The Hubble, one of the most productive telescopes ever built which has re-written the textbooks on astronomy, is scheduled to fall to Earth and burn up in 2010.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s917050.htm


Thoughts?

If hubble has to burn so that NGST can go up so be it. It just pisses me of so much that NASA can't get the money for this, its my governments equivalent to a bum on the street!

Alot of scientists are fighting this right now, but hey, 2010 is a long ways off. And there is one more retrofit mission in the works thats already been budgeted. When the new JWST gets further along, and the new capabilites of this next generation scope become clear, I think the science community with begin to forget about Hubble and focus there attention on this new scope. PLUS! By the time 2010 comes around, I garauntee you that ground based telescopes will surpass what the hubble can do nowadays. Adaptive Optics are really transforming our ground capabilites. Thats just in my opinion. To watch the Hubble burn up in our atmosphere is a sad ending though, and if the budget and the safety could be garaunteed for a shuttle mission to bring it down, I think I'd feel better.

CJ

Originally posted by cjmowery
Alot of scientists are fighting this right now, but hey, 2010 is a long ways off.
CJ

2010 a long way off? With a grounded Shuttle fleet, and no serious contender for it's replacement in production? NASA has to get it's act togther. Trying to squeeze another seven years life out of the existing shuttle fleet is asking for another disaster.

So that leaves developing a new launch vehicle.

Meanwhile the HST and ISS go unserviced. Neither might make it to 2010 unless NASA get some serious budget.

Meanwhile, that ****** Bush is giving your tax money BACK, rather than spending it on space, education, welfare, .....

phlogistician,

every new launch vehicle that been attempted for development has been cancel to lack of budget. Remember the Venture star?
http://www.hobbyspace.com/Links/RLV/RLVHistory.html

Originally posted by phlogistician
2010 a long way off? With a grounded Shuttle fleet, and no serious contender for it's replacement in production? NASA has to get it's act togther.

There already is a servicing mission in the budget, and it was scheduled to launch in late 2004, now it probably got pushed back a year because of the Columbia disaster.

http://hubble.gsfc.nasa.gov/servicing-missions/sm4.html

We're still putting ALOT of money into th Hubble, the big argument is weather to keep it in operation at the same time as the new JWST scheduled to launch (I think) 2011.

But non-the-less, a shuttle is going up to add improved technology and new gyro's, and possibly even a small engine to deorbit the telescope in the far future. Also, your comment that there isn't a serious contender for it's replacement in production is false. Granted, its still VERY early on, they already have prototype mirrors for the new JWST being tested, the Next Generation Space Telescope development is full speed ahead.

http://www.stsci.edu/jwst/overview/

Cheers.

Yeah, one of many reusable space vehicles that got our hopes up.

I met the guy that designed HOTOL. (I worked for an aerospace related organisation for a few years) Foiled by the UK govt, his designs were stifled under the official secrets act after the govt paid a small amount of money for research. Luckily, he managed to redesign his engines so they differed sufficiently as not to be covered. Still has no funding though.

So SSTO, X-Series, all fantastic ideas. If only we'd pick one and make it happen. Can't keep revamping the shuttles for ever, and there are some things Russians rockets just can't do (retrieve satellites, offer comfortable research facilities).

We need a shuttle type vehicle. Maybe it's time for Russia, ESA, and NASA to work together to make this happen. If Bush stopped giving tax dollars away, or spending billions to kill foreigners, it would be easily funded. If the US govt stopped bitching at ESA for making the Galileo global postioning system, maybe we'd all et along and achieve something. Maybe if the US was more willing to share, and be less interested in militarising and dominating space, Russia and ESA wouldn't need to spend money on their own GPS systems, and that would free up resources for co-operation, ....

Still, like Bush cares. The HST is only unique, because it's the only telescope of that size pointing outwards. He's not a fan of science, and won't care about NGST unless we go make war against little green men.

Originally posted by cjmowery
Also, your comment that there isn't a serious contender for it's replacement in production is false.


I was talking about a replacement for the Shuttle, not the HST. All the SSTO and re-usable vehicle research gets canned, and the shuttle wheeled out again.

After Challenger, the shuttle fleet was grounded for two and a half years, btw. So if the same goes, we're looking at second half of 2005 before that HST repair mission goes ahead.

Seven years isn't that long. Not when your shuttles spend so long immobile.

Sorry, missunderstood your statement.

So this arguement has really nothing to do with the HST, its about bashing Bush and NASA policy. I'm not an expert on the shuttles, but NASA seems pretty confident they can remain in useable service for another 15 years with upgrades. The destruction of the Challenger and the Columbia was never determined to be the cause of the shuttles themselves. And Columbia was the oldest of them all. And if NASA channeled all its money into a new shuttles 10 years ago, we would never have seen the likes of the Chandra or the new Infared Telescope that is about to be launched. Or all the space exploration robots we've seen.. Cassini and Gallieo come to mind. Everything costs money, and to build a new shuttle is going to cost a fortune. Eventually its going to happen, and last I heard, NASA was talking about accelerating that project now. What does everybody else think about this? Perhaps the best solution is what the phlogistician said, team up with Russia, ESA and maybe even China.

Well hey, let's hope this X-Plane competition comes up with some good ideas :)

On the subject of foreign and Russia space exploration, the Buran shuttle is superior to the USofA space shuttle in most respects. I hope Russia comes out on top with it and brings back needed shame to USofA for letting our space program wither.
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/russia-space-general-01m.html

Buran? Only flew once, a few orbits under remote control, and that was it wasn't it?

There was a second, incomplete one for sale. The factory that was to manufacture them got redesignated, and became a nappy (diaper) factory I think in the end.

But new Burans, what a fantastic thought. I really hope Russia pulls it off. I wonder if the one that is 'ready for relaunch' is the flown model, or finished second?

So the ISS becomes Mir-II!

And yes, Bush bashing, what sane man doesn't?

Originally posted by phlogistician


And yes, Bush bashing, what sane man doesn't?

You're right, I should of voted for Gore/Lieberman ! :eek: Second thought, scratch that.

Gore would have put as much money or less then into NASA then Bush is. That not to say Bush has not done a lot of horrible things and that I would much rather had Gore as pres. then Bush, but this is off topic.

I wonder if Buran is working by 2011 maybe it can take Hubble down and then the USofA would have to pay Russia to get it back to put it into a museum LOL it would be cheaper for NASA and the USofA but it would be very humiliating!

And get ready to Replace HST with FST

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=34300