Hi guys,
there are some reasons I rarely see when it comes to saving Hubble but I believe are worthwile to consider

#1 IT'S THERE! It's up there and working. All arguments telling that a new scope will be available soon omitt the fact that a new one has to launched and readied for operation. This (still) is a risky business as the Delta-4 showed last month.
#2 spectral window. The new telescope and the others work in a different frequency band so scrubbing Hubble equals loosing information in certain bands.
#3 Who ever came up with the 1 Billion figure? We shouldn't take this sum at face value. The replacement equipment is already built and a shuttle launch usually is in the 250-400 Mio regime. So, where did the remaining half a billion come from?

Knoto

Apparently NASA is using different accounting methods to price ISS missions vs the Hubble repair mission. That's mentioned in this article: http://www.space.com/adastra/adastra_hubble_050128.html

The marginal costs to launch one additional shuttle mission is about $100-$200 million -- external tank, fuel, boosters, launch prep, etc.

However the shuttle program as a whole costs about $4 billion per year -- ground facilities, personnel, support, maintenance, etc. Those are ongoing costs whether the shuttle flies or not.

NASA can launch about four shuttle missions per year. They plan on retiring the shuttle upon ISS completion. A Hubble repair mission would delay shuttle retirement by 3 months. If you add all the shuttle program costs for that 3 month period, that's over $1 billion.

Not saying that's exactly NASA's reasoning, but it's something like that.

The Hubble article is up at the Boston Globe. My quote is on the second page. I don't remember saying that this would be a "beautiful fight" so I wonder if the reporter misheard something I said. I can't remember. Oh well.

So if Hubble is not repaired within the next couple of years what will happen to astronomical research until the next space telescope launches in 2011? It would be a shame to have tons of research that relied on the Hubble to be held up for 4-6 years because of this. IIRC there is a lot of research out there now that can't be done with ground-based scopes.

__________________
Now while I might be amused by Cthulhians, I don't necessarily distrust them to carry out the functions of government. -- JayUtah

What's it like being a skeptic in the Middle East? Check out my blog.

Keep in mind amid the doom and gloom that other space telescopes are cruising about - Chandra, Spitzer, GALEX, Integral, Swift, Rossi XTE, WMAP, and (although slowly recovering from another gyro event) FUSE. (I probably forget more in the high-energy realm). The concern is that whole swaths of science are best served with the particular combinations of wavelength range and spectral resolution which Hubble can do and nothing else at this point (including ground-based AO). We don't always need a particular figure of merit for a science goal - there may, as the Python says, be more than one way to do it, so you could get the same science results with 0.1" UV imaging or 0.025" near-IR AO imaging. The hue and cry comes (first, to my mind) from the fact that NASA HQ held so long to the ideal of a 20-year HST mission, and second, from the capabilities of HST that will not be replaced by anything now in the pipeline. The huggers would loosen their grip if there were a hint that some of the money would be directed to one of a number of proposed telescopes that would extend just these capabilities (Hubble Origins Probe, World Space Observatory, Bill's Personal Telescope for Spacesuited Visual Observation...). Such things have happened before, as in the retirement of the Kuper Airborne Observatory to free up funds to start work on the Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy (SOFIA, now somewhere between first light and first flight.

Well put, BA! =D> =D> =D> =D>

__________________
Any day you wake up on "the right side of the dirt" is a good day.

T. Anderson

I feel so affirmed! One of the little thumbnail pictures in that montage is actually one of mine. No, no, you silly people, they didn't include NGC 3314, it's something different.

For those wanting a hint, (9,3)

The article does have a slightly odd collection of the quoted, some of whom ought to either know better or explain themselves better. And that includes a former head of the STScI public-information branch.

I agree, nice simile, BA.

BA...
"Beautiful fight" did seem a bit odd. "Dog fight" maybe, in light of your simile. :wink:

Hmmm....
See if you like this “dog fight” left hook...

Why don't we help the Kremlin in an offer to save the Hubble? Upon it's eventual return by them, they would keep it on display in Moscow. I would think much would be in English for those from the US and Europe who would want to view it (for a nominal exhibit fee).

Maybe they could do tours to the U.S. periodically. Certainly the Smithsonian would accommodate it in Washington. This would allow easy viewing for the White House staff and scientific advisors. Even the "Drum" in Austin will be able to host the Hubble, as well as, Sputnik models and other displays of Soviet/Russian space accomplishments.

I would be willing to bet they can find a lower-cost way to bring it safely to a lower serviceable orbit. Their final superior method to return it economically would also be a nice addition to their exhibit.

