Repair or Replace the Hubble Telescope

[onedomino]

-
We need to repair or replace the Hubble Telescope. The estimated price tag of repair is large at $1.5 billion (I'd like to see that accounting; the cost of a shuttle mission is about $100 million. Why does the Hubble repair cost 15 times more than the shuttle flight? Most of the components used to repair Hubble are already built. The $1.5 billion Hubble repair price tag smells like politics. Does anyone know more on this topic?). The repair had been scheduled for 2006, but is now in doubt. A new more capable telescope would not cost much more than the repair estimate and could be in orbit by 2010. At any rate, we should definitively decide to do one or the other. Hell, if we canceled half of the 23 new Presidential helicopters (program price an astounding $6.2 billion! See this link: http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17400), the contract for which was recently awarded to the British and Italians, we could afford to put one Hubble replacement in Earth orbit, and another in lunar orbit! Below is an artist's conception of HOP, Hubble Origins Probe http://www.pha.jhu.edu/hop/ , a proposed replacement for Hubble:

-

 

[NATO AIR]

I'd agree enthusiastically, but isn't NASA going to get the short end of the budget stick?

 

[onedomino]

I'd agree enthusiastically, but isn't NASA going to get the short end of the budget stick?

Overall, NASA funding will increase. However, regarding the Hubble Telescope:

Hubble Funding Set to Be Cut; Scientists Fighting to Keep it Alive

The Bush Administration has decided to cut federal funding for a servicing mission on the Hubble Space Telescope and to force the vehicle down in a remote part of an ocean. The decision has angered scientists who view the telescope as the most advanced and helpful technology in their mission of exploring space.

Scientists were in the process of developing a robotic vehicle that could repair the telescope without another mission from the space shuttle. The cost: more than $1 billion. The White House views that as unreasonable given the war in Iraq and the current budget deficit. Funding for Hubble will not be part of the president's proposed 2006 budget (get rid of those Italian helicopters instead!).

Senator Babara Mikulski, a Maryland Democrat, has vowed to fight to keep Hubble funded. (The Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore is in her state.) 'I led the fight to add $300 million to NASA's budget last year for a Hubble servicing mission, and I plan to lead the fight again this year. This is what the American people expect and deserve,' Mikulski said in a statement.

Funding for Hubble has been removed from proposed budgets in the past, only to be restored in budget negotiations. In fact, President Nixon tried to cut funding for Hubble before it was even built (visionary, eh?). Eventually, funding was restored and the telescope was constructed and launched.

John Bahcall, a professor of natural science at Princeton University told USA Today that Hubble has added to America's prestige in the world community and to her knowledge of the universe. 'I am confident that Americans of all walks of life will come to the defense of the Hubble and cause the Congress to restore the repair of the telescope to the NASA budget,' Bahcall said.

Meanwhile, tests on the robotic repair mechanism continue in the hope that they will still have a reason to be used.

-

 

[dilloduck]

I'm not sure NASA has won over the "hearts and minds" of the American people when it comes to thier ambitions in space. The opposition just doesn't feel like they're getting the bang for their buck with these enormous expenditures. Perhaps its simply bad PR or perhaps people would like to feel more connected to the benefits of our space program. Cool pics from the Hubble are nice to look at but meaningless to many. Connecting the space program to "down to Earth" benefits would go a long way to earn it support. To many, Nasa represents nothing more than high dollar fireworks that occur a couple of times a year.

 

[no1tovote4]

I'm not sure NASA has won over the "hearts and minds" of the American people when it comes to thier ambitions in space. The opposition just doesn't feel like they're getting the bang for their buck with these enormous expenditures. Perhaps its simply bad PR or perhaps people would like to feel more connected to the benefits of our space program. Cool pics from the Hubble are nice to look at but meaningless to many. Connecting the space program to "down to Earth" benefits would go a long way to earn it support. To many, Nasa represents nothing more than high dollar fireworks that occur a couple of times a year.

The amazing thing is that for every dollar we sink in to that about $10 comes back to the economy. Imagine how much was sunk into the economy just from velcro. Those "memory-foam" beds they sell now, pens that can erase, new technology to clean the air that people can now buy and put in their homes to ease interior pollution. Hypoallergenic filters for you heaters, etc.

We get much bang for our buck for exploration, and that is before we even hit the resources that become available when we finally get there...

I cannot imagine being the leader of this country and not working to continue space exploration in every way, including more contests like the one that SpaceShip One has recently won.

Vital to our economy and to our psyche each new frontier should be exposed for what it is to our eyes and ears and each step trumpeted to every person on earth.

