Hubble is going down

[Skye]

Apparently as part of the funding shifts to accomodate the moon and mars trips, the Hubble telescope is not going to get any further maintainence. It'll wear out around 2007 or 2008, and be brought down somewhere oceanic by a robotic space craft.

 

Assorted links:

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/space/2358102

http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle.jhtml?type=scienceNews&storyID=4151142&section=news

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/17/science/17HUBB.html?ex=1074920400&en=afd98b10efeb0472&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

[Radical Edward]

Is anyone else a bit disturbed by this? I mean, Bush's announcement looking at it now seems not to be a case of "let's get to the moon and mars" but "f*ck science, lets just blow all our space budget on something that might or might not win an election"

[Qwik]

Radical Edward said in post #2 :

"f*ck science, lets just blow all our space budget on something that might or might not win an election"

 

I'm going to have to agree with you on that one. That sucks that it's comming down, though...

[Kedas]

What about the THE JAMES WEBB SPACE TELESCOPE for 2011.

Will they abort that also?

 

If bush is doing something right for ones then we will have a party.

Statistically speaking it should happen

 

They even have trouble to keep ISS fully operational how will they do that on the moon??

 

Edit:

some interesting info:

http://ngst.gsfc.nasa.gov/QuestionOfTheWeek/QuestionOfTheWeek.html

[YT2095]

according to Sky News this morning, they said the Hubble has 4 years life left in it Maximum.

Kitty and I were discusing ideas about what to do with it, we wondered if the solar panels could be used on the ISS or even if the whole thing could be intercepted and attatched to the ISS, maybe on an arm so it could still be used as a scope?

it seems a pitifull waste of money just to let it burn up

[aommaster]

yeah. I agree with u YT. What a waste. After all, the hubble helped NASA alot. The got amazing pictures from it. Now, they just let it burn up. Pitty...

[blike]

I believe the decision was made on the basis of safety, not economic concerns.

 

"f*ck science, lets just blow all our space budget on something that might or might not win an election"

 

Think of all the science that would take place sending men to mars..

[Skye]

"I believe the decision was made on the basis of safety, not economic concerns."

 

Really it's a mixture of the two, as it would have been very expensive to follow the new safety outlines.

 

I'm not in love with the Hubble telescope, but it turned out to be a successful project and so it's a pity to cut it a few years short. However, I think it's good that NASA has some interesting long term goals for exploration. But if the safety outlines make it hard for the Hubble to be serviced then I imagine this will blow out the costs for anything more grand, perhaps beyond their feasibility.

[Kedas]

Skye said in post # :

" But if the safety outlines make it hard for the Hubble to be serviced then I imagine this will blow out the costs for anything more grand, perhaps beyond their feasibility.

 

The Hubble was designed to be serviced. Although they will probably have to start replacing parts that weren't designed to serviced.

The JWST won't be serviced. (because of high orbit)

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

YT2095 said in post # :

according to Sky News this morning, they said the Hubble has 4 years life left in it Maximum.

Kitty and I were discusing ideas about what to do with it, we wondered if the solar panels could be used on the ISS or even if the whole thing could be intercepted and attatched to the ISS, maybe on an arm so it could still be used as a scope?

it seems a pitifull waste of money just to let it burn up

they're probably in different orbits. Then it wouldn't be possible.