The Case Against Hubble

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
linkage

I first want to say that I think NASA could use more funding, but it is time for them to stop being wasteful. Okeefe was right to kill hubble, but the uninformed public outcry was too much.


Moreover, "Space News" reported on August 13 that NASA's official $1.6 billion is actually its private minimum cost estimate for the repair robot: "An internal NASA study completed in recent weeks, according to government and industry sources, [/b]estimated the cost of such an undertaking to be $1.6 billion to $2.3 billion."[/b]

And any such servicing mission - manned or robotic - has a 50-50 chance of prolonging Hubble's working lifetime by only another 3 1/2 years.

...

And one of those concepts was the Hubble Origins Probe ("HOP") proposed by Colin Norman of the Space Telescope Science Institute, which operates Hubble.

HOP would fly the WFC-3 and COS instruments- intended for installation on Hubble- on a new orbiting space telescope, in a similar low Earth orbit, with a 2.4 meter mirror just as big as Hubble's.

But (like the other Origins Probe ideas) it would cost less than $670 million, thanks to the major cost-saving advances in technology that have occurred since Hubble itself was built in the 1980s.

(For instance, the European Space Agency's "Herschel" infrared space telescope, set for launch in 2007, costs only about a billion dollars and weighs less than one-third as much as Hubble - but it carries three instruments, and its mirror is almost half again as wide as Hubble's and has over twice as much light-collecting area.)

And the cost of each generation of new replacement instruments on Hubble itself has dropped at the same time that their data return has literally skyrocketed.
...

So, at a total cost of a little over $1.3 billion - the same or less than the proposed robotic or manned Hubble repair missions that would renovate the telescope for one final lifespan of 3 1/2 years - [bthe same four primary Hubble instruments could be flown and operated for a comparable period on two new orbiting telescopes.

We could probably fix the hubble, but the question is why?
 

Todd33

Diamond Member
Oct 16, 2003
7,842
2
81
No good reason. There are a few ground based scopes that are better now.
 
Aug 14, 2001
11,061
0
0
I was under the assumption that a new and much better US space telescope was also set to be launched a couple of years after the Hubble is supposed to go out if not maintained...why waste the money on the Hubble now unless it's absolutely necessary to have it up?
 

HombrePequeno

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2001
4,657
0
0
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
I was under the assumption that a new and much better US space telescope was also set to be launched a couple of years after the Hubble is supposed to go out if not maintained...why waste the money on the Hubble now unless it's absolutely necessary to have it up?

Exactly. Sure we won't have a space telescope for a few years but the money used to save the Hubble can be better allocated.
 

arsbanned

Banned
Dec 12, 2003
4,853
0
0
Yeah, shut off the lights and cut the teather on that piece o' crap Hubble. The entire thing has been a debacle. A boodoggle of the highest magnitude. :D
 

GoPackGo

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2003
6,503
564
126
Originally posted by: arsbanned
Yeah, shut off the lights and cut the teather on that piece o' crap Hubble. The entire thing has been a debacle. A boodoggle of the highest magnitude. :D

It has taken some pretty cool pictures
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
49,961
40,822
136
Originally posted by: arsbanned
Yeah, shut off the lights and cut the teather on that piece o' crap Hubble. The entire thing has been a debacle. A boodoggle of the highest magnitude. :D

I think you are confusing it with that other mismanaged money pit, the ISS.
 

arsbanned

Banned
Dec 12, 2003
4,853
0
0
Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Originally posted by: arsbanned
Yeah, shut off the lights and cut the teather on that piece o' crap Hubble. The entire thing has been a debacle. A boodoggle of the highest magnitude. :D

It has taken some pretty cool pictures

Agreed, once they put corrective lenses on the defective design shot into space. Unbelievable that something like that could happen. Anyone remotely connected to that program should have been fired.


K1052
I think you are confusing it with that other mismanaged money pit, the ISS

See above.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: charrison

The Case Against Hubble
Topic Summary: Another reason why our goverment is broken

We could probably fix the hubble, but the question is why?

Well folks, there it is, more in clear Black & White for all to see the vile for the progress and advancement of mankind by the Rich Neocon Elitists.

If they continue to have their way they would be very happy to see the U.S. back under Queen rule and they each have their own little Kingdoms of Dictatorship rule.

Their true colors are really shining through as they realize their reign of Brainwashing is coming to a close.
 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: charrison

The Case Against Hubble
Topic Summary: Another reason why our goverment is broken

We could probably fix the hubble, but the question is why?

Well folks, there it is, more in clear Black & White for all to see the vile for the progress and advancement of mankind by the Rich Neocon Elitists.

If they continue to have their way they would be very happy to see the U.S. back under Queen rule and they each have their own little Kingdoms of Dictatorship rule.

