How do we keep Hubble up there?

In article ,
Phil Wheeler wrote:

Old bird? How many of us keep our scopes for 15 years? A lot, I would
bet, especially if we like them.

It's not the optics that fail in Hubble, but many other little things.
And you don't keep your scope in outer space.

And now it's the other things that need fixing. What's your point?
Hubble remains a uniquely capable resource; no replacement for it has
even been planned. (JWST will work in the IR, assuming it doesn't get
axed next.)


Gotta write your congressmen and senators on this one. That is the only
thing that can save the Hubble.

Ah .. but can they, or will they, read those writings?

It seemed to get their attention sufficiently to save the space
transportation act at the last minute last year. Second to
conversations at townhall meetings, letters are the constituent
communication that get the most attention. Phone calls are not bad.
Email is too easy to send and thus is discounted. (I'm considering
communication from constituents here, not lobbyists.)

And now it's the other things that need fixing. What's your point?
Hubble remains a uniquely capable resource; no replacement for it has
even been planned. (JWST will work in the IR, assuming it doesn't get
axed next.)

Uniquely capable? Now that adaptive optics on ground based scopes are
yielding better resolution than Hubble at optical frequencies, exactly
what sliver of the spectrum do you think we're missing out on?
Tom Cuddihy

In article .com,
Tom Cuddihy wrote:
Hubble remains a uniquely capable resource; no replacement for it has
even been planned...

Uniquely capable? Now that adaptive optics on ground based scopes are
yielding better resolution than Hubble at optical frequencies, exactly
what sliver of the spectrum do you think we're missing out on?

Does the word "ultraviolet" ring a bell?

How about the phrase "darker sky background than any ground telescope"?
(Yes, this matters, for very faint objects in particular.)

To say nothing of minor issues like being able to stare at (favorably
placed) sky fields for days on end, something no major ground telescope
can do, given the absence of observatories in the polar regions.
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |

In article .com,
"Tom Cuddihy" wrote:

And now it's the other things that need fixing. What's your point?
Hubble remains a uniquely capable resource; no replacement for it has
even been planned. (JWST will work in the IR, assuming it doesn't get
axed next.)

Uniquely capable? Now that adaptive optics on ground based scopes are
yielding better resolution than Hubble at optical frequencies, exactly
what sliver of the spectrum do you think we're missing out on?

The little sliver shorter than about 400 nm called the "ultraviolet".
You're welcome.

They say the repair mission would be too dangerous.

But, have they asked Americans if any one would volunteer?

I would.

It'd be a unique (and free) experience to get into space, do space
walks, and such.

"PagCal" wrote in message
...
They say the repair mission would be too dangerous.

But, have they asked Americans if any one would volunteer?

No offense, why ask untrained people when the trained people (i.e.
astronauts) have already said they'd fly a repair mission?



I would.

It'd be a unique (and free) experience to get into space, do space
walks, and such.

Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
"PagCal" wrote in message
...

They say the repair mission would be too dangerous.

But, have they asked Americans if any one would volunteer?


No offense, why ask untrained people when the trained people (i.e.
astronauts) have already said they'd fly a repair mission?


The administration, and therefore NASA, has said they didn't want to fly
the mission because it was too dangerous - that, because of the orbit of
the telescope, there's only one way back.

So, I'd like to relieve them of this burden. I'll be glad to take the risk.

As for training, I'll volunteer for it as well. It wouldn't cost them a
dime for my salary.

Do I need more credentials than I'm a physicist, an aircraft pilot, AND,
I used to travel around the world fixing computers. Flying into orbit to
fix one, when all you are doing is swapping parts, can't be any harder
than some of the repairs I've done.




I would.

It'd be a unique (and free) experience to get into space, do space
walks, and such.

PagCal wrote in
:

Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
"PagCal" wrote in message
...

They say the repair mission would be too dangerous.

But, have they asked Americans if any one would volunteer?


No offense, why ask untrained people when the trained people (i.e.
astronauts) have already said they'd fly a repair mission?


The administration, and therefore NASA, has said they didn't want to
fly the mission because it was too dangerous - that, because of the
orbit of the telescope, there's only one way back.

So, I'd like to relieve them of this burden. I'll be glad to take the
risk.

So would a bunch of professional astronauts. It doesn't matter *who's*
willing to take the risk of flying; if NASA management is not willing to
sign off on letting you fly that shuttle, you're not going to fly, period.

As for training, I'll volunteer for it as well. It wouldn't cost them
a dime for my salary.

It will cost NASA a pretty penny for all the instructors who will train
you. Or are you going to pay their salaries, also?

Do I need more credentials than I'm a physicist, an aircraft pilot,
AND, I used to travel around the world fixing computers. Flying into
orbit to fix one, when all you are doing is swapping parts, can't be
any harder than some of the repairs I've done.

The repair itself isn't the sticking point.

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

Thinking about that, might it be viable to put a telescope on an
Antarctic mountain? It would be much cheaper than Hubble, would be able
to stare for a long time, would have excellent atmospheric conditions,
and most of the time would be remotely operated. True it wouldn't see
UV.

Alex Terrell wrote:
Thinking about that, might it be viable to put a telescope on an
Antarctic mountain? It would be much cheaper than Hubble, would be able
to stare for a long time, would have excellent atmospheric conditions,
and most of the time would be remotely operated. True it wouldn't see
UV.

There already are remotely operated scopes of various kinds
around the South Pole (and not just optical -- very short wavelength radio
telescopes as well, taking advantage of the very dry atmosphere.)

Paul