Unintended Hubble Lessons

Is anyone concerned that by refusing to accept an end to Hubble that we
are really teaching mission designers and evaluators to avoid astronaut
serviceable projects in the future? It seems to me that we should
rationally and dispassionately deorbit Hubble, and move on towards
launch of the next optical space telescope; but because of political
and emotional reasons, we'd prefer to spend more money servicing the
old vehicle, instead of spending that money on the next vehicle.

Thoughts?

Is anyone concerned that by refusing to accept an end to Hubble that
we are really teaching mission designers and evaluators to avoid
astronaut serviceable projects in the future?

I'm not sure what the post-2010 lessons are, assuming that shuttle
retires on schedule. I expect astronaut serviced platforms (except
perhaps on ISS) are probably dead for the time being, unless we get
cheap and reliable access to orbit (a la America's Space Prize, for
example).

It seems to me that we should rationally and dispassionately deorbit
Hubble, and move on towards launch of the next optical space telescope

That's the problem. Progress towards future space telescopes has been
pretty slow. Webb has experienced cost growth and replanning and
isn't due to launch until 2013. In the ultraviolet, there is nothing
going on (that I know about).

I would prefer a series of space telescopes rather than One Big Space
Telescope (for one thing, a single telescope never has as much
observing time available as you'd want), but it is far from clear that
deorbiting Hubble would do much to advance that cause.

Jim Kingdon wrote:

Is anyone concerned that by refusing to accept an end to Hubble that
we are really teaching mission designers and evaluators to avoid
astronaut serviceable projects in the future?

I'm not sure what the post-2010 lessons are, assuming that shuttle
retires on schedule. I expect astronaut serviced platforms (except
perhaps on ISS) are probably dead for the time being, unless we get
cheap and reliable access to orbit (a la America's Space Prize, for
example).

I suspect any near term cheap and reliable access to orbit will be
more on the level of the Model T or the Wright Flyer - impressive as
hell in it's very existence, but of marginal utility beyond brief
point to point trips. A spacecraft that can serve as a tender is a
different beast in many respects, and somewhat more complex, than one
intended for simple rendezvous.

I would prefer a series of space telescopes rather than One Big Space
Telescope (for one thing, a single telescope never has as much
observing time available as you'd want), but it is far from clear that
deorbiting Hubble would do much to advance that cause.

Much depends on what you want to accomplish - a series of scopes means
cheaper and smaller scopes in reality, not a series of Hubble class
instruments. The problem there is that while you get a lot more
observing time, it's of lower quality. Some useful science can be
accomplished by a 2 meter telescope - but other tasks require the
Giant of Palomar. It's not a clear tradeoff.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

wrote in message
ps.com...
Is anyone concerned that by refusing to accept an end to Hubble that we
are really teaching mission designers and evaluators to avoid astronaut
serviceable projects in the future? It seems to me that we should
rationally and dispassionately deorbit Hubble, and move on towards
launch of the next optical space telescope; but because of political
and emotional reasons, we'd prefer to spend more money servicing the
old vehicle, instead of spending that money on the next vehicle.

Thoughts?

What Hubble replacement? Why throw away a working Hubble when there is no
direct replacement in hand?

Jeff
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919)


..