Their true colors are really shining through as they realize their reign of Brainwashing is coming to a close.


Evidently Mcowen's jealousy of charrison extends to multiple threads. Somebody ban this idiotic troll already.
 

cKGunslinger

Lifer
Nov 29, 1999
16,408
57
91
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
I was under the assumption that a new and much better US space telescope was also set to be launched a couple of years after the Hubble is supposed to go out if not maintained...why waste the money on the Hubble now unless it's absolutely necessary to have it up?

The new telescope, (I thinkthe James Webb telescope or something like that) is of a completely different type. I think the Hubble is optical and the Webb with be radio or something. Anyway, the point is, the new telescope is not exactly a "replacement" for Hubble.

And as far as "waste the money on the Hubble now unless it's absolutely necessary to have it up", could not the same be said of just about any NASA endeavour? By that logic we should just scrap then entire department, as it's not "necessary." Are you suggesting that?
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
49,961
40,822
136
Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
I was under the assumption that a new and much better US space telescope was also set to be launched a couple of years after the Hubble is supposed to go out if not maintained...why waste the money on the Hubble now unless it's absolutely necessary to have it up?

The new telescope, (I thinkthe James Webb telescope or something like that) is of a completely different type. I think the Hubble is optical and the Webb with be radio or something. Anyway, the point is, the new telescope is not exactly a "replacement" for Hubble.

And as far as "waste the money on the Hubble now unless it's absolutely necessary to have it up", could not the same be said of just about any NASA endeavour? By that logic we should just scrap then entire department, as it's not "necessary." Are you suggesting that?

How will JWST be better than the Hubble Space Telescope?
JWST is designed to look deeper into space to see the earliest stars and galaxies form in the Universe and to look deep into nearby dust clouds to study the formation of stars and planets. In order to do this, JWST will have a much larger primary mirror than Hubble (2.5 times larger in diameter, or about 6 times larger in area), giving it much more light gathering power. It also will have better infrared instruments than Hubble, allowing it to see the formation of stars and galaxies (see below). Finally, JWST will operate much farther from Earth, where operations are simpler, and where giving the telescope a stable pointing is easier than with the Earth-orbiting Hubble.

From here.
 

ReiAyanami

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2002
4,466
0
0
what they should have done was just name its successor the "Hubble II" and have a press release saying "Its it's son..."
 

Darkhawk28

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2000
6,759
0
0
If they do cut the cord, so to speak, let's make sure it's on a path back to Earth. This way in 300 years or so, we don't have a V-ger incident.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
49,961
40,822
136
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
If they do cut the cord, so to speak, let's make sure it's on a path back to Earth. This way in 300 years or so, we don't have a V-ger incident.

Too late.
 

Darkhawk28

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2000
6,759
0
0
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
If they do cut the cord, so to speak, let's make sure it's on a path back to Earth. This way in 300 years or so, we don't have a V-ger incident.

Too late.


D'oh! But on the bright side, the bald chick in the movie was HAWT!
 

cKGunslinger

Lifer
Nov 29, 1999
16,408
57
91
Originally posted by: K1052

How will JWST be better than the Hubble Space Telescope?
JWST is designed to look deeper into space to see the earliest stars and galaxies form in the Universe and to look deep into nearby dust clouds to study the formation of stars and planets. In order to do this, JWST will have a much larger primary mirror than Hubble (2.5 times larger in diameter, or about 6 times larger in area), giving it much more light gathering power. It also will have better infrared instruments than Hubble, allowing it to see the formation of stars and galaxies (see below). Finally, JWST will operate much farther from Earth, where operations are simpler, and where giving the telescope a stable pointing is easier than with the Earth-orbiting Hubble.

From here.

Thanks for the info! It appears that the Webb has been designed to replace Hubble after all. But I still argue that if the cost/benefit analysis of repairing the Hubble is reasonable, it should be done. There are a large variety of tests that can benefit from having 2 telescopes in the sky, instead of one.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
49,961
40,822
136
Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Originally posted by: K1052

How will JWST be better than the Hubble Space Telescope?
JWST is designed to look deeper into space to see the earliest stars and galaxies form in the Universe and to look deep into nearby dust clouds to study the formation of stars and planets. In order to do this, JWST will have a much larger primary mirror than Hubble (2.5 times larger in diameter, or about 6 times larger in area), giving it much more light gathering power. It also will have better infrared instruments than Hubble, allowing it to see the formation of stars and galaxies (see below). Finally, JWST will operate much farther from Earth, where operations are simpler, and where giving the telescope a stable pointing is easier than with the Earth-orbiting Hubble.

From here.

Thanks for the info! It appears that the Webb has been designed to replace Hubble after all. But I still argue that if the cost/benefit analysis of repairing the Hubble is reasonable, it should be done. There are a large variety of tests that can benefit from having 2 telescopes in the sky, instead of one.

