So *was* Hubble maintenance cancelled because of the moon plan?

In article ,
Ken Arromdee wrote:
It seems that everyone's saying different things about whether it is
or not. Is there anyone who actually knows?

The fact that the news came at the same time as Bush's speech, and the
fact that it blindsided astrophysics teams that were still maintaing
fresh Hubble equipment, establishes that the cancellation is part of
the new "Bush plan". The Administration never said exactly what they
thought it would take to service Hubble, but they clearly did decide
that it wasn't worth it. NASA's own chief scientist, John Grunsfeld,
cited the space initiative as an influence.

That's not the same as saying that Hubble was cancelled directly
because of the moon base idea. Such a direct link can only be a matter
of opinion. It seems hypothetical to me, because I don't think that
there will be a moon base.

Personally I don't know whether to clap or puke. For the most part,
puke. Hubble is one of the world's most exciting science laboratories.
They are taking the shuttle away from it to service the space station,
which is one of the world's most boring science laboratories. The one
reason to clap is that they have finally severed the last connection
between good science and astronauts. The whole thing turned out to be a
Faustian bargain. Space science could benefit from a new era of honesty.
--
/\ Greg Kuperberg (UC Davis)
/ \
\ / Visit the Math ArXiv Front at http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/
\/ * All the math that's fit to e-print *

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 22:41:37 +0000 (UTC),
(Ken Arromdee) wrote:

It seems that everyone's saying different things about whether it is or not.
Is there anyone who actually knows?

It is obvious enough given the available facts.

Due to the Columbia accident an extra danger was highlighted in going
to non-ISS orbits, when the crew of a damaged Shuttle had serious
problems, when transfer to the ISS is not an option.

Also the Shuttle now requires a visible inspection before going for
reentry, which can only be done from the ISS.

So going to service the Hubble, even if the risk is minimal, fails to
achieve these two extra safety objectives.

There is also the case that if there is ever another Shuttle accident,
then there could well be no more Shuttle flights ever. And so the best
idea is to finish the ISS quickly, focusing on the international
sections to honour NASA's agreement with them.

As if they lose another one, then the Shuttle will really never fly
again.

The other facts are that NASA for years has been concerned about the
cost that it requires to service the Hubble, when these Shuttle
flights are not exactly cheap.

Even during the last serving mission comments were made that the
public will have to allow Hubble to die some time.

So NASA is not exactly sad to see Hubble go, when they get an extra
ISS flight, which means that the station is completed one flight
earlier and they save $1.2 billion, when they scrap the Shuttle
support systems months before.

The only link between Hubble and this Moon program is that NASA is
required to raise an extra $11 from it's own budget. Most of this
comes from the Shuttle and the ISS, but some projects will certainly
be cut or suspended.

This does not really apply to Hubble, when the new hardware has
already been paid for and is almost complete. And even stopping this
Shuttle flight won't save money in the next five years, when this
flight will just move elsewhere.

The reason why this Hubble cut was announced now is a good/bad idea,
where this Moon program, unfairly, is taking some of the blame. In
like do you want Hubble, or do you want to do to the Moon?

So there you have it, when the Hubble is not going to be serviced due
to the Columbia accident.

Cardman
http://www.cardman.com
http://www.cardman.co.uk

In article ,
(Greg Kuperberg) wrote:

Personally I don't know whether to clap or puke. For the most part,
puke. Hubble is one of the world's most exciting science laboratories.
They are taking the shuttle away from it to service the space station,
which is one of the world's most boring science laboratories. The one
reason to clap is that they have finally severed the last connection
between good science and astronauts. The whole thing turned out to be a
Faustian bargain. Space science could benefit from a new era of honesty.

OK, then let's *be* honest.

Just as it was Apollo & astronauts which largely put lunar science where
it is today, so it was the shuttle and its astronauts which now allows
you to label Hubble "one of the world's most exciting science
laboratories".

The reasons are obvious. Without periodic service calls from the shuttle
the Hubble would have died a long time ago. Indeed, it would have been
stillborn, for it was the shuttle and a crew of astronauts who made
possible the repairs necessary to correct the error in Hubble's mirror.

Had that particular service call never happened Hubble would still be
the laughing-stock the mirror blunder made it; and doubtless one you and
others would be trying hard to forget.

