Hubble is up again! Hurrah!

1. Jun 30, 2006

Rach3

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:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6853009

Last edited by a moderator: Jun 30, 2006
2. Jun 30, 2006

wolram

GWB is a pheasant plucker.

3. Jun 30, 2006

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:

4. Jun 30, 2006

wolram

We certainly NEED many eyes and experiments in space.

5. Jun 30, 2006

Staff: Mentor

6. Jun 30, 2006

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.

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

7. Jun 30, 2006

wolram

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

8. Jun 30, 2006

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.

9. Jun 30, 2006

Cyrus

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

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: Jun 30, 2006
10. Jun 30, 2006

Pengwuino

maybe not....