The end of the american space program.

There is a new scope scheduled for launch in 2007 or 2008 that
is a vast improvement over Hubble. Why keep it up after that?

The replacement (James Webb Space telescope) would launch at
the earliest 2011, but it is normal that those plans are 2-3 years
behind schedule. I cite the report available in
http://hst-jwst-transition.hq.nasa.g...panel_docs.htm
specifically the document JWST project input:
http://hst-jwst-transition.hq.nasa.g...Bahcall_v3.pdf

The JWST study was initiated in 1995, phase B (detailed design)
will start in 2003, and launch is planned for 2011. While the schedule
and budget follow NASA guidelines for slack and contingency,
it is not unusual for large observatories to slip 1 or 2 years beyond
such a planned date. For JWST to adhere to its launch date, it is
critically important that it should have the planned budget.


Hubble needs 3 gyroscopes to work. From the 6 on board, 2 are
already dead. There is only 30% chance that Hubble will go on
working still in 2006

DrPostman wrote in message . ..

There is a new scope scheduled for launch in 2007 or 2008 that
is a vast improvement over Hubble. Why keep it up after that?

I don't think that we would apply this same logic to ground-based
telescopes, would we? "Keck has 10-meter mirrors. Why keep up
Palomar any more, which only has a 5-meter mirror?"

Palomar is still used, and does excellent science. Just up the hill
from my home, the 3-meter telescope at Lick Observatory has been
discovering extrasolar planets by the bucketful. Scheduling on the
Hubble Spece Telescope has always been tight and challenging. Pretty
much every astronomer who can get their hands on it wants to use it.

Admittedly, Hubble is expensive, but two excellent space-based
telescopes would mean twice the science. That's certainly worth
considering before letting it go.

--
Rainforest laid low.
"Wake up and smell the ozone,"
Says man with chainsaw.
John J. Ladasky Jr., Ph.D.

(John Ladasky) wrote:

DrPostman wrote

There is a new scope scheduled for launch in 2007 or 2008
that is a vast improvement over Hubble. Why keep it up
after that?

I don't think that we would apply this same logic to
ground-based telescopes, would we? "Keck has 10-meter
mirrors. Why keep up Palomar any more, which only has a
5-meter mirror?"

Do you know that a little mountain and an orbit have certain
dramatic differences? Anyway, there is no imaginable reason to
spend millions of dollars demolishing the Palomar observatory.
There are imaginable reasons to spend nothing letting HST die
when its time comes.

Palomar is still used, and does excellent science. Just up
the hill from my home, the 3-meter telescope at Lick
Observatory has been discovering extrasolar planets by the
bucketful. Scheduling on the Hubble Spece Telescope has
always been tight and challenging. Pretty much every
astronomer who can get their hands on it wants to use it.

Admittedly, Hubble is expensive, but two excellent
space-based telescopes would mean twice the science.

Twice? I think it's more like 10 times in this case.

That's certainly worth considering before letting it go.

Yes, it was.

I hope they find a way to rescue the Hubble and keep it going,
but the public will forget it pretty damned quickly if the NGST
delivers what it ought to. Lots of people would vote against
spending a hundred million dollars making it last another couple
of years. Sadly, they have to de-orbit it so that debris falls
safely in an ocean instead of waiting for it to choose its own
time and place.

Bob Tenney wrote:

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 09:57:46 GMT, DrPostman
wrote:



There is a new scope scheduled for launch in 2007 or 2008
that is a vast improvement over Hubble. Why keep it up
after that?

After all, they razed Palomar after they built the Keck,
didn't they?

No, doofus, they just waited for it to fall off the mountain. If
they're taking bets on whether it will do that before the HST
falls out of orbit, you might want to get in on that action.

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 17:20:36 +0100, "jacob navia"
wrote:


There is a new scope scheduled for launch in 2007 or 2008 that
is a vast improvement over Hubble. Why keep it up after that?

The replacement (James Webb Space telescope) would launch at
the earliest 2011, but it is normal that those plans are 2-3 years
behind schedule. I cite the report available in
http://hst-jwst-transition.hq.nasa.g...panel_docs.htm
specifically the document JWST project input:
http://hst-jwst-transition.hq.nasa.g...Bahcall_v3.pdf

The JWST study was initiated in 1995, phase B (detailed design)
will start in 2003, and launch is planned for 2011. While the schedule
and budget follow NASA guidelines for slack and contingency,
it is not unusual for large observatories to slip 1 or 2 years beyond
such a planned date. For JWST to adhere to its launch date, it is
critically important that it should have the planned budget.


Hubble needs 3 gyroscopes to work. From the 6 on board, 2 are
already dead. There is only 30% chance that Hubble will go on
working still in 2006



And how much will it cost to fix it? Thought of that yet?





--
Dr.Postman USPS, MBMC, BsD; "Disgruntled, But Unarmed"
Member,Board of Directors of afa-b, SKEP-TI-CULT® member #15-51506-253.
You can email me at: TuriFake(at)hotmail.com

"Shake it like a polaroid picture."
- Andre 3000 of Outkast

On 17 Jan 2004 14:13:50 -0800, (John Ladasky)
wrote:

DrPostman wrote in message . ..

