Fix Hubble!

I know there's new safety guidelines that can't all be followed on a mission to repair Hubble, but since Hubble is a very unusual case why is an exception unthinkable?

We've been doing shuttle missions without these guidelines for years. The new safety measures make sense to use as a general rule, but how is ONE more mission to Hubble all of the sudden too dangerous to do? Um like it's already been done three times...am I missing something here? Surely the chances of the same thing that happened to Columbia happening again are very slim?

Are they concerned about the age of the remaining shuttles? Although...lots of stuff is replaced between missions anyway. And Columbia wasn't exactly the newest shuttle...Endeavor is around 11 years newer so if age is an issue, use Endeavor!!! Geesh!

Hubble is just awesome. I hope they can keep it going.
Their most recent picture is truely "awesome" in the original full sense of the word.

http://www09.ksc.nasa.gov/mirrors/stsci/hubbledev/db/2004/07/images/a/formats/print.jpg

When you realize that 99% of every smudge and speck in this picture is an entire friggin' galaxy with an average well over 1,000,000,000 stars each, that kinda kicks your insignificant little butt down quite a few notches in relevance to the universe.

Oh, and by the way, that particular picture covers a portion of the sky so small, it's like looking at it through an eight-foot long drinking straw.

And BTWx2, the entire sky, no matter where you would look, is more or less just like this.

Yeah, I believe that's the "deepest look ever" into the universe if I'm not mistaken. That orbiting tube is STILL generating new discoveries, it's stupid to ignore that.

I completely agree. And don't think for a second that the orbiting telescope they're thinking of putting up next decade is a Hubble replacement-- HST is the only viable space based optical platform for doing UV observation, for one. (Earth's atmostphere filters out the UV).

My astronomy researcher friends would be quick to back this up-- HST is doing astoundingly meaningful and important science, and the "deep universe" data it provides has had a fundamental impact on the way we understand the universe-- and physics.

It's difficult for me to say this, but... The Gobi Desert would be 1000 times cheaper and easier to colonize than the moon or mars. I would like to see mankind arrive at a point where it can establish self-sustaining colonies offworld, and there would be benefits from the engineering that would go into such an effort, but..

*sigh*

I couldn't agree more! Another fine example of science taking a back seat to political egos.

I'm in favor of all manner of scientific exploration, but I've never been a big fan of the shuttle program. Our current shuttle system was supposed to be replaced with a more advanced program a number of years ago (I forget exactly when) and budget cuts at NASA lead them to scrap those plans and just keep flying the original vehicles.

Everything about the shuttle program has been compromise. They don't go as high as originally planned. They don't last as long and can't be launched as often as originally projected. Most of the science that can be done on the shuttle can now be done better on the International Space Station (IHS) and in fact thats pretty much what they have been doing, even before the crash.

The shuttle was originally planed to be able to achieve higher orbits than it currently does. As a result, both Hubble and the IHS are in lower orbits that would otherwise be desirable.

I don't know this to be true, but it would seem to me that having the IHS (or I guess it would have to be a new IHS at this point) in HIGH Earth orbit with a Hubble-like telescope a few hundred meters away would be optimal. Spare parts could be housed on at IHS and repairs could be made as necessary. The Russian style capsule craft can reach higher orbits and are fine for both crew rotation and supplying the IHS. BIG things that would need the shuttles cargo bay can be launched on special cargo-only missions and those things can be unpacked and installed by the IHS crew.

Anyway, people who know a lot more about it than me have said that we spent way too much on the shuttle program and starved a lot of real science in the process. While the moon missions were good, they were not sustainable. They were done to prove a point, as was the shuttle program. The point being that our science and technology was better than the Soviet's. That job being done, the programs could be scaled back or eliminated. In the mean time for all we spend on shuttle launches, we could have had hundreds of efforts such as the current Mars rovers.

I agree though that a first step, prior to a moon colony should be establishing an "earth colony". I don't know, in fact that such a thing would not be a part of the plan. Developing the technology, and testing it here on Earth first will be cheaper and lead to earlier benefits. Technology to take ice and turn it into tanks of liquid hydrogen and oxygen could be tested at the north and south poles. Some things can't be tested that way however. We can land a small craft on the moon and take off again because the moon has one sixth of Earth's gravity. There would be no point in testing that on Earth, in fact one of the advantages of a permanent moon base would be to serve as a launching point for missions to other planets.

