From what I've read about this, the idea behind this decision was that the maintenance mission for the Hubble would be canceled and the remaining shuttle missions dedicated to finishing the ISS. The thing that bothers me about this is that the Hubble has proven itself as a useful scientific instrument with a relatively high return on investment. I've yet to see any obvious return from the ISS. This decision strikes me as a poor allocation of resources.

That being said, I do think it's time to replace the current space shuttle fleet. I would like to see the delivery of people decoupled from the delivery of cargoes. Trying to do both with the same vehicle made for an overly large and complicated craft with way too many ways for something to go wrong.

You are partly correct. The decision is based on the fact that, now that the managers are finally listening tp the engineers familiar with the Shuttle, it has been decided that the Orbiter will only fly to the ISS so that if there is a problem with it the astronauts will have a place to go and everyone can take time to determine a solution. Unfortunately, going to the HST and the ISS in a single mission is beyond the capability of the Orbiter. I would add that IMHO you are right that the HST is of more scientific value than the ISS, but I am also sure that not everyone would agree.

i think if hubble science is valuable enough, a consortium of countries or institutions should get together and raise the money to privately buy it out (at auction, it should go for a reasonable amount), and then pay any space agency that wants the business to maintain it. for example, maybe ESA could buy it out.

lots of companies sell off their old fleets.

If you're going to bash something, you could at least have the courtesy to know what you're bashing. HST is 80s technology upgraded four times to modernise its technology. We most get more than just limited science from it. If it's so crap, why would it be in such high demand. And the rest of your post is miserable gitism.

The Columbia accident board said that NASA would have to develop specific tools to repair the shuttle in orbit- for any mission without a backup facility. (ie any missions not to the ISS - the only one of those was to service hubble)

It was too expensive for them to develop all the procedures, for only one more ever mission to hubble. So, since they don't have the tools, they can now only go to the ISS.

Most of its science will now be dedicated to life science investigations- to prepare for the upcoming moon missions. Hopefully when we get a full crew on it the science return will increase...

__________________
-Jack Higgins
"Scientists discover huge nuclear fusion reaction in progress only 93 million miles from earth - visible to naked eye even during the day!"
My Celestia Add-ons site.

glom, why so glum? it was certainly no personal attack on you. it's a freakin hunk of metal.

how much did those missions cost to keep it up to date? how much to even fix it the first time when it was in need of glasses?

ok, we can talk billion here, but it also kept us focused on the shuttle as the orbiter - we had no other choices. in essence, the hubble is partly to blame for throwing good money at bad projects. it has to go.

and i'm sorry, the "science" that it produced may have been good for a narrow few researchers "in the field". that's a fact. the rest of it is pretty pictures - at least that's how it comes across to the public at large. any discovery that hubble made hardly changed something here on earth. but apollo technology, hell, that gave us tang!

get it yet?

I find myself wishing that someone had listened to engineers quite a bit earlier on in the Shuttle's history. We might not now be saddled with an investment many times more expensive than HST will ever be. And, while an orbiting space station does make some sense, this one has been a mass of compromises (both scientifically and politically) since its inception. I've always felt we should have kept on with the lunar missions... shows you how old I am...

Certainly not the ISS proponents.

__________________
Starry, starry night...

My site TheSpacewriter.com
and my blog: TheSpaceWriter's Ramblings

How so? Sources please.

Actually, I have quite a bit of contact with the public, and you would be surprised at how many people actually follow the science done by the space telescope. Its work shows up in classroom work, textbooks, planetarium shows, museums, and popular TV programs. It came a long way from being an "orbital turkey" to a very useful part of the world's astronomy capability. Why I used HST images to illustrate my first astronomy book (and no, it wasn't a pretty pictures book). When I talk about my work, oh, say to somebody in line at the airport while we're waiting for a boarding pass, HST is one mission that gets talked about a lot! That's not to say others don't get attention, but HST has presence in the public mind.

We are a visual species. We learn a lot from pretty pictures. And ugly ones. Mars missions show that quite deftly, as do the images we see from HST. And Chandra. And Spitzer. And Galileo. The accompanying data in other wavelengths are teaching us a lot.

