• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Death knell for space telescope - Hubble doomed

Analog

Lifer
Jan 7, 2002
12,755
1
0
Nasa is halting all space shuttle missions to service the Hubble Space Telescope - a move that will put it out of action within four years.

"This is a sad day," said Nasa's chief scientist John Grunsfeld, but "the best thing for the space community".

Hubble has revolutionised the study of astronomy since its launch in 1990.


Text
 

Siddhartha

Lifer
Oct 17, 1999
12,501
1
81
I read somewhere that the Hubble was reaching the end of its designed lifespan and they are planning on putting up another telescope.
 

Eli

Super Moderator | Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 9, 1999
50,424
7
81
What?

So we don't plan on sending up anymore shuttles for at least 4 years? :Q :confused:

That seems ludicrous. We had a disaster.. now learn from it and get on with things already.

Edit: Ok, read the article...

I guess I don't quite get it. So the shuttles that maintain hubble are being retired in 2010... Why can't we maintain it until 2010 then, so it will last until ~2014?

As for the shuttle... What about after 2010? What will replace it.. a more advanced shuttle, right? I mean, what other possibility is there? :p

Why couldn't they keep maintaining it with the new shuttle?

I guess if its just the end of its lifecycle, thats fine... they are planning on putting a new, better telescope up in 2011... But if they stop now, it should last until 2008... the 3 year downtime seems unnecessary.
 

rgwalt

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2000
7,393
0
0
Originally posted by: Eli
What?

So we don't plan on sending up anymore shuttles for at least 4 years? :Q :confused:

That seems ludicrous. We had a disaster.. now learn from it and get on with things already.
No, I think we are just not going to send any more shuttles to the Hubble to service it. As another poster mentioned, it is reaching the end of its designed lifespan. They put it up in 1990, it did what it was supposed to do, and now with technology that is 14 years newer, I bet NASA will put a bigger, better telescope in orbit. I've heard talk of parking the telescope in the unstable Legrange point out past the moon on th dark side of the earth.

R

 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,864
83
91
well giant earth based telescopes with mirrors that cancel out atmospheric distortion and stuff are taking over right?
 

arcas

Platinum Member
Apr 10, 2001
2,155
2
0
Hubble is terribly outdated and has been far surpassed by ground-based telescopes. Adaptive optics, where you deform the mirror in real-time, has largely solved the problem of atmospheric distortions. Hubble's only advantages these days are: it doesn't have to deal with daylight or light pollution, there are no cloudy nights in space and with an appropriate camera it can image in wavelengths that are blocked by our atmosphere (say, ultraviolet).

For visual wavelengths, there are several earth-based telescopes that have far greater resolution than Hubble. For example, the huge Keck 1 and Keck 2 telescopes in Hawaii each have a 10 meter deformable mirror and, individually, they each offer greater resolving power than Hubble. But the plan is for Keck 1 and Keck 2 to be linked together to form the largest optical interferometer ever built. When that's finished, it will have much higher resolution; enough to view planets orbiting other stars. And here's the kicker: these telescopes cost less than the cost of a single Hubble repair mission.

I do fear that the renewed push for a moon landing and then Mars will have an adverse effect on other NASA projects. NASA does have a more advanced space telescope in development which isn't scheduled for launch for another 3 or 4 years. Hopefully projects like this aren't simply canned because they don't fit this administrations new vision. Remains to be seen how this'll play out.

 

Being a native near the space coast and having my step dad that works for United Space Alliance, this is really not good. Sad day indeed......
 

Kadarin

Lifer
Nov 23, 2001
44,302
9
81
Originally posted by: Eli
As for the shuttle... What about after 2010? What will replace it.. a more advanced shuttle, right? I mean, what other possibility is there? :p
The space shuttle needs to GO. The whole point behind selling it to the American public in the first place was for the US to have a reusable space vehicle that would save money. At something like $500 million per launch, it certainly doesn't fulfill that promise. What we really need are big dumb rockets that are capable of placing a LOT of payload in orbit (and beyond) cheaply. Space also needs to be privatized, to where it's not just governments that are launching people into space.
 

Anubis

No Lifer
Aug 31, 2001
78,716
413
126
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
well giant earth based telescopes with mirrors that cancel out atmospheric distortion and stuff are taking over right?
they still cant resolve as well as hubble could

there is that new space one that used liek 10 satalites to make a HUGe one that is supposed to be able to see everything
 

XZeroII

Lifer
Jun 30, 2001
12,572
0
0
Originally posted by: arcas
Hubble is terribly outdated and has been far surpassed by ground-based telescopes. Adaptive optics, where you deform the mirror in real-time, has largely solved the problem of atmospheric distortions. Hubble's only advantages these days are: it doesn't have to deal with daylight or light pollution, there are no cloudy nights in space and with an appropriate camera it can image in wavelengths that are blocked by our atmosphere (say, ultraviolet).

For visual wavelengths, there are several earth-based telescopes that have far greater resolution than Hubble. For example, the huge Keck 1 and Keck 2 telescopes in Hawaii each have a 10 meter deformable mirror and, individually, they each offer greater resolving power than Hubble. But the plan is for Keck 1 and Keck 2 to be linked together to form the largest optical interferometer ever built. When that's finished, it will have much higher resolution; enough to view planets orbiting other stars. And here's the kicker: these telescopes cost less than the cost of a single Hubble repair mission.

I do fear that the renewed push for a moon landing and then Mars will have an adverse effect on other NASA projects. NASA does have a more advanced space telescope in development which isn't scheduled for launch for another 3 or 4 years. Hopefully projects like this aren't simply canned because they don't fit this administrations new vision. Remains to be seen how this'll play out.
The president has NOTHING to do with our space plans. He mearly comes up with ideas, then presents them. His plans for a moon base are just that, plans. He has no power over NASA except to say to them that he really wants something.
 

matt426malm

Golden Member
Nov 14, 2003
1,280
0
0
Originally posted by: arcas
Hubble is terribly outdated and has been far surpassed by ground-based telescopes. Adaptive optics, where you deform the mirror in real-time, has largely solved the problem of atmospheric distortions. Hubble's only advantages these days are: it doesn't have to deal with daylight or light pollution, there are no cloudy nights in space and with an appropriate camera it can image in wavelengths that are blocked by our atmosphere (say, ultraviolet).

For visual wavelengths, there are several earth-based telescopes that have far greater resolution than Hubble. For example, the huge Keck 1 and Keck 2 telescopes in Hawaii each have a 10 meter deformable mirror and, individually, they each offer greater resolving power than Hubble. But the plan is for Keck 1 and Keck 2 to be linked together to form the largest optical interferometer ever built. When that's finished, it will have much higher resolution; enough to view planets orbiting other stars. And here's the kicker: these telescopes cost less than the cost of a single Hubble repair mission.

I do fear that the renewed push for a moon landing and then Mars will have an adverse effect on other NASA projects. NASA does have a more advanced space telescope in development which isn't scheduled for launch for another 3 or 4 years. Hopefully projects like this aren't simply canned because they don't fit this administrations new vision. Remains to be seen how this'll play out.
Keck inferometer "capable of resolving Jupiter-size planets orbiting nearby stars.(keck's site). " Eventually we will reach Earth size planet resolutions. There are some things space telescopes are good for, for instance hubble is doing another one of it's deep field shots right now 80day exposure, can't do that on Earth, unless maybe we build a telescope far north.

Besides the new one the JWST is going up in 2011 and will be far better than Hubble so we have a 3 year lag time which is unfortunate but not the end of the world.


 

kenshorin

Golden Member
Apr 14, 2001
1,160
0
0
Originally posted by: XZeroII
Originally posted by: arcas
Hubble is terribly outdated and has been far surpassed by ground-based telescopes. Adaptive optics, where you deform the mirror in real-time, has largely solved the problem of atmospheric distortions. Hubble's only advantages these days are: it doesn't have to deal with daylight or light pollution, there are no cloudy nights in space and with an appropriate camera it can image in wavelengths that are blocked by our atmosphere (say, ultraviolet).

For visual wavelengths, there are several earth-based telescopes that have far greater resolution than Hubble. For example, the huge Keck 1 and Keck 2 telescopes in Hawaii each have a 10 meter deformable mirror and, individually, they each offer greater resolving power than Hubble. But the plan is for Keck 1 and Keck 2 to be linked together to form the largest optical interferometer ever built. When that's finished, it will have much higher resolution; enough to view planets orbiting other stars. And here's the kicker: these telescopes cost less than the cost of a single Hubble repair mission.