All of this is very long term though. I'm glad to see NASA finally at least talking about long-term goals. The question is: do we have the money to fund such things at all? If not, I'd just as soon see the Shuttle system scrapped in favor of high Earth orbit vehicles and occasional robotic explorations of the moon, Mars, and other things in our solar system.

One other note... on the safety of the next Shuttle flight. I read that NASA had changed the material used for foam insulation on the space shuttles to comply with EPA regulations WITHOUT subjecting the new material to the same testing that the original foam had. Of course its sort of silly to worry about CFC emitions from the foam covering a craft thats spewing out tons of burnt rubber from its backside.... but hey, what's a little concession to political correctness every now and then if it only costs a few lives? So, now, in addition to checking the remaining shuttles for wear and tear (and remember, each shuttle is slightly different) they will have to decided whether to re-foam all the tanks, or go with the new material and hope Columbia was a fluke. They have also talked about preparing two shuttles at a time, so that if the same thing happens they can send a rescue mission. But what if the same thing happens on the rescue mission? Would you want to be the person to decide, or even announce the decision to leave 6 or 8 people stranded in space to die? Had they known about the hole in Columbia's wing, there is nothing else that could have been done. Easy for them to say "ooops, we didn't think of that possibility" now. They won't be able to say that if it happens a second time.

Politics strangling the Space Program makes me want to literally cry.

I realize this is my first post, so dont ignore it just because it is The problem with the space exploration program is funding (i'm pretty sure youre aware of this) why not get more funding? Well there are about 30 3rd world countries we support for no reason what so ever. They give us nothing in return, in fact most of them hate us. Yet we pump billions and billions into these countries without any concern for american voter intrests. I was in Kosovo in 2000-2001. We pump 60 billion dollars a month into the economy downthere. We rebuild houses and give ppl jobs......and what do they do......they blow it back up! Our foreign policy is seriously jacked up. I'm all for helping the ppl who need help but EVERYONE should not get the money we work our butts off to feed our families and support ourselves with. My two cents . Aphex Westerburg (now one week old)

Back to the topic at hand...

It would be really nice if NASA could bring the Hubble back home. Its not altogether impossible, and its lasted alot longer than originally planned. A true candidate for the Smithsonian. Unfortunately, its much cheaper to de-orbit it, and let it burn. It just seems to me that NASA is in a shambles now, and to many, its a low priority when it comes to funding.

Aphex, our foreign policy is only the tip of the iceberg. I could go on all day about the differences between the federal budget from the 1960's and now, but I'll refrain from hijacking this thread.

Welcome to the slugfest!

I think you should check your numbers though. $60 BILLION a month to Kosovo sounds a tad high to me.

I agree with you on the principle though. Not clear we serve our own best interests with these funds, and we often don't serve the best interests of the country involved either.

youre right, its 60 million, and i know thats true. Add up the costs for the Military base and thats what you get. I would break it down further but why? The typo was a result of a lack of coffee, the problem has been fixed and should not happen again.

I'll admit I know almost nothing about proposed future space telescopes. But a NASA "astro-biologist" on CSPAN the other day said that discontinuing the Hubble will allow them to put up something "better". He didn't go into any details, as the show was mostly about the Mars rover mission.

But, since technology has improved since the Hubble, I would think that a replacement would do everything the Hubble does, and perhaps in a smaller package. I would also anticipate that it would go into a higher orbit, like those of our telecommunications satelites, and be able to stay up there indefinitely without periodic boostings as the Hubble and ISS have to do.

This is just speculation on my part. Do you have any links, one way or the other?

Any "new Hubble" telescope would probably be a totally different type. My best guess would be something more like a huge radio telescope (we get tons of data from those on Earth). The bad thing about this is that it's not as "cool" (heh, pictures).

I think the shuttle program is long overdue to be replaced. They cost too much and I've heard many times that we could produce human-ferrying reuseable craft that would operate at a fraction of that cost. I think the thing with that idea is that we lose the shuttle's "heavy lift" capability. Maybe we could ask the Russkies to fire heavy stuff up for us. lol

As far as Earth-testing this stuff, I have no doubts in my mind that they'll be doing exactly that, although I have no idea on what scale it'll be on. But don't forget: money spent on the space program doesn't just help the space program. It provides contracts for space-capable companies who in turn employ US workers (very many of which are well paid), which helps the economy in more ways than one.