The plan to revive Hubble

James Howard — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 22:44:41 GMT

The Hubble Telescope should be repaired if at all possible.
When repairs are no longer feasible the Hubble should be declared a national treasure, brought back to earth and given a place of honor in the Smithsonian.

The plan to revive Hubble

N. D. Windrow — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 23:54:12 GMT

Not a bad idea, James Howard.

The plan to revive Hubble

William Mackinzi — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 00:05:01 GMT

Hubble should be repaired but maybe we should hold off going to B if we still have problems after NASA gives Hubble a tune up.

The plan to revive Hubble

KG2V — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 02:35:10 GMT

I remember that originally, the Hubble was supposed to be brought home, so...

Anyway, isn't there a "spare" mirror here on earth? At this point, with the Webb scope delayed and so darned expensive, why not build "Hubble II" (heck, the mirror is the HARD part, change the lenses that are on the replacement parts so they DON'T 'fix the mirror' and build a new chassis, and put up a whole new hubble.

The plan to revive Hubble

Richard Bannister, Taos, New Mexico — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 04:28:41 GMT

I'm always skeptical of the current government's handling/mishandling of projects such as Hubble because the science and discoveries revealed contradict their religious prejudices.

The plan to revive Hubble

Avery Y in East L. A. — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 05:52:22 GMT

"Hubble's Troubles."
LOL.

Fix it!!! What we haven't learned from the shuttle faux pas? If it is difficult to engineer, necessary for science, and is getting long in the tooth; YOU KEEP IT RUNNING UNTILL IT'S REPLACEMENT IS READY. Science shouldn't be decided by bureaucracy.

The plan to revive Hubble

Ben — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 06:49:39 GMT

Once the shuttle is foolishy retired before the next-gen spacecraft is ready, will there be a way to bring it back? My understanding is the shuttle is the only vehicle than can, re-entry being the problem since the capsules don't allow for large cargo to be returned. Personally I think NASA should build new shuttles with better, less fragile heat protection instead of the capsule idea. The space program is going backward.

The plan to revive Hubble

Alex, Aurora, IL — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 07:09:19 GMT

I agree that the observatory should be brought back--it's certainly earned its place in the annals of astronomy and would be an awesome addition to the Smithsonian. It should not have to plunge to a fiery death in Earth's atmosphere. However, all this may be moot, as current economic events may preclude allocating the money for this...sad, really.

The plan to revive Hubble

Todd, Billerica, MA — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 12:37:04 GMT

If there is a spare mirror, would it not also have the same problem the original one had and would need coreective lenses?

Anyways The WEbb telescope is scheduled for launch in 2013. If we were to take some spare Hubble lense and build a new modern Hubble II, it would not launch before 2013, you'd be lucky if it launched before 2020 as you would need the new Ares V rocket to get something that big to orbit (the shuttle will be long since retired).

Let us simply focus on this one last fix to Hubble to extend it's life to 2013 or possibly longer.

The plan to revive Hubble

Serge, Atlanta, GA — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 13:08:20 GMT

Actually even if the side B switch doesn't work not all is lost! The Fine Guidence Sensors are instruments used to position the telescope in space and lock on to a "target" (star, galaxy, etc.) for observing. It turns out that because of the way they work the FGSs are also very good at detecting and separating binary stars which would otherwise go undetected as binaries. They have routinely been used for science observations of binary or suspected binary stars in the past. Because they are not technically sience instruments they are controlled by a different system, and as a result they still work! During the past few days myself and other fellow graduate students have been compiling large lists of targets for FGS observations in order to fill in the huge gap in Hubble's schedule. It is nice to know that even in this very poor circumstance good science is still being done.
Why do we care about binary stars? To put it simply, observing a binary system is the only way in which the mass of a star can be determined, and that is of fundamental importance in astrophysics. We know the mass of the Sun and the Earth because we know the distance between them and we know how long it takes for the Earth to go around the Sun. By doing that to binary stars, we can also find their masses, and FGS has been instrumental in that effort.
Serge
serge@jhu.edu

The plan to revive Hubble

michelle new york, new york — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 13:15:41 GMT

NO NO NO NO NO! In these tough economic times, when there are more and more poor people, gas and food outrageously expensive, foreclosures, bank closings, etc., why is the government still spending huge amounts of money on space exploration? To what end? Will we be able to live on Mars? Will we be getting food or gas from there? Will it make the unemployment rate in the U.S. better? Wouldn't that money be spent better elsewhere? Common sense, people!

