http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/space/04/01/hubble.deorbit/index.html
Well, this might be it, a deorbit only option.
bleh.....
D
Well, this might be it, a deorbit only option.
bleh.....
D
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Say Goodbye To The Hubble
- Thread starter Mr. Anderson
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
emw said:
Maybe in those 3-5 years there will be enough pressure from the scientific community to at least prevent it from getting destroyed in a re-entry.
Make it the first object for the International Orbiting Space Museum
D
How about sending a shuttle to it like shuttle was designed for?emw said:
NASA
Govt running anything is wrong, they just arent capable of common sense nor vision nor much else. Throwing away Hubble is throwing away Hubble.So we have a low performance shuttle doing endless low orbit safety loops and visits to the space station. Billions thrown away but they cant fix a Space Telescope that has opened deep space for years. Might as well chuck shuttle now and build a new system now. Its still a pork barrel pig floundering around consuming billions while doing nothing but becoming older.
And we have the Voyager crafts finding their funding cut too. Well I guess we have to get to the moon again, and then to Mars. (sigh)
So, does this mean it takes more energy to simply push it out of orbit and have it spin away into the cosmos?
Shuttle has to go down as the biggest Flop in history. When looking at the costs and cost overruns, the delays after delays, 2 of them blowing up, Its a classic case of Govt gone haywire. How many Billions have been sunk into the endless pit? Its a sad story to see us still pooring billions into this thing and it wont even be allowed to fix Hubble. Oh and by the way its late again to the pad on its next mission of low endless loops and more blood samples.
on its next mission of low endless loops and more blood samples. 
yellow said:
A lot more engery than it would take to crash land the hubble.
Their is problely a lot more going on in this desision than what the media is telling us. It cost a lot to keep the hubble up and running plus it already gone well past it intended life time so it been running on borrowed time any how. Their are several plans in the work to have a replacement up thiere in 2012 that will be able to see even farther than then hubble ever good and with a lot more carrity and having the hubble come down will save money for those projects.
Dont Hurt Me said:Shuttle has to go down as the biggest Flop in history. When looking at the costs and cost overruns, the delays after delays, 2 of them blowing up, Its a classic case of Govt gone haywire. How many Billions have been sunk into the endless pit? Its a sad story to see us still pooring billions into this thing and it wont even be allowed to fix Hubble. Oh and by the way its late again to the pad
I think that's a bit harsh. The original idea was great, it just turned out thet Titans were better for delivering payloads, and building new satellites is cheaper thanfixing them. The program is 35 years old. The technology, at the time, was groundbreaking.
There are far worse ways to blow billions of dollars.
I don't think so. They had all kinds of problems with Mir, including several oxygen leaks, coolant leaks, CO2-removal system failures and a collision with a cargo vessel. The oxygen-related problems were severe enough that evacuating Mir was a real possibility at one time.miloblithe said:
Dont Hurt Me said:Shuttle has to go down as the biggest Flop in history. When looking at the costs and cost overruns, the delays after delays, 2 of them blowing up, Its a classic case of Govt gone haywire. How many Billions have been sunk into the endless pit? Its a sad story to see us still pooring billions into this thing and it wont even be allowed to fix Hubble. Oh and by the way its late again to the pad
The shuttle have a great safety record. The proublity that something major would go wrong with every mission is like 5% given that only 2 major things happen in all the years of a the shuttle that pretty good and only changleger was the only one that had a lot of human error in it and that was a statics problem in repesenting the data they though out outliers that where not really outliers that messed everything up and it was a failure of the engineers to comminitcated the problem to mangment in a way they could understand. The media at the time was a putting a lot of pressure on the space program callign it worthless, Massive bugget cuts backs. The last accedents they know what caused it but their was really very little they could of done about it in the end. The best they could of done was ajusted reentry a little but even that would of been unlikely to of saved the shuttle. They dont have a way to replace the tiles in space and thier is no feesible way to carry replacements into space since almost all the tiles only fit in one spot. Their is a huge focus on safety in dealing withe the program. Secerity is very tight on NASA and USA (Untied Space Allinca) for that reason. They deal with numbers that can kill and they dont want people messing around nor do they joke around about it.
The shuttle has been one of the better orbit vechials. It largest draw back is it is a swiss army knife so it can do just about anything up their but since it not spelized at any one thing it cost quite a bit more to put it up in space. People know very little about the space program out side of the crap the media feeds them. Living in Houston and more specficly the clear lake area makes NASA more imporanted and their is more infomation coming out about it that is helpful plus I know a lot of the engineers from NASA. On top of it being a personal intersted of mine since well as long as I can remeber (like about 5 years old and I am 22 now) Up until I went to collage I wanted to work for the program but the major I end up choosing does not go into that field.
I am sorry but I get really tick when people start spiting out crap about the space program that is massivly miss infomation. The Space program has been the highest return investment. for every 1 dollor spent on it 25 comes out of it. You can thank the space program for a lot of the things you take forgranted today since they where made for it and the from the spin off we got the techology. The computer you are using you can thank NASA for that. Velcro Thank NASA thier is a lot of stuff. I used to know a lot more on the list.
Mind you NASA did waste a lot money on trying to make a pen that can write in space while the Russian where like why do that just use a pencil.