I have to ask though: if pretty pictures from HST (or some other orbiting spacecraft) are so horribly passe, then why bother looking to space at all? Why tell us that ground-based observatories can do the same work (they can't yet, but they will). They'll just produce pretty pictures, too.

YOUR contention; back it up please with sources...

[-X [-X [-X

Simplistic analogies don't work with complex issues.

Look, folks who work with data from orbital observatories get this kind of crap all the time. "What does your work do to contribute to humanity?" and other such questions. You could easily ask the same question of other observatories, of religious institutions, of political ones... and there are no simple answers. So, just waving one's hands and dismissing one set of scientific accomplishments in order to boost another one is playing a zero-sum game that doesn't need to be played.

And so I ask again, in order to get this conversation back on science: what sorts of observations should Hubble make in its final year or so on orbit?

__________________
Starry, starry night...

My site TheSpacewriter.com
and my blog: TheSpaceWriter's Ramblings

Frank Zappa

Direct quotes should be attributed! 8)

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

T. Anderson

Cool, thanks. I heard this the other day on the radio in the form of "it has been said that...".

You will note that it has now been corrected. ops:

One may suck on this!

• Gave us the age of the Universe
• Provided proof of black holes
• Gave first views of star birth
• Showed how stars die
• Caught spectacular views of Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9's collision with Jupiter
• Confirmed that quasars are galactic nuclei powered by black holes
• Gathered evidence that the expansion of the Universe is accelerating

Have Your Say

In rereading my post, I realize that I came off sounding more harsh than I intended. ops:

A local music critic's column is titled Dancing about Architecture. He attributed it to FZ, so that is how I knew where the quote came from.

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

T. Anderson

Not to worry, I took no offense. I was genuinely happy to get a name to apply to my new quote. To be completely honest, it only wound up in my signature because I wanted to remember it.

Well, I think Spacewriter has many good points. I hope I didn't appear to be disagreeing with you on all points. However, I think that given a choice between a good exploration program and a possibly failing HST, I would take the space exploration program. Now, that does leave out the issue of how and where and when the exploration would occur. If we validated the concept of "Rocket A Day" and turned a space exploration program into a Space Economy then it would be emminently more valuable than HST could ever be. A valuable space economy would produce bigger and better space telescopes. In the future astronomers will look at the HST like we look at Galileo's meager telescope now: useful in it's day but eclipsed by newer technology.

There will always be politics in any discussion about anything between more than a few people. Perhaps it is useful to speak of small "p" politics and big "P" Politics. I think the Bad Astronomer wants to avoid Partisan Politics. Perhaps small "p" politics defined as the process through which a group of people come to a decision [process politics]" is ok here. That's what this debate should be about.

Personally, I would like to have both a bigger, bolder, cheaper, faster Space program and allow HST to complete it's mission. Perhaps there is a solution floating around out there. Could we not send up a repair kit in a cheaper Progress type craft near the HST or Orbiter so that the servicing mission can take place. If we go into space in a big way we will still need a repair kit for the orbiter or it's replacement. If it's a minor problem then it could be patched until they could get to the ISS. If it's a catastrophic failure, then being near the ISS may not make a difference. In fact, it could endanger the space station as well.

I think the HST has been useful and many may not understand how and why. But we need to recognize that a comprehensive space program and space economy will not kill astronomy, it will be reinvigorated. Without knowing that a space economy will evolve to support future astronomical expansion we can not guess how this will play out. We can mourn the loss of HST or we can get excited about a bright new era.

Deep space imaging is useful. It shows us how old the universe is so that we can hypothesize there the antimatter went, how the different bosons fit in, how the expansion of the universe will evolve and it's implications for humanity over the next century. All this may be applied to electronics and materials science... or it may not. We don't know if a space economy genius will give us cheap and powerful launch vehicles... but we don't know that HST will either. We need to go with gusto into space, and we need to give up the timidity of astronomical voyeurism.

