Say Goodbye To The Hubble

[MongoTheGeek]

Very good , this is what should be done if Nasa is just brain dead enough to throw it away. how about a Auction.? In fact as a citizen of the U.S. iam declaring ownership of the trash---- who wants to buy? Anything is better then throwing it away. Nasa throwing away their best stuff, iam suprised they had the sense to keep the mars mission going Agency lost in politics & spin.

The big thing would be liability insurance. Hubble is huge and someone is in for a really bad day if it isn't brought down properly.

Under international treaty the US government is responsible for whoever it comes down on and whatever it wrecks on the way down.

As for repairing it you need a way to get up there with the needed parts. Russia could pull it off if they had money. China, Japan and France I seriously doubt. The latter two with some type of robotic mission, maybe. China can throw people at the problem and run riskier missions.

 

[dvdh]

China, Japan and France I seriously doubt. The latter two with some type of robotic mission, maybe. China can throw people at the problem and run riskier missions.

I was doubtful about China as well, but at the rate they are moving, they might very well have the capability to pull something off in a couple years if it become a target. Their program is advancing quite nice and with fairly astounding cost and time efficiency, something NASA can only dream of.

 

[Dont Hurt Me]

I was doubtful about China as well, but at the rate they are moving, they might very well have the capability to pull something off in a couple years if it become a target. Their program is advancing quite nice and with fairly astounding cost and time efficiency, something NASA can only dream of.

So true. Nasa will find a way to make something cost 100 times what it should. SpaceshipOne is a perfect example of what can be done on a shoestring budget.Think if we gave Burt Rutan a billion or two. Nasa should stick to science and let someone else get us to Space. Lockheed or Boeing would be good but i wouldnt be surprised if the military hasnt had something running sub-orbital or orbital out at groom lake. Anyways Hubble can be made to continue the science for years but the cowards pushing paper at Nasa are to scared. Its a shame when you consider Hubble has given us 90% of the worlds best space photo's.

 

[Timelessblur]

So true. Nasa will find a way to make something cost 100 times what it should. SpaceshipOne is a perfect example of what can be done on a shoestring budget.Think if we gave Burt Rutan a billion or two. Nasa should stick to science and let someone else get us to Space. Lockheed or Boeing would be good but i wouldnt be surprised if the military hasnt had something running sub-orbital or orbital out at groom lake. Anyways Hubble can be made to continue the science for years but the cowards pushing paper at Nasa are to scared. Its a shame when you consider Hubble has given us 90% of the worlds best space photo's.

Umm I might like to point out that a lot of NASA work is contract out. Boeing is already heavy working with NASA and a lot of the replacement came out of boeing and Lockheed. Their is also the USA (Untied space alliancie which I believe lockheed falls) Also Earth base statiuon get much better pictures of space than hubble. Hubble will give them something to look at and they they point earth base Teleschop at it to get a better picture.
Before some use the Ampsphere argument. We have software that compasates for that not by ajusting the picture but instead it keeps the image in focus with ajusting the mirrors.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

Umm I might like to point out that a lot of NASA work is contract out. Boeing is already heavy working with NASA and a lot of the replacement came out of boeing and Lockheed. Their is also the USA (Untied space alliancie which I believe lockheed falls) Also Earth base statiuon get much better pictures of space than hubble. Hubble will give them something to look at and they they point earth base Teleschop at it to get a better picture.
Before some use the Ampsphere argument. We have software that compasates for that not by ajusting the picture but instead it keeps the image in focus with ajusting the mirrors.

You may have hit on something.

GWB may be looking towards the future benefits of a trip o the moon and then to Mars, as the race to the moon aided the population with things like velcro, and some many other things.

To me this is misguided. There was a need/desire to beat the USSR to the moon. In todays world, does it matter that Japan or China is the first to put a base on the moon? I think not.