You mean like a false war? Im glad they are rethinking the space program but iam not glad at a bad decision by commitee of managers who will be ahead of the next pork barrel program. They have 0 interest in Hubble while the scientist and astronomers who want Hubble to be fixed have 0 say with the politicians ruining i mean running Nasa. Nasa brass have no courage and you arent going to explore space by tip toeing around and throwing away the greatest telescope in the world. Also a new Hubble costs a lot more then fixing the current one. This is all about politics of the ISS and politics of the managers wanting to create another mountain load of paperwork on the shuttle replacement with redesign after redesign etc and the politics of crashing 2 shuttles so now they are going to only fly to the ISS.(edit) instead of science,exploration and discovery its about politics,politics & beauracracy. Our Space program.iGary said:
I would think we could fix it more cheaply, but who knows. The Hubble provides an extremely valuable glimpse into the cosmos, and its capabilities should be either maintained or duplicated.iGary said:
As for the shuttle being a waste - not sure I agree with that thought, although it surely hasn't lived up to its potential. There are so many things I thought it would be used for - such as retrieving the Hubble for repair - that never came to pass.
Dont Hurt Me said:
Yeah, but what exactly does that have to do with THIS discussion?
Ever hear of a Straw Man?
iGary said:
there already is one in the works, but its going to be a while before its launched...
The Next Generation Space Telescope or James Webb Space Telescope
Still, I don't think burning up the Hubble is all that responsible considering what it has done for astronomy and our understanding of the universe.
D
jsw said:
finally someone point this out. One of the replacements in the work will put the hubble to shame. I dont have the artical in frount of me so I dont remeber it name and what not and al lthe dates but I can give you an example how much it will increase the relatition. Think of a picture that is ok 160x160 and then blow that up to full screen on you 1280x1024 on you montior and see how it looks really pixilated. Well the replacement would be like have that same picture at 1280x1024. Now that shows a lot more detal and looks at lot better when it blown up right.
James Web doesnt see in the visible spectrum, and nothing can beat looking into space without atmosphere distortion. Hubble is still the best and its working today. There isnt anything better today and Nasa is throwing it away. All eyes focused on the next fat pork barrel whats in it for me program. We have to remove politics from space or we will end up paying 1,000 fold more as we have for years and having piss poor political decisions instead of exploring space and science. You know that planet that was just photo'd around another star? guess who was involoved? Hubble.Mr. Anderson said:
Interesting point. Personally, I'd rather have them spending money on space exploration than waging war.Dont Hurt Me said:
(Not that we necessarily have to make a choice. Deficits don't seem to bother anybody anymore. We can have it all, you know?
)
Dont Hurt Me said:
I agree with you... but even though the jwst will be using a different spectrum to view the heavens, doesn't mean it won't find some amazing stuff.
I'm all for commercialization of space. Its just the kick in the pants NASA needs to get them moving forward instead of standing still.
D
Based on what I've read, I have to say that as a taxpayer I'm not happy about W's plan for NASA.
The Shuttle, you must remember, was designed during a period when cost was less important than capability; The shuttle was fantastically expensive but more capable than what the soviets had and a boost to US prestige. Nowadays the Cold War isn't around and there is a need to do things more efficiently.
I have not yet read anywhere why it is deemed necessary to return to the moon; My cynical side thinks that the administration seeks to beat the Chinese and Indians to it again - but wait, didn't we do that back in 1969? If planetary studies are given high priority, Mars at least has a huge amount of potential in terms of new data for scientists. The Moon is less interesting.
Most importantly, the retirement of both the Shuttle and the Titan series will seriously cripple NASA and the US military's ability to launch/repair satellites and conduct research. What's next? The plans for another lunar landing include a lunar orbiter, which will ostensibly be a use-once craft like Apollo. Perhaps this vehicle and launch system will also be used to launch satellites and send astronauts on repair missions etc. However, this craft won't fly until at least 2020, and that is a very optomistic estimate.
The loss of the shuttle really underscores how much NASA needs to catch up - The European Space Agency has always had to be efficient, and the Chinese, Indian and Russian space programs all enjoy much less funding than NASA. In the future, we too will need to learn to be frugal with our space program.
My opinion - ditch the moon nonsense, concentrate on a replacement general purpose orbiter/launch system (probably a 21st century version of the Saturn V/Apollo setup) and continue perfecting robotic exploration of the solar system, with the possibility of a manned mars mission in 20-30 years.
The Shuttle, you must remember, was designed during a period when cost was less important than capability; The shuttle was fantastically expensive but more capable than what the soviets had and a boost to US prestige. Nowadays the Cold War isn't around and there is a need to do things more efficiently.
I have not yet read anywhere why it is deemed necessary to return to the moon; My cynical side thinks that the administration seeks to beat the Chinese and Indians to it again - but wait, didn't we do that back in 1969? If planetary studies are given high priority, Mars at least has a huge amount of potential in terms of new data for scientists. The Moon is less interesting.
Most importantly, the retirement of both the Shuttle and the Titan series will seriously cripple NASA and the US military's ability to launch/repair satellites and conduct research. What's next? The plans for another lunar landing include a lunar orbiter, which will ostensibly be a use-once craft like Apollo. Perhaps this vehicle and launch system will also be used to launch satellites and send astronauts on repair missions etc. However, this craft won't fly until at least 2020, and that is a very optomistic estimate.
The loss of the shuttle really underscores how much NASA needs to catch up - The European Space Agency has always had to be efficient, and the Chinese, Indian and Russian space programs all enjoy much less funding than NASA. In the future, we too will need to learn to be frugal with our space program.
My opinion - ditch the moon nonsense, concentrate on a replacement general purpose orbiter/launch system (probably a 21st century version of the Saturn V/Apollo setup) and continue perfecting robotic exploration of the solar system, with the possibility of a manned mars mission in 20-30 years.