I do fear that the renewed push for a moon landing and then Mars will have an adverse effect on other NASA projects. NASA does have a more advanced space telescope in development which isn't scheduled for launch for another 3 or 4 years. Hopefully projects like this aren't simply canned because they don't fit this administrations new vision. Remains to be seen how this'll play out.
The president has NOTHING to do with our space plans. He mearly comes up with ideas, then presents them. His plans for a moon base are just that, plans. He has no power over NASA except to say to them that he really wants something.
Bah he doesn't even do that. He's fed info from some advisor and merely announces it.

Of course, if our ground based telescopes are so awesome here, imagine if you put one of the same on the moon? Then you'd have some shiznat.
 

matt426malm

Golden Member
Nov 14, 2003
1,280
0
0
Bah he doesn't even do that. He's fed info from some advisor and merely announces it.

Of course, if our ground based telescopes are so awesome here, imagine if you put one of the same on the moon? Then you'd have some shiznat.
No kidding, I really hope this is included in the "moon base." It is the perfect place to build a very large inferometer telescope. However, linking the telescopes is not easy work. It would be especially hard to do on the moon. Well, if it ever goes through that is which I still am doubtful of.
 

Heifetz

Golden Member
Oct 9, 1999
1,398
0
0
Is there a real justification for returning to the moon? Is it just for being able to boast about the accomplishment and the advancement of human achievement or are there scientific reasons behind it?
 

NikPreviousAcct

No Lifer
Aug 15, 2000
52,763
1
0
Originally posted by: Insane3D
We need to save money for our upcoming moon base...

No, we need to take money that the government is dealing to NASA and put it back into education and fund projects to get the homeless/unemployed back into jobs and homes.
 

JohnnyAnnalog

Member
Dec 6, 2003
49
0
0
Originally posted by: arcas
Hubble is terribly outdated and has been far surpassed by ground-based telescopes. Adaptive optics, where you deform the mirror in real-time, has largely solved the problem of atmospheric distortions. Hubble's only advantages these days are: it doesn't have to deal with daylight or light pollution, there are no cloudy nights in space and with an appropriate camera it can image in wavelengths that are blocked by our atmosphere (say, ultraviolet).

For visual wavelengths, there are several earth-based telescopes that have far greater resolution than Hubble. For example, the huge Keck 1 and Keck 2 telescopes in Hawaii each have a 10 meter deformable mirror and, individually, they each offer greater resolving power than Hubble. But the plan is for Keck 1 and Keck 2 to be linked together to form the largest optical interferometer ever built. When that's finished, it will have much higher resolution; enough to view planets orbiting other stars. And here's the kicker: these telescopes cost less than the cost of a single Hubble repair mission.

I do fear that the renewed push for a moon landing and then Mars will have an adverse effect on other NASA projects. NASA does have a more advanced space telescope in development which isn't scheduled for launch for another 3 or 4 years. Hopefully projects like this aren't simply canned because they don't fit this administrations new vision. Remains to be seen how this'll play out.
NRC 20 meter telescope project.

I believe that the 20 meter telescope will be complete sometime in 2005, and there is a plan to have a 40 meter by 2012.
 

NikPreviousAcct

No Lifer
Aug 15, 2000
52,763
1
0
Originally posted by: Heifetz
Is there a real justification for returning to the moon? Is it just for being able to boast about the accomplishment and the advancement of human achievement or are there scientific reasons behind it?
If we can colonize the moon, then we can colonize other planets. If we can't colonize the moon, there's no way we'll make it to other planets.
 

matt426malm

Golden Member
Nov 14, 2003
1,280
0
0
Originally posted by: FFMCobalt
Originally posted by: Insane3D
We need to save money for our upcoming moon base...

No, we need to take money that the government is dealing to NASA and put it back into education and fund projects to get the homeless/unemployed back into jobs and homes.
this is a telescope thread right?
 

rgwalt

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2000
7,393
0
0
Originally posted by: Insane3D
We need to save money for our upcoming moon base...

Think about building a huge scope on the dark side of the moon. Problems affecting earth telescopes, like restriction on mirror size due to weight, would be greatly reduced on the moon.

R

 

matt426malm

Golden Member
Nov 14, 2003
1,280
0
0
Originally posted by: Heifetz
Is there a real justification for returning to the moon? Is it just for being able to boast about the accomplishment and the advancement of human achievement or are there scientific reasons behind it?
I would say a great place for a telescope and some research on the geology of the early solar system. I think Mars holds more scientific opportunity but I'd take either.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY