NASA's paper schedules.

Hey, teach me to walk in space. I will risk my life happily to keep Hubble on station. Considering that very experienced, very dedicated astronauts are telling NASA the same thing most likely will save me from having to show up for the launch.

Cheers

[ASEI]

There are the new x-ray telescope and infrared telescope that are launching soon. Just because they don't have the visual spectrum scanning abilities doesn't mean that they will be any less useful to astronomers than Hubble. (In fact, they will probably be more so). As for Hubble, I think it's time to launch new generations of things into orbit, rather than clinging to the old. There will be a period of downtime, but if NASA can't build anything new, they won't do anything for space in the long run.