Slashdot Log In
Instead of Revamping Hubble, Replace It
Posted by
timothy
on Sat Feb 05, 2005 05:44 PM
from the oh-what-the-heck-it's-free-right dept.
from the oh-what-the-heck-it's-free-right dept.
Neil Halelamien writes "Astronomy Magazine reports that an international team of astronomers has proposed an alternative to sending a robotic or human repair mission to the ailing Hubble Space Telescope. Their proposal is to build a new Hubble Origins Probe, reusing the Hubble design but using lighter and more cost-effective technologies. The probe would include instruments currently waiting to be installed on Hubble, as well as a Japanese-built imager which 'will allow scientists to map the heavens more than 20 times faster than even a refurbished Hubble Space Telescope could.' It would take an estimated 65 months and under $1 billion to build, less than the estimated cost of a service mission."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
A newer scope would likely have better resolution (Score:5, Insightful)
rho-bawt (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Things like this are why America is DOOMED. (Score:5, Insightful)
I understand and agree that americans tend to throw out more than they should, especially in the realm of automobiles, but you've picked the wrong example to illustrate that.
Parent
Re:Things like this are why America is DOOMED. (Score:3, Insightful)
http://history.msfc.nasa.gov/book/chpttwelve.pdf [nasa.gov]
Re:Things like this are why America is DOOMED. (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree with you about the cost of repair missions. For the most part we know that a Space Shuttle launch is about $1 Billion USD. However, we _also_ now know from experience with the Hubble about building a space telescope. NASA has a lot more experience now building space telescopes thanks to Hubble. Also, there is another space telescope in the works James Webb Space Telescope [stsci.edu] (formerly known as the Next Generation Space
They could send up a new adaptable optics system (Score:4, Interesting)
It would also be sensible to spend an extra kg or 2 to put in a turret with several of each kind of imager that they want to use mounted on it. That way, if one breaks or degrades it's not such a showstopper. Something as grossly mechanical as a turret does contain moving parts, but isn't anywhere near as delicate as the instrumentation it carries. Providing it with several independent drives and positioning systems would be relatively trivial.
Parent
America's retreat from knowledge? (Score:3, Insightful)
I wondered whether the Bush administration's willingness to junk Hubble was a symptom of the same American retreat from Science as th pressure to give "Scientific Cretionism" equal support and prestige in America's schools.
That retreat from knowledge is a crying shame.
I had a buddy who always referred to it as "Scientific Cretinism -- I'm sorry Creationism".
Re:America's retreat from knowledge? (Score:3, Interesting)
In fact, this has happened to a very small extent, if at all, in terms of "Creationism" getting equal time in public school curricula.
Which is encouraging, since evolution is the only theory of biological diversification over time that has significant scientific backing...
Regarding
Re:America's retreat from knowledge? (Score:4, Informative)
I'm not sure this is worth the money versus building ten Kecks, or a couple of new super-duper ground-based telescopes (e.g., 30 meters), but it is important to consider what unique capabilites are being lost.
Parent
Re:Actually, evolution has religious backing (Score:5, Insightful)
Those who do not accept the basic tenets of evolution are usually not well educated about what it is and isn't, or are not careful thinkers. Such people will not succeed in science, except for perhaps in some minor way, so no great loss.
I submit that if 44% of the US population do no accept evolution, science and science educators need MORE SUPPORT, not less, and that perhaps the largest degree of blame falls with extreme popogandists (e.g. pathlights.com, not exactly the NAS is it?).
Parent
Re:Actually, evolution has religious backing (Score:4, Interesting)
The second point. While there some may have believed in an infinite universe at the time, and I'm not at all sure that this opinion prevailed, it wasn't based on science. There was certainly no consensus. The sun's power source was unknown. Radioactive dating, and radioactivity itself, was unknown. More importantly, all the nonsense about probabilities and bases pairs is CRAP, since DNA was not recognized until the middle of the 20th century. Who was to say in Darwin's day what was slow or fast, or about how much time was needed? Even though geology couldn't put hard numbers on the age of the Earth, geology alone was sufficient to question a young Earth of 6000 years.
So I'm calling crap. Especially if you "can't do the math." Cite some serious sources, not creationists or their lackeys. I'm not an atheist, but I am a scientist who defends critical thinking and accuracy. I don't even know why you're bringing this up other that to perpetuate myths that hurt science and scientific literacy. The fact that evolution was accepted, and the fact it is still accepted, is that it is scientific and testable, and meets the tests.
