Should we save the Hubble?

[JohnR7]

It is projected that the Hubble Space Telescope will be in service up to the year 2010. Discussion has begun if at that time they should just burn it up, or should they bring it back and put it on display. It is a question if it is worth the cost and the risk to human life to try and save the hubble space ship. http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/2003/08/27_hub.shtml

 

[Michali]

It would be awesome to recover it. Risking human life for the life less craft would be completely idiotic though. It may be unlikely, but imagine if someone lost his/her life trying to bring a (very famous) piece of equipment back to earth just to put it in a museum. It would be horrible for NASA. If only they could find a fanatically willing crew, instead of a group ordered by the heads of the association. I'm sure any astronaught would be willing to retrieve the craft with the utmost zeal. I would if I had the capability. It is a symbol, an icon of human space exploration. But it is not close to being worth the risk though. It would be a mission with an illogical purpose. My opinion: Go get it... please.

 

[JohnR7]

It would be awesome to recover it. Risking human life for the life less craft would be completely idiotic though.

\

Hopefully between now and then NASA will be able to come up with a new shuttle that is safer than the one they have now.

 

[armed2010]

We should recover it and put it in the smithsonian.

 

[Happy Wonderer]

Patch it up and keep it flying! Even if there is a better telescope planned, the Hubble is better than any earth-based optical telescope. We didn't scrap Keck once the Hubble went up. There is so much demand for telescope time that it will be busy for as long as we can fly it.

hw

hw

 

[ReUsAbLePhEoNiX]

I say we should all pray for Hubble to be Saved. For Hubble cannot be Saved thru works, only faith can Save Hubble. If we try to Save Hubble thru works, then Hubble will burn

 

[Siliconaut]

@ReusableP.

I say we should all pray for Hubble to be Saved. For Hubble cannot be Saved thru works, only faith can Save Hubble. If we try to Save Hubble thru works, then Hubble will burn

Hehe, that's a good'un.

This is one of those decisions where I simply don't need to have an opinion - the folks at NASA will probably have a calculator ready that can distinguish between pounds and dollars, or at least between pounds and kilograms.

If they feel a replica is easier to construct and put on display, or if Hubble is simply better off when lifted to a higher orbit, they have my blessings to do whatever they feel is worth doing.

I cried a few tears when MIR burned up, but - apart from feelings - there's times when we have to part with the idea that possessions will last.

 

[OldBadfish]

I say we should all pray for Hubble to be Saved. For Hubble cannot be Saved thru works, only faith can Save Hubble. If we try to Save Hubble thru works, then Hubble will burn

Now thats funny.

Yes I think we should try to save the Hubble, if it is too dangerous then don't risk human life, but thats the best we got for now.

I personally would gladly risk it and go fix it up, I think it rocks. I bet NASA will have something better all ready to go by then though.

 

[Jet Black]

It is very expensive to keep these things going, and it is a question as to whether that investment is really worth it. I think preserving the telescope itself would be impractical, as would bringing it back (shuttles don't land with a full load, they land empty) However I think it would be good to preserve the control room, and of course all the data. Hubble will be remembered for a long time, regardless of whether it still exits or not.

 

[OldBadfish]

I wonder if there is something bigger and better on the horizon?

I would just go to space for any reason, whether for hubble or whatever. Thats just me, I love space.

 

[OldBadfish]

We gotta have a good telescope out there!

 

[Jet Black]

the problem with space bound telescopes is that they don't have an awful lot to offer over earth bound ones anymore. With the development of adaptive optics and laser-guide stars, alot of the problems of atmospheric abberations can be overcome. With the development of telescope arrays, we can see smaller and smaller objects. The main advantege of spacebound telescopes is the ability to avoid absorption in the atmosphere and earthly emissions, but that is all really.

imo, what we need to start doing is building stuff on the moon, then we get the best of both worlds since with development, it should be relatively easy to build large structures from the lunar regolith and then we can take advantage of that.

 

[OldBadfish]

Oh yeah the moon would be a great idea!

 

[Jet Black]

Oh yeah the moon would be a great idea!

It would indeed... I think the moon provides a number of opportunities that we just don't have on earth... all we need now is a way of making the colony self sufficient.

 

[JohnR7]

It is very expensive to keep these things going, and it is a question as to whether that investment is really worth it.

The cost of the Hubble was suppose to be 1.2 billion, but so far they have about five billion dollars tied up in it. They just sent a crew out there this year to replace the origional camera with a new 16 megapixel camera. Also the infrared camera needed repaired. They said it was a miracle that they were able to get the new camera hooked up to the old telescope lens like that with out any problems.

No one questions that it was worth it, because of the information that has been obtained from the Hubble space telescope.

 

[Jet Black]

No one questions that it was worth it, because of the information that has been obtained from the Hubble space telescope.

oh I know quite a bit about it, but the point I am making is, is the investment worth it if you have another instrument there doing a better job... would it be better to spend that money on more up to date scientific tools. If a good argument can be made for keeping Hubble there, then I am all for it.

 

[Siliconaut]

@JetBlack

oh I know quite a bit about it, but the point I am making is, is the investment worth it if you have another instrument there doing a better job... would it be better to spend that money on more up to date scientific tools. If a good argument can be made for keeping Hubble there, then I am all for it.

My thoughts precisely. Apart from sentimental value and as a lookie-lookie for a museum of your choice, hubble has no value than the scientific data it brings back. It's NASA's choice to repair it, scrap it or replace it with something better (or cheaper).

 

[LorentzHA]

John, you mentioned a safer shuttle. When the last shuttle disater happened -I was sleeping in that morning. I was awoken by the strangest noise I had ever heard it was pop but also pressure filled..then my house shook. I had no idea what had happened. The first thing I thought was terrorism. A neighbor came over and knocked on my front door to ask me what in the world that was, since Earthquakes are not the norm. here in Texas. I had no idea. 20 minutes later I found out what it was. Sad.

 

[LorentzHA]

@JetBlack
My thoughts precisely. Apart from sentimental value and as a lookie-lookie for a museum of your choice, hubble has no value than the scientific data it brings back. It's NASA's choice to repair it, scrap it or replace it with something better (or cheaper).

Fridays evening on The Science Channel (previously: Discover Sci channel) they showed the buiding of Hubble's replacement telescope. The program showed a man wearing special boots stadning on a HUGE circular mirror, polishing it. It will be one of the mirrors for Hubbles replacement. The replacement is going to be like a pair of binoculars as it will have 2 viewing lenses.

The program is called: Cosmic Fridays. It starts at around 8:00 and finishes at around 1:30 am. They have multiple shows and topics. I highly recomend it to science junkies or anyone who would like to be informed about the Universe we live in and how minute we are even in our own galaxy.

 

[ThePhoenix]

Actually the space shuttle has a good record given the length of time you're up there, and the unforgiving nature of the enviroment. One disaster occured solely because a president wanted the shuttle to launch before it was ready, the other was the fault of bad safety proceedures.