 

[uaaerospace]

Come on folks

Reading through this thread, I learned we have many members who think they know everything about NASA, its projects, and what should be done about both. How many aerospace engineers do we have here that actually know (not that just THINK they know) about the technical aspects of the Hubble, shuttle, and other NASA projects. I’m talking about folks that have worked on the Hubble or the Shuttle. There is so much more to consider than you can find on nasa.gov or on TV. People have complained about the cost of the space program for as long as I've been on this earth. The truth is, to design, build, test, destroy, design, build, test, destroy, build, test, etc anything (even an airplane) takes hundreds to thousands of engineers years to complete. The materials and machinery they are working with is not cheap. They don't want it to cost any more than an average taxpayer, but if it is going to be developed, it is going to cost. It's a given in any type of engineering. The cost of conducting research at my university is outrageous from an individual's standpoint. However, when you consider some of the advancements/improvements made here, then it is not so bad. The original life-span of the Hubble was suppose to be about 15 years. Deployed in 1990, the life-span is up. I would think the engineers that designed it would know better than any of us here on this forum how long it should last. If it continues to work, great. However, if they (the designers) say it may experience multiple failures at any time, then why should we invest more money on something so risky. If you have an older car that you know from testing and research by the designers was suppose to last 300,000 miles. If the motor begins to sputter at 299,999 miles, do you spend $1500 for a new engine? Maybe a week later the transmission fails and costs nearly $2000. I would buy a new car with newer technology (in the case of Hubble: better equipment and such). How about you?

The loss of the shuttle really underscores how much NASA needs to catch up - The European Space Agency has always had to be efficient, and the Chinese, Indian and Russian space programs all enjoy much less funding than NASA. In the future, we too will need to learn to be frugal with our space program.
....the possibility of a manned mars mission in 20-30 years.

Catch up???? How does the loss of a craft show that we need to catch up? We have been flying the shuttle for years, and what happened in the last incident could have happened on any one of those missions. Just because we lost a shuttle does not change our progress with respect to others. Besides, I don't know if you have checked lately, but research/progress is being shared almost world-wide. When one country learns something new, the rest of the world will more than likely know about so long as it does not degrade national security. As to the second part of your quote...where did you get those numbers? Are you aware of some design progress details that the rest of the world does not know about? I could just as easily say we could be on Mars in 15 years...there is absolutely no reason for people without the knowledge (such as myself) to be making such statements. I just got back from making a research presentation at an AIAA conference. If I had gotten up there and said something like that, I would have been literally laughed at. Saying something without basis is wrong. Sorry for the long post...I don't mean to rant and rave, but as an engineer I can't stand to see people who haven't the slightest idea about something go out that and make such claims/statements. And by no means am I picking on Lord Blackadder. His post is representative and is just the first one I found to quote. Cheers ~Josh

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

If you have an older car that you know from testing and research by the designers was suppose to last 300,000 miles. If the motor begins to sputter at 299,999 miles, do you spend $1500 for a new engine? Maybe a week later the transmission fails and costs nearly $2000. I would buy a new car with newer technology (in the case of Hubble: better equipment and such). How about you?

Actually the popular opinion is to keep that old car going, since it may be cheaper in the long run. That of course will change as hybrids become more of the majority. Many feel that the Hubble is not ready for the scrap heap just yet.

 

[uaaerospace]

Actually the popular opinion is to keep that old car going, since it may be cheaper in the long run. That of course will change as hybrids become more of the majority. Many feel that the Hubble is not ready for the scrap heap just yet.

Just to clarify, I would not trash the old car. I would drive it until it quits...dies completely. I would not sink much more money into it once it reached it's max life-span. Sorta like a Mac...I would not want to put a G5 upgrade card (if you could) in my blue and white G3. The G3 is old, and so is the tech in it (other than the processor). Of course, I could squeeze another few months out if it, but at what cost?

 

[Lord Blackadder]

Catch up???? How does the loss of a craft show that we need to catch up?

<snip>

As to the second part of your quote...where did you get those numbers? Are you aware of some design progress details that the rest of the world does not know about? I could just as easily say we could be on Mars in 15 years...there is absolutely no reason for people without the knowledge (such as myself) to be making such statements. I just got back from making a research presentation at an AIAA conference. If I had gotten up there and said something like that, I would have been literally laughed at. Saying something without basis is wrong. Sorry for the long post...I don't mean to rant and rave, but as an engineer I can't stand to see people who haven't the slightest idea about something go out that and make such claims/statements. And by no means am I picking on Lord Blackadder. His post is representative and is just the first one I found to quote. Cheers ~Josh

Good to see we got you riled up enought to jump in, by all means we'd like to hear from one of the illuminati with reagards to space tech.

I'm not an engineer, and I would expect to be laughed at if I went and gave a talk at an AIAA conference, since I'm not qualified to. However, you may be misconstrueing what I said. By "catching up" I mean that NASA cannot indefinitely use cold-war era space equipment such as the shuttle because NASA no longer has a cold-war era budget. In terms of capability NASA is top dog, but what plans do we have to maintain that capability? NASA is vague on this because I suspect they aren't sure yet. Various proposals and concepts have been put forward for launch systems and orbiters etc. but if the funding is wanting they'll go nowhere. Bush's references to a manned Moon mission and beyond seem at odds with the current state of NASA's budget.

As for a manned Mars Mission, scientists have been outlining serious plans since at least the early 90's, and NASA has numerous references on their website to manned Mars Missions. During my academic peregrinations I've seen timetables given by NASA scientists and other similarly-qualified individuals during CNN/BBC interviews (as well as the journal Science and National Geographic) who have mentioned going to Mars in 10 to 30 years. All agree that the absence of a political motive (as there was with the Moon) may move a manned mission further into the future but the technology to do it currently exists. What do you say to this? You ask me if I know something you don't know - I know only what I've read in the aforementioned sources, and they are as reputable as any. Pray enlighten me. Why can we NOT go to mars within 20-30 years, excluding finacial/political concerns?

What you say regarding the Hubble makes sense; I gather you mean that researchers are whining to engineers to keep their toy running and the engineers are saying that diminishing returns are going to plague attempts to do so?

 

[uaaerospace]

Good to see we got you riled up enough to jump in, by all means we'd like to hear from one of the illuminati with regards to space tech.

If you're referring to me, I did not nor do I claim to an expert on the subject. I pointed out that others were making statements that only an expert could make.

What you say regarding the Hubble makes sense; I gather you mean that researchers are whining to engineers to keep their toy running and the engineers are saying that diminishing returns are going to plague attempts to do so?

That is correct. I don't know how to explain it better than the two examples (car and Mac) in my previous two posts.

Why can we NOT go to mars within 20-30 years, excluding finacial/political concerns?

That's just it; you can't exclude financial/political factors. I have not explored the engineering obstacles that must be overcome to put a human on Mars, so I am not even going to try to answer that question from a technical standpoint. I can, however, speak to the political/financial concerns. To be honest, it's going to be difficult to attempt manned flights to Mars until the public sees a reason for the mission. Most politicians are not going to fund a NASA project of which the public disapproves. It seems to me that one of the biggest problems NASA has before they can move on is to alter public opinion. Events like the two shuttle accidents don't help matters at all. When something like that happens, many people run out and cry "disband the NASA organization because it is a dangerous, bottomless money pit that does nothing applicable to MY daily life." A lack of understanding I believe is one of the main causes of this. People in general don’t like risk and change. NASA is in a risky business (though given their record, not as risky as some earthly professions) and their work is on life-changing (and sometimes far-out) technology.

To me, this public opinion-->political problem-->financial problem is going to determine when we will be on Mars. We must give the funding to NASA before they can begin the process to get us there.

 

[mac-er]

[waves vigorously]

Bye Hubble.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

To be honest, it's going to be difficult to attempt manned flights to Mars until the public sees a reason for the mission. Most politicians are not going to fund a NASA project of which the public disapproves. It seems to me that one of the biggest problems NASA has before they can move on is to alter public opinion.

In a way I agree, but public opinion is a fickle thing; I think the public is generally receptive, if not enthusiastic, with regards to the concept of a Mars mission. However their elected representatives are reluctant to participate in the earmarking of tens of billions of dollars for the project - that might not be good come re-election time when there are economic issues in the home state. So, it is very much a technical possibility in a couple decades if (as you pointed out) there was a "space race" level of public support to do it. In the current financial situation it might take a lifetime, especially with the war on. It costs more money to keep our armed forces in the field for a year than it does to send men to Mars.

 

[Dont Hurt Me]

Griffin the new administrator of NASA has reversed the poor bueracratic knuckelhead decision by O'keefe and has decided that a Hubble Repair mission should be planned. Amazing the politicians were going to throw away this greatest scope ever. This is good news perhaps there is someone with a brain running NASA now. O'keefe and his policies were a joke. (edit) I knew i was right on this one.

P.S. the TITAN 4 launch last nite was spectacular.