Why don't you think evolution was accepted on its merits? Why create this myth that it was initially accepted for political and philosophical reasons, if not to discredit it?
In astronomy, early scientists like Copernicus and Galileo either lived in fear of the church, or were outright destroyed by it, because they pursued better explanations in the face of authority. Nothing sticks in science because it contradicts a religous belief, but rather because it passes experimental verification.
Why not post something thoughtful related to the Hubble Space Telescope rather than spreading misinformation about evolution???
Parent
Re:America's retreat from knowledge? (Score:4, Interesting)
a) DOUBLED the budget for the National Science Foundation. That's right. DOUBLED the federal outlay for basic research in all matters from health to basic physics.
b) Has FULLY funded NASA's plan to send a manned mission to the Moon and ultimately to Mars.
c) Is FULLY funding the Prometheus project and the Jupiter Icey Moons orbiter.
Thanks to the Bush administration, we are well on our way towards establishing that a baseline for life once existed on Mars, are on our way towards looking for life on Mars, and are taking the first steps towards looking for proof of liquid water not only on Europa but also on Callisto and the other of Jupiter's icey moons.
Just because some idiots in Kentucky vote for Bush doesn't mean that Bush thinks like them, any more than crystal touting LSD gobbling 60's flower relics made Clinton an LSD gobbling cook. Sometimes you just take the vote and move on.
Parent
Re:America's retreat from knowledge? (Score:5, Informative)
For one thing, the doubling was supposed to happen over 5 years. It certainly hasn't doubled yet, and in fact it certainly won't.
Quite the contrary. The FY 2005 NSF budget for research and related activities is being cut by .7% from its FY 2004 level, the first such cut in many years. The other main part of the NSF budget, that devoted to education, is being cut even more. The "doubling" bill is now very much no longer operative.
The rational conclusion is that Bush just isn't serious about this.
Parent
Re:Why can't we sell it? (Score:3, Interesting)
I think the point of the poster is that we may find if too expensive to repair, but India or China may not. It's just a little bit arrogant to suggest that our repair costs can't are the final answer, just like it's a little arrogant to suggest that you can't get into space twice in a week for only 20 million clams.
NASA should get out of the arrogance business.
TW
$1 Billion (Score:3, Funny)
Yes, and for a limited time this baby can be yours for ONLY $999,999,999.99!
Re:$1 Billion (Score:3, Funny)
Disposable Science! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Disposable Science! (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Hubble (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Hubble (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
A problem (Score:3, Insightful)
Even if they can build a replacement for less then $1B, it would still be about one billion more than repairing it.
These guys might be good astronomers, but their math ain't that super.
Re:A problem (Score:3, Insightful)
$1 billion includes launch costs (Score:4, Informative)
Norman told the committee that it would take an estimated 65 months and $1 billion to launch HOP, which he stated would continue and even expand upon the flow of science and discovery that has made the original Hubble Space Telescope a "national treasure."
Parent
Re:$1 billion includes launch costs (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:A problem (Score:5, Insightful)
1) New technology, which will help you take more pictures faster and observe more.
2) Ability to send the satellite back to earth after it's life has passed, reducing the amount of junk orbiting earth
3) Don't have to pay for a shuttle mission ($500 million), it is planned to use a cheaper Atlas 521 rocket to send it into orbit
4) Don't have to risk human life to fix the telescope
The plan to fix the telescope estimated cost is 1.5 billion. With the new telescope designed and built for less than a billion, an Atlas 521 launch costs much less than half a billion to launch.
This is cheaper, and will provide better science.
Parent
By the way... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:By the way... (Score:5, Informative)
it was a problem with the mirror -- no lens
Parent
Redirect government funding to purchase sky-time (Score:5, Interesting)
The willingness of private investors to put up capital to service such markets shouldn't be underestimated. This is an exciting area of endeavour, just as is space transportation as witnessed by the recent investments in that field by adventurous angel investors.
Indeed, historically there has been a pattern of private financing of cutting edge telescopes without even a promise of any return at all. We can expect the private sector to step up to the plate if the government will stop pretending it is the source of innovation in technology and instead the source of funding for public-domain scientific research.
From a brief history of private endowment of telescopes [queensu.ca]:
In this stage, which lasted (roughly speaking) from the late 1800's to the middle of the 1900's, rich benefactors donated the money to establish observatories although they themselves were not practising astronomers. I gave some examples and anecdotal histories in class. For instance:
(i) James Lick made his fortune by funding "gold rush" hopefuls in San Francisco. He provided them a grubstake by buying up their land cheaply, and wound up owning most of what is now downtown San Francisco. He wanted to build an enormous pyramid in the city to commemorate himself, but was persuaded by the Regents of the University of California to build an observatory instead: Lick Observatory, just east of San Jose.
