Jump to content
3000AD Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Supreme Cmdr

Nasa plans to bring down Hubble

Recommended Posts

There is still time to save it. I hope.

I haven't researched the figures I have seen enough to really decide but it seems to me that if it takes 1.8 billion to decommission it and 2 billion to save it ... it should be a no brainer to save it.

Grrrrr. I'm just disappointed. I thought we wanted to go to Mars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

I thought we wanted to go to Mars.

What does that have to do with Hubble?

Besides, I thought we were working on Hubble's replacement anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One would think that showing an interest in going to Mars would show an interest in space in general. If one has an interest in space in general one would want to save Hubble. One would think.

James Webb telescope

Edit: Oh, if they decommission Hubble there will be a gap of several years before James Webb goes up.

As I said in the Hubble Ultra Deep Field thread what is the cost of something versus the price of not learning?

Apologies all. Just my little soapbox.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DocHoliday

Hm.. James Webb? I heard the next generation space telescope would be called Kepler? Maybe that's the same one or maybe there are two..

Yup, my personal idea about the Hubble was to lift it to a higher orbit, shut it down and let it remain there as a monument - museum piece of a sort.. It's caused a lot of pain in the .. since the beginning, all the more reason to preserve it instead of letting it burn in atmosphere..

Of course, NASA owns the thing and they may do with it as they please..

About Mars: Isn't the new research goin in the direction of Constellation / CEV? This is supposed to be the next generation launcher/excursion vehicle, to take people back to Moon and on to Mars. Even though personally, I'd prefer to see something like an upgrade to the Shuttle concept, not a continuation of Apollo doctrine, even though it is tested and proved.

Cheers,

Doc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by Cmdr Chavik:

if it takes 1.8 billion to decommission it and 2 billion to save it ... it should be a no brainer to save it.


Not really. Destroying it is one thing. Saving it is clearly another, since it would incur further costs to maintain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7477739/

quote:

WASHINGTON - The chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee said today that he would push for swift confirmation of NASA Administrator nominee Mike Griffin with the intent of clearing him to report for duty Monday April 18.

Griffin said during his confirmation hearing before the Commerce Committee this morning that his two top priorities would be safe return to flight of the space shuttle fleet and eliminating the lengthy gap between retiring the shuttle fleet in 2010 and fielding a replacement vehicle, the Crew Exploration Vehicle now scheduled for its initial launch in 2014.

Griffin also said he would reconsider the decision by his predecessor, former NASA Administrator Sean OÔÇÖKeefe, to cancel a planned shuttle mission to service the Hubble Space Telescope. ÔÇ£We should reassess the earlier decision in light of what we learn after return to flight,ÔÇØ Griffin said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the Hubble Ultra Deep Field thread someone made a remark that Hubble has done it's job and should be let go. I also suggested some innovative ways to cooperate on saving Hubble.

My post was not only for information but also thumbing my nose at those think Hubble is done by pointing out that the new director may rethink the decision to scrap Hubble. I hope so. I think I would be happy with the final service mission. I "could" hope for more but if Hubble gets this last one I think I would be satisfied.

Turns out that the robot seems to be undoable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I think that we ought do A: Put a telescope on the "dark side of the moon" and B: Put a radio telescope in the "dark side of the moon".

In the meantime, Hubble should stay up and do it's thing.

I say that 2 above for obvious reasons, the otherside of the moon, which faces away from us forever, should have a radiotelescope on it, that is completely away from the radio garbage of earth. The clutter created by earth's radio emission is hard to filter out, and creates a lot of problems as far as how weak a signal we can recieve.

If the international community would like to get involved in such a thing, I think it would be excellent, because I think ISS is a waste of time, it is already obsolete.

We need to start from scratch and rethink the way we get into space, there are lots of other far LESS expensive ways in the long run to get the tonnage and people out of orbit, I just wish they would do it.

