News: Hubble plans and policy

In article ,
Jason Rhodes wrote:
Turn HST over to amateur astronomers, who will operate it for free.
If you exclude the possibility of future Shuttle maintenance missions,
the costs of operating HST consist entirely of labor...

I imagine the hundreds of HST-related employees at Goddard Space Flight
Center and the Space Telescope Science Institute will be very surprised to
hear that their jobs could be done for free by amateur astronomers.

It's quite likely that a rather smaller organization could do those jobs,
if it was put together well, especially if you are willing to accept
reduced efficiency. (Part of the reason why Hubble operations are very
labor-intensive is intense pressure to get maximum use out of the thing.)

And it's a rare professional job that is so arcane that you couldn't find
an amateur who could do it, given some investment of time to come up to
speed on the details. The best amateurs are very good indeed; in
astronomy in particular, there is no sharp dividing line between amateurs
and professionals.

The problem is finding enough of those very good people and motivating
them to invest the time and effort. As I noted in another posting, I don't
think the amateur-man-hours pool is anywhere near what would be needed.

Not to mention the fact that your claim that "the costs of operating HST
consist entirely of labor" completely discounts telemetry, computing, and
data storage costs.

It's unlikely that there would be any grievous difficulties with computing
and storage, especially given some relaxation of requirements. As noted
in another posting, communications is a more serious problem.
--
MOST launched 1015 EDT 30 June, separated 1046, | Henry Spencer
first ground-station pass 1651, all nominal! |

(Henry Spencer) wrote:
In article ,
Derek Lyons wrote:
Turn HST over to amateur astronomers, who will operate it for free.
If you exclude the possibility of future Shuttle maintenance missions,
the costs of operating HST consist entirely of labor, which can be
entirely provided by amateur astronomers and amateur radio operators.

Labor, plus consumeables of various types, plus electricity, plus
maintenance on the hardware, plus upkeep on the building...

I think Keith envisioned closing the existing infrastructure entirely,
rather than moving volunteer labor into it.

Doesn't mean you don't need a place to perform the work from, and such
a place will still need upkeep. (This has been the downfall of many a
model RR club who has bought a building. Failure to set aside money
for taxes, arguments over who cleans the toilet and carries out the
trash, etc...)

As noted in my previous posting, I don't think that's practical for something
as complex as Hubble.

Agreed. I was just pointing out the practical difficulties.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

Henry Spencer wrote on Thu, 31 Jul 2003 19:09:22 GMT:
: Brian Thorn wrote:

Hubble launched with the aperture facing forward.
Silly idea... how about loading it in the payload facing aft for
return? That would put the much-heavier main mirror/instrument section
well forward of where it was for launch.

:HS Trouble is, I think that puts it *too* far forward. Hubble is heavy
:HS enough that the permissible range of center-of-mass locations is limited;
:HS it may include the center of the cargo bay (for still heavier loads it
:HS doesn't), but it certainly doesn't extend much forward of there.

The overriding concern I would think is that the mirror support
structure normally works better for loading aimed downward from the
front of the mirror to the back, If the mirror were facing the rear
of the cargo bay, it would have to be supported, "hanging in the
straps" style against the 3G maximum accelleration during launch.
Facing forward, it is pressed down into a support structure that
can freely support the back and sides of the mirror instead of just
the edges of the mirror. While observing, I often have nightmares
of pointing our telescope too far over and having the mirror roll
out of the tube and on down the mountain road....

Jim.

Jim Scotti
Lunar & Planetary Laboratory
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721 USA http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/

"Hallerb" wrote in message
...

Heres a EXCELLENT reason to keep hubble around untill at least the Webb
observatory is operational.

What if Webb is somehow lost?

It's hardly likely that someone would steal the body. He's quite safe.
--
If you have had problems with Illinois Student Assistance Commission (ISAC),
please contact shredder at bellsouth dot net. There may be a class-action
lawsuit
in the works.

