Can NASA Keep Hubble Operational with Recent Repairs?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rach3
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Hubble
AI Thread Summary
NASA successfully switched the Advanced Camera for Surveys (ACS) of the Hubble Space Telescope to a secondary power channel after a transistor failure in its power supply. The ACS is expected to resume scientific observations soon. Discussions highlight concerns over the future of Hubble, especially after the White House's decision to eliminate funding for servicing missions, focusing instead on deorbiting the telescope. Some participants express frustration over political decisions that prioritize Mars exploration over maintaining Hubble, which has provided invaluable data since its launch. The conversation also touches on the anticipated launch of the James Webb Space Telescope, which is expected to surpass Hubble's capabilities. There is a debate on whether it is more sensible to continue servicing Hubble or to replace it with a new, cost-effective telescope that does not require servicing. The overall sentiment reflects a desire to maximize Hubble's remaining operational time while considering future advancements in space observation technology.
Rach3
Friday NASA successfully switched the Advanced Camera for Surveys (ACS) to a secondary power channel after concluding that a transistor in the camera’s power supply had failed. Allowing for recalibration, the ACS should return to its scientific observations Sunday night.

"The actual camera is fine," says Ed Campion a spokesman for the Goddard Space Center, which runs Hubble’s day-to-day operations. "We’ve lost some observing time but the universe isn’t going anywhere."
http://www.forbes.com/infoimaging/2006/06/30/hubble-nasa-ball_cx_dl_0630hubble.html

And here I was actually worrying about it! :rolleyes: You know, after our Mars-exploring president murdered it with a blunt axe:
Jan 21, 2005

WASHINGTON - The White House has eliminated funding for a mission to service the Hubble Space Telescope from its 2006 budget request and directed NASA to focus solely on deorbiting the popular spacecraft at the end of its life...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6853009
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
GWB is a pheasant plucker.
 
Killing Hubble is like stabbing all of humanity right in the eyeballs. :mad: Of course idiot politicians (of both parties, I hasten to add) don't care if they blind the human race to the greater cosmos, if they can get a photo op of an American flag on the martian surface and boost their poll ratings. But no, I'm giving them too much credit! They don't even care about getting to Mars - they're just using empty space-travel rhetoric for politics, while not even funding that very initiative! Let alone fund something that's actually worth a darn like the Hubble telescope!
 
We certainly NEED many eyes and experiments in space.
 
Considering that wiki said the Hubble cost $6 Billion to build, and that future shuttle missions will cost $1 Billion to service it, it does make more sense to let it crash into the ocean and replace it with a new, better telescope that you can send with the Atlas rocket and not need to service via the space shuttle.

I would be interested to know the lifetime they expected the Hubble to stay in space.

wiki said:
Hubble's successor telescope, the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), is due to be launched in 2013 and will be far superior to Hubble for most astronomical research programs.

Keeping the overall big picture in mind, and putting things in perspective.
 
cyrusabdollahi said:
Considering that wiki said the Hubble cost $6 Billion to build, and that future shuttle missions will cost $1 Billion to service it, it does make more sense to let it crash into the ocean and replace it with a new, better telescope that you can send with the Atlas rocket and not need to service via the space shuttle.

I would be interested to know the lifetime they expected the Hubble to stay in space.



Keeping the overall big picture in mind, and putting things in perspective.

And waste 6 1/2 years telescope time, Hubble can tell us one heck of a lot
while we wait for a replacement.
 
Why would you think new telescopes wouldn't need servicing missions, upgrades, etc.? Several Hubble missions were needed to install completely new stuff, like the near-infrared spectrometer.
 
wolram said:
And waste 6 1/2 years telescope time, Hubble can tell us one heck of a lot
while we wait for a replacement.

That's true. I think they should keep it in service until they have the new one in orbit and ready to go.

Why would you think new telescopes wouldn't need servicing missions, upgrades, etc.? Several Hubble missions were needed to install completely new stuff, like the near-infrared spectrometer.

That's true, but if they can make them with today's technology cheaper (keeping in mind Hubble was built in the mid 80's) and just relaunch a new satellite to replace the old one, then I'm all for it. I don't know if NASA has this capability, but if they do and its safer and more cost effective, then why not?
 
Last edited:
  • #10
wolram said:
And waste 6 1/2 years telescope time, Hubble can tell us one heck of a lot
while we wait for a replacement.

msnbc said:
That budget request, according to government and industry sources, will not include any money for Hubble servicing but will include some money for a mission to attach a propulsion module to Hubble needed to deorbit the spacecraft safely with a controlled re-entry into the Pacific Ocean. NASA would not need to launch such a mission before the end of the decade to guide the massive telescope safely into the ocean.

maybe not...
 
Back
Top