Read it and weep:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6853009/

The shuttle's too much a wild card and robotics are horrendously expensive and not likely to work anyway. It was inevitable.

__________________
I'm not completely heartless, the doctor who removed it told me he'd never be able to get it all.

Is there any way we can change this?

__________________
Moraliser Overtax Porn

Not with the current price tag.

__________________
"Flying in space is risky business, but just staying on this planet is risky business too." - John Young, astronaut

Well that really f'ing sucks.

__________________
Moraliser Overtax Porn

Find some way to tie it in with Homeland Security, and you'll be amazed at how fast they'll find some money for it.

I'm such a cynic.

Give them time on it pointed at Earth.

__________________
When I am done here I think I will go create something from metal.

1 billion dollars (Dr Evil..) is a lot of money IMO. The telescope won't need a deorbit module fixed (what is the cost of that BTW?) until the end of the decade. Does it mean that it will work untill then? If it continues to work anyway, I haven't got really big problems with not spending 1 billion dollars on it. The new generation of Great Observatories is coming along anyway. But I thought it could stop working as soon as 2006...

Just attach the thing to the ISS and play with it from that position

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

Wow. I'm floored.

Is this really the end, or could it just be the inspiration for a bigger, stronger, campaign from all of us and everyone else we know to get it BACK in the budget? Let's get to work!

While I agree with the sentiment, this language is against the FAQ. Consider yourself warned.

People already hashed over the impossibility of co-orbiting HST with ISS last year, so I'll leave that off.

Current estimates for the 50%-probability time to failure of the HST gyros would make it inoperable maybe 18 months from now. There are plans, now almost sure to be implemented quickly, to go to a mode with 2 gyros plus the star trackers to continue operations with reduced pointing stability and tighter scheduling constraints. This stretches operations by leaving one byro "spare" for the next actual failure. The telescope will almost surely be dead by 2010, from decline in battery efficiency if nothing else. And I'll be the umpteenth to say that JWST is a followon but not replacement - it addresses a few key questions well, but has no ultraviolet capability and only a smidgen at the red end of the optical band. It's a different discussion as to how much these capabilities are worth, but in current plans they are being lost for at least a decade, and maybe more.

Alright, everybody, 3.5 hours until the deadline for proposals in what might really be the final year of Hubble operations...

I'm not certain that such a mission would be economically feasible in any case. Why spend the money to maintain an instrument when it has already been matched, and in some cases exceeded by ground-based systems, while more advanced orbital designs are being planned?

I'll miss Hubble, there is no doubt about it. And it's a shame that it couldn't be brought down safely (IIRC, the shuttle returning with that in its hold would be so much more of a flying brick than it already is). But to be realistic, maintaining Hubble would be like spending $3,000 to fix and maintain a 386 computer, while Pentium Iv's and V's are available and cheaper.

Yeah, I'm sure I'll catch hoolies for this opinion...!

...John...

__________________
"There is a technical, literary term for those who mistake the opinions and beliefs of characters in a novel for those of the author. The term is 'idiot'."
-- Larry Niven

If these solar flares keep coming and get bigger, maybe the atmosphere will swell up so much that Hubble and the Space station will re-enter sooner than predicted.

As a wise man once said....related thread

What if Bill Gates decides to conduct one-up-manship?

__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board! Author: duh.

"The Sun, with all the planets revolving around it, and depending on it, can still ripen a bunch of grapes as though it had nothing else in the universe to do..." Author: Galileo supposedly.

Oh man...
Not like I expected many people to ok the $1 billion price tag but I was hoping for a miracle I guess... Hubble was what, $1.5 billion at launch?

__________________
Yes, I have a life. It's quite different from yours.

What I did not adress in my first post is that I too will miss Hubble.
But I don't want Hubble to stand in the path of other major missions. 1 billion (it never occured to me that Bill gates and Billion share there first name ) dollars is such an enormous amount of money to patch up the old observatory. I mean, that would jeopardise the equivalent of about 2 (not extended) MER missions...

I am in doubt if Hubble still is worth that, if you had to choose. I mean, if there was extra budget, no problem. But NASA is low on money anyway, and I'm not sure if I'd put reparing Hubble on top then. And even with a larger budget, I would consider giving up Hubble and spending money on a new hightech observatory to replace it.

I am not outspoken choosing one option, each option has its pros and cons for me. Really hard decision.

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

Hubble's price tag was, I believe, 3 billion at launch....

...John...

__________________
"There is a technical, literary term for those who mistake the opinions and beliefs of characters in a novel for those of the author. The term is 'idiot'."
-- Larry Niven

$1.5 billion at launch, though that doesn't include the launch/deployment costs or the cost of operations.

I would like to see someone do a study on which of these options makes the most sense in terms of doing actual astronomy:

• - Hubble servicing mission
  - Remounting the replacement instruments on a new spacecraft
  - Doing some other astronomy research altogether

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

The planned 100 meter Overwhelmingly Large Telescope (OWL) is projected to cost about $1.5 billion.

http://www.eso.org/projects/owl/index.html

Even if it is the logical thing to do, it's sad, and I've had a bad day in my real life (work ) - I needed some happy news .

Ok, so if a billion dollars is too much to spend on Hubble, someone explain to me how much we are spending on the ISS and the Shuttle missions to service/finish it and what is the payback/benefits from that :-? .

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple