Report - Attempt to service Hubble Telescope almost certainly cancelled

[bernse]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/s...ble.funding/index.html

(SPACE.com) -- The White House has eliminated funding for a mission to service the Hubble Space Telescope from its 2006 budget request and directed NASA to focus solely on de-orbiting the popular spacecraft at the end of its life, according to government and industry sources.

 

[Antoneo]

Well, I hope they have plans to send up another one. We've seen seen some fantastic images (though computer enhanced) from the Hubble, and I can't wait to see what they would be capable of doing now. Too bad budget cuts will delay such projects probably indefinitely.

 

[Wallydraigle]

I read that either currently, or very soon, we will be able to build huge terrestrial telescopes with the technology to cancel out atmospheric disturbances. So Hubble was basically obsolete anyway, and probably wasn't worth fixing anymore.

 

[cavemanmoron]

Originally posted by: bernse
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/s...ble.funding/index.html

(SPACE.com) -- The White House has eliminated funding for a mission to service the Hubble Space Telescope from its 2006 budget request and directed NASA to focus solely on de-orbiting the popular spacecraft at the end of its life, according to government and industry sources.

:brokenheart:

 

[acemcmac]

AWESOME GO GEORGE BUSH YEAAAYYAAAAA!!!!!!

HESE THE BEST PREZ EVar!@!!!!

 

[EyeMWing]

Man, if we just had the f'ing space shuttles in operation (THERE IS NO REASON WHATSOEVER FOR THEM TO BE GROUNDED, THIS IS THE LOSS RATE THAT WAS EXPECTED WHEN THEY BUILT THEM.) it would be a fairly small undertaking to fix it - but instead, nobody wants to use the shuttles ever again (I fully expect to see the remaining fleet museumized in the next 2 years) and instead comes up with asinine crap like building a robot to go do it.

 

[Platypus]

Maybe if they weren't spending 1 Billion dollars a week killl-er, promoting peace they'd have money for projects that fvcking matter.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Antoneo
Well, I hope they have plans to send up another one. We've seen seen some fantastic images (though computer enhanced) from the Hubble, and I can't wait to see what they would be capable of doing now. Too bad budget cuts will delay such projects probably indefinitely.

The James Webb Space Telescope, which is supposed to be the general replacement for the Hubble, is set to launch a few years after Hubble comes down.

 

[Yossarian]

Originally posted by: EyeMWing
Man, if we just had the f'ing space shuttles in operation (THERE IS NO REASON WHATSOEVER FOR THEM TO BE GROUNDED, THIS IS THE LOSS RATE THAT WAS EXPECTED WHEN THEY BUILT THEM.) it would be a fairly small undertaking to fix it - but instead, nobody wants to use the shuttles ever again (I fully expect to see the remaining fleet museumized in the next 2 years) and instead comes up with asinine crap like building a robot to go do it.

I would be interested in knowing where you get that information.

 

[raildogg]

oh know i hope they dont cancel the hubble

its one of the greatest things ever made by mankind. these tools surely have the resources to fund it, but why dont they?!?!!!!!

Love live the hubble, hopefually it will stay up

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: Wallydraigle
I read that either currently, or very soon, we will be able to build huge terrestrial telescopes with the technology to cancel out atmospheric disturbances. So Hubble was basically obsolete anyway, and probably wasn't worth fixing anymore.

it is worth fixing.

 

[Wallydraigle]

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: Wallydraigle
I read that either currently, or very soon, we will be able to build huge terrestrial telescopes with the technology to cancel out atmospheric disturbances. So Hubble was basically obsolete anyway, and probably wasn't worth fixing anymore.

it is worth fixing.

Why would it be worth it to keep fixing it if we can build better telescopes here on earth for a fraction of the price?

 

[Kipper]

NASA isn't getting any funding anymore...it's sad.'

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Wallydraigle

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: Wallydraigle
I read that either currently, or very soon, we will be able to build huge terrestrial telescopes with the technology to cancel out atmospheric disturbances. So Hubble was basically obsolete anyway, and probably wasn't worth fixing anymore.

it is worth fixing.

Why would it be worth it to keep fixing it if we can build better telescopes here on earth for a fraction of the price?

they're not very aimable

 

[Antoneo]

I thought the Bush administration was partying about a new space endeavour towards Mars? NASA's budget seems to have always been thin ever since the Cold War fizzled, so I wouldn't just stick this one onto the current Bush administration alone. (correct me if I'm wrong)

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: Antoneo
I thought the Bush administration was partying about a new space endeavour towards Mars? NASA's budget seems to have always been thin ever since the Cold War fizzled, so I wouldn't just stick this one onto the current Bush administration alone. (correct me if I'm wrong)

Especially because the humans-on-Mars thing is projected to cost close to a trillion dollars in the next 20 years. Now they're worried about a billion dollar investment to repair and upgrade the Hubble?

