Can NASA Keep Hubble Operational with Recent Repairs?

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Rach3
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Hubble
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the operational status of the Hubble Space Telescope following recent repairs and the implications of potential funding cuts for its servicing. Participants explore the future of Hubble in the context of its successor, the James Webb Space Telescope, and the broader priorities of NASA regarding space exploration.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express concern over the funding cuts for Hubble servicing, suggesting that it undermines humanity's ability to explore the cosmos.
  • Others argue that the cost of servicing Hubble may not be justified compared to the potential benefits of launching a new telescope that does not require servicing.
  • A participant mentions the significant investment in Hubble's construction and questions the rationale behind allowing it to deorbit without further servicing.
  • There is a suggestion that new telescopes may also require servicing missions, referencing past Hubble missions that upgraded its capabilities.
  • Some participants advocate for keeping Hubble operational until its replacement is ready, emphasizing its ongoing scientific contributions.
  • Concerns are raised about the political motivations behind funding decisions, with some participants criticizing both major political parties for their lack of support for scientific endeavors.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally disagree on the best course of action regarding Hubble's future, with competing views on whether to continue servicing it or to focus on developing new telescopes. There is no consensus on the implications of funding cuts or the necessity of servicing missions for future telescopes.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference various costs associated with Hubble and its servicing, as well as the timeline for the James Webb Space Telescope's launch. There are unresolved questions about Hubble's expected operational lifetime and the feasibility of launching a replacement without servicing needs.

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...
 

Similar threads

NASA NASA's 2008 Manned Flight to Repair and Upgrade Hubble Telescope
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K