I only hope that Congress can be persuaded to do what it did with the
New Horizons Pluto mission: override NASA & the president and keep at
least the possibility of another servicing mission alive when (like NH)
others would have preferred to see it die.

But that, of course, will require the aid of an astronaut or two.

--
Stephen Souter

http://www.edfac.usyd.edu.au/staff/souters/

In article ,
Stephen Souter wrote:
Just as it was Apollo & astronauts which largely put lunar science where
it is today, so it was the shuttle and its astronauts which now allows
you to label Hubble "one of the world's most exciting science
laboratories".

I said it was *one* of the most exciting, not *the* most exciting. It is
not currently as exciting as WMAP, for example. WMAP was a spectacular
success, mercifully unassisted by astronauts in any way, shape, or form.
Yes, Hubble is a great telescope, but let's face it - it's also hyped.
They say that one of Hubble's big achievements was to measure the age
of the universe, I presume to within 10% or so. WMAP measured it to
within 1%:

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm/mr_age.html

WMAP was only $150 million and it slaughtered some much more expensive
competition.

These "small" projects are the unsung heroes of modern astronomy.
They are actually very large projects, they just aren't elephantine.
They are small enough that they aren't national embarrassments if they
fail disastrously (e.g. the sad fate of WIRE).

I suspect that even moderately larger unmanned projects like Spirit are
a few too many eggs in one basket. Knock on wood.
--
/\ Greg Kuperberg (UC Davis)
/ \
\ / Visit the Math ArXiv Front at http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/
\/ * All the math that's fit to e-print *

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 23:35:08 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
(Greg Kuperberg) made the phosphor on
my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

They are taking the shuttle away from it to service the space station,
which is one of the world's most boring science laboratories.

No, they're taking Shuttle away from it because they want to avoid a
repeat of Columbia.

A visible inspection can be done without going to the station. They can do it
with an attachment to the canadarm, which they didn't put on Columbia. And
there are remote free-flying cams like the Aercam/Sprint, already available or
relatively easy to make with off the shelf parts, that can inspect any areas
the arm cam would miss. Just as a joke, though, we could sugges the Hubble
itself could look the shuttle over on it's way up.... before it makes it's
climbing burn to Hubble's orbit...

probably that can't be done for technical reasons involving pointing Hubble
towards earth and blowing out it's sensors or something. But you have to give
the idea points for creativity;-)

(MSu1049321) wrote in
:

A visible inspection can be done without going to the station. They
can do it with an attachment to the canadarm, which they didn't put on
Columbia. And there are remote free-flying cams like the
Aercam/Sprint, already available or relatively easy to make with off
the shelf parts, that can inspect any areas the arm cam would miss.

And what the hell good is standalone inspection, if you can't repair the
damage...?


--
JRF

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

In article ,
(Greg Kuperberg) wrote:

In article ,
Stephen Souter wrote:
Just as it was Apollo & astronauts which largely put lunar science where
it is today, so it was the shuttle and its astronauts which now allows
you to label Hubble "one of the world's most exciting science
laboratories".

I said it was *one* of the most exciting, not *the* most exciting. It is
not currently as exciting as WMAP, for example. WMAP was a spectacular
success, mercifully unassisted by astronauts in any way, shape, or form.

That's like boasting you don't need automotive mechanics to keep your
car running.

Which would all be very well if the kind of car you preferred could only
ever be used once, had a limited range of destinations it could take you
to (the ones preset in the factory), and once it's taken you there ha to
be discarded because it could not be service or refueled (although it
might well exceed its specs and go a few miles farther before breaking
down or running out of fuel). Next time you needed a car you have to go
down to the automotive supply centre and buy a new one.

If you want to keep that same car going for 20 years you need a human
being or two to service it every now and again.

Yes, Hubble is a great telescope, but let's face it - it's also hyped.

*All* space programs are hyped to some extent, including WMAP. (Why else
would it need a website to boast of its achievements?)

They say that one of Hubble's big achievements was to measure the age
of the universe, I presume to within 10% or so. WMAP measured it to
within 1%:

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm/mr_age.html

Hubble was launched in 1990. WMAP in 2001. Dunno about you, but I'd kind
of expect a later mission using more recent technology to be able to
deliver better value than an earlier one, especially in what I presume
to have been one of its more important scientific objectives. But to use
that to then denigrate the earlier mission's achievement...

