Hubble cancelled

the Best of Hubble, soon to be a collectors piece, eh?

they'll probably be replacing it with a number of telescopes on the lunar surface, is my guess

- iz

i'm beginning to get this odd feeling that after we ground all our space resources (Hubble, Shuttle) the funding for this new surge of exploration is going to mysteriously disappear.

Should we be phasing out important resources before their replacements are even designed?

scott: I'm glad somebody else besides me also noticed this ...... shockie B)

That's exactly what Nasa did with Saturn vs. STS at Congressional insistance via budget cuts... and that is exactly why Skylab fell... when STS was delayed.

I'm getting this feeling of Deja Vu all over again... :/

Actually, Hubbles' designated replacement is the Next Generation Space Telescope, (now known as the James Webb Space Telescope). It's a big infrared job to be launched in 2011.

An interesting thing WRT Bush's announced Moon plan is that the Webb's destination will be the Earth-Moon L2 point...

..and was thus considered inaccessable for repairs or upgrades... but if we actually get a lunar-transport infrastructure in place per Shrub's plan....

This means the Cosmic Origins Spectrograph (COS) and the WFC3 (Wide Field Camera 3), which have already been completed, will not be installed.

NASA had been debating whether or not it was worth the risk to fly the shuttle again on non-ISS missions, but during Thursday's management reorganization following Bush's speech, the axe fell, mostly to free up the Shuttle to finish the ISS "core-complete" configuration as quickly as possible once flights are resumed. The shuttle does not carry anywhere close to enough fuel to change orbital planes from HST to ISS.

The HST currently has 4 of 6 gyros operating, if 2 more fail then it has to be safed (shut down), although work is being done on new software which will allow limited operation with only 2 gyros functioning. Also, the orbit will slowly decay without the periodic boost it gets from the Shuttle.

The Hubble's replacement, JWST, has had the design finalized and contractors, but contruction hasn't actually begun yet. So it is quite conceivable that it could be cancelled still.

It's kind of a shame that so many pioneering space craft/satellites just burn up after they're no longer needed or supported. Kind of like the Wright brothers turning their Flyer into firewood after the first flight.

That's what I'm wondering...

-dave w

The original idea was to bring Hubble back to Earth and place it in a museum.

John Grunsfeld, who was on the March 2002 Columbia repair mission, was the one who announced that Hubble would not be repaired. He cited astronaut safety as the main reason there would not be another mission to service the Hubble.

The concept of bringing the Hubble back had already been nixed before the Columbia disaster, and for the same reason - astronaut safety.

Alas and damn it, I can't argue with it. I'd rather see the Hubble burn up in the atmosphere by itself than take 7 people with it.

Zooty

Oh, I understand and agree.

this is a test of the google newsgroup poster

I think the best hope is for a new administration to save Hubble. There is still time.

Alan

For more fun than mere mortals should be allowed to have, let's find a way to blame this on TRA.

No.

There isn't.

The new craft will not be ready in time to save Hubble, and will not be capable of returning Hubble.

The only thing that can reach Hubble in time is the Shuttle... and that is not going to happen.

Not after Columbia.

To justify a flight to Hubble instead of an ISS assembly fligt you'd have to justify Hubble as being worth another seven lives.

It ain't gonna happen.

Oh good, I'm not the only one thinking this! I'm getting bad vibes about how this new NASA 'mission' is going to play out.

What's the name of that bird that lays its eggs in other birds' nests? It's a bigger egg that hatches sooner, then the intruder chick kicks all the original eggs out of the nest and grows so fast it's bigger than the parent bird who works like crazy to feed this huge baby bird that's not even the same species.

That's what I see happening here. First the shuttle gets slated for decommissioning before it has a replacement, now the Hubble gets the axe early. What's next?

And later on when the current NASA programs have all been cancelled, satellites de-orbited or permanently turned off, hardware stashed in the depths of some giant gov't warehouse, oh gee, look, we just don't have the money to complete this great Mars plan, might as well turn out the lights and go home. R.I.P. the US civilian space program...nothing left but the military space operations.

+McG+

Like I'll get better science out of ISS? Is ISS worth seven lives? It was a tragedy that we lost Columbia (and Challenger), but it's an inherently risky venture. We're going to get burned sometimes - but that doesn't mean we should be timid. Only one of Magellan's ships made it back with a token crew. I don't want to sound insensitive, but we're doing _alot_ better. How many people would be lost if we found something *really* valuable out there? Every Rutan and his brother would be mounting missions thinking they'll become billionares, and lots getting stuck. Think 1849.

Brad Hitch

Yes, but the point is that, from an administration point of view, the shuttle has known, fatal, failure routines. These dangers can be alleviated (a little) by flying to ISS during a mission.

The actual safety gained is not all that much... but at least the administration can say "We tried, but space is dangerous!" when the shit hits the fan.

Not so good with a mission to Hubble.

And the administrators are the ones that answer to Those Who Sign The Checks.

It may be I'm not entirely rational on this subject; you'll have to judge. 40 some years ago I happened across the only science fiction novel in my school library; it was Heinleins juvenile, "Between Planets". It literally changed my life. I acquired a sense of wonder that has been with me all my days.

Our existing space program, to me, is a pitiful left over of an episode of political posturing, the "moon race" - but it does exist. We spend less on it than we do giving ourselves cancer with cigarettes.

I really believe manned space travel is our civilizations soul. I don't think the human psyche can survive if there is no new frontier to explore, and there are woefully few on this tired old globe. (Yes I know we have oceans. But how excited can you get about a new and unusual type of fish?)

In fact, 99.9% of people already have no aspirations beyond more political power, a newer BMW, or a bigger welfare check. I'm not sure I want to be here when that percentage hits 100. Mankind (at least the best aspects of it) NEEDS a goal, a "job to do".

-- Scott Schuckert

Well, no. You'd have to justify about 13% of a human life; the shuttle has demonstrated a touch less than a 2% failure rate, and I suspect after the most recent accident it'll be a bit less.

There was a measurable (thought admittedly small) chance I'd be killed going out for the Sunday paper this morning - were the funny pages worth it? Yes, and I volunteered for the mission.

All of the shuttle astronauts are there because they want to be, and I have a hard time believing they'd turn down a Hubble mission - or that NASA would have a problem with anyone who wanted to sit it out.

No, it's dollars, plain and simple - as it always has been and always will be. Either they're being saved for the new moon and Mars programs (which I believe are entirely fictional) or they're just not being spent on space at all- as we're abandoning it.