The plan to revive Hubble

Tim Hutcheson — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 13:45:36 GMT

Great idea, KG2V. We have a lot of experience with the Hubble system that shouldn't be wasted.

In fact why not, put "Hubble II" in an orbit compatible with and above the space station, where it should be for astronaut safety. Then go get the old Hubble and bring it back for refurbishing, send it back up in the same orbit with the new one. That creates servicing redundancy and would open the possibility of using the two Hubbles on the same object at the same time to increase resolving power dramatically. We'd just have to make sure they never bump into each other. ;o)

USA would get a lot of bang for the buck from that in the increasingly difficult economic time ahead.

Instead I think we are going to rip up our launch pads in preparation for the new booster systems and bet everything on the return to the moon. A lot of delays and concerns are looming for that venture. Having worked on Apollo back in the sixties, I'd love to see that also but maybe the timing isn't as good as we though it would be when the planning started.

The plan to revive Hubble

Benjamin J. Roth, Julian, Ca. 92036 — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 14:26:22 GMT

The cost of the Hubble in first put into space should be look at before letting the Hubble come bac to earth in a fire ball. What will it cost to make another and better Hubble. The Hubble is a very good and the pictures are outstanding. We need to have NASA save the Hubble.

The plan to revive Hubble

Eric, Salinas, CA — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 14:28:39 GMT

I'm keeping my fingers crossed that Side B works so that we can keep getting such wonderful pictures and data from Hubble. I'm just glad that problem happened before the repair mission and not afterwards. Hopefully NASA will be able to produce another Side A backup and get it installed on the repair mission.

The plan to revive Hubble

OneVoice, Frederick MD — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 16:13:39 GMT

I allways liked the idea of pushing into a higher orbit and leaving it there for later generations. Perhaps it can be the star attaction at the 1st Lunar museum in Tycho City.

The plan to revive Hubble

steve smyth — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 16:29:48 GMT

Can Hubble be refocused for super Hi-Def images of Earth?
If so, why not get some really good pics of the various locations where glaciers are melting, forests are disappearing, etc...before the big burn in?
Looking outward is great.
But, unfortunately, nothing there is gonna save our sorry butts...YET!
Serious pics of our niche in the balance might help.

The plan to revive Hubble

Sean, Jacksonville, FL — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 16:35:35 GMT

NASA has already evaluated the possibility of bringing Hubble back down to Earth, to put it on display, and decided against it.

John Grunsfeld, a NASA astronaut and astronomer, is on tap to detail his views before the panel. A four-flight shuttle veteran, two of his space travels -- in 1999 and 2002 -- were HST servicing missions.

"In a prepared text obtained by SPACE.com via the panel's web site, he backs a future servicing mission to Hubble, now scheduled for 2005. But the astronaut nixes the idea of returning the telescope to Earth.

"If there were to be a mission after the SM4 [Servicing Mission 4] for the purpose of returning Hubble to Earth in the shuttle payload bay, the Astronaut Office would have reservations supporting the mission," Grunsfeld's prepared statement explains.

"Initial analysis shows that perhaps four spacewalks are required, significant hardware would have to be jettisoned, and a heavyweight return through the atmosphere would have to be performed. In a sense this mission would be risking human lives, and a unique national resource [the space shuttle], for the purpose of disabling great science, albeit due to necessity at end-of-life," Grunsfeld explains."

See http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/hubble_grunsfeld_0306731.html

The plan to revive Hubble

Tim Logiovino, Cape May, New Jersey — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 16:58:34 GMT

Let it go. The economy and United States are in financial turmoil and scientists along with fellow nerds are more worried about applying the latest deep space pictures as backgrounds on their HP touchsmarts. Take your "WASTED" funds for the multi-million dollar mirror replacement mission and give it to the middle americans.