(ii) A man named Yerkes made his fortune building street car systems, and donated the money for the Yerkes 40-inch refractor, still the largest such telescope in the world. It is at Williams Bay, north of Chicago, and is operated by the University of Chicago. Yerkes was apparently quite an unscrupulous businessmen, by all accounts, and was never favoured with the respect which he hoped his endowment might buy for him.
(iii) David Dunlap made his fortune in Ontario silver mines, and was interested in astronomy. After his death, his widow donated a lot of money to the University of Toronto, who built the David Dunlap Observatory in Richmond Hill. When it opened in 1935, it was the second-largest telescope in the world.
(iv) The Carnegie Foundation, established by the Scotsman Andrew Carnegie, funds many philanthropic endeavours, including public libraries. It provided the money for the famous 200-inch telescope on Mount Palomar, which saw first light in 1950.
Amazingly, the days of such generosity are not completely gone: the new Keck telescopes on Mauna Kea are being provided by a Mr. Keck, the head of Standard Oil (I believe). The total cost is in the region of 200 million dollars; the telescopes are operated by the University of California.
Re:Redirect government funding to purchase sky-tim (Score:3, Informative)
No, the 200-inch [caltech.edu] was funded by the Rockefeller Foundation. This is why the telescope was owned and operated by Caltech, rather than the more obvious choice of the Carnegie Observatories (who had built the 100-inch telescope on Mt. Wilson). The Carnegie Observato
65 months (Score:3, Interesting)
on the other hand, some of those students will get to work on building the new scope itself - which is an opportunity rarely available.
interesting dilemma for the future graduate students.
A much cheaper approach . . . (Score:3, Funny)
Hubble has been great, but.. (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/hubble-04p.html [spacedaily.com]
in fact they suggested even building 2. If Hubble keeps going a while longer, (it could go 2010 with luck) we would then have 2 scopes going!
Dont get me wrong, its been fantastic, but it is in essence 70's tech with upgrades bolted on. I think some of the bits are still original - they have been going a long long time, so when they blow thats it. There are a lot of things that can be done better too..
Tech has moved on - time to stop putting money into Hubble, great tho the old horse has been..
$1 billion is cost of both building and launching (Score:5, Informative)
From their poster [jhu.edu], here are the figures which go into the cost estimate (written as low/high estimate):
Spacecraft: $135M/$165M
Observatory ATLO: $80M/$100M
Deorbit Module: $5M/$10M
Optical Telescope Assembly: $150M/$210M
SI Mods: $20M/$30M
SI Integration: $5M/$10M
FGS: $30M/$55M
Fee: $64M/$87M
Contingency: $128M/$174M
Launch Vehicle: $130M/$150M
Total: $747M/$991M
Again, my apologies for wording my submission poorly.
Why is this news item under IT? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why is this news item under IT? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Why is this news item under IT? (Score:5, Funny)
p
Parent
Re:Why is this news item under IT? (Score:3, Interesting)
Since when is a new Hubble telescope an IT-related topic? Am I alone in asking, "WTF??"
Hey, if an orbiting telescope is not Information Technology, then I don't know what is.
We'd still have to visit the Hubble (Score:3, Interesting)
The US is a signatory on a treaty which prohibits us from allowing dangerous space junk from entering in an uncontrolled fashion over populated areas. Therefore we have to visit the Hubble at least to deorbit it.
If we're going there anyway, why not put on the de-orbit pack AND new batteries, instruments, gyros, etc?
Re:Good idea (Score:4, Interesting)
Plus, the main reason Columbia would have been the most likely candidate for Hubble servicing was because it was too heavy to dock safely with ISS, thus the other three had to stay on ISS duty to make sure it got built on time (or eventually, as is the case now, since "on time" keeps changing).
That, though, may still be the biggest obstacle. There's very little chance of using a shuttle in the next five years for anything but ISS missions. The best chance for this telescope would be to design it to be launched on something else, like a D-4 Heavy, but that would make it that much more difficult to build because of volume limitations.
Parent
Re:Good idea (Score:5, Informative)
Except had you read the article you would have noticed the plan would use an Atlas 521 rocket to put it in orbit instead of a shuttle
Parent
Re:Good idea (Score:5, Insightful)
There are still shuttles and shuttles are not the only way to send something into space. Shuttles are usually the very last option since they are far from being the most cost-effective solution. There is no problem with a new satelite.