Well, do you also propose to use WMAP's map of the cosmic microwave
background to denigrate the one drawn up from COBE's data?

WMAP was only $150 million and it slaughtered some much more expensive
competition.

You get what you pay for. WMAP is certainly cheap next to Hubble. But
then WMAP is a single-shot mission with a handful of specialist
objectives and a 4-year lifespan. Hubble is a 2.4m astronomical
telescope with a 20-year lifespan and a series of broad objectives.
Namely (drawn from "http://hubble.nasa.gov/faq.html"):

A. To determine the constitution, physical characteristics,
and dynamics of celestial bodies.

B. To determine the nature of processes which occur in the
extreme physical conditions existing in and between
astronomical objects.

C. To determine the history and evolution of the universe.

D. To determine whether the laws of nature are universal in
the space-time continuum

Hubble can also be serviced and upgraded. Meaning its capabilities could
be increased, hardware problems fixed, and its lifespan could have been
extended beyond 2010.

By contrast, if WMAP had had a hardware problem of the seriousness of
Hubble's mirror there would have been no way to fix it even though the
thing might otherwise be working fine. If the science required could not
be done as a result, then if that science still needed to be done
somebody somewhere would have to find the money to build (and launch)
another one.

These "small" projects are the unsung heroes of modern astronomy.
They are actually very large projects, they just aren't elephantine.
They are small enough that they aren't national embarrassments if they
fail disastrously (e.g. the sad fate of WIRE).

Small missions produce small results.

In any case, it's no good you singing the praises of "small"
astronomical projects when astronomers themselves are voting with their
feet by queuing up to use (not to mention asking for funding to build
more) "elephantine" optical & radio telescopes on the ground. All that
suggests is that astronomers are making do with WMAP & co in space
simply because they are *forced* to, not because that is the way they
would choose to do it had they a say in the matter (and the necessary
funding).

The very fact that they are choosing to build 8m+ optical telescopes on
the ground in ever growing numbers suggests that if they did have the
money they would prefer to put a dozen Hubbles in orbit rather than a
dozen projects like WMAP.

I suspect that even moderately larger unmanned projects like Spirit are
a few too many eggs in one basket.

Actually, since there are two rovers NASA has done the wise thing by
*not* putting "too many eggs in one basket"!

Knock on wood.

Indeed! Here's hoping its present troubles are merely a temporary glitch.

--
Stephen Souter

http://www.edfac.usyd.edu.au/staff/souters/

In article ,
Stephen Souter wrote:
In article ,
(Greg Kuperberg) wrote:
I said [Hubble] was *one* of the most exciting, not *the* most
exciting. It is not currently as exciting as WMAP, for example.
WMAP was a spectacular success, mercifully unassisted by astronauts
in any way, shape, or form.
That's like boasting you don't need automotive mechanics to keep your
car running.

Or, perhaps, that you don't need auto mechanics because you ride
a bicycle. WMAP is about as much cheaper than Hubble as a bicycle is
cheaper than a car. If you like cars for their engineering, or their
features, or to impress other people, then of course they are much more
impressive than bicycles. But if you just want to get from A to B,
a bicycle might well be better. It will certainly be cheaper, not only
for you but also for the public works department.

I think a lot of the disagreement about the best space science missions
is between engineers who imagine building space rockets (even if they
don't themselves) and scientists who imagine using them (even if they
don't themselves). Better engineering is not always better science,
because the scientists just want to get from A to B. I'll allow
that even manned spaceflight involves a lot of amazing engineering.
But the best engineers do not lose sight of the users for the gears.
If the mission is science, they should stick to what they scientists want;
if it is commerce, they should stick to what turns a profit.

--
/\ Greg Kuperberg (UC Davis)
/ \
\ / Visit the Math ArXiv Front at http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/
\/ * All the math that's fit to e-print *

Ken Arromdee wrote:

It seems that everyone's saying different things about whether it is or not.
Is there anyone who actually knows?

What does servicing Hubble even have to do with the 'moon plan'? Finding
any connection at all will be nearly impossible.