But a chance at a 50/50 shot of keeping Hubble operational, is better than none.

[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! 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

 

[wolram]

GWB is a pheasant plucker.

 

[Rach3]

Killing Hubble is like stabbing all of humanity right in the eyeballs. 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! :grumpy:

 

[wolram]

We certainly NEED many eyes and experiments in space.

 

[Evo]

And here I was actually worrying about it! You know, after our Mars-exploring president murdered it with a blunt axe:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6853009

This still makes my blood boil. :grumpy:

 

[Cyrus]

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.

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.

 

[wolram]

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.

 

[Rach3]

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.

 

[Cyrus]

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?

 

[Pengwuino]

And waste 6 1/2 years telescope time, Hubble can tell us one heck of a lot
while we wait for a replacement.

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...