Here is a.... Save the Hubble site . [I wish I had more time to study this.]

[I am not around here much due to the loss of my niece (Andrea Gent) in an auto accident near Austin. She was 19 and returning to A&M after visiting her UT friends. It can happend to any of us. She was 4.0 last semester. Be careful driving folks.]

__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board!

Hen 1357? 1993. Is it really gold in color? :P

__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board!

Sorry, try again! That would be really nearby for my tastes...

Astronomers urge replacement for Hubble, not repair

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

Hmmmm....however, it did look a little dusty.

Would another hint be (10,3)? Probably not, the "Pillars of Creation" certainly would not be referenced at zero. :P

__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board!

I think that the inability and unwillingness to service Hubble is a sad admission that our capabilities in space are very, very limited.

Manned presence in space is not just for exploration: it is for daily life. And that means things like "work". If work cannot be done there, then there is little usefulness in Human presence there, since that presence will not be very competent, and too vulnerable (the skill sets practiced will be too limited for a human to be fully human, which would be a terrible waste, and loss).

It leaves a bad taste in the mouth... .

But NASA and Congress are to blame in betting the farm on the so-called "Shuttle" for too long, and at so high a financial cost.

So, if NASA -- and all of us -- must now lose Hubble as a result of (all) that, well, it's too late for lamentation to change the outcome. But not too soon to set a new national direction in space.

Still, what a waste of fine optics.

__________________
--Joe

That is an excellent point. The recent announcement had wording to the effect: with everything on NASA's plate including getting the shuttle flying again, it's too much to repair Hubble.
Huh? We've gone from moon missions (several of which were in concurrent processing) to being unable to launch a single repair mission?

The former "too unsafe" argument for cancelling the Hubble mission is inconsistent with NASA's current plans to fly the shuttle without completing all the CAIB recommendations, including inability to repair the exact same damage that doomed Columbia. http://www.spacetoday.net/Summary/2770

That strongly implies safety was never a factor in cancellation of the Hubble mission, even initially.

OTOH as was posted above, many astronomers think the Hubble Origins Probe is better than fixing HST. http://www.astronomy.com/default.aspx?c=a&id=2862

Please don't even THINK of comparing the "Do it or else" Apollo program with NASA of today. This isn't new: I was talking about the same thing after Challenger. Realistically, NASA isn't going to come out of its funk on its own. With luck, we will finally get some private space development, and NASA could eventually piggyback off of that.

You aren't thinking politically. First, flights to the ISS provide the astronauts a safe haven if tile damage is found. Not so for a flight to Hubble. Second, ISS is a much higher priority. Third, regardless of how unlikely it may be, if a shuttle WAS lost attempting to service the aging Hubble telescope, it would be political suicide. NASA can't possibly take that chance.

And even the safe haven use of the ISS is an issue.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

With anyone who has viewed the incredible detail in a high resolution Hubble photograph, the issue of saving the Hubble Telescope or letting it crash in flames is not just an intellectual issue, but it is an emotional one as well. Hubble is expensive, and we do not live in a world of infinite resources. We must decide with our heads, at least as much as our hearts, what we should do with the funds that would be required to salvage Hubble.

We need to know how much the operation would cost, and what the chance of success would be. We need to know how long Hubble will last if we do not finance a mission to maintain it. We need to know the size of the gap that Hubble will leave between going blind and the time a suitable replacement picks up the slack. We cannot answer most of these questions absolutely. For instance, if we choose not to service Hubble then we cannot say how long it will stay operational. We can only guestimate.

While we consider these questions, we should consider what programs we would not fund because we spent the money on Hubble instead. It is useless saying that the cost of a few days of the war in Iraq could sponsor the mission because we cannot suspend those operations as a means financing Hubble. We have to ask where the money would come from, what we would not get, if we did get Hubble. We have to think with our heads.

Having said that, I also think with my heart. If Hubble goes down, then we will stop getting titanic pictures (1.8 megabytes and 4,600 x 3,600 pixels at http://www.maddad.org/astronomy/images/ngc-3370-01d.jpg ) like the spiral galaxy NGC 3370 which shows more beauty and detail than we could have ever imagined before. Remember though, the loss will only be for a short time.

__________________
http://members.elirion.net/~maddad
There are 10 kinds of people. Those who understand binary, and those who do not.

I thought sure someone would nail it. NGC 1409.5 (avg.) here?


I was surprised to see such negative views from an astronaut and cosmonaut.