From one of Bush's speeches:

Returning to the moon is an important step for our space program. Establishing an extended human presence on the moon could vastly reduce the costs of further space exploration, making possible ever more ambitious missions. Lifting heavy spacecraft and fuel out of the Earth's gravity is expensive. Spacecraft assembled and provisioned on the moon could escape its far lower gravity using far less energy, and thus, far less cost. Also, the moon is home to abundant resources. Its soil contains raw materials that might be harvested and processed into rocket fuel or breathable air. We can use our time on the moon to develop and test new approaches and technologies and systems that will allow us to function in other, more challenging environments. The moon is a logical step toward further progress and achievement.

A permanent moon base capable of harvesting and processing materials for constructing anything substantial will be very expensive; making it resistant to micrometeor impacts will also be very difficult, not to mention shielding against radiation present outside of Earth's magnetosphere.

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Wallydraigle

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: Wallydraigle
I read that either currently, or very soon, we will be able to build huge terrestrial telescopes with the technology to cancel out atmospheric disturbances. So Hubble was basically obsolete anyway, and probably wasn't worth fixing anymore.

it is worth fixing.

Why would it be worth it to keep fixing it if we can build better telescopes here on earth for a fraction of the price?

they're not very aimable

Can't do any million-second exposures with an Earth based telescope - that's how long Hubble stayed pointed at one spot in the sky to create its Ultra-Deep Field image. Over several hundred orbits, it was able to point at the same spot. And it can acquire several groups of images a day - 90 minutes per orbit. On Earth, the spot will change place over the seasons - and you'd only get a chance at one imaging session a day. Cost suddenly goes up when it takes 16x longer to get deep-space images from the ground.


Interesting too is this on NASA's site:

Ultimately, a flight mission to Hubble will be required at the end of its time to either to return it to ground, raise it to a higher orbit, or guide it into a controlled re-entry (possibly with the aid of an attached booster).

I guess that a re-entry booster could be done without human intervention. But there's an idea - send the shuttle to service Hubble, AND install the re-entry module on it at the same time. Extended life, and save the money of launching another rocket to get the thing down when its new warranty runs out.

 

[yhelothar]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Antoneo
Well, I hope they have plans to send up another one. We've seen seen some fantastic images (though computer enhanced) from the Hubble, and I can't wait to see what they would be capable of doing now. Too bad budget cuts will delay such projects probably indefinitely.

The James Webb Space Telescope, which is supposed to be the general replacement for the Hubble, is set to launch a few years after Hubble comes down.

Yep. Can't wait for that one. They're sending an 8meter reflector into space!!!
By comparison, hubble is only 2.4m, so the JWST is over a thousand times more powerful!

 

[StrangerGuy]

The ATOT effect will enable mankind to build its greatest telescope evar - Telescope 42

 

[flot]

Bush is probably cancelling it for religious reasons.

 

[Babbles]

Why should they keep Hubble if they are going to put an even better telescope into orbit? Then you guys want NASA to service two telescopes? I am all happy and proud and whatever about what Hubble has done, but it has reached the end of it's lifespan. You all seem to complain about things, but for the most part NASA space equipment exceeds everybody's expectations.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: Babbles
Why should they keep Hubble if they are going to put an even better telescope into orbit? Then you guys want NASA to service two telescopes? I am all happy and proud and whatever about what Hubble has done, but it has reached the end of it's lifespan. You all seem to complain about things, but for the most part NASA space equipment exceeds everybody's expectations.

For the most part.....this isn't just NASA, but 2/3 of all missions to Mars have failed. Some that do work do great things though. Hubble has great things in store too, if it could just be repaired and upgraded.


On key difference - the James Webb telescope can't see in the visible light spectrum. Hubble can.
And besides, Hubble still works; I think repairing it to get more out of it makes more sense than just scrapping a useful piece of equipment. You don't throw out a car with a damaged windshield, dead battery, old oil, and maybe a bad wheel bearing. You fix it because it works fine otherwise, and it's cheaper to fix than to buy a new one.

 

[Kipper]

Originally posted by: flot
Bush is probably cancelling it for religious reasons.

:laugh:

That's right, can't have those godless aliens...

 

[DurocShark]

Originally posted by: Wallydraigle
I read that either currently, or very soon, we will be able to build huge terrestrial telescopes with the technology to cancel out atmospheric disturbances. So Hubble was basically obsolete anyway, and probably wasn't worth fixing anymore.

And just imagine if we applied that technology to a space mounted telescope!