SUMMARY: A study by the National Academy of Sciences is suggesting that astronauts should be the ones to upgrade the aging Hubble Space Telescope, and not the robotic mission currently favoured by NASA. The independent panel of scientists was commissioned by NASA to review options for the aging telescope, and they delivered their report on Wednesday. They suggested that the difference in risk between visiting Hubble and the International Space Station is very small, while a robotic mission would be of similar cost and would be much more likely to fail.

View full article

What do you think about this story? Post your comments below.

I agree!

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

I agree too...wait :huh: , what just happenned? h34r: OMG, did Oliver just speak his mind about something other than the Irun Sun?! :blink: OMIGOSH, a milestone! :P

I would be quite happy for robotic missions to be stepped up; especially in the Earth-Moon region; once the technology has been proveed with robotic repair missions to satellites like Hubble, the range of teleoperations could be extended to the Moon.

The groundwork for colonisation and mining of the Moon and its soil could be started using teleoperated robots; the time delay is relatively small, so teleoperation would be a fair bit easier than on Mars.
Also internet-linked webcams could act as the eyes of the world on these mission; for a fee, netheads could even gain control of a moonbot for a brief period...
tourism in space from the comfort of your own home.

Once habitats had been prepared by remote construction bots and a system of oxygen extraction had been set up, humans could be finally sent to the Moon again; this process might take fifty years, but it could be done without loss of life. The science of robotics would advance to a remarkable degree as a side effect.

Yes? No?

__________________
New Orion's Arm Site . The Starlark . Against a Diamond Sky (OA Novella Collection) . OA Flickr set

If they started today with the robotic mission then it would take 57 to 65 months before launch, thats somewhere in 2010.

Hubble probably won't last beyond 2007, due to failed gyros and batteries.

So its either a manned mission or a replacement.
The problem is,
They want to use hubble parts in the replacement to cut costs.
They want to upgrade the replacement.

When this struggle is over and the replacement parts finally get lost (by being used, or be finally outdated for example) then there might be a more clearheaded discussion what to do next.

So those $2 billion have to be spend prior, to get the discussion of a enhanced replacement started.

__________________
Have you found the loop or the loophole?

Darn.

I knew I forgot something!

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

But there's a critical question here still unanswered, is it worth spending all this money to upgrade Hubble?

I say, whether its via robots or astronauts, that we should consider investing this vast amount of money in other projects and missions.

OlaD,
That indeed is the big question.

Just write down all the associations you get with:
MIR - ISS

Try to imagine what it will be with:
HST -

__________________
Have you found the loop or the loophole?