How to save the Hubble?

[ArtifexLignorum]

Sould it be kept a flying? Is it cheaper to keep her?


http://www.savethehubble.com/introdution.htm

write early and often.

 

[Bobmi357]

More to the point, should we even bother?

The Hubble Space Telescope has been one of Nasa's crowning achievements, yet by comparison, it is old. Very old. The computer on board the HST represents the very finest possible capabilities.... for the 1980's.

Hubble boasts only a 2.4 meter mirror, which by most standards places Hubble at the bottom end of most research quality telescopes.

Nasa has been replacing the Hubble slowly and surely with a variety of Space Telescopes, Chandra, Newton and the new Spitzer Space Telescope which just recently went into service.

No matter how you juggle it, the HST is limited by the size of its mirrors. The latest modifications to Hubble were intended to extend its lifetime for another 5 yrs, at which point Hubble would continue operating until its orbit decayed or its performance degraded to the point of being unusable. They can add cameras, they can replace the computer, but the one thing they can not do is increase the size of its mirrors. And mirrors are the critical component of telescopes of this type.

Nasa does have plans for a new space telescope to replace hubble's optical range capabilities. Newton, Chandra and Spitzer all are designed to work in bandwidths that the human eye cannot percieve. The James Webb Space Telescope, scheduled for launch in 2011 will deal primarily in the visible light range and will sport a 6.5 meter mirror. Nearly 3 times the size of the Hubble mirror. It will boast cameras and detectors several orders of magnitude more sensitive than hubble.

So one begs to ask, why save hubble other than for sentimental reasons? Hubble will be as far outclassed by the JWST as a canoe would be to a Nimitz class aircraft carrier. So assume Hubble is saved. How well will Hubble fair when compared to JWST? Which telescope would you want to use if you were a professional astronomer? Little Hubble, or the one that will make Hubbles photos look like you're comparing an instamatic camera to a 35mm?

If I had to say save the Hubble, then my best thought would be to bring it home in a shuttle and give it a place of honor in the Smithsonian National Air & Space Museum.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[midwestyankee]

More to the point, should we even bother?

So one begs to ask, why save hubble other than for sentimental reasons? Hubble will be as far outclassed by the JWST as a canoe would be to a Nimitz class aircraft carrier. So assume Hubble is saved. How well will Hubble fair when compared to JWST? Which telescope would you want to use if you were a professional astronomer? Little Hubble, or the one that will make Hubbles photos look like you're comparing an instamatic camera to a 35mm?

If I had to say save the Hubble, then my best thought would be to bring it home in a shuttle and give it a place of honor in the Smithsonian National Air & Space Museum.

Just my 2 cents.

This idea makes a lot of sense to me (probably won't to NASA, as their budget may not have a line item "Saving Things for Posterity" when those things don't have planned safe returns to earth. Still, it would make a fascinating exhibit when displayed along with some of the amazing images it has captured over the years.

 

[Bobmi357]

This idea makes a lot of sense to me (probably won't to NASA, as their budget may not have a line item "Saving Things for Posterity" when those things don't have planned safe returns to earth. Still, it would make a fascinating exhibit when displayed along with some of the amazing images it has captured over the years.

I agree wholeheartedly, but there may be very valid reasons besides money for not bringing hubble home. Hubble weighs in at nearly 20 tons, making it one of the super class satellites. 20 tons is quite a lot, and may be beyond the capabilities of the shuttle to bring home in a single trip. I suppose you could dismantle hubble and bring in home in small pieces, but with each shuttle mission costing upwards of 100 million bucks a pop, doing so may not seem good sense, to me, or to Nasa.

 

[sheath]

I agree wholeheartedly, but there may be very valid reasons besides money for not bringing hubble home. Hubble weighs in at nearly 20 tons, making it one of the super class satellites. 20 tons is quite a lot, and may be beyond the capabilities of the shuttle to bring home in a single trip. I suppose you could dismantle hubble and bring in home in small pieces, but with each shuttle mission costing upwards of 100 million bucks a pop, doing so may not seem good sense, to me, or to Nasa.

Besides that, isn't the space program on 'hold' for launches for an indefinite period of time? By the time they get another shuttle up there, Hubble might simply be too worn to bring home at all.

However...if it were feasible? A place in the Smithsonian HAS definitely been earned by that ole boy.

S.

 

[Bobmi357]

If I remember correctly the problem with Hubble lies in the gyroscopes which are used in aligning the scope. Without proper alignment, Hubble's usefullness is totally negated. Hubble can operate well enough with only 3 operable gyroscopes, but 2 have already failed and a third is approaching a failure point according to ground control data. That will leave hubble crippled with only 2 working gryoscropes out of a total of five.

I do not believe the gyroscopes were ever meant to be serviced in space. Getting to them, replacing and calibrating them may require nothing short of dismantling the entire thing.

Don't forget, hubble was originally designed for a 5 yr life span, and thanks to Nasa's help has already exceeded that by more than double.

Nasa's got some pretty smart people, and given enough public outcry, they might figure out a way of doing it. My whole question is, is it worth doing, especially in light of the newest generation of space telescopes which are coming online. I don't think it is.

 

[cygx1]

While it is true that with telescopes that operate in these wavelengths the size of the primary mirror is critical, in the case of Hubble, the mirror, while small by ground based standards, still outperforms most ground based telescopes. This is due to the fact that there is no atmosphere between the targets and the telescope mirror. With very large ground based telescopes such as the telescopes in Hawaii and Chilie a great deal of effor has to be put into getting the resolution in a limited bandpass that Hubble achives at all wavelength between infrared and ultraviolet.

Telescopes on earth also cannot view most of the ultraviolet wavelengths due to filtering by the atmosphere. Also, JWST will not work in the visible wavelengths, it is to be a purely infrared telescope, a larger version of the Spitzer which also images in the infrared only. Spitzer has a limited life span due to the cryogens on-board that are used to cool the detectors for infrared. Once we loose Hubble we are removing visible and ultraviolet from the capabilites of large aperature space telescopes.

While it is true that some of the computers that have not been upgraded aboard Hubble are very old, they do not need to be any more powerful for what they do. They do their job, and they do it very well. They do not need to execute very complicated programs, mostly they just need to respond to commands and relay telemetry and science data, computers on the ground do most of the work.

It has also been determined that no matter what, Hubble will not be returned to earth on the Space Shuttle, the astronaut corps has already stated that they will not fly a mission with the intention of reducing science rather than improving scientific gain. Instead, a propulsion module will be built and robotically dock with Hubble and force a controlled re-entry over the Pacific ocean.

Just because Hubble is old doesn't mean it is obsolete. Most recently, a new camera installed in early 2002 boasts a 16 megapixel CCD and with much less time is producing a deep field image that rivals, by far, the previous cameras. The resolution provided by the CCDs on board this camera combined with the large primary mirror in space produces images with higher resolution than was ever previously possible.

The Hubble is definitly still a powerhouse.

Cyg

 

[cygx1]

The gyroscopes can and have been serviced. They are actually one of the easiet things to service on the telescope and were serviced in all but 1 of the previous missions as were the batteries.

 

[Mr.G]

???

The plan right now is to shift NASA money from theoretical (looking for our own ass from the other side of the big bang so to speak) to the practical side.

One plan is to MINE THE MOON. I know this sounds dirty and perverted but...

The moon contains lots and lots of Helium3 - all in the top soil. A shuttle belly full of H3 (23 tons approx) would power the USA for a year and a half. $350 BILLION worth of H3 in one cargo hold. With that kind of surplus energy well we'll be able to afford to chuck a mirror, so big, into space that we'll be able to see the back of ourselves waving goobye!

I love the idea of looking off into space and maybe answering a few questions about who what and when about the universe but if we can focus our research and developement on stuff that will actually work, give us a surplus of energy and allow real exporation of space then maybe we do need to focus on that for a decade or two and let the hubble take a big, well deserved nap.

my 2¢

 

[Mr.G]

OR

We could rent it out to some reality TV show - they could afford it. We could aim it down instead of "up" and look in celebrity bedrooms. Lordy with the kind of resolution the HUBBLE has you could see the brand of ceegars Clinton was pulling "out" to smoke. Puff Puff.

Between blackmail money and sponsors the HUBBLE would be going for years.

 

[Bobmi357]

Re: ???

One plan is to MINE THE MOON. I know this sounds dirty and perverted but...

The moon contains lots and lots of Helium3 - all in the top soil. A shuttle belly full of H3 (23 tons approx) would power the USA for a year and a half. $350 BILLION worth of H3 in one cargo hold. With that kind of surplus energy well we'll be able to afford to chuck a mirror, so big, into space that we'll be able to see the back of ourselves waving goobye!

Now that you've posed the issue, you've probably got a lot of people wondering what you're talking about.

Helium 3 is a rare isotope of Helium. It it suggested that the moon may contain upwards of one million tons of helium 3. It is further suggested that H3 would make a superb fuel for fusion reactors. Giving us a nearly unlimited amount of fuel for the next millenia.


So why aren't we doing this???

Well there are a couple of minor problems with this scenario.

1) Yes H3 would be a nice fuel source, but people always fail to take progress into account. Therefore the H3 from the moon would provide a lot of energy, but not for a full millenia. Three-four hundred years would be a more realistic expectation. The simple fact is, demand always grows to exceed capacity.

2) Helium 3 is a fuel source waiting for someone to build an engine to use it. As of today, no one has managed to achieve any sort of sustained long term fusion reaction. Research into fusion, which could solve the world's energy problems is hampered by lack of enough funding, and people's aversion to nuclear power, especially in the United States. Some western nations are getting substantial portions of their energy from nuclear power. But the US has failed to build a single nuclear power plant since Three Mile Island, and in some cases, has prevented nearly completed plants from ever being completed and activated. These are fission plants. The simple fact is today, we cannot build a fusion power plant. In 10 years, perhaps yes (but I think it will take 20 or 30 yrs), but not today. So going up to get the H3 on the moon today serves no purpose.

3) Finally....

A shuttle belly full of H3 (23 tons approx) would power the USA for a year and a half.

Have you ever wondered why the shuttle is called an orbiter? The shuttle as it was designed lacks the power/engines/and landing capability for a lunar mission. It was designed to achieve low earth orbit. Hell, the dang thing can't even reach the geosynchronous satellites.

So a shuttle belly full is not an option, at least not with any shuttle we have built or have on the drawing boards today.

Additionally, shuttle launches cost upwards of 100 million bucks per launch. That means that the cost of that fuel using current launch technology would probably exceed your income just to pay for your lights.

Nasa, and others, are working on trying to come up with a way of reducing the costs to launch. The problem lies in the rocket technology currently in use. Right now it costs something on the order of 2 million dollars per pound to put something in orbit.

Its nice to know that we have a useable fuel source up on the moon that will provide us with a couple centuries of power. However, its a fuel that today we cannot use even if we had it. And even if we could use it, we still have to break the psychological aversion that we Americans have against nuclear energy. And that, I think, will be far harder to do than all the technology research still needed to do, combined.

 

[Zergplex]

Zergplex Says

Well, just for the comedic value, with everyone talking about how small the hubble's mirrors really are and thats it's worthless with the new larger mirrors....

Does that mean that size really DOES matter ^_~

-Zergplex

 

[Mr.G]

Uh huh....

""you've probably got a lot of people wondering what you're talking about. ""

This wouldn't be the first time. Sorry I was just throwing a possible alternative to spending all the NASA budget on stuff like the HUBBLE...