__________________
"Oh no no no I'm a rocket man Rocket man burning out his fuse up here alone." -- Sir Elton John

J Pax

glom & spacewriter, let's do the homework here. real, tangible homework.

point: Gave us the age of the Universe
counterpoint: Gave us another theory on age of the universe. Still lots of theories about actual numbers, and still a pretty wide range with lots of problems, i.e. some structures that appear to be older than the "age."

point: Provided proof of black holes
counterpoint: provided us with another theory on black hole existence, more collaborative evidence. hawking did more from his chalkboard.

point: Gave first views of star birth
counterpoint: that is pretty cool. doesn't really give us a cure for anything back here.

point: Showed how stars die
counterpoint: that is pretty cool. doesn't really give us a cure for anything back here.

point: Caught spectacular views of Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9's collision with Jupiter
counterpoint: had a few spectacular views of that with my celestron SCT. so what?

piont: Confirmed that quasars are galactic nuclei powered by black holes
counterpoint: that is pretty cool. doesn't really give us a cure for anything back here.

point: Gathered evidence that the expansion of the Universe is accelerating
counterpoint: speculation. still did not quell valid arguments about acceleration, there are many who do not concur.

hubble is old and busted. moon bases are new hotness. given the PC weirdness on the board lately, this is a slight modification of a quote from Men in Black 2.

if you told me let's spend another billion on hubble, i'd honestly ask you to spend it here on new books for schools. as to the point i made and spacewriter picked up on about the science only providing something to a narrow few, well, look at the results of the point/counterpoint up above. NONE of those things has a single bearing on anything down here. and it is not an oversimplified analogy to say apollo gave us tang. that was a bit tongue-in-cheek, i admit, but it doesn't make what i said any less true. 20 years AFTER hubble's inception, continuing to pour good money into it does not yield much back here. if the items glom selected are the real bang-for-the-buck things spacewriter wanted as "facts" to my statement, then i am correct in my assessment.

that's how i'd vote, too. this will not always be a discussion of fact, but of philosophy. it never ceases to amaze me how much we spend on or defending old, dead, busted philosophies. [-X

if i could cast a vote to privatize major portions of NASA to gain a 30-50% efficiency over a government beauracracy, i'd probably snap the lever trying to pull it more than once.

This sounds good, but you are just attempting to make an assertion without facts. It is easy to say that privatization will allow a gain of 30-50% efficiency over "government burearucracy". But I would appreciate it if you would provide some proof of this, or are you just another person who votes for things based on the way they sound? This is just a case of using a "fact" that is common knowledge (aka no proof). At NASA we have actually been required to outsource for a lot of things in the last several years, and it has been a total disaster. I am currently in the process of wrapping up a design for a small test asset that we were almost forced to outsource. The final cost for the entire system is around $65,000 including the labor (Designers and fabricators). The bid we received from the primary contractor was $500,000 and their design had half the functionality and would likely have to be redesigned for future flight phases. The situation I am describing is much more common than you would probably realize. But you are allowed to go to the polls with whatever silly notions you want.

I think we we need a permanent base on the moon. On the short term you could do much greater astronomy on the moon then on earth or in earths orbit. (just try to imagine very long baseline interferometry on optical wavelengths!)
On the long term the moon will be a much better platform to build real spaceships (manned and unmanned) then earth.

But if you force nasa to try this without giving them appropriate funds means to effectively kill nasa.

But don't worry, if you americans don't go to moon in the next few decades we europeans will surely do.

That would be nice. But Germany will have to get over its anti-nuclear stance first.

As an American, and a NASA engineer, I say the more the merrier. The world could use some friendly competition in this arena. Or better yet, some cooperation.

DJ

Using your viewpoint, I could also say that pretty much any mission not used for telecommunications or solar-flare watching is "pretty cool. but doesn't really give us a cure for anything back here."

You think that the current Mars rover missions are a waste of money too? after all, what practical way do they help you & I? :roll:

The french are fairly pro-nuclear, at the same time... I'd like to see ESA put people in space- aren't they supposed to develop their own crewed vehicle for the ISS, to be launched by Ariane 5? Or was that cancelled too...

