It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Hubble Telescope going to go down

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 11:16 PM
link   
msnbc.msn.com...

White house is cutting funding for the repairs of the Telescope so it can maintain the space shuttle fleet. One mission will be planned to attach a rocket to safely de-orbit the telescope


White House cuts Hubble fix-up funds
NASA told to focus on destroying telescope safely

By Brian Berger
Space News staff writer
Updated: 9:16 p.m. ET 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, according to government and industry sources.

advertisement
NASA is debating when and how to announce the change of plans. Sources told Space News that outgoing NASA Administrator Sean O’Keefe likely will make the announcement Feb. 7 during the public presentation of the space agency’s 2006 budget request.

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.

Sources said O’Keefe received his marching orders on Hubble Jan. 13 during a meeting with White House officials to finalize the agency’s 2006 budget request. With both robotic and shuttle-based servicing options expected to cost well in excess of $1 billion, sources said, NASA was told it simply could not afford to save Hubble given everything else NASA has on its agenda, including preparing the shuttle fleet to fly again.


Really makes me feel sad to see the ol' girl nearing its end. She has done a lot for Astronomy




posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 11:27 PM
link   
They will probably just build another one and launch it back out there in a few years, if not build one like it making it the most powerful telescope on the ground. But yeah she has enlightened us alot over the years. Too bad.


E_T

posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 02:27 AM
link   
So it looks like warlord is starting to save money beforehand for next war.

This is were all "fat" is going...
www.globalsecurity.org...



Originally posted by mscbkc070904
They will probably just build another one and launch it back out there in a few years, if not build one like it making it the most powerful telescope on the ground.
With good lack successor might be in use ~ten years from now.
Which is BTW IR telescope so it sees universe through different wavelength than Hubble and so can't replace it fully.
Also it will be send so far from Earth that if anything goes wrong there's no way to make service flights. So you better hope that nothing goes wrong and its system would stay operation longer than those in Hubble, otherwise it won't last even half long time as Hubble.

PS. Ground telescopes have to worry about atmosphere disturbing (/dimming) passing light.



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 09:31 AM
link   
Ok, this really pisses me off... I have an idea...

Someone get a hold of Bill Gates.. he can pay for the repairs. In exchange Microsoft gets the copyright on the pretty pictures.

I mean seriously if I had Bill's money I would do it.

Osiris



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 09:34 AM
link   
Or how about we get Money from Khadafi to fix it, then give him use of it. He did just spend $16 Million for a kick ass earth based telescope of his own.



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 09:41 AM
link   
or they could just blow it up, they are good at that! $400 billion on defence?, worlds most paranoid nation or ambitious of world domination?

It is a damn shame, we've seen awesome images from hubble.


[edit on 093131p://44019 by instar]



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 01:32 PM
link   
Or perhaps there are simply more cost efficient solutions than the Hubble at this time? From a cost/benefit standpoint it would make much more sense for Nasa to build three to five world class ground-based observatories with this $1B than to use it on the Hubble. Although Hubble has the advantage of being above the distortion of the atmosphere, advances in adaptive optics have greatly reduced this advantage and most of the science of the Hubble can now be done on the ground. Note that there is also serious discussion of building 20-30 meter telescopes in the near future, and the cost of constructing one would likely be less than the cost of repairing the Hubble.



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 02:24 PM
link   
Why burn it up in our atmosphere, why not just bring it back to earth? Im sure something on it could be used.



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 02:36 PM
link   
Your 1977 Commodore 64 computer blows a modem chip. You a) take it down to We Fix Macs or b) drop it in the dumpster and buy a new Dell.

You buy a Dell. Unless you stupidly blew the money on fixing the Commodore.

NASA is doing the smart thing to deorbit the now-decrepit Hubble. Let it die a glorious death, then name its replacement Hubble II. Put it on the Moon. But don't mourn Hubble. Just say 'thanks, old friend'.



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 02:42 PM
link   

the James E. Webb Space Telescope, set to launch into space atop a European Space Agency rocket in 2011. Once it's up and running -- it is now being built by Northrup Grumman for NASA, the European Space Agency and the Canadian Space Agency--astronomers hope to peer back in time to when the universe was a toddler, a mere 200 million years after its birth in the "Big Bang" that took place 13.7 billion years ago.

Space telescopes act like time machines because the objects they look at are so far away that the light has taken billions of years just to get to the telescope, even though that light has been traveling at the speed of, well, light. And while scientists have a good understanding of what happened during the first 100 million years or so of the universe's life, there's a big blank spot in its timeline from that point to about a billion years after the Big Bang. Their hope is to see examples of the earliest stars and galaxies and study their evolution and the production of elements, which in turn leads to better understanding of the origins of life


Guess we don't need hubble anymore


E_T

posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by vor78
Note that there is also serious discussion of building 20-30 meter telescopes in the near future...
So small?


www.eso.org...



Originally posted by instar
$400 billion on defence?, worlds most paranoid nation or ambitious of world domination?
Paranoia has its own budget which is ~10 percent of military budget... but still couple times bigger than NASA's budget.
www.globalsecurity.org...

www.nasa.gov...
For short version go for Agency Summary Table.



posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 05:33 PM
link   
that kinda sucks. ive always felt a connection with the hubble



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by E_T

Originally posted by vor78
Note that there is also serious discussion of building 20-30 meter telescopes in the near future...
So small?


www.eso.org...



Originally posted by instar
$400 billion on defence?, worlds most paranoid nation or ambitious of world domination?
Paranoia has its own budget which is ~10 percent of military budget... but still couple times bigger than NASA's budget.
www.globalsecurity.org...

www.nasa.gov...
For short version go for Agency Summary Table.


I've known about the OWL telescope concept, but I don't think it'll be built anytime soon. I think any government or institution financing such a project will want to see an intermediate step taken before then, which is why I believe the 20-30 meter class scopes being more of a realistic next step. I still see the OWL being just a concept for another couple of decades. That said, I'd love to see it built, and again, I'd much rather see the money invested there than in fixing the Hubble, which will likely be abandoned within 5 years even if the repair mission is carried out.

I just think we've reached a point where a few influential people have whipped the public into a frenzy over the end of the Hubble without giving them the whole story. Most people simply don't realize that the only real advantage Hubble ever had was being above the atmosphere, nor do they realize that even in the early stages, adaptive optics have almost eliminated Hubble's biggest selling point. Once you get past that, Hubble has a serious lack of aperture compared to the ground based telescopes and is very expensive, aging, and difficult and dangerous to repair.

The Hubble was a great instrument for its day, and though its still capable of good science, its time has largely come and gone. Its job can be done just as well and at a much reduced price by ground based telescopes. Its time to let it go and move onto bigger and better things.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 07:18 PM
link   

The Hubble Is Dead, Long Live The Hubble

Your 1977 Commodore 64 computer blows a modem chip. You a) take it down to We Fix Macs or b) drop it in the dumpster and buy a new Dell.

You buy a Dell. Unless you stupidly blew the money on fixing the Commodore.

NASA is doing the smart thing to deorbit the now-decrepit Hubble. Let it die a glorious death, then name its replacement Hubble II. Put it on the Moon. But don't mourn Hubble. Just say 'thanks, old friend'.


Dude, No one likes Dells.


Seriously though - it had to happen sometime. It could have stayed up, but it wouldn't have been worth it. The next generation is ready to be sent up. Let's have it.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join