""He3 is a rare isotope of Helium. It it suggested that the moon may contain upwards of ....."

H3 is rare here. They've done mass spects of lunar soil and there is no "suggestion" that H3 exists in large & mineable quantities there. There are concentrations of it in some of the Mares and they know 99% of it is in the top meter of lunar soil. Soalr heaters will be able to heat the soil to the require temps to extract the He3 and other treasures. Robot miners can do most of the work. It is something that could begin in 5 years with the right funding.

""Yes, He3 would be a nice fuel source, but people always fail to take progress into account. Therefore the He3 from the moon would provide a lot of energy, but not for a full millenia. Three-four hundred years would be a more realistic expectation. The simple fact is, demand always grows to exceed capacity.""

You seem to be a prime example of not taking progress into account. Half of your argument is that we haven't reach that level of technology yet and then dismiss it as "only 300 or 400 years worth". That'd be like the guys who discovered oil (and its uses) saying "this stuff is useless. It will only power stuff for a hundred years or so." It is my guess that, based on present sates of technological advances, we will probably come up wirth something bigger and better than He3 burning fusion reactors sometime in the next FOUR CENTURIES. You think? I dunno. Maybe I'm way optimistic.

""He3 is a fuel source waiting for someone to build an engine to use it."

We had oil and gas before Mr. Benz named his crazy "contraption" after his daughter. The Manhatten Project didn't develop the first A-bomb and then try and figure out what to put in it. They had tons of South African uranium ore, yellow cake and highly enriched (for those days) uranium BEFORE they even started building the bomb. We KNOW what will power a fusion reactor far more efficiently than extracted Trit/Deut fuel. It's He3. We know where it is. We know how to get it. Where's the puzzle?

There is an enormous amount of R&D $$'s going into FUSION research. Several recent breaththroughs have achieved break-even. Many researchers have now come to the conclusion that small almost portable fusion plants are the way to go once the technology of good power generation has been achieved. If that happens then we won't have the 10 to 25 YEAR wait while we build enormous reactors for this purpose. There are also new technologies emerging evry day and any one of these could provide the basis for a working system. Who can say? Do you seriously suggest not doing anything until everything is already up and working. I think if the American consumer has the choice between doing nothing or letting the Chinese or Europeans dominate this technology AND the moon. Now there's a plan.

The simple fact that we are close to fusion breakthrough seems to be ample reason to START PLANNING NOW to get access to the enoromous reserves on the moon.

""But the US has failed to build a single nuclear power plant since Three Mile Island, and in some cases, has prevented nearly completed plants from ever being completed and activated. ""

They haven't ORDERED a new one since 3MI. Several have been completed. I believe the last one to go on line was Watts Bar, Tenn in '96. And Ya... the tree huggers have gone to judges and had injunction after injunction thrown in the way of completion of under-construction plants and eventually the Power Co. building them have thrown up their hands and said WHY BOTHER. Then places like Calif. get brown and blackouts, the cost of juice goes thru the roof and they blame BUSH. Duh. Even the whackie tabackie snorting fools on the west coast realize if you don't allow any new plants to be built and the state's growth rate continues to climb - SOMEHING has to give. Believe me... there is NOTHING that can get a Suburban driving tree hugger to change their mind faster than 60% increases in their electrical bill.

What with new technologies and safer plants most of the arguments the anti-nukies can throw into court are from the 1970's.

"3) Finally....

A shuttle belly full of H3 (23 tons approx) would power the USA for a year and a half.

""Have you ever wondered why the shuttle is called an orbiter?""

Moon mining is 12 to 15 years away. It goes without saying that we aren't going to fly "orbiters" to the moon, land on nice paved runways and take off again headed for earth with a belly full of He3. The 23- T payload was a referrence to the size of the energy that much He3 represents. No doubt if I'd used a DC9 as an example you be telling me DC9 don't fly in space. OK. Point taken. I should have been more exact.


