Should Hubble be saved?

A panel today suggested that Nasa make a manned mission to Hubble, to both upgrade and service the aging piece of equipment.

www.cnn.com...

A committee of experts told NASA today that it should not give up on the idea of a space shuttle mission to service and improve the Hubble Space Telescope.

Under the National Academy of Sciences' National Research Council, a blue-ribbon group has been looking into the future of the orbiting telescope based on a request by NASA

I'm a huge fan of anything that exapnds our knowledge of space. I am all for funding going to NASA, or private Space Oraganizations. The Hubble is perhaps one of the single greatest man-made pieces of technology ever created IMHO. I think it should be up there for as long as we can keep it there, but what do you think?

Edited for spelling

[edit on 14-7-2004 by RockerDom]

Of the top of my head I'd yell "Yes! Save the Hubble Space Telescope!" But after further pondering, I'd say "No" -- that is "No, if NASA is planning on saving money for a few years to build a replacement long-range telescope with new technology that will put Hubble to shame." However, if NASA has no plans to build a new long-range telescope in the future, then my answer switches back to "Yes!"

i'd say build a new telescope with state of the art technology and scrap hubble. don't think about the cost, it is for the good of all mankind.

I'm not surprised. For those of you that think the hubble should be put out of use, well the astronauts that put their life works into it protested the move and got others to rally in their support. Before this, NASA was too concerned about the safety issues. But with those limitations nothing's possible.

There are space technologies that NASA should look into. One of them is some sort of aircraft that meets the hubble and pulls it into a higher orbit; hence increasing its life time.

YES!! The hubble should be saved. YES it should also be saved even if nasa is planning another hubble type telescope soon. But alas they are not. The ESA is planning on launching a new telescope in 2007 no sure of its capabilities though, but from some previus discussions that have taken place on these boards, it was pretty much agreed upon that there will not be a suitable replacement in orbit till around 2015-16.

I just think it is the most amazing piece of technology around right now, besides the radio telescopes in the STEI program, and if it's gone, we lose so much incredible potential to learn about things we need to learn about.

Astronomers all over this planet wait on long lists for chances to use telescopes of any kind. They use every old, new and anything that works. Keeping Hubble working seems to me only helps to add to research and therefore information and knowledge.

I say if it works, use it. If it useful, keep it working

This Hubble's successor which NASA is designing is infrared telescope, not visible light so it can't really take Hubble's place.

if they are not gonna use it they sould put in a museum if not they can always give it to me

I definitely believe that the Hubble should be saved. With all of the man power and money that we have already put into it, it is the righteous thing to do.
I certainly would miss my astronomy picture of the day.

Originally posted by E_T
This Hubble's successor which NASA is designing is infrared telescope, not visible light so it can't really take Hubble's place.

Wrong. In 2003 Nasa launched the Spitzer Space Telescope wich is infared.

I think we should scrap the Hubble, It's been a great telescope but nothing lives forever, I hate how Nasa says they will think about away to keep it operating but the days go bye and there using millions just thinking!

As for Sardion2000 and ET who said Nasa won't have a visible light telescope till 2015-16. Wrong, Nasa is planning on Launching there next Visible light telescope in 2011-12 called The James Webb Space Telescope.

Websurfer the reason hubble is expected to go un-operational in around 2007 is not because shes about to come in through the atmosphere, its beacuse of her gyros which deteriorate over time.

Hubble is in a stupid a$$ orbit anyway LEO is a bad location for a telescope, because the Earth obscures half the sky and any object you observe will swing behind the Earth after about 45min of continuous observation. Then you have to stop observing and wait 45min for the Earth to move out of the way. It is seldom worthwhile to repoint the telescope temporarily at another object because of the long time it takes to reorient and settle down on a new set of guide stars. So about half the potential observing time is wasted.