The plan to revive Hubble

Mark Wilson, Dayton Ohio — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 20:39:05 GMT

Every effort should be taken to insure its ability to continue,lest the effort to place it there would be in vain. I seriously doubt you would get any engineers to buy in with bringing it back just to put it in a museum. I forsee problems getting through the atmosphere and then landing. It weighs almost 10 tons. (24,500 lbs or 11110 kg)

The plan to revive Hubble

Scott — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 21:44:54 GMT

To all of the people complaining about funding space exploration instead of bank bailouts that don't work or the latest wealth redistribution scheme, why don't you put your money where your mouth is and boycott all of the amenities of daily life that came from space exploration? There are the simple things like scratch-resistant lenses, athletic shoes, home security systems, smoke detectors, flat panel TV's, sports bras, and transitions lenses. There are also the life-saving things like reduced X-Ray exposure during breast cancer identification, laser angioplasty, ultrasounds for skin damage, programmable pacemakers, anesthetic gas analyzers, lightweight fireman air tanks, and MRI machines. There's also direct contributions in the form of vastly improved weather forecasting, satellite phone and radio, improved crop managment from orbit, and fish harvesting managment. So yes, believe it or not, space exploration puts more food in people's mouths.

PS: Suggesting that the government is intentionally fouling up the Hubble telescope or its repair missions because of religious prejudice is not only crazy, but it also says a lot more about your own prejudices than it does the government's.

The plan to revive Hubble

Bill Cox, Pittsburgh, Pa. — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 11:47:43 GMT

First, there is no way to bring the Hubble "down to Earth". The Shuttle is made to land in an empty state and coming down with a maximum load will vastly increase the danger that Shuttle Crews must endure with every re--entry.
Second, the Hubble is already "Old-Tech" and efforts to save it for contuinued function are a waste of time, energy, and, most important, the slender thread of cash with which NASA plans to explore both the inner and outer solar system.
Third, I love the Hubble, too, but there is no way to "preserve" it as an orbiting national treasure, simply due to the fact that the station--keeping hardware is spent. Most objects we send up don't stay there, you know. They slow because of Exospheric friction and, finally, cave out of orbit. That's actually part of the planned life/death of orbiting devices.
Conclusion:
Do we NEED a space telescope? Who cares! It's a welcome demonstration of our technological expertise if nothing else. I want one; even Keck is not as cool or potentially as effective as a maximum tech orbiter. Also, do we really want Russia to be the ONLY major nation with a heavy payload launch capacity? I think not!
No offense meant to any of you well--intended folks out there in Russia, of course.

The plan to revive Hubble

Frank Glover, Rochester, NY — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 18:49:14 GMT

"Anyway, isn't there a "spare" mirror here on earth?"

Yes. It was made by Eastman Kodak, and *may* (I'm not sure) be just a few miles from where I write this.

But if/how it may ever be used, I don't know.

The plan to revive Hubble

Frank, Dallas, TX — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 18:39:21 GMT

Funding for space and for science has reached such a sad state of affairs. We should be arguing over which other orbiting telescopes that we would already have in orbit would be best suited to undertake the specific missions Hubble will not be able to accomplish; instead we are arguing over how and whether to repair the one observatory (well past its intended service life) with the one heavy-lift launch system (also well past its intended service life) that we have.

Unfortunately, I don't see that either Presidential candidate intends to change things - NASA's glory years will remain in the past until "real change" becomes more than a slogan.

The plan to revive Hubble

Frank Glover, Rochester NY — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 21:13:01 GMT

"Can Hubble be refocused for super Hi-Def images of Earth?"

No, that's the province of the intelligence gathering agencies. Some of their sats have nearly Hubbli-sized optics. (But a system optomized for deep space observations can't be simply turned around and look down. Even the Moon is too bright for many of HST's instruments.)

"If so, why not get some really good pics of the various locations where glaciers are melting, forests are disappearing, etc...before the big burn in"

There are plenty of Earth-observation satellites already (all the way back to the 'Landsat' program), and you can expect more. (Indeed, in the worst case, those 'politically correct' basic research satellites [not that we don't need the data, now mind you] are the only kind some people would launch at all)

And in those cases, you *want* the 'big picture,' as it were. You can't measure glacial retreat very well, for example, by focusing down almost to individual snowflakes...