Posted on 04/03/2007 7:49:37 PM PDT by KevinDavis
NASA has decided to make one final — and controversial — repair call to the Hubble Space Telescope (HST), which is slowly dying after more than 16 years in orbit. The telescope was last serviced in 2002. Since then, technical problems have mounted, and a short circuit in January claimed one of its main instruments.
Scheduled for a 2008 liftoff aboard Atlantis, the HST-bound crew have their work cut out for them. During five spacewalks the astronauts will perform an array of repairs and installations, adding a new camera and fixing a half-dozen gyroscopes. If the mission succeeds, Hubble should be in peak observing condition until its replacement, the James Webb Space Telescope, is launched in 2013.
But nothing about this servicing job is a slam-dunk — and hence the controversy. Since the 2003 Columbia disaster, shuttles have followed trajectories that would let them dock with the International Space Station (ISS), in the event of the kind of heat-shield damage that doomed Columbia. But Hubble's orbit puts the ISS out of range, so NASA's current strategy includes rolling another shuttle onto the pad in case a rescue is needed. NASA claims this brings the overall risk down to that of recent ISS missions.
No matter what, the mission will be tough — as I learned in 2001, the unexpected is the norm on any spacewalk. Outside the ISS, my spacewalk partner, Bob Curbeam, was showered with highly toxic ammonia coolant when a simple spring-loaded valve stuck open. I had to brush "Beamer" clean of flash-frozen ammonia crystals while he tethered himself in brilliant sunshine for an hour, baking away any remaining contamination.
Some argue that repairing Hubble is pointless, since ground-based observatories have overtaken its capabilities. But terrestrial telescopes fall short of HST's resolution by a factor of 10 or more. So would I take the risk to fly to Hubble? Just after the Columbia crash in 2003, my feeling was no. But spaceflight will always involve risk, and the scientific value and public appeal of Hubble are clearly worth it. Besides, intelligently confronting danger is how we humans have always opened the way for great discoveries.
Maybe they can put up a hubble-type telescope there?
Why haven't we done that yet?
So is it obsolete or not?
In a word: YES!
Why????
would you rather spend it on earmarks for pet projects?
at least folks can point up in the sky and know where some of their money went. ;-)
Well, if it’s still viable, why not? I mean, when it was the only game in town, getting time on it was a problem. There’s still a LOT of sky to explore and even though we may have other newer system in place, it’s still a resource that can utilized.
Some of the most enduring pictures of the early 90s were from Hubble. I say yes.
terrestrial telescopes fall short of HST's resolution by a factor of 10 or more.And that is reason enough.
KevinDavis: Well if they fix the Hubble to take pictures of other planets outside of this solar system yes.. If not no...Great, now you've turned this into a topic fit for...
 |
||
| · join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic · | ||
Sneaking it in, again, I see!
I used to hang around with a bunch of astronomy geeks half of which were from the Johnson Space Center...In fact, I have one of the rare (and to me desirable) Johnson Space Center Astronomy Society ball caps.
One of the guys in the club was a major person involved in the first Hubble repair mission (not an astronaut, one of the administrators for the project)...
Until we have another telescope like the Hubble with its resolution up there, we need it. IMHO, although it might just be nostagia...
:’)
Of course, it was never as easy or flawless as presented.
But, the job got done.
I’ve been smelling the same “attitude” from this government
agency since they tossed “Goldie” and his faster, better,
cheaper nonsense.
Christmas Eve of 1968, and i had just turned 7. It was
absolute magic as men were circling around the Moon.
Of course a kid like me had no doubt that they would be
coming home.
The rest of the Apollo program ran pretty much the same.
Much success. Some snags...but they always came home.
Mission accomplished despite a crippled spacecraft or
a damaged and sunbaked orbital station.
Verify and trust in this situation.
I’m looking forward again to becoming childlike when it
comes to the exploration of space....JJ61
If it were possible, I'd bring the Hubble down and put it in the Smithsonian.
I understand your desire to update, but the best economical
choice right now is a “boost” to Hubble. Another “scope”
is slated for 2012.
Bringing Hubble home for a museum piece is not really an
option. If we take that dangerous chance of going into her
intercept orbit, we might as well fix her....JJ61
What’s it going to cost me?
HST’s resolution can be outclassed by terrestrial telescopes fitted with adaptive optics, so in that respect the claim “terrestrial telescopes fall short of HST’s resolution by a factor of 10 or more” is not true, not by a long shot. On the other hand, Hubble can work 24x7 ‘cos it’s always nighttime in space.
The cost-benefits of keeping it in working order have to be getting marginal though.
Personally I don’t see why we can’t launch an optical space telescope with a 5m mirror on an EELV. Would make a great companion to JWST. Cost is an issue of course, but with instruments for Hubble running at ~ $100m each and a Shuttle launch costing half a billion dollars, keeping Hubble running is not exactly cheap. Apart from Hubble every space telescope is designed for “disposable” use with a nominal lifetime.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.