Also, the solar panels have to be huge since they are in darkness half the time, and the constant cycling wears the batteries out. Many other astronomy satellites have used high orbits like GEO for exactly these reasons, in spite of the higher cost of launching.

Bottom line, Hubble is Like a old dog whos blind and going deaf although its been a good dog its time to put her to sleep.

Wrong, Nasa is planning on Launching there next Visible light telescope in 2011-12 called The James Webb Space Telescope.

Quote Source ngst.gsfc.nasa.gov...
JWST Instruments

* Near Infrared Camera (NIRCam)
* Near Infrared Spectrograph (NIRSpec)
* Mid Infrared Instrument (MIRI)
* Fine Guidance Sensors (FGS)

Correct me if i'm wrong but Infrared is not in the visable spectrum. I'm not putting down this great piece of hardware but it seems to me that it is not a replacement for hubble and if we were to repair hubbles gyro's they could complement each other till 2015.

Absolutely, 100%, not a doubt in my mind we should repair the sucker and keep it going.

It can't be more expensive than war!

Spiderj

It would be silly to discard the Hubble before there is an equal replacement. Especially considering all the cutting edge science that has been preformed with it. Even if they launch a better scope. The Hubble should be restored to cut down on the wait for camera time, doubling the chances for new discoveries
At the very least it should be parked in a safe orbit and preserved as a future relic of scientific history

Originally posted by Taeas
It would be silly to discard the Hubble before there is an equal replacement. Especially considering all the cutting edge science that has been preformed with it. Even if they launch a better scope. The Hubble should be restored to cut down on the wait for camera time, doubling the chances for new discoveries
At the very least it should be parked in a safe orbit and preserved as a future relic of scientific history
[/quote

Are you kidding do you have any idea how much that would cost!

Several years ago (before Columbia Disaster) they figured that when they retire the Hubble after a new better one replaced it, that they would use the shuttle to go up and scoop her up and put it inside its compartment, So they could put it into a museam. They now relize that will never happen, So they will more then likely just let it fall to it's grave.

""Correct me if i'm wrong but Infrared is not in the visable spectrum. I'm not putting down this great piece of hardware but it seems to me that it is not a replacement for hubble and if we were to repair hubbles gyro's they could complement each other till 2015.""

My Bad.
Ok with that said, Hubble was intended to be put to sleep in 2010 so whats 2 or 3 years earlier gonna do.

Ur right it doesn't see in visible light but thats a good thing those can only see back so far this telescope will be far better then hubble. Infared reveals alot of things that you can't see with tha naked eye like gas giants and fine dust.

If Hubble does get fixed gyros and some other upgrades it could operate till a little after 2010 but I think it will just plain cost to much.

One current on the drawing board design is to spend 300 million for the lauch of a space tug, which will basically pull it down to the pacific ocean to avoid it ramming into a house. That way it can be a controlled entry and hopefully will burn the majority of it up is the desent. Nothing as big as the Hubble has ever fell to earth. (except for past asteroids)

Originally posted by Murcielago

[
Are you kidding do you have any idea how much that would cost!

Hmmm, about two days worth of the war in Iraq

Several years ago (before Columbia Disaster) they figured that when they retire the Hubble after a new better one replaced it, that they would use the shuttle to go up and scoop her up and put it inside its compartment, So they could put it into a museam. They now relize that will never happen, So they will more then likely just let it fall to it's grave.

Did I say bring it down? Lets just park it for 10-20 or 50 years I have to belive we could retreive it by that time, with out too much expense

I would rather it stay in orbit, if possible, but most definitely it shoud be placed in a museum. Seeing it burn up would be heart-wrenching. We have learned so much because of Hubble, and could learn so much more. It really is a milestone in space exploration.

I just saw something on the Discovery Channel about a european scope going up in Peru. They said it's almost ready for action, and it will use interferometry so it will have 50x better resolution than Hubble. The scientists on the show claimed it will be able to see the atmosphere on planets orbiting other stars!!