There is a new scope scheduled for launch in 2007 or 2008 that
is a vast improvement over Hubble. Why keep it up after that?

I don't think that we would apply this same logic to ground-based
telescopes, would we? "Keck has 10-meter mirrors. Why keep up
Palomar any more, which only has a 5-meter mirror?"

Palomar is still used, and does excellent science. Just up the hill
from my home, the 3-meter telescope at Lick Observatory has been
discovering extrasolar planets by the bucketful. Scheduling on the
Hubble Spece Telescope has always been tight and challenging. Pretty
much every astronomer who can get their hands on it wants to use it.

Admittedly, Hubble is expensive, but two excellent space-based
telescopes would mean twice the science. That's certainly worth
considering before letting it go.


And that expense is my point. Palomar doesn't even cost a fraction
of that it does to maintain Hubble. Besides, we also have Paranal
and when it's interferometer becomes fully operational we will
have a great deal of data that Hubble can't match.





--
Dr.Postman USPS, MBMC, BsD; "Disgruntled, But Unarmed"
Member,Board of Directors of afa-b, SKEP-TI-CULT® member #15-51506-253.
You can email me at: TuriFake(at)hotmail.com

"Shake it like a polaroid picture."
- Andre 3000 of Outkast

John Griffin wrote in message .1.4...
(John Ladasky) wrote:

DrPostman wrote

There is a new scope scheduled for launch in 2007 or 2008
that is a vast improvement over Hubble. Why keep it up
after that?

Another point he other threads suggest that a 2007-2008 launch date
for the Next Generation Space Telescope (NGST) is optimistic. As late
as 2014 has been mentioned. We know that circumstances tend to push
NASA's launch dates back by many years. If Hubble is decomissioned in
2010, we might have no space-based, visible-wavelength observing
capability for a while.

I don't think that we would apply this same logic to
ground-based telescopes, would we? "Keck has 10-meter
mirrors. Why keep up Palomar any more, which only has a
5-meter mirror?"

Do you know that a little mountain and an orbit have certain
dramatic differences?

Of course. And one of those dramatic differences, the lack of a
planetary atmosphere between the object being viewed and the
telescope, is what makes HST so immensely valuable.

Anyway, there is no imaginable reason to
spend millions of dollars demolishing the Palomar observatory.

Why spend money on demolition of Palomar? Just walk away from it, and
let it demolish itself...

There are imaginable reasons to spend nothing letting HST die
when its time comes.

Palomar is still used, and does excellent science. Just up
the hill from my home, the 3-meter telescope at Lick
Observatory has been discovering extrasolar planets by the
bucketful. Scheduling on the Hubble Spece Telescope has
always been tight and challenging. Pretty much every
astronomer who can get their hands on it wants to use it.

Admittedly, Hubble is expensive, but two excellent
space-based telescopes would mean twice the science.

Twice? I think it's more like 10 times in this case.

That all depends on your point of view. There was an article in
Science about two years back which referenced a meta-study of
astronomy research. The meta-study compared the mirror size of
telescopes to the number and impact index of the scientific reports
that were generated using that telecope. The article concluded that
there is no such thing as a useless telescope. The biggest telescopes
produced the greatest quantity and the most significant research. But
the smaller instruments were being used to publish many secondary
papers. It's generally easier to get observing time on these smaller
instruments, too, which provide opportunities for junior researchers
they wouldn't otherwise have.

Two-meter, ground-based telescopes are still so useful, in fact, that
a company in the UK was considering going into the business of
mass-producing them.

That's certainly worth considering before letting it go.

Yes, it was.

I hope they find a way to rescue the Hubble and keep it going,
but the public will forget it pretty damned quickly if the NGST
delivers what it ought to.

The scientists won't forget. Half of the scientists looking to do
space-based telescope work would scale back their studies and choose
to use Hubble, if they couldn't get priority on NGST.

Lots of people would vote against
spending a hundred million dollars making it last another couple
of years.

True, I fear. I don't think that your price point is available,
though. It would probably be $500 million for ten additional years of
HST service. It's the same cost per year that you quote -- but if
you're sending up a Shuttle to HST, you've already spent a ton of
money. You might as well do as much as you can while you're there.

Sadly, they have to de-orbit it so that debris falls
safely in an ocean instead of waiting for it to choose its own
time and place.

Yep. If it comes to that, then RIP, HST.

--
Rainforest laid low.
"Wake up and smell the ozone,"
Says man with chainsaw.
John J. Ladasky Jr., Ph.D.

After all, they razed Palomar after they built the Keck, didn't they?

Where do people get this stuff? Palomar is alive and functioning very well,
thank you.
--
Curtis Croulet
Temecula, California
33° 27' 59" N, 117° 05' 53" W

"Curtis Croulet" wrote in message
...
After all, they razed Palomar after they built the Keck, didn't they?

Where do people get this stuff? Palomar is alive and functioning very
well,
thank you.

Where did you lose your sense of irony?
That was exactly the poster's point.
They did NOT throw away Palomar when
when Keck was up and running - unlike now
where they are throwing away Hubble without
even having a real replacement in the works.