Retiring the Hubble?

[matter]

Recently here in the U.S. NASA has considered discontinuing shuttle missions for repairs to the Hubble Space Telescope. It's part of a plan that would discontinue all shuttle use in hopes of using a new method for space travel.

 

To me this is sad news. The Hubble Space Telescope has captured some amazing images from the galaxy, and the universe. My understanding is that it is able to take the finely detailed photographs because it is in orbit, and does not receive interference from the Earths atmosphere. Could new ground based telescopes ever be as great as the Hubble?

 

There's no real official word that the repair missions are being discontinued but the plan that the President of the U.S. has proposed calls for the Hubble's reitirement.

 

I personally want the Hubble to stick around.

[Sayonara]

You've kind of missed the boat on the whole "save Hubble" thing.

 

After protests, NASA reviewed the situation and finally determined it had to be retired. Oh well.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3437309.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3444853.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3474891.stm

[fafalone]

NASA didn't decide this, one man in NASA did. It's politics, not science, that are stopping them from maintaining Hubble.

 

If the shuttle is damaged and reaches the ISS, the shuttle is lost anyway, so it comes down to the human element: I'd wager good money there's not a single astronaut who would decline to go on a Hubble service mission, and so long as the people on the mission choose to take the risk, the director of NASA should not stop it.

[Dave]

It's stupid. The amount of information that satellite has provided is just phenominal. It seems completely stupid to stop maintaining it just because of some unreasoned political decision.

[fafalone]

Why don't we make it even safer and stop human space fight all together. Hopefully some of our astronauts will defect to Russia an go up and save it anyway.

[3rd Enigma]

Lets just bolt it to the ISS.

[Sayonara]

It doesn't matter if it's due to politics, diminishing returns or space goats from Titan. It's still going to be retired.

 

We should be more concerned now with what's going to replace it.

[matter]

Thanks for the links Sayo. I guess there was a final decision after all.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

3rd Enigma said in post # :

Lets just bolt it to the ISS.

You can't, it's in a different orbit.

[Rasori]

Different orbit, different schmorbit.

 

Just pick it up with a Canadarm and pull it, sheez

[YT2095]

it`s in a different orbit because we put it there, and we could change it also. I think it could be "bolted" or at least implemented in some way on the ISS, even if only for the solar pannels and the other components. 3D`s idea has alot of merit!

if nothing else, it could be serviced from there, re-fueled and jetisoned back into it`s original place good for another few years of service, after all, what`s the ISS up there for if not to make work like that somewhat easier than an entire mission all the way from back down here again. send the necesaries up to the ISS and get on with it!

[Sayonara]

Looks like NASA might be reconsidering:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3652627.stm

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

it`s in a different orbit because we put it there, and we could change it also. I think it could be "bolted" or at least implemented in some way on the ISS, even if only for the solar pannels and the other components. 3D`s idea has alot of merit!

The space shuttle only has enough maneuvering fuel to tilt the orbit a few degrees. Plus, Hubble is miles higher than the ISS. You'd need to specially design a rocket to move it, and that would cost a lot.

[Sayonara]

Read the link.

[J'Dona]

Maybe it sounds ridiculous, but once Hubble's mission is over, instead of attaching a rocket to send it into the atmosphere, why not use the rocket to launch it into space, out of the solar system (or at least a polar orbit outside the planes of orbits of the planets)? That way, some time centuries from now, people could retreive it if they wanted to and put it in a museum or something. I mean, Hubble is a part of history now, and after it's mission is over it'll be an artifact. It just seems rather corporate to just destroy it after it stops being useful, despite all its done. :/ (In my view, 'corporate' is an offensive verb)

[YT2095]

a proposal was made a few days ago, and is under consideration to send a robot up there to fix it, it`ll cost less in many terms!

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3506016.stm

 

http://www.space.com/news/hubble_robotic_040405.html

 

http://www.baltimoresun.com/features/bal-to.hubble23apr23,0,2378822.story?coll=bal-features-headlines

 

ect...

[SolarFlare]

http://www.thespacesite.com/community/index.php?showtopic=993

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3545130.stm

 

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/2724481

 

QUOTE

 

This is a huge blow to astronomers, since spectra are needed to study the chemical composition and physical state of the objects Hubble studies, as well as measuring redshifts of galaxies and gas velocities around black holes — all science goals that the remaining instruments cannot help with. Furthermore, STIS's ultraviolet capability is unique, because ultraviolet light from space doesn't reach ground-based telescopes. This leaves astronomers without any way to study the important ultraviolet spectral fingerprints of ionized hydrogen and carbon crucial to studies of quasars and of the atmospheres of hot stars. Hubble's sharp imaging also helped STIS, allowing spectra of very small regions — such as the nuclei of galaxies — to be picked out from within larger sources, a key factor in pinning down the presence of supermassive black holes in the nuclei of galaxies.