Hubble rescue back on?

[Dr Mordrid]

http://www.space.com/news/050429_hubble_griffin.html

PR gain; yes.

Scientific gain; less certain.

Dr. Mordrid

[Wombat]

I've read the back-of-the-envelope numbers that say it's cheaper to put a better-than-Hubble replacement up there, using a rocket for launch. If that's true, I favor that.

Still, it's my understanding that we have to go back to Hubble anyway, because it's not properly equipped for de-orbit, and could seriously hurt somebody if just left to fall apart.

[KvHagedorn]

It's an historic relic. A milestone in our understanding of the universe like no other. It really should wind up in a museum somewhere, next to the Wright Flyer.

[Dr Mordrid]

That's not the plan. The plan is to fix it....again.

What with Spitzer up and the James Webb Space Telescope going up in a few years I don't think it's a very good use of resources.

Dr. Mordrid

[Wombat]

It's an historic relic. A milestone in our understanding of the universe like no other. It really should wind up in a museum somewhere, next to the Wright Flyer.

It was never made to do that, and bringing a shuttle down with that much cargo weught is VERY risky from what I've read. Isn't being an astronaut dangerous enough?

[KvHagedorn]

Maybe we could keep it going til we have some sort of L5 station, and tow it there for display.. and perhaps continued use.

[Wombat]

Continued use? It's cheaper to replace it with an improved version than it is to keep the current Hubble going.

[Jon P. Inghram]

But... but... they need to fix it, modern civilization would collapse without the constant presence of an orbiting visible light telescope! Just imagine what we might miss seeing during the few years that it would take to make a new one and launch it!

[KvHagedorn]

Continued use? It's cheaper to replace it with an improved version than it is to keep the current Hubble going.

You really need to back this one up with concrete numbers, Rob.. who says this and what crack have they been smoking? The mirror alone takes many many hours to grind down, then new electronics, housing and testing, then launch, as opposed to going up and changing batteries and perhaps blasting into a higher orbit?

[Wombat]

You really need to back this one up with concrete numbers, Rob.. who says this and what crack have they been smoking? The mirror alone takes many many hours to grind down, then new electronics, housing and testing, then launch, as opposed to going up and changing batteries and perhaps blasting into a higher orbit?

I'll try to find them in a bit. But for starters, the mirror is already made. Two were made for Hubble, and the Kodak one (which didn't go into space) was even built correctly (no CoStar needed)! It's just sitting around.

Also, a "Hubble 2" can be launched into orbit by a rocket, not a manned mission. That alone is a big part of the cost.

Hubble doesn't just need batteries. It needs new gyros and tons of other things. Lots of expensive space time just to repair it. I think current estimates say it would be about $1.5 billion.

[Wombat]

The summary at the start of this slashdot piece has some good links:

http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/05/2210251&tid=164&tid=160&tid=14

Short answer: by using an Atlas 521, and not a $500 million shuttle launch, there's big cost savings right there. TOTAL cost of the HOP, including launch, is 3/4 to $1 billion.

Plus, HOP will have better tools on-board than Hubble does, and includes a deorbit module as part of the standard dealership package.

Edit: I'll note that the HOP is apparently planning on a new lightweight mirror, and not using the Kodak one. I researched the Hubble mistake in college, and I still can't believe that they didn't perform a $1 million test, especially when they had a perfect backup mirror just *waiting*.

who says this and what crack have they been smoking?

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Colin Norman, PI The Johns Hopkins University (410) 516-7329 norman@stsci.edu
Stefi Baum Rochester Institute of Technology (585) 475-6220 baum@cis.rit.edu
Holland Ford The Johns Hopkins University (410) 516-8653 ford@pha.jhu.edu
Warren Moos The Johns Hopkins University (410) 516-7337 hwm@pha.jhu.edu
Tim Heckman The Johns Hopkins University (410) 516-7369 heckman@pha.jhu.edu
Saku Tsuneta National Astronomical Observatory Japan +81 422 34 3600 saku.tsuneta@nao.ac.jp

[KRSESQ]

It was never made to do that, and bringing a shuttle down with that much cargo weught is VERY risky from what I've read. Isn't being an astronaut dangerous enough?

If you want to get technical, yes, in fact it was made to do that, since a mission abort requiring the shuttle to land with the Hubble onboard was a factor in their emergency procedures. Yes, it would have been VERY risky. Just like bringing it back home intact today would be VERY risky. Just like the Moon Landings were VERY risky. If NASA is too timid to do VERY risky things then why are they bothering? Would bringing Hubble back be worth the risk or expence? I'd like to err on the side of history and let our grandchildren and great-grandchildren judge, when they see it displayed in the Air and Space Museum inside the cargo bay of the orbiter that retrieved it. What a sight that would be. Wouldn't THAT be worth it?

Kevin

[Dr Mordrid]

NO, I don't think so. It's not that it's risky....hells bells getting out of bed is risky....it's that it's TOO risky for the return on investment.

I'd rather use those scarce NASA resources for something tangible, like putting up the HOP mission and developing a new shuttle.

Dr. Mordrid

[Wombat]

If you want to get technical, yes, in fact it was made to do that, since a mission abort requiring the shuttle to land with the Hubble onboard was a factor in their emergency procedures.

The odds of a mission abort w/ re-entry & the Hubble loaded were very small. Plus, a mission abort is one of those things that you don't want to have to do AT ALL, let alone with a full cargo bay.

I'm with Doc on the ROI: $500 million dollars, plus risking the lives of the astronauts? No thanks, spend that money on being 1/2 way to having Hubble2 up there.

[Wombat]

If NASA is too timid to do VERY risky things then why are they bothering?

You're calling NASA "chicken"? Do you understand the difference between a worthwhile risk and one that's not? I've been alive to see two shuttles explode, and yet astronauts are still willing to go up there. Sounds like they know risks and are willing to take them for the right reasons.

Wouldn't THAT be worth it?

Hell no. There's only money for so many trips to space. Why bring Hubble back when the alternative is more programs that gather MORE knowledge of the heavens? "Sorry we don't know what's going on in that probably-interesting galaxy over there, but why don't you look at the pretty telescope that got us the little bit of data that we DO have?" No thanks. You want Hubble, you go get it.