Parent
Re:Good idea (Score:4, Interesting)
If history has taught us anything, it is that the replacement is only cheaper if it works perfectly the first time. I suspect the cost estimates are based on current test practices which are insufficient for ensuring that it will work perfectly the first time, as we have repeatedly proven through screw-ups in the past. Thus, the probability leans towards the costs being far higher than estimated, whether as a result of doing extra testing or as a result of going back and fixing the mistakes later.
Of course, the worst case scenario would involve trying to figure out a way to get a shuttle to the LaGrange point (which I'm told is impossible without significant modifications to the current shuttle).
If I believed for a single second that they could replace the Hubble with a new one that worked correctly for less than the cost of repairing it, I'd be shouting "dump it" as fast as the next guy, but I'm far too cynical to do anything more than laugh at the notion.
Parent
Re:65 months.. (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Privatize It!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
(1) Unless you have the means to "service" it, it will end up to be a short-lived investiment.
(2) To download raw data gathered with the Hubble, you have to use governmental communication facilities such as TDRS, etc. Check out how expensive its bandwidth usage is.
(3) It will eventually tumble down onto the earth one day. You will be held responsible to bring it down to the safe place (e.g., ocean). To do so you have to possess technology and skill for a controled re-entry.
(4) what the hell would the private entity do with a space telescope?
I could go on and on and on...
Parent
Re:Privatize It!!! (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:What about the BACKSIDE of the moon? (Score:3, Informative)
Gravity isn't always an advantage. It has the annoying property of holding gases and things like dust closer to the telescope. Modern telescope designs might prefer freefall operation.
Re:James Webb... (Score:3, Insightful)
Because God told us to, of course! (Score:4, Insightful)
On a more serious note, yes, the rise of the Religious Right presents a steadily increasing problem. Did you know that "religious nuts" are responsible for the separation-of-church-and-state provisions in both the US and Australian Constitutions? A chap by the name of Alonzo T Jones dunnit. The Powers That Were wanted to enact blue laws, so Mr Jones and crew first directed them to a literal reading of Exodus 20 [biblegateway.com], and then when the politicians switched to walling off Saturdays instead of Sundays, convinced them to - if there is such a word - deshrine religious holidays in the law: make sure that none were enforced, all were permitted.
From your tone, you would like to outlaw what you see as religion, which would in reality be outlawing every religion but one: Atheism. Let's put this another way: you would make Atheism the State Religion as the Religious Right would make a concensus "Christianity" the State Religion.
Not only is Atheism a social disaster (France tried it, along with China and the USSR, North Korea and numerous others; go read the dismal record if you want to get depressed), but it's actually being done by stealth all across Western society as we type, using the exact same Constitutional provision intended to prevent it. The Religious Right is both a reaction to this and an excuse for it. If they get their way, we'll be living in a Puritan state, re-living the Dark Ages. If they don't, we'll be reliving Lenin's purges. The end of both their actions or yours will be a disaster, either way.
What we really need is to properly enforce the Constitution. To do this, simply formally recognise Atheism as a religion and enforce the existing no-religious-preferences rules rigorously. That would both starve the Religious Right of fuel by removing an excuse to react, and begin to remove the existing shackles from science. Scientists today are forced to ensure that their work fits within Materialist (Atheist) dogma, or face systematic attack from powerful religious forces [opinionjournal.com]. Without that handicap, they'd be free to explore a lot more options.
Parent
Re:Are you all CLUELESS!!!!??? (Score:5, Informative)
I'll add that the James Webb Telescope will work at longer wavelengths than Hubble, and will not duplicate Hubble's UV capability. In that sense, I would support the proposed Hubble "copy" that would fly the to-be-orphaned new Hubble Instruments, especially as seeing as how there's no ultraviolet spectroscopic capability in the near term.
I suspect this idea is dead in the water given where James Webb Space Telescope is at the moment. It is viewed by Washington and most of the astronomical community as Hubble's replacement, and attempts to propose new ultraviolet telescopes to advance Hubble's current science have not fared well.
Parent
Re:I'm all for... (Score:3, Interesting)
With the current expenditures on the so-called "war on terror" above $200 billion, a war that has debatable benefit to the US people, I think $1 billion for something that can have a direct scientific benefit to American lives is but a pebble in the pond. Unfortunately, some people in government now seem to have an active distaste for science...