NASA Urged to Reconsider Hubble Decision

In article ,
Richard Schumacher wrote:

"Scott M. Kozel" wrote:

http://www.sunspot.net/news/health/b...ory?coll=bal-l
ocal-headlines

"NASA urged to reconsider Hubble decision"
The Associated Press
January 28, 2004

Maryland's congressional delegation sent a letter to NASA administrator
Sean O'Keefe urging him to reconsider the space agency's recent decision
to cancel the final servicing mission for the Hubble Space Telescope.

Reactionary Republican apologists please note that this call to save HST
originated with Democratic Senator Barbara Mikulski.

????

So what?

(I'm a Democrat, btw, not that it matters one whit.)

Why all the furor? Use Hubble until it quits, then wait for JWST in 2011. I
realize that JWST is infrared-optimized, but will it be less able to produce
the captivating imagery Hubble has captured? IMHO it's a huge waste of
resources for us to keep Hubble going. It's done its job. Retire it. Maybe
Galaxy's first mission will be to attach a prop module for a safe deorbit.

"Kurt W. Wagner" wrote in message
. net...
Why all the furor? Use Hubble until it quits, then wait for JWST in 2011.
I
realize that JWST is infrared-optimized, but will it be less able to
produce
the captivating imagery Hubble has captured? IMHO it's a huge waste of
resources for us to keep Hubble going. It's done its job. Retire it. Maybe
Galaxy's first mission will be to attach a prop module for a safe deorbit.

I understand NASA wants to send up a robot to deorbit Hubble. Why not boost
it into a higher orbit instead so that it can be retreived at a later time?

Why not put the next generation space telescope on the ISS? It would be so
much easier to service.

"Bootstrap Bill" wrote in message
...
Why not put the next generation space telescope on the ISS? It would be so
much easier to service.


Things "close" in orbit won't remain close over time. And then you risk
decontamination of the mirror from outgassing and thruster firings.

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

"Bootstrap Bill" wrote in message
...
Why not put the next generation space telescope on the ISS? It would be
so
much easier to service.


Things "close" in orbit won't remain close over time.
Why not attatch it directly to the ISS, just like the other modules are?

And then you risk decontamination of the mirror from outgassing and
thruster firings.

The ISS is permanently "manned". Couldn't the ISS crew keep the mirror
clean?

"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote in message ...
"Bootstrap Bill" wrote in message
...

Why not put the next generation space telescope on the ISS? It would be so
much easier to service.

Things "close" in orbit won't remain close over time. And then you risk
decontamination of the mirror from outgassing and thruster firings.


"Contamination." And from the vibrations people on the station would
cause. On Earth this isn't a problem because you can make things mas-
sive enough not to be disturbed by people trampling around in the vi-
cinity and because of the ultra-massive Earth itself not being measur-
ably destabilized by human motion, unlike a space station.

On the Moon, a little ways from a base, vibrations wouldn't be a prob-
lem, either. And neither would reach be. That's another reason why
an ISS is so much more useless and a waste of money than a moonbase
would be...


--
__ “A good leader knows when it’s best to ignore the __
('__` screams for help and focus on the bigger picture.� '__`)
//6(6; ©OOL mmiv :^)^\\
`\_-/ http://home.t-online.de/home/ulrich....lmann/redbaron \-_/'

"Bootstrap Bill" wrote in message
...

"Kurt W. Wagner" wrote in message
. net...
Why all the furor? Use Hubble until it quits, then wait for JWST in
2011.
I
realize that JWST is infrared-optimized, but will it be less able to
produce
the captivating imagery Hubble has captured? IMHO it's a huge waste of
resources for us to keep Hubble going. It's done its job. Retire it.
Maybe
Galaxy's first mission will be to attach a prop module for a safe
deorbit.

I understand NASA wants to send up a robot to deorbit Hubble. Why not
boost
it into a higher orbit instead so that it can be retreived at a later
time?

Even if you boost it higher, Hubble was designed to be serviced by humans
and the space shuttle.
There are no robots in existence or even on the drawing boards with
anything remotely near the capabilities, the dexterity and sufficient
complexity to perform a servicing mission. Not to mention the upgrades.
When the batteries go, Hubble will no longer be able to keep its systems
warm enough. This would lead to irretreivable losses in capabilities.
No other country has or will posess the means to launch a servicing
mission ( or even a boost mission ) within the expected lifetime of
the batteries - except the Shuttle - which is ready, willing, and able.
The most probable outcome of not servicing Hubble is its uncontrolleld
descent to earth.

Why not put the next generation space telescope on the ISS? It would be so
much easier to service.

Too much vibration.
The station is not a steady enough platform.
Too much risk of contamination.
Too many pointing constraints.
The space station cannot be expected to move to track astronomical
targets when they drift out of the reach of the telescope.

"Chosp" wrote in message
news:qscTb.35451$F15.23086@fed1read06...

"Bootstrap Bill" wrote in message
...

"Kurt W. Wagner" wrote in message
. net...
Why all the furor? Use Hubble until it quits, then wait for JWST in
2011.
I
realize that JWST is infrared-optimized, but will it be less able to
produce
the captivating imagery Hubble has captured? IMHO it's a huge waste of
resources for us to keep Hubble going. It's done its job. Retire it.
Maybe
Galaxy's first mission will be to attach a prop module for a safe
deorbit.

I understand NASA wants to send up a robot to deorbit Hubble. Why not
boost
it into a higher orbit instead so that it can be retreived at a later
time?

Even if you boost it higher, Hubble was designed to be serviced by humans
and the space shuttle.

Boost it into a higher orbit so it can be retrieved later.