We cheered when the Chinese made it to space. When the EU landed a probe on Titan we all stared at the pictures with rapt attention.

No matter how we look at it, this is where our future lies!

 

[Annie]

I agree onedomino. Every year I have my kids research new products that came out of the space program, then pick one and write how our 'world' would be different without that product.

Someone has something about NASA and pen and USSR and pencil. I'm sure it's true. But I wonder what the total sales are now for the felt tipped pen? How many jobs created? And we went to the moon too!

USSR used pens, good short term solution. Where are they now?

 

[dilloduck]

ok I'll be the devil here--wouldn't it have been cheaper and the profit margin larger to invest research money not associated with space exploration

 

[007]

As far as the Hubble is concerned, when they sent it up there they said, "we'll be able to see to the edges of the universe", and in actuality, what they saw was just more of the same.

I look at it this way, land based telescopes can already see farther than we can travel. Actually, so many light years away that we can't even say for sure that what we're looking at is still there. So I wonder, why are we spending BILLIONS of dollars looking at stuff that ultimately means little to us? We can't travel there, and won't be able to travel there for hundreds of years. Even if we figured out how to accelerate a space craft to the speed of light, that wouldn't be fast enough, and then if we went faster, you get into quantum questions like, will you go back in time.

I just think our money is better spent on land based telescopes. They can see plenty far enough for what we should be concerned with today. The Hubble is an expensive toy, a money pit, that really isn't needed.

 

[no1tovote4]

I agree onedomino. Every year I have my kids research new products that came out of the space program, then pick one and write how our 'world' would be different without that product.

Someone has something about NASA and pen and USSR and pencil. I'm sure it's true. But I wonder what the total sales are now for the felt tipped pen? How many jobs created? And we went to the moon too!

USSR used pens, good short term solution. Where are they now?

Remember the erasable pens when they first came out? The sells and tax accumulation far outweigh the cost. More would be velcro, those packages we give to kids to drink from (both the box and the bag), the new beds and pillows that support back health, the very computers that we use to post here, even things we use for fun like VR (virtual reality).

Enriched Baby food came from inventions that we use on long space flights in order to get the correct nutrients to the Astronauts, Water Purification Systems, Scratch resistant lenses we use in glasses, And amazingly enough we also improved Golf Ball design with discoveries because of space exploration.

There are even more:

PORTABLE COOLERS/WARMERS - Based on a NASA-inspired space cooling system employing thermoelectric technology, the portable cooler/warmer plugs into the cigarette lighters of autos, recreational vehicles, boats, or motel outlets. Utilizes one or two miniaturized modules delivering the cooling power of a 10-pound block of ice and the heating power of up to 125 degrees Fahrenheit.

SPORTS TRAINING - Space-developed cardio-muscular conditioner helps athletes increase muscular strength and cardiovascular fitness through kinetic exercise. (Think how many trainers are out there now.)

ATHLETIC SHOES - Moon Boot material encapsulated in running shoe midsoles improve shock absorption and provides superior stability and motion control. (Gang Members supporting their government without their knowledge).

SOLAR ENERGY - NASA-pioneered photovoltaic power system for spacecraft applications was applied to programs to expand terrestrial applications as a viable alternative energy source in areas where no conventional power source exists.

WEATHER FORECASTING AID - Space Shuttle environmental control technology led to the development of the Barorator which continuously measures the atmospheric pressure and calculates the instantaneous rate of change.

FIRE RESISTANT MATERIAL - Materials include chemically-treated fabric for sheets, uniforms for hazardous material handlers, crew's clothing, furniture, interior walls of submersibles and auto racer and refueler suits. (I am particularly partial to this one. )

Noise Abatement

Here are some that effect our health:

DIGITAL IMAGING BREAST BIOPSY SYSTEM - The LORAD Stereo Guide Breast Biopsy system incorporates advanced Charge Coupled Devices (CCDs) as part of a digital camera system. The resulting device images breast tissue more clearly and efficiently. Known as stereotactic large-core needle biopsy, this nonsurgical system developed with Space Telescope Technology is less traumatic and greatly reduces the pain, scarring, radiation exposure, time, and money associated with surgical biopsies.

BREAST CANCER DETECTION - A solar cell sensor is positioned directly beneath x-ray film, and determines exactly when film has received sufficient radiation and has been exposed to optimum density. Associated electronic equipment then sends a signal to cut off the x-ray source. Reduction of mammography x-ray exposure reduces radiation hazard and doubles the number of patient exams per machine.