The initial investment might be fairly large, but the benefits for the future far outweigh them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

I say that 2 above for obvious reasons, the otherside of the moon, which faces away from us forever, should have a radiotelescope on it, that is completely away from the radio garbage of earth. The clutter created by earth's radio emission is hard to filter out, and creates a lot of problems as far as how weak a signal we can recieve.

It also leaves the telescope very vulnerable to meteoroids.

quote:

If the international community would like to get involved in such a thing, I think it would be excellent, because I think ISS is a waste of time, it is already obsolete.

It was a waste of time as soon as the congress started reworking the budget for it.

quote:

The initial investment might be fairly large *snip*

...and there lies the problem. Nobody seems to want to make the leap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

quote:

Originally posted by jamotto:

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

I say that 2 above for obvious reasons, the otherside of the moon, which faces away from us forever, should have a radiotelescope on it, that is completely away from the radio garbage of earth. The clutter created by earth's radio emission is hard to filter out, and creates a lot of problems as far as how weak a signal we can recieve.

It also leaves the telescope very vulnerable to meteoroids.

quote:

If the international community would like to get involved in such a thing, I think it would be excellent, because I think ISS is a waste of time, it is already obsolete.

It was a waste of time as soon as the congress started reworking the budget for it.

quote:

The initial investment might be fairly large *snip*

...and there lies the problem. Nobody seems to want to make the leap.


OK, first off, it would be vulnerable to meteors or asteroids as any satelite in orbit..

As far as the budget is concerned, it doesn't matter, when it takes 10 fricking years to get something allowed for space, it is obsolete, the technology acceptance needs to be put on a fast track, because your P4 is obsolete before it hits the fricking shelves.

And, no, no one wants to make the leap, and that is why private enterprise and the capitalist system needs to get involved in a BIG way.

The profit motive is what is gonna get us to Mars, and the asteroids and everywhere else in the galaxy, government can't and WON'T handle it well, and prove it EVERY day...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by jamotto:

It was a waste of time as soon as the congress started reworking the budget for it.


Same with Hubble.

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

Hubble should stay up and do it's thing.

I agree 150% and I also think it should be repaired/upgraded as long is feasibly possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

As far as the budget is concerned, it doesn't matter, when it takes 10 fricking years to get something allowed for space, it is obsolete, the technology acceptance needs to be put on a fast track, because your P4 is obsolete before it hits the fricking shelves.

It's not so much the technology, but how much they have had to remove from the station, because of the budget cuts. 60% of the research facilities, in fact the whole station is gonna be less that half it's original volume if I remember correctly. If they don't have the space and equipment to conduct the experiments that they wanted to do, then the technology is irrelevant. The ISS is a money pit without Tom Hanks.

quote:

And, no, no one wants to make the leap, and that is why private enterprise and the capitalist system needs to get involved in a BIG way.

The profit motive is what is gonna get us to Mars, and the asteroids and everywhere else in the galaxy, government can't and WON'T handle it well, and prove it EVERY day...

well, other than millionaires (2 ?) who got a quick trip in space the profit motive seems to be a bit elusive. Maybe they need to retire the whole space idea until someone comes up with a plan to make money on daily basis? I don't think the majority of the general public would mind or even notice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I know the enigineer that designed the navigation system for the Mars Rover.

He was ballistic, because they limited him to certain "tested" components.

He said that the technology that was available for him to use was obsolete 5 years before the design stage, by the time it was put inot the rover, it would be over 10 years old, and he could have made the navigation system 1/4 as big, and 4 times more capable if he had been allowed to use components that were available at the time, and were just as, if not MORE, reliable, then the "tested" components he was allowed to use.

Besides the fact it would have been about 1/2 the cost.

NASA needs to implement a whole new system for testing, and put those new components on the fast track, so that a rover or a probe, or a new shuttle for that matter, will be as modern as we are capable of making it.

By the time the shuttle was built, it's mainframe computers were ALMOST as capable as a desktop computer. Sad, but true....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×