Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Nasa to save Hubble telescope...
- Thread starter iGav
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yeah, they keep going back and forth on this one, manned mission, robotic mission, manned mission, robot mission...
Glad to see they've decided on something - even though its a bit odd looking
Glad to see they've decided on something - even though its a bit odd looking
Good news. Though with the cost of 1 to 1.5 billion dollars, I wonder what the Hubble would cost to replace and launch with a new and improved one.
I bet this pisses Bush off. He's pushing for Mars all the way. If he'd play doom3 all the way through, maybe he'd think twice!
I actually heard that the reason the Hubble was not top priority now was because there are better telescopes around now, that don't have to leave earth. But this thing's an antique! I say we save it anyway.
I actually heard that the reason the Hubble was not top priority now was because there are better telescopes around now, that don't have to leave earth. But this thing's an antique! I say we save it anyway.
That's good. From what I know the Hubble has been invaluable, and is still of good use to us. Of course it should be saved!
Good to hear, but they didn't capitalize NASA, only the N.
It's called National Aeronautics and Space Administration for a reason.
It's called National Aeronautics and Space Administration for a reason.
Good point. It cost 1.5 billion (14 years or so ago) to launch the first one; presumably one launched now wouldn't require the $700M add-on mission to fix the mirror that the first one did.Chip NoVaMac said:
gwuMACaddict said:
Correct.
However, Hubble *has* been invaluable... and they wanted just to destroy it (by steering it into the atmosphere and letting it burn up). Thank goodness they're saving it.
I'll buy it!
Oh wait... can't afford it.
This is good news. I just hope that it leads to a real plan and the funding from Congress. The timing for Dextrous won't leave much room for error.
If the planned mission is for 2007 then it needs to occur. Hopefully there is leeway in the 2008 deadline of Hubble without repair.
If the planned mission is for 2007 then it needs to occur. Hopefully there is leeway in the 2008 deadline of Hubble without repair.
wdlove said:
And that is also if the robert works as hoped also.
All this is really making Hubble II sound like a better idea.
Was'nt this robot (Dextre) intended to be used on the international Space Station in the first place? If yes, that might not really be an extra 1.6 billion $ bill but simply making good use of the ressources they would have had anyway. But I wonder how they're gonna bring this thing to Hubble. Last time I checked, this robot was made to be anchored at the end of a bigger robotic arm like Canadarm 2 on the ISS. To me this whole mission sounds like it's gonna be a "robotic-manned-mission" (Dextre attached to robotic arm in the cargo bay of the space shuttle) which does'nt make much sence does'nt it? Also, aren't NASA planning to have the shuttles returned to flight at a date prior to the servicing of Hubble? Well, I guess they still are at the planning phase.
My understanding of the situation was that-
1. Hubble, while a great telescope of its time, is no long in its time.
2. The current time is about telescopes that can be build for a fraction of the cost, here on earth, have a better view (and not just visual*) of the sky, as well as having a far cheaper repair rate.
3. It would be more cost effective in the long run, and compared to other telescopes on the ground, to just build a whole new one, than to try and keep Hubble up to date and in proper repair.
But public cry hasn't seen all these facts, and thinks that NASA is just throwing away an expensive telescope for the helluv it
Yeah, I love Hubble too, I grew up loving space and wrote many a middleschool/high school papers on it. But we have pictures (with it and of it) and that's the best we can do aside from let it drift into space instead of earth (and I'm all for that).
My information comes from a Science magazine I subscribe too. If anyone wants numbers I may be persuaded to come back and post them (finical figures, key points, and what Astronomers think of Hubble's current purpose).
Tyler
*I'm aware that there are some forms or "viewing" and detecting that can best be done (or only be done) from space, because of the atmosphere. That said, it would be better in the long run to just build a new Hubble, that would be more powerful and better suited for the task, and would be cheaper.
1. Hubble, while a great telescope of its time, is no long in its time.
2. The current time is about telescopes that can be build for a fraction of the cost, here on earth, have a better view (and not just visual*) of the sky, as well as having a far cheaper repair rate.
3. It would be more cost effective in the long run, and compared to other telescopes on the ground, to just build a whole new one, than to try and keep Hubble up to date and in proper repair.
But public cry hasn't seen all these facts, and thinks that NASA is just throwing away an expensive telescope for the helluv it
Yeah, I love Hubble too, I grew up loving space and wrote many a middleschool/high school papers on it. But we have pictures (with it and of it) and that's the best we can do aside from let it drift into space instead of earth (and I'm all for that).
My information comes from a Science magazine I subscribe too. If anyone wants numbers I may be persuaded to come back and post them (finical figures, key points, and what Astronomers think of Hubble's current purpose).
Tyler
*I'm aware that there are some forms or "viewing" and detecting that can best be done (or only be done) from space, because of the atmosphere. That said, it would be better in the long run to just build a new Hubble, that would be more powerful and better suited for the task, and would be cheaper.
Looks like this thread might have been premature:
http://www.wired.com/news/space/0,2697,64559,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_2
http://www.wired.com/news/space/0,2697,64559,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_2
Hm, so do we believe the BBC, or Wired? Either way, I hope they save it. Maybe if there's a sudden surge in "Save the Hubble" t-shirts from CafePress they'll do itjsw said:
I'm just looking forward to the Mercury mission, that we won't see the results from for about another ten years
jsw said:
hmmmm, makes you wonder about how the story was leaked to CNN, Space.com, etc. about the robot mission.
Is NASA playing a game and just delaying things so that at some point it will get so bad that they can't fix it with a robot or Shuttle Mission?
D
O'Keefe needs to go. He seems nothing more than a puppet for whom ever he trying to gain favor from.
Chip NoVaMac said:
And it couldn't be that the big wigs at Nasa have a higher IQ than everyone posting in this thread combined, and perhaps they are making decisions based on knowing all the facts, instead of what we are being fed by the media?
Just a question
Tyler
The engineers? Maybe (but higher than the average here - maybe - not the combined IQ). I dated someone working at NASA now (17 years ago - crap, has it been that long?), and I can assure you that she's not above the average here.Earendil said:
The big wigs? No. They're political. Really good engineers typically make crappy managers, esp. high-level managers. Any NASA big-wigs are more socially adept than smart.
Earendil said:And it couldn't be that the big wigs at Nasa have a higher IQ than everyone posting in this thread combined, and perhaps they are making decisions based on knowing all the facts, instead of what we are being fed by the media?
Just a question
Tyler
To be honest, I think O'Keefe is a government wonk that wants to hold on to a plush job at what ever the cost. He does more flip-flops than Kerry (this coming from a Kerry supporter).
Earendil said:And it couldn't be that the big wigs at Nasa have a higher IQ than everyone posting in this thread combined, and perhaps they are making decisions based on knowing all the facts, instead of what we are being fed by the media?
Just a question
Tyler
Beyond that are you talking about the same people that could make a difference between feet and meters? Or the same ones that required to correct for a mirror issue?
If we are to rely on these same people for targeting of nukes, we might be looking at Cleveland being a glass bead right now.