if we let NASA abandon hubble as they propose...

[sao123]

 

[Hossenfeffer]

I venture a "NO".

 

[Kelemvor]

Who cares. nothing you can do about it anyway.

 

[KLin]

If an asteroid is going to hit earth, there's not much you're going to do about it anyways. Unless NASA can somehow get some drilling teams to go up in prototype spaceships, land on the asteroid, drill a hole 800 feet deep, and drop a nuke in and blow it up. :thumbsup:

 

[SaltBoy]

Cue cheesy Aerosmith song here...

 

[DingDingDao]

I don't think they use the Hubble for asteroid collision detection. I believe we use some kind of super-duper radar type thing involving radio waves. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: DingDingDao
I don't think they use the Hubble for asteroid collision detection. I believe we use some kind of super-duper radar type thing involving radio waves. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

I think they do it with conventional ground based telescopes.

Hubble is looking at stuff MUCH farther away.

 

[DrPizza]

It'd be a bummer if they let it go
What's wrong with it?
Could there be enough private interest to support it?

 

[silverpig]

Hubble is purely an optical telescope (maybe a bit of UV and IR too). There's nothing to do with radio on the Hubble (other than it's communications system).

 

[Fuel Injected]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
It'd be a bummer if they let it go
What's wrong with it?
Could there be enough private interest to support it?

Yeah, it is
The only thing wrong with it is that NASA thinks it's too expensive(and dangerous, cause you need to use the shuttle!) to keep it running.
There could be, but only a certain few(Richard Branson, maybe)could afford it.

 

[Armitage]

AFAIK, Hubble isn't used to search for near-earth objects. That is primarily done with ground based optical sensors.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
It'd be a bummer if they let it go
What's wrong with it?
Could there be enough private interest to support it?

Gyroscopes, batteries, and some other stuff IIRC.

It needs service and that requires a shuttle mission to the telescope or build a robot to fix it. Both of which are rather expensive and would divert funds or funds + shuttle mission from the already massively delayed ISS construction.

Also I don't think the shuttle can reach the ISS on a Hubble repair mission if anything goes wrong, like what happened to Columbia. They are mainly citing saftey concerns as the reason not to go back.

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
It'd be a bummer if they let it go
What's wrong with it?
Could there be enough private interest to support it?

It requires maintenance trips from shuttle crews.

 

[Armitage]

I heard somewhere that it wouldn't cost much more to build & launch a next-generation hubble then it would to refurb the existing satellite. Seems like a stretch to me, but if you could launch the replacement on an expendable rather then a shuttle it might be true. Shuttle missions are enormously expensive.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Armitage
I heard somewhere that it wouldn't cost much more to build & launch a next-generation hubble then it would to refurb the existing satellite. Seems like a stretch to me, but if you could launch the replacement on an expendable rather then a shuttle it might be true. Shuttle missions are enormously expensive.

The number I've read about for the repair mission would be about $2 Billion including shuttle launch.

 

[sciencewhiz]

Originally posted by: Armitage
I heard somewhere that it wouldn't cost much more to build & launch a next-generation hubble then it would to refurb the existing satellite. Seems like a stretch to me, but if you could launch the replacement on an expendable rather then a shuttle it might be true. Shuttle missions are enormously expensive.

The next generation telescope is already under development but won't be ready to deploy until 2011.

http://www.jwst.nasa.gov/

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: sciencewhiz

Originally posted by: Armitage
I heard somewhere that it wouldn't cost much more to build & launch a next-generation hubble then it would to refurb the existing satellite. Seems like a stretch to me, but if you could launch the replacement on an expendable rather then a shuttle it might be true. Shuttle missions are enormously expensive.

The next generation telescope is already under development but won't be ready to deploy until 2011.

http://www.jwst.nasa.gov/

I'm more excited about the terrestrial planet finder

 

[sharkeeper]

No.

The Hubble was a flawed design from the start and there is no problem with abondonment. It should have have been scrapped yesterday.

 

[Armitage]

Originally posted by: sharkeeper
No.

The Hubble was a flawed design from the start and there is no problem with abondonment. It should have have been scrapped yesterday.

That's a pretty narrow minded assessment. While the hubble has certainly had its share of problems, it is still a enourmously useful instrument.

 

[Armitage]

Originally posted by: sciencewhiz

Originally posted by: Armitage
I heard somewhere that it wouldn't cost much more to build & launch a next-generation hubble then it would to refurb the existing satellite. Seems like a stretch to me, but if you could launch the replacement on an expendable rather then a shuttle it might be true. Shuttle missions are enormously expensive.

The next generation telescope is already under development but won't be ready to deploy until 2011.

http://www.jwst.nasa.gov/

Interesting - I didn't realize they were going to park it at L2 Sounds like a good idea. It should give em a leg up on pointing & operations.

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: sharkeeper
No.

The Hubble was a flawed design from the start and there is no problem with abondonment. It should have have been scrapped yesterday.

It wasn't a flawed design at all. The company contracted to grind the primary mirror fvcked up. Thankfully though it was all computer controlled so they were able to correct for it with costar.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: sciencewhiz

Originally posted by: Armitage
I heard somewhere that it wouldn't cost much more to build & launch a next-generation hubble then it would to refurb the existing satellite. Seems like a stretch to me, but if you could launch the replacement on an expendable rather then a shuttle it might be true. Shuttle missions are enormously expensive.

The next generation telescope is already under development but won't be ready to deploy until 2011.

http://www.jwst.nasa.gov/

That's not a replacement for Hubble, though. That one sees only in the infrared region. Hubble is a member of NASA's four Great Observatories. The members are:

Hubble, which seen in the visible spectrum (almost done)

Compton, which sees gamma rays (deorbited now)

Chandra, which sees in the ultraviolet

Spitzer, which sees in the infrared.

There's no replacement for Hubble planned yet.

 

[MercenaryForHire]

If we let NASA abandon hubble as they propose, are we critically damaging our Asteroid-Earth collision detection system?

No, the tinfoil in your hat will pick it up early enough.

- M4H

 

[effee]

Do you really think that if we discovered an asteroid, say the size of texas, even a year away we could do anything about it?

 

[everman]

No it won't affect asteroid spotting, we can't really see anything as it is.
However we do know about this.