SAVE THE HUBBLE FOUNDATION!

Davoud:
A million astronomers, amateur and professional, with erudite
spokesmen, however, might rate a menton somewhere in the media.

Chuck Taylor
Actually, I think this one is already a lost cause. There is too much risk
on all levels if another shuttle is lost. No one I see in authority would
put their name at the bottom of that launch order.

You are correct, of course.

I think our best shot is
to make sure the replacement for Hubble (and other wavelength observatories)
gets put up with a means of servicing them. That means making sure the
replacement for the shuttle can do the job.

******

The James Webb Space Telescope is the Hubble replacement, and there
will be no serivce missions, because it won't be in near-Earth orbit.

Here's the NASA "Question of the Week" from 1 August 2002:

Q: Why does the JWST need to be over 1.5 million kilometers (~1 million
miles) from the Earth?

A: JWST will be mainly observing in the infrared. Infrared rays are
emitted by all warm objects, as they are basically heat waves. The
telescope and its instruments must be very cold, or else the very faint
astronomical signals would get swamped by the heat waves of the
telescope or nearby heat sources, such as the Earth. Therefore, JWST
has a large sunshield that blocks the Sun's light and keeps it from
heating up the telescope. Also, light from the Earth and Moon must be
blocked. Therefore JWST will be put in an orbit about 1.5 million km (1
million miles) behind the Earth and the Moon as seen from the Sun. This
is the Second Lagrange (L2) Point of the Sun-Earth system, a
semi-stable point in the gravitation potential around the Sun and
Earth. It takes relatively little energy to keep the spacecraft at this
point and allows fairly easy communication (easier than having it
drifting further and further away from Earth). The stable temperature
environment of the L2 point will allow JWST to make the very sensitive
infrared observations needed to go back in time.
http://www.jwst.nasa.gov/QuestionOfTheWeek/2002/2002-08-01.html

And here's a more recent question, from 30 December, 2003:

Q: Arun asks, ³I would like to know why JWST has a short life time as
compared to the Hubble.²

A: The James Webb Space Telescope is designed for a 10-year operational
lifetime. The Hubble Space Telescope was designed for a 15-year
mission, but the current plan is to keep it operating until 2010, 20
years after its launch.

Why this difference?

The most obvious reason for this difference is that HST was designed
for routine servicing missions. That isn¹t possible for JWST, which
needs to reside very far from the Earth---too far away to be serviced.

It would be possible to design JWST with extra spare parts and supplies
to support a longer lifetime, but that would make JWST larger, more
complicated and more expensive. If JWST was larger, it might be too
large or too heavy to be launched on an existing rocket. If JWST was
more complicated, that introduces risks to the program and, of course,
increasing the cost means that money has to come from someplace else.

Could astronomers make use of JWST for more than 10 years? There are
plenty of astronomers would like to see Hubble operate well past 2010,
and there are almost always more ideas for valuable research than there
is time available to complete them for almost any one-of-a-kind science
instrument. So, it would make sense to operate JWST for longer. But, as
is often the case in the real world, we have to make decisions about
the best way to get the best science with limited resources.
http://www.ngst.nasa.gov/QuestionOfTheWeek/QuestionOfTheWeek.html

--
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com

Davoud:
A million astronomers, amateur and professional, with erudite
spokesmen, however, might rate a menton somewhere in the media.

Chuck Taylor
Actually, I think this one is already a lost cause. There is too much risk
on all levels if another shuttle is lost. No one I see in authority would
put their name at the bottom of that launch order.

You are correct, of course.

I think our best shot is
to make sure the replacement for Hubble (and other wavelength observatories)
gets put up with a means of servicing them. That means making sure the
replacement for the shuttle can do the job.

******

The James Webb Space Telescope is the Hubble replacement, and there
will be no serivce missions, because it won't be in near-Earth orbit.

Here's the NASA "Question of the Week" from 1 August 2002:

Q: Why does the JWST need to be over 1.5 million kilometers (~1 million
miles) from the Earth?

A: JWST will be mainly observing in the infrared. Infrared rays are
emitted by all warm objects, as they are basically heat waves. The
telescope and its instruments must be very cold, or else the very faint
astronomical signals would get swamped by the heat waves of the
telescope or nearby heat sources, such as the Earth. Therefore, JWST
has a large sunshield that blocks the Sun's light and keeps it from
heating up the telescope. Also, light from the Earth and Moon must be
blocked. Therefore JWST will be put in an orbit about 1.5 million km (1
million miles) behind the Earth and the Moon as seen from the Sun. This
is the Second Lagrange (L2) Point of the Sun-Earth system, a
semi-stable point in the gravitation potential around the Sun and
Earth. It takes relatively little energy to keep the spacecraft at this
point and allows fairly easy communication (easier than having it
drifting further and further away from Earth). The stable temperature
environment of the L2 point will allow JWST to make the very sensitive
infrared observations needed to go back in time.
http://www.jwst.nasa.gov/QuestionOfTheWeek/2002/2002-08-01.html

And here's a more recent question, from 30 December, 2003:

Q: Arun asks, ³I would like to know why JWST has a short life time as
compared to the Hubble.²

A: The James Webb Space Telescope is designed for a 10-year operational
lifetime. The Hubble Space Telescope was designed for a 15-year
mission, but the current plan is to keep it operating until 2010, 20
years after its launch.

Why this difference?

The most obvious reason for this difference is that HST was designed
for routine servicing missions. That isn¹t possible for JWST, which
needs to reside very far from the Earth---too far away to be serviced.

It would be possible to design JWST with extra spare parts and supplies
to support a longer lifetime, but that would make JWST larger, more
complicated and more expensive. If JWST was larger, it might be too
large or too heavy to be launched on an existing rocket. If JWST was
more complicated, that introduces risks to the program and, of course,
increasing the cost means that money has to come from someplace else.

Could astronomers make use of JWST for more than 10 years? There are
plenty of astronomers would like to see Hubble operate well past 2010,
and there are almost always more ideas for valuable research than there
is time available to complete them for almost any one-of-a-kind science
instrument. So, it would make sense to operate JWST for longer. But, as
is often the case in the real world, we have to make decisions about
the best way to get the best science with limited resources.
http://www.ngst.nasa.gov/QuestionOfTheWeek/QuestionOfTheWeek.html

--
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com

Davoud:
A million astronomers, amateur and professional, with erudite
spokesmen, however, might rate a menton somewhere in the media.

Chuck Taylor
Actually, I think this one is already a lost cause. There is too much risk
on all levels if another shuttle is lost. No one I see in authority would
put their name at the bottom of that launch order.

You are correct, of course.

I think our best shot is
to make sure the replacement for Hubble (and other wavelength observatories)
gets put up with a means of servicing them. That means making sure the
replacement for the shuttle can do the job.

******

The James Webb Space Telescope is the Hubble replacement, and there
will be no serivce missions, because it won't be in near-Earth orbit.

Here's the NASA "Question of the Week" from 1 August 2002:

Q: Why does the JWST need to be over 1.5 million kilometers (~1 million
miles) from the Earth?

A: JWST will be mainly observing in the infrared. Infrared rays are
emitted by all warm objects, as they are basically heat waves. The
telescope and its instruments must be very cold, or else the very faint
astronomical signals would get swamped by the heat waves of the
telescope or nearby heat sources, such as the Earth. Therefore, JWST
has a large sunshield that blocks the Sun's light and keeps it from
heating up the telescope. Also, light from the Earth and Moon must be
blocked. Therefore JWST will be put in an orbit about 1.5 million km (1
million miles) behind the Earth and the Moon as seen from the Sun. This
is the Second Lagrange (L2) Point of the Sun-Earth system, a
semi-stable point in the gravitation potential around the Sun and
Earth. It takes relatively little energy to keep the spacecraft at this
point and allows fairly easy communication (easier than having it
drifting further and further away from Earth). The stable temperature
environment of the L2 point will allow JWST to make the very sensitive
infrared observations needed to go back in time.
http://www.jwst.nasa.gov/QuestionOfTheWeek/2002/2002-08-01.html

And here's a more recent question, from 30 December, 2003:

Q: Arun asks, ³I would like to know why JWST has a short life time as
compared to the Hubble.²

A: The James Webb Space Telescope is designed for a 10-year operational
lifetime. The Hubble Space Telescope was designed for a 15-year
mission, but the current plan is to keep it operating until 2010, 20
years after its launch.

Why this difference?

The most obvious reason for this difference is that HST was designed
for routine servicing missions. That isn¹t possible for JWST, which
needs to reside very far from the Earth---too far away to be serviced.

It would be possible to design JWST with extra spare parts and supplies
to support a longer lifetime, but that would make JWST larger, more
complicated and more expensive. If JWST was larger, it might be too
large or too heavy to be launched on an existing rocket. If JWST was
more complicated, that introduces risks to the program and, of course,
increasing the cost means that money has to come from someplace else.

Could astronomers make use of JWST for more than 10 years? There are
plenty of astronomers would like to see Hubble operate well past 2010,
and there are almost always more ideas for valuable research than there
is time available to complete them for almost any one-of-a-kind science
instrument. So, it would make sense to operate JWST for longer. But, as
is often the case in the real world, we have to make decisions about
the best way to get the best science with limited resources.
http://www.ngst.nasa.gov/QuestionOfTheWeek/QuestionOfTheWeek.html

--
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com

I think our best shot is
to make sure the replacement for Hubble (and other wavelength
observatories)
gets put up with a means of servicing them. That means making sure the
replacement for the shuttle can do the job.