IF the cargo carriers that WILL BE designed to bring He3 back from the moon are around the same size as a DC9 / Space Shuttle then....

Again, the psychological aversion to a completely clean and safe power source will be overcome by 1) education. People have to reqalize that ALL nuclear energy is NOT the same as 1950's technology we used to hearing about. These old reactors were protected by incompetant bean counters and failure ridden "fail-safes." and 2) - and the only one that really counts is the rising costs of tradtional power production.

 

[Bobmi357]

You are misunderstanding me. I an neither against nuclear energy, nor am I against mining the moon for its commercial resources.

And yes, places like CalTech have managed to achieve short duration (less than 10 seconds) fusion experiments. But those are the wrong kind of fusion reactions. Right now we're experimenting with reactors based on Tritium and Deuterium, both isotopes of Hydrogen. Unfortunely on this planet there isn't enough Helium 3 available to even begin constructing a reactor capable of processing it.

Point in fact, the current range of experimental reactors are potentially incredibly dangerous. I'd rather have an H3 reactor in my backyard than a hydrogen isotope reactor with its super hot plasma core. But until we get up there with a solid, survivable base, and not just go up for a visit, the odds of building an H3 reactor still remain in the realm of science fiction.

Helium 3 reactors will probably be built first in space or at least on the moon close to its source.

You seem to be a prime example of not taking progress into account. Half of your argument is that we haven't reach that level of technology yet and then dismiss it as "only 300 or 400 years worth". That'd be like the guys who discovered oil (and its uses) saying "this stuff is useless. It will only power stuff for a hundred years or so." It is my guess that, based on present sates of technological advances, we will probably come up wirth something bigger and better than He3 burning fusion reactors sometime in the next FOUR CENTURIES. You think? I dunno. Maybe I'm way optimistic.

More to the point, I did take progress into account. Three hundred years is a pretty long time. But its not an inexhaustable energy source. Nor is it easily renewable.

"Scientists estimate there are about 1 million tons of helium 3 on the moon, enough to power the world for thousands of years. The equivalent of a single space shuttle load or roughly 25 tons could supply the entire United States' energy needs for a year, according to Apollo17 astronaut and FTI researcher Harrison Schmitt."

Source;
http://www******.com/scienceastronomy/helium3_000630.html


Its sweeping statements like this which give science a bad name. Yes Helium 3 would solve our current energy problems. But it would also give rise to new ones. Thats just the way of things.

We are in desparate need of finding useful commercial applications in space. In the past 40 or so years the best we've managed commercially speaking are communications satellites and weather monitoring satellites.

Zero gravity or micro gravity manufacturing holds the promise of massive changes to our society. And yet if you ask, many americans will shrug their shoulders and complain that the money spent on nasa is a waste of money, best used for more social programs.

I don't hold the optimism that you do concerning education about the safety of nuclear power. We may be the most technical society in the world, but our people are incredibly superstitious. Our education system fails to teach our kids how to think critically, which explains why and how so many people believe in things like UFO's, homeopathic "science", ghosts and a host of other mumbo jumbo. You don't have to believe me, take a walk through the archives at places like randi.org or quackwatch.org and see for yourself just how deluded and confused the masses are. Getting over the fear our population has concerning nuclear power will take a long time. Perhaps nothing will happen UNTIL we really have a major crisis. It has to happen eventually, but our people will fight it tooth and nail all the way. They don't want you to take their fear away. They are too comfortable with it.

Being a technophile myself, I see nothing wrong with what you proposed. Other than a lot of work needs to be done up front to achieve it. Add to that the fact that I don't believe our people will support it, and the government won't want to pay for it.

 

[N8Dreams]

Its typically for GWB. This guy has really no idea about science.
For election purpose he promise us a manned Mars flight.
I ask myself what human do better than robots on Mars.
But Hubble gave us much increase of science for instance the "deep view" of universe

Hubble must be preserved!!!!!!!!