NASA Plans to Bring Down 'Dying' Hubble Telescope

Reuters on Yahoo ^ | 2/7/05 | Deborah Zaborenko - Reuters

[TXnMA]

[...corrected HTML formatting...]

---

...NASA chief Sean O'Keefe canceled a planned shuttle mission to replace Hubble's fading batteries and its stabilizing gyroscopes. In the aftermath of the fatal Feb. 1, 2003, shuttle Columbia accident, a shuttle repair flight to Hubble was simply too risky, O'Keefe said. [From posted article, #1...]

---------------------------

The future of the Hubble Space Telescope hangs in the balance, after the White House declined to approve the necessary funding to repair and upgrade the apparatus, US media reported. [From photo caption, #2]

---

"We don't give a da*n what NASA says -- It's all Bush's fault!
--------The "US Media"

[RadioAstronomer]

Instead of an on-orbit repair mission, send a shuttle to retrive it and bring it back to Earth. Sattelites have been brought back before. It would make a great display at the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum.

If you are going to spend the money to retrieve it, you may as well fix it.

[RadioAstronomer]

Well the NGST(Next Generation Space Telescope) will supposedly be launched in 2007 and from what i can see it will be much more powerful than the hubble telescope so i guess its not needed that much

Wrong. See post #39

[TXnMA]

Good observation(s)!

[RightWhale]

A dandy interferometric telescope array could be built on the moon if we wanted. But keeping Hubble in operation does little but delay the new gear.

[Fiddlstix]

BTTT

[EagleUSA]

1) This has nothing to do with the eeeeevil Mexicans.

Yes it does -- if ANYTHING needs to be cut, let it be paying criminals' support.

2) The Hubble was freakin fantastic, but for what a servicing mission would cost we could build a whole new telescope with a similar design, but with modern hardware and all of the upgrade packages slated to be included in the proposed upgrade to Hubble I. This is actually being seriously considered and is probably the best way to go, as far as science-for-your-buck is concerned.

Yes, I know, the Hubble II will be superior to the Hubble I and provide for a deeper look. I hope they value the value of the Hubble program as much as they value their illegal immigrants.

[Non-Sequitur]

So why does it cost $75 million to destroy it? Can't we just turn it off and let nature take it's course, so to speak?

[Prince Charles]

One of the big reasons why HST was put into a low orbit was so that it could be easily serviced. Killing it flies in the face of its fundamental design philosophy.

[Tree of Liberty]

There was an article on slashdot the other day about a proposal to put up a new "hubble" with the same capabilities, but built with new technologies. Going this route is supposed to cost FAR less than a repair mission. The biggest problem I see, though, is that it'd take about 5.5 years to do.

[orionblamblam]

> So you think a manned mission to Mars is national defense?

Yes, if done as a colonization and exploitation mission, not as a flags-and-footprints mission. It is every bit as much national defense as the westward expansion of the US in the 19th century was. Had the 20th century come along and the US was nothing more than the original 13 colonies, "security" would not be an issue; the US would have ceased to exist.

[Dat Mon]

"Always should be mentioned. We will find our precious country left in the dust of history--a footnote--if we don't advance at least as fast as the new contenders."

We need to start translating our national pride and competitiveness BACK into the desire to be the best in all things.. including technological.

There was a time when the US being the best was taken for granted..(We remain the only country to put a man on the moon). Sadly, that is no longer the case.

US technological superiority and engineering prowess appears to be slowly heading into public irrelevance...its like so passe.

[RightWhale]

Can't we just turn it off and let nature take it's course

Yes, but liability demands that the experiment be scuttled in a safe manner. It's insurance, nothing more, part of the cost of the program.

[Tree of Liberty]

I imagine that we have to take care that it splashes down in the ocean, outside shipping lanes.

[newgeezer]

I'll give you this: you're real good at posting quotes out of context.

do it for next to zero public funding

I'm all for that, and if there's ever a lottery, I'll let you have mine for a dollar. I and my descendants will have no need of it.

[Names Ash Housewares]

"Can't we just turn it off and let nature take it's course, so to speak?"

It must be safely deorbited into a non-populated area. Big chunks of Hubble will survive entry. We dont want to kill anyone on the ground. Hubble cannot de-orbit itself. No thrusters. So a thruster pack has to be launched and attached remotely to hubble to de-orbit it.

[Tree of Liberty]

Exactly. It's manifest destiny.

[RadioAstronomer]

It looks like we are getting serious about space exploration, and while we might debate which programs would be best, the general direction is right, IMHO.

I disagree. We will "study" till we are blue, possibly build another "Venture Star" type vehicle and get nowhere. Just my two cents.

[RadioAstronomer]

A dandy interferometric telescope array could be built on the moon if we wanted. But keeping Hubble in operation does little but delay the new gear.

What new gear. We can't even get back to the Moon. IMHO, I don't see that kind of telescope in our lifetimes or possible even anyone alive today (kids and all).

[bmwcyle]

We make smaller ones now. Let's put a new one up.