There are still more...

http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html#chr

Without this exploration our world would be denied many advances. The Hubble Telescope tends to keep our thoughts focused on this new frontier that has given us so much, creating jobs, etc.

I think it is important simply because of the fact it keeps the imagination of many of the children that will go into this particular area of science, it shows real things we may someday visit.

 

[Johnney]

and sooner or later we will get to see what planet bully comes from

 

[007]

and sooner or later we will get to see what planet bully comes from

Don't forget duncan... I think they're brothers.

 

[Zhukov]

If they want to replace the Hubble, it should be done within the 'goal' devised by the President's administration, that being a permanent lunar base, and a trip to Mars.

Therefore, build a telescope on the moon. We won't need to constantly correct it's orbit and it will be much easier to maintain on the moon than in the micro-gravity of LEO.



Two main problems with Earth based telescopes:

1.) distortion caused by our thick atmosphere

2.) gravity, which warps the extremely heavy mirrors


Neither of these factors matter to small telescopes, but for large terrestrial telescopes like Keck, which can peer so far away, even a small bit of atmospheric interference or gravity caused irregularity in the shape of the mirrors, can put distant objects completely out of focus.

The moon has no atmosphere (well, actually it does, but it's rather....sparse) and is about 1% as massive as the Earth.

 

[007]

Neither of these factors matter to small telescopes, but for large terrestrial telescopes like Keck, which can peer so far away, even a small bit of atmospheric interference or gravity caused irregularity in the shape of the mirrors, can put distant objects completely out of focus.

But why do we need to see so far away, we don't even know if it exsists, it takes the light so long to get here? How does that help us? I can understand wanting to see as far as we can, but WHAT FOR?

The common belief is that the Universe goes on forever, infinity. Now that's a pretty peculiar thought for a scientist, since they deal in cold hard facts. But if that's the case, then how much of the same thing do we need to see before we can stop looking?

 

[Zhukov]

But why do we need to see so far away,

Why not?

The common belief is that the Universe goes on forever, infinity.

Infinite like the surface of a sphere is endless, but a finite amount of matter and a finite volume.

But if that's the case, then how much of the same thing do we need to see before we can stop looking?

All of it.

 

[dilloduck]

Why not?Infinite like the surface of a sphere is endless, but a finite amount of matter and a finite volume.All of it.

Why? What are we looking for ??

 

[Zhukov]

Why?

Again, why not?

What are we looking for?

Who knows? Anything, everything.

If humanity is ever confronted with the sure knowledge that there is no where else to explore, we will die out.

Curiousity is hardwired into us. Why fight it?

 

[007]

Why not?

The cost.

Infinite like the surface of a sphere is endless, but a finite amount of matter and a finite volume.

Not so. You draw a dot on a sphere, start around it without deviating, and you'll end up back at your dot. "Finite". Also, measure the amount of water in a container, then drop in your spere, the amount of water displaced is the size of your sphere. Again a "finite" amount.

All of it.

That could take more time than we may have here on this planet.

Curiousity is hardwired into us. Why fight it?

Because a bottomless pocketbook isn't.

 

[Zhukov]

The cost.

Oh, the cost is miniscule when compared to our wealth, besides it's only money. If we didn't have all these barbarians trying to disrupt civilization we'd have even more money to spend on scientific innovation.

Not so. You draw a dot on a sphere, start around it without deviating, and you'll end up back at your dot.

Yes, but you won't reach an end. You can keep drawing over and over, around and around, and you will never reach a barrier. The definition of infinite is without end. The universe is the same, you can travel in any direction, forever, and you will never reach the end. The universe is just warped three-dimensionally the way a plane is warped two-dimensionally to form the surface of a sphere. Infinite in expanse, but finite in volume like the surface of a sphere is finite in surface area but infinite in expanse.

Whether you agree with that or not, that's what they mean when they say the Universe is infinite.

That could take more time than we may have here on this planet.

Most certainly. We'll probably never see it all, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't bother looking at all.

 

[Zhukov]

The Federal Government is planning on spending about $70 billion FY 2006 on education (!) which will probably achieve nothing.

Why can't we spend $17 billion to explore the Universe, and maybe even save humanity from some kind of catastrophic planetary impact or other unforseen event that an insular, Earth-restricted, humanity would be decimated by?

I don't think that's asking a whole lot.

In fact, I don't think that's asking enough. We landed on the moon over 25 years ago. Since then we have actually regressed. What are we doing? What are we afraid of? Or do people really not care that there is an entire Universe out there to explore?

 

[Johnney]

catastrophic planetary impact or other unforseen event that an insular, Earth-restricted, humanity would be decimated by?

i want a front row seat to that!