Well, the two options for a repair mission to Hubble don't make me all that thrilled and the relatively short extension that would grant seems rather expensive.

If the robot craps out there goes a few billion that could have been spent elsewhere. I also think the shuttle has had it. It is really time to dump cash into a new vehicle that might actually meet the goals of the shuttle program.

Also, after reading the Columbia investigation report it sounds like they have a lot of in house problems (some of which are admittedly caused by lack of funding) that need to be dealt with.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: charrison

The Case Against Hubble
Topic Summary: Another reason why our goverment is broken

We could probably fix the hubble, but the question is why?

Well folks, there it is, more in clear Black & White for all to see the vile for the progress and advancement of mankind by the Rich Neocon Elitists.

If they continue to have their way they would be very happy to see the U.S. back under Queen rule and they each have their own little Kingdoms of Dictatorship rule.

Their true colors are really shining through as they realize their reign of Brainwashing is coming to a close.

So I take it you approve of spending up to 2.5 billion for a 50/50 chance of saving the hubble, rather than spending 1/2 of that to replace hubble with a far more capable telescope.


This post is a new low for you Dave.
 
Aug 14, 2001
11,061
0
0
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
I was under the assumption that a new and much better US space telescope was also set to be launched a couple of years after the Hubble is supposed to go out if not maintained...why waste the money on the Hubble now unless it's absolutely necessary to have it up?

The new telescope, (I thinkthe James Webb telescope or something like that) is of a completely different type. I think the Hubble is optical and the Webb with be radio or something. Anyway, the point is, the new telescope is not exactly a "replacement" for Hubble.

And as far as "waste the money on the Hubble now unless it's absolutely necessary to have it up", could not the same be said of just about any NASA endeavour? By that logic we should just scrap then entire department, as it's not "necessary." Are you suggesting that?

How will JWST be better than the Hubble Space Telescope?
JWST is designed to look deeper into space to see the earliest stars and galaxies form in the Universe and to look deep into nearby dust clouds to study the formation of stars and planets. In order to do this, JWST will have a much larger primary mirror than Hubble (2.5 times larger in diameter, or about 6 times larger in area), giving it much more light gathering power. It also will have better infrared instruments than Hubble, allowing it to see the formation of stars and galaxies (see below). Finally, JWST will operate much farther from Earth, where operations are simpler, and where giving the telescope a stable pointing is easier than with the Earth-orbiting Hubble.

From here.

Nice information. I think NASA might be better off using that billion to fix the Hubble on another project.
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,486
0
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: charrison

The Case Against Hubble
Topic Summary: Another reason why our goverment is broken

We could probably fix the hubble, but the question is why?

Well folks, there it is, more in clear Black & White for all to see the vile for the progress and advancement of mankind by the Rich Neocon Elitists.

If they continue to have their way they would be very happy to see the U.S. back under Queen rule and they each have their own little Kingdoms of Dictatorship rule.

Their true colors are really shining through as they realize their reign of Brainwashing is coming to a close.

So I take it you approve of spending up to 2.5 billion for a 50/50 chance of saving the hubble, rather than spending 1/2 of that to replace hubble with a far more capable telescope.


This post is a new low for you Dave.

He can go lower. I have faith.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: alchemize

So I take it you approve of spending up to 2.5 billion for a 50/50 chance of saving the hubble, rather than spending 1/2 of that to replace hubble with a far more capable telescope.


This post is a new low for you Dave.

He can go lower. I have faith.[/quote]

I don't think it is as cut and dry and 50/50 as you say. Only those on the project know this for sure.

Never heard of the Limbo? "How low can you go?" :D
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: alchemize

So I take it you approve of spending up to 2.5 billion for a 50/50 chance of saving the hubble, rather than spending 1/2 of that to replace hubble with a far more capable telescope.


This post is a new low for you Dave.

He can go lower. I have faith.

I don't think it is as cut and dry and 50/50 as you say. Only those on the project know this for sure.

Never heard of the Limbo? "How low can you go?" :D[/quote]

Ok, so want to spend more and get less then? You are apparently against getting more better telescopes in space.
 

bozack

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2000
7,913
12
81
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: charrison

Ok, so want to spend more and get less then? You are apparently against getting more better telescopes in space.

Oh, please. There is nothing stopping them from putting more Telescopes up.

dude are you retarded?? you just happen to forget the shuttle incident that happened only about a year ago? while NASA got a pretty big budget boost under Bush they always manage to spend it and end up short most of the time as space R&D is dayum expensive...also whoever is bitching about ISS (ars) start bitching at our global "partners" in that affair...we have put up most of the cost for that bad boy and virtually everyone else came up short (well with the exception of the canada arm...woo hoo).

this thread makes me actually miss working there.