******

The James Webb Space Telescope is the Hubble replacement, and there
will be no serivce missions, because it won't be in near-Earth orbit.

Regards servicing, I was thinking more of the other Great Observatories
program.

I can't recall, what was the launch plan for the Webb?

Clear Skies

Chuck Taylor
Do you observe the moon?
Try the Lunar Observing Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lunar-observing/

************************************

I think our best shot is
to make sure the replacement for Hubble (and other wavelength
observatories)
gets put up with a means of servicing them. That means making sure the
replacement for the shuttle can do the job.

******

The James Webb Space Telescope is the Hubble replacement, and there
will be no serivce missions, because it won't be in near-Earth orbit.

Regards servicing, I was thinking more of the other Great Observatories
program.

I can't recall, what was the launch plan for the Webb?

Clear Skies

Chuck Taylor
Do you observe the moon?
Try the Lunar Observing Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lunar-observing/

************************************

I think our best shot is
to make sure the replacement for Hubble (and other wavelength
observatories)
gets put up with a means of servicing them. That means making sure the
replacement for the shuttle can do the job.

******

The James Webb Space Telescope is the Hubble replacement, and there
will be no serivce missions, because it won't be in near-Earth orbit.

Regards servicing, I was thinking more of the other Great Observatories
program.

I can't recall, what was the launch plan for the Webb?

Clear Skies

Chuck Taylor
Do you observe the moon?
Try the Lunar Observing Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lunar-observing/

************************************

I think our best shot is
to make sure the replacement for Hubble (and other wavelength
observatories)
gets put up with a means of servicing them. That means making sure the
replacement for the shuttle can do the job.

******

The James Webb Space Telescope is the Hubble replacement, and there
will be no serivce missions, because it won't be in near-Earth orbit.

Regards servicing, I was thinking more of the other Great Observatories
program.

I can't recall, what was the launch plan for the Webb?

Clear Skies

Chuck Taylor
Do you observe the moon?
Try the Lunar Observing Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lunar-observing/

************************************

"Chuck Taylor" wrote in message
...
A million astronomers, amateur and professional, with erudite
spokesmen, however, might rate a menton somewhere in the media.

Where are you going to find "erudite spokesmen" in a group with proposals
to
turn submarines into spaceships? g

Actually, I think this one is already a lost cause. There is too much risk
on all levels if another shuttle is lost. No one I see in authority would
put their name at the bottom of that launch order.

uh.... the space shuttle will keep on flying to ISS.....

the following ridiculous quote can be found on:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3406079.stm:

"Following the loss of the space shuttle Columbia in February last year, all
shuttle fights will now be to the International Space Station (ISS).
This is so that the shuttle crew have a lifeboat in space if there are any
problems."

Imagine this: during landing a flaw in the heatshields is discovered. "this
is houston to shuttle, there is a problem, turn back and fly to ISS". yeah
right.

no, the truth is that there is no money available for HST.

"Chuck Taylor" wrote in message
...
A million astronomers, amateur and professional, with erudite
spokesmen, however, might rate a menton somewhere in the media.

Where are you going to find "erudite spokesmen" in a group with proposals
to
turn submarines into spaceships? g

Actually, I think this one is already a lost cause. There is too much risk
on all levels if another shuttle is lost. No one I see in authority would
put their name at the bottom of that launch order.

uh.... the space shuttle will keep on flying to ISS.....

the following ridiculous quote can be found on:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3406079.stm:

"Following the loss of the space shuttle Columbia in February last year, all
shuttle fights will now be to the International Space Station (ISS).
This is so that the shuttle crew have a lifeboat in space if there are any
problems."

Imagine this: during landing a flaw in the heatshields is discovered. "this
is houston to shuttle, there is a problem, turn back and fly to ISS". yeah
right.

no, the truth is that there is no money available for HST.

"Chuck Taylor" wrote in message
...
A million astronomers, amateur and professional, with erudite
spokesmen, however, might rate a menton somewhere in the media.

Where are you going to find "erudite spokesmen" in a group with proposals
to
turn submarines into spaceships? g

Actually, I think this one is already a lost cause. There is too much risk
on all levels if another shuttle is lost. No one I see in authority would
put their name at the bottom of that launch order.

uh.... the space shuttle will keep on flying to ISS.....

the following ridiculous quote can be found on:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3406079.stm:

"Following the loss of the space shuttle Columbia in February last year, all
shuttle fights will now be to the International Space Station (ISS).
This is so that the shuttle crew have a lifeboat in space if there are any
problems."

Imagine this: during landing a flaw in the heatshields is discovered. "this
is houston to shuttle, there is a problem, turn back and fly to ISS". yeah
right.

no, the truth is that there is no money available for HST.