__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board!

The very one! Or the very two, trying strenuously to become one (and probaby having just about finished the operation by now).

I'm surprised that you're surprised.

Think about it --- many people on this board think that the ISS is a waste of money, and that it is driven more by politics than science. Presuming that the astronauts / cosmonauts feel the same way, plus considering that all they do up there is eat, sleep, excersize, and fix the broken parts, plus considering that their lives are on the line for this political experiment, ---- I think it makes perfect sense for them to be frustrated.

Also, I think this internationalization of space enables individual astronauts to be more forthright --- A cosmonaut on MIR may quietly put up with living in a bucket-'o-bolts for the sake of national pride. But he/she will be more likely to complain about the ISS. Especially when the part/component/strategy being complained about is not from one's own nation.

<off topic rant> Can't we just start using one word for these explorers? I mean, Americans should call the Russians "astronauts", and the Russians should call the Americans "cosmonauts" (in Russian of course). </OT rant>

That's a good point. Politics has played a huge role in all space programs. (This is why I am suggesting the Kremlin save Hubble. )

Also, considering their ages, these "nauts" might feel more free to be candid.

I still would like to see a clear reason why bringing Hubble down to this orbit is not an option. I don't think it would be "too much squeeze for the juice".


I agree, with other nations going up in the future, it could get complicated. :-?

__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board!

If you're talking about bringing Hubble into the same orbit as ISS then I think the main problem is the delta-V neeeded to change Hubble's altitude and orbital plane.

Hubble orbits at about 570 km with an orbital inclination of 28.5 degrees.
ISS orbits at about 360 km with an orbital inclination of 51.6 degrees.

If you plug these numbers into this calculator you will see that it requires more than 3000 m/s of delta-V. The Orbital Maneuvering System (OMS) on the Shuttle has a total of 700 m/s of delta-V (some of which is required for re-entry), so it is incapable of performing the manuever. We would have to design some sort of booster that would dock to Hubble and perform the required burn.

I don't know what this would cost, but I doubt it would be cheap.

__________________
"A mystic is a person who is puzzled before the obvious but who understands the nonexistent." -- Elbert Hubbard

It's possible using a solar electric space tug. This is already being developed for reboosting Comsats.

http://www.space.com/adastra/adastra_hubble_050128.html

Thanks Hamlet. The orbital plane presents a problem. I would still like to see the cost comparison from their current plan to send a booster to bring into the "deep six" vs. the cost to bring into some sort of serviceable orbiit. I am curious also to learn if the Shuttle could work at the intersection area of the various orbital planes.

Thanks, joema. It's great to see folks focused on meeting the challenge.

Any word from the Kremlin yet?

__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board!

Why not offer the Russians a prize for sending up a crew on a Russian rocket to repair the Hubble? I bet they would do it for a lot less than NASA could do it with the shuttle.

CBS

The Russkies....no, they can't work on our equipment, they don't have a green card!

Seriously, any mention of any HOP production funding in the next years?

__________________
"Its full of stars!"

Gyro sacrifice may extend Hubble's life

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

Hubble will be gone
As for the great Voyagers it doesn't look so good
a lot of news sites have covered the Voyger cut
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/edi...lost_in_space/
http://www.sunherald.com/mld/thesunh...l/11363250.htm
http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/vi...ighlight=&
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2005Apr3.html
another big 12 cutbacks to come say the news sources

Thankfully we still have our European, NASA, Japanese and other
ground-based telescopes! Unless they'll be knocking them down with bulldozers next ?
I have a feeling that perhaps ESA might start doing some pushing with their space policy and the Euros for funding, Ulysses Probe was a joint NASA/ESA mission so the Europeans might bail this one out with some Euro and hopefully it won't get cut down or suddenly axed
here is some of the previous reports and data on this mission
http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/obj...objectid=34612
http://helio2.estec.esa.int/ulysses/archive/
http://www.jupitertoday.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=13697
http://www.esa.int/esaSC/120395_index_1_m.html#subhead6
Sadly I think it may already be over for Hubble

I know you are joking, but NASA actually can not contract with Russia any more, thanks to Iranian Non-Proliferation Act. Those naughty Russians just won't stop selling nuclear technology to Iran...

Supply flights to ISS for the next few years were contracted before Congress passed the Act.

__________________
Fiction has to be plausible. Reality is under no such constraint.

I'll bet I'm ToSeeked on this, but Mike Griffin plans to review the Hubble repair mission again based on results of the next shuttle flight.

__________________
Do try not to take me too seriously.