__________________
-Jack Higgins
"Scientists discover huge nuclear fusion reaction in progress only 93 million miles from earth - visible to naked eye even during the day!"
My Celestia Add-ons site.

Yeah, this is the way I think too =D>

I don't think this would interfere with our space program.

1.) At the moment we are against using nuclear power for mass energy provision. But this is no general anti-nuclear stance. No one plans to shut down our research reactors.

2.) You do not need nuclear power to go to the moon. The mass-power ratio of a nuclear reactor is not very sufficient to launch nuclear powered spaceships from earth. Just think about why no one ever tried to build nuclear powered airplanes.

3.) It would be nice to use nuclear power on moon and necessary to use it in space if you would want to make a reasonable effort to go to 'mars and beyond'. But this is no problem either. You may discuss our reasons not to use nuclear power here on earth, but if you are for for against them, no one of them fits on using nuclear power on moon or in space.

4.) We would not like to launch great amounts of nuclear fuel from earth into space for safety reasons. But this is an even better reason to go to the moon.
To launch nuclear powered spaceships from there would be not even technically easier but also safer.
If you would mine and process the nuclear fuel there too, you would not only have much more safety but you would avoid the costs and difficulties of launching it from earth too.
Even if you are a friend of using nuclear power on earth - would you like to see several kg or even tons of Plutonium or Uran235 dumped uncontrolled somewhere on earths surface by a failed launch?

granolaeater, your second quote should be attributed to Glom not me.

Yeah that was mine and accepted on all those points. I just can't resist bringing up the issue at every remote opportunity.

Clearly you haven't heard of the "stop cassini" idiots... They can't even differentiate between RTGs and fission reactors. :roll:

Of course, nobody would. But the fuel will be so well shielded that even if it were to re-enter the atmosphere normally, it should survive. Apollo 13's RTG for the never-deployed ALSEP experiments is believed to have survived re-entry over the pacific, for example. (Inside the unshielded lunar ascent module)

__________________
-Jack Higgins
"Scientists discover huge nuclear fusion reaction in progress only 93 million miles from earth - visible to naked eye even during the day!"
My Celestia Add-ons site.

If that had been Man's driving philosophy from the beginning, we'd still be living in caves.

"Hey Ogg, you think this would grow if I stuck it in the ground?

"Shut up! Either eat it or give it to me and I will."

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

T. Anderson

Of course, uranium and plutonium, while fissile, isn't all that dangerous in its radioactivity. It's half life is absurdly wrong. Of course, they are toxic, but then there are many chemicals that are giving us far more severe doses.

Excuse me - my fault

No problem. I am not a big friend of using nuclear power on earth but I am no fanatic (like the most germans I think). I know that there are good reasons in favor to nuclear power too.

Oh but they did! The Convair X6 was an attempt to do just that.

Why yes - I think I do get it. It's all about tang. Any science program that doesn't give us tangy delicious breakfast drinks should immediately be abandoned. Science for the sake of science is just not cost effective. The US government should get out of the business of basic research and leave it entirely in the capable hands of big corporations. Pretty soon we'll have 10,000 varieties of underarm deodorant and life will be just peachy.

Or was that not quite what you meant? :-?

I have heard about them, but I am not one of them. I even would like to have really fission reactors in space, but I would not like to launch them from earth. To build a fission powered infrastructur in space you would need much higher amounts of fissionable Material then you have in these little RTGs. This would make it much more difficult and expensive to launch it savely from earth.

This holds true for the non fissile Uran238. This stuff is not more dangerous then normal lead. But the fissile Isotopes are much more instable (only this makes it possible to use the heat of their normal decay in RTGs).
Ok, the amount of alpha radiation is quite harmless if it is generated outside your Body. I even worked with Americium Isotopes as a student, no problem. (Our professor: to use this stuff with students is much more dangerous then plutonium physically, but it is much more safe politically :-? )
But I would not want to get a dust piece of plutonium into my lungs, or see terrorists get access to it, or even some fools who will use it unprotected to heat their houses.