"Drop the ISS in the ocean, and save Hubble"

[pmbryant]

From the weekly column What's New by University of Maryland physicist Bob Park: Jan 28 2005

1. VISION: WHERE DOES THE ADMINISTRATION GET ITS SCIENCE ADVICE?

On Feb 7, when the President’s FY06 Budget Request is released, (NASA Administrator) Sean O’Keefe will announce that no money is allotted for repair of the Hubble Space Telescope. However, money will be provided to drop the greatest telescope ever built into the ocean. Fixing Hubble with astronauts is too dangerous, O’Keefe said. Repairing Hubble with robots is too uncertain, an NRC (National Research Council) panel said. It’s too expensive anyway, the White House said. On the same day, the White House estimated the budget deficit at $427B. Besides, it wasn’t too dangerous for the ISS crew to spend five hours outside yesterday repairing a Russian robot arm. So what’s the arm for? It’s so astronauts can make repairs without going outside. Hmmm. But why would anyone bother to repair the ISS? It doesn’t do anything. Drop the ISS in the ocean, and save Hubble.

[benburch]

1. Even better.

Replace Hubble with a more capable telescope designed for remote robotic maintenance and with the ability to adjust its own orbit.

We could use the new heavy Delta booster to launch it.

I'm betting we could do this for less than a billion, minus the launch costs.

[Wilms]

4. How long would that take to get together? n/t

[benburch]

6. A few years.

It isn't like Hubble does any function that won't wait a few years. The Universe will still be there when the new telescope is ready.

[pmbryant]

5. "Hubble Origins Probe"

Seems you've heard of this idea before. I just heard of it yesterday. This certainly seems far more feasable than a robotic repair mission to Hubble. But of course, far more expensive than a simple, old-fashioned, Shuttle repair mission to Hubble.

Here's an article from Astronomy magazine yesterday: http://www.astronomy.com/default.aspx?c=a&id=2862

Replacing Hubble
Instruments destined for the venerable space telescope could form the basis for its replacement.

Francis Reddy
February 3, 2005

The Hubble Space Telescope, it seems, just can't catch a break. Sooner or later, aging batteries and failing gyroscopes will put a stop to the tremendous flow of science from Hubble, which astronomers have lauded as the most productive telescope since Galileo's.

NASA canceled the final shuttle servicing mission last year, citing safety considerations following the Columbia tragedy in 2003. Then, the space agency became intrigued by the possibility of repairing Hubble with a robot. Both a National Research Council panel and the world's largest group of astronomers back servicing the telescope by some means — preferably with the shuttle. But sources in the White House have indicated that NASA's 2006 budget, to be unveiled next week, will not include the estimated $1.5 billion for either repair option.

Now, an international team led by Johns Hopkins University astronomers suggests an alternative: create a new space telescope, called the Hubble Origins Probe (HOP), that would carry instruments built for the canceled servicing mission. "Though we support any option that will maintain the Hubble mission, the Hubble Origins Probe is the best choice not only for continuing that tradition of discovery, but also for taking it one step further," said Colin Norman, one of the team leaders, in testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science yesterday.

HOP would replicate design of the original Hubble but use a much lighter mirror and a modern spacecraft. The new mirror would not contain Hubble's mission-threatening optical flaw, which astronauts fixed in 1993 during the telescope's first servicing mission by installing "contact lenses." HOP would include two instruments destined for Hubble that have been built already — the Cosmic Origins Spectrograh (COS) and Wide Field Camera 3 (WFC3).

HOP can be developed quickly at significant savings and low risk, according to Norman, by replicating a successful design and using existing instruments. The spacecraft bus, which provides power, data handling, pointing control, and communications, is based on the Spitzer Space Telescope's. One of HOP's fine guidance sensors, which are crucial for tracking cosmic targets, will come from Hubble's own spare parts, but two others will be designed using modern technology.

...

[Wilms]

7. That seems like a great idea.

Am I missing something (other than where the "Operating" funding would come from)?

I really like this part, too:

"The new mirror would not contain Hubble's mission-threatening optical flaw, which astronauts fixed in 1993 during the telescope's first servicing mission by installing "contact lenses."

I guess that means they'll test it this time. :eyes:

[NNadir]

2. In general, robots do much better work in space than people.

The vast majority of important knowledge of the extraterrestrial universe has been discovered by robots.

Humans in space are useful to the extent that they can support robots.

The ISS is a complete waste. I agree strongly with the thread thesis.

[htuttle]

3. On the point about robots, I'd agree

But I'd also suggest that until Earth is ruled by a technocracy, procuring funding for science will depend on gaining the interest of the population. They've done a very poor job using the ISS to spark and keep interest in space exploration, but they could (if a different crowd were in charge in DC, for example). Why doesn't someone just point a webcam out the window of the station at the Earth, for instance? So far, the ISS has too often been more of an exhibition in international pettiness. But it doesn't have to be.

In any case, if Bush would just stop trying to conquer the planet, we'd easily have enough money to fund both, and much more.

[Cicero]

8. Maybe we could convince Bush there's oil on the moon and Mars!

We'd be there in a heartbeat...

Later,

[Igel]

9. The ISS was doing a bunch of fairly basic science.

Not the kind of thing that makes nifty pictures or produces great cosmological statements.

Biologists and materials scientists don't produce stunning visuals. But they're more likely to produce something that'll help us.