Mission Hubble: Come August, astronauts will visit Hubble on a service mission

New York Times via Deccan Herald (India) ^ | Tuesday, December 18, 2007 | Dennis Overbye, New York Times

[SunkenCiv]

It's the last round-up for the people's telescope. Next August, after 20 years of hype, disappointment, blunders, triumphs and peerless glittering vistas of space and time, and four years after NASA decided to leave the Hubble Space Telescope to die in orbit, setting off public and congressional outrage, a group of astronauts will ride to the telescope aboard the space shuttle Atlantis with wrenches in hand...

[SunkenCiv]

[SunkenCiv]

Hubble focus is unchanged
Flight Interational | 02/06/07 | Graham Warwick
Posted on 02/07/2007 10:14:40 PM EST by KevinDavis
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1781096/posts

Should We Repair Hubble?
Popular Mechanics | May 2007 | Thomas D. Jones
Posted on 04/03/2007 10:49:37 PM EDT by KevinDavis
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1811616/posts

[snip] If the mission succeeds, Hubble should be in peak observing condition until its replacement, the James Webb Space Telescope, is launched in 2013... 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. [end]

Hubble astronauts meet with astronomers
AP on Yahoo | 5/9/07 | Alex Dominguez - ap
Posted on 05/10/2007 12:43:51 AM EDT by NormsRevenge
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1831137/posts

[Not now, Not ever!]

There are few more interesting things in space to watch than a hubble repair mission, I need to schedule a vacation for this mission.

[robomatik]

[Westlander]

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/12/04/healthscience/04hubb.php?page=3

[Harpo Speaks]

I remember for years, the leaders of NASA said “It can’t be done...it can’t be done...to risky...too much money...it can’t be done.”

Then, NASA gets a new head guy, and suddenly it can be done.

I think that what made them change was that they bowed to the enormous pressure from the public. The Hubble is the greatest visible on-going success story that NASA has had since the launch of the shuttle. They were going to mothball the most popular — and perhaps the most valuable — project associated with the program.

There would have been no space telescope until the uncertain launch of the next one. And, although new-technology land-based telescopes may someday achieve the same quality as a space telescope, they aren’t there yet. So there would have been nothing to fill the void.

I’m glad the Hubble is being repaired — and broadcasting the repair makes great TV.

[Names Ash Housewares]

[kingu]

Visually, we’re exceeding the quality of images from Hubble right now. Even with these modifications, ground based observations will likely exceed the Hubble before the launch of the next telescope. You have only what datastream you program in to capture and transmit from space, receive and decode. Whereas traditional land observations tend to have a much broader recording depth, in multiple mediums, with the ability to change observation devices on whim. So it’ll likely always be that way until we have a simple, repeatable method to go up into space.

And the only way we’ll get that is if we build hundreds of vehicles, not a scant handful. If you don’t mass produce it, it’s going to become outdated very quickly. And the number of missions you can run is extremely limited.

[dr_lew]

What? What? The claim that land based telescopes are matching or surpassing Hubble is based on the success of sophisticated techniques for overcoming atmospheric distortion.

I think the argument remains largely economic. You can support some number N of these ground instruments for the cost of 1 Hubble, and the scientific return is judged by some measure to be equivalent.

Still, the Hubble enjoys unique advantages, and it would be a great mistake not to exploit them to the fullest, IMHO. It’s just about the best thing we’ve got going in LEO, and if it’s too dangerous to service it, well, let’s just go back to bed.

[kingu]

It’s just about the best thing we’ve got going in LEO, and if it’s too dangerous to service it, well, let’s just go back to bed.

I've always been a great supporter of the Hubble; actually got to see the mirror and touch the launch package.. Man, am I really that old now? Anyway, the conceptional problem is thinking that we only need six or so launch vehicles, even if they are reusable. We don't need that, we need thirty or sixty. The cost per vehicle, and their value, means the loss of one impacts missions for years to come. And we are talking rocket science here - bad things will happen. You have a controlled explosion of highly combustible materials that flings something into space. Even if you have a ninety-nine percent success rate, you've got a critical failure to contend with every eight years or so.

We don't need a new Hubble, we need three of them, designed to have every component replaced at whim. And making three of them with less shielding, less worry on the ground about parts failure, would in the long run mean far better science and far cheaper costs.

[robomatik]

common sense, as you state it, is all too uncommon.

[RetSignman]

[“It can’t be done...it can’t be done...to risky...too much money...it can’t be done.”]

...and then Rudy rode in to the rescue.

[NormsRevenge]

Excellent and Thanks!

Save the Hubble BumP!

[SunkenCiv]

The only problem I have with the James Webb telescope which is in the works is, I really hate “MacArthur Park”. /rimshot