"Keith F. Lynch" wrote in message
...
Derek Lyons wrote:
Labor, plus consumeables of various types, plus electricity, plus
maintenance on the hardware, plus upkeep on the building...

Henry Spencer wrote:
I think Keith envisioned closing the existing infrastructure
entirely, rather than moving volunteer labor into it.

Right. Amateurs would operate it from their homes, using their own
electricity, computer power, radios, etc.

As noted in my previous posting, I don't think that's practical
for something as complex as Hubble.

I disagree. There isn't anything about being *paid* which makes
someone smarter.

No, but it does give motivation and make freeing up time easier. :-)

I.e. if setting up an observation run takes 8 hours, a paid person considers
that a work day.

A volunteer considers that a long night.

Not that it doesn't happen. Just sometimes harder to find volunteers
willing to do it.


--
Keith F. Lynch - - http://keithlynch.net/
I always welcome replies to my e-mail, postings, and web pages, but
unsolicited bulk e-mail (spam) is not acceptable. Please do not send me
HTML, "rich text," or attachments, as all such email is discarded unread.

"Keith F. Lynch" wrote:

Derek Lyons wrote:
Labor, plus consumeables of various types, plus electricity, plus
maintenance on the hardware, plus upkeep on the building...

Henry Spencer wrote:
I think Keith envisioned closing the existing infrastructure
entirely, rather than moving volunteer labor into it.

Right. Amateurs would operate it from their homes, using their own
electricity, computer power, radios, etc.

So long as the guy who coordinates things doesn't take sick or go on
vacation. So long as the guy with the radio doesn't die and his wife
locks everyone else out of the house (watched that happen with a
BBS/computer club). So long as the guy whose house the system manuals
are currently out doesn't suffer a fire (as happened to a RR club a
buddy is in)...

Lots of possible pitfalls.

As noted in my previous posting, I don't think that's practical
for something as complex as Hubble.

I disagree. There isn't anything about being *paid* which makes
someone smarter.

You may disagree. You may also be ignorant of the complexity of the
system you wish to turn over to volunteers. Historically large
complex systems operated by volunteers have a very hard time locating
and keeping competent volunteers. The very largest resort to dues and
a paid staff to overcome this problem.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

NOTHING ELSE LOOKS AS GOOD TO THE PUBLIC AS HUBBLE!

The Hubble returns a large amount of useful science. The uh
astronomers who use it want to keep it operating in order to gather
more data.

"Henry Spencer"
The fact that Hubble was okay if pointed forward, but only if set as far
forward as possible, suggests that it probably isn't okay the other way
around, even if set as far aft as possible.

'NASA had originally planned to fetch it with
the space shuttle and put it in the Smithsonian's Air and Space Museum, but that
now seems "exceedingly unlikely," in Dr. Kinney's words.'

The current orbit is good until at least 2013. The Hubble advocates are looking
at two service missions and then a de-orbit mission, say in 2020 or later. If
the second service mission could attach a de-orbit motor, it would save the cost
of developing a space tug. (The unmanned space tug seems to be a natural for
our Russian friends).

NASA says an uncontrolled re-entry is unacceptable, but I would lay better than
even odds that it comes down when it feels like it, which at this point is
shortly after 2013.

In message , Kent Betts
writes
"Henry Spencer"
The fact that Hubble was okay if pointed forward, but only if set as far
forward as possible, suggests that it probably isn't okay the other way
around, even if set as far aft as possible.

'NASA had originally planned to fetch it with
the space shuttle and put it in the Smithsonian's Air and Space Museum,
but that
now seems "exceedingly unlikely," in Dr. Kinney's words.'

If they did that, who would get the backup ? (which is already there, or
was. They removed some parts for the real thing a few years ago)
--
"Roads in space for rockets to travel....four-dimensional roads, curving with
relativity"
Mail to jsilverlight AT merseia.fsnet.co.uk is welcome.
Or visit Jonathan's Space Site http://www.merseia.fsnet.co.uk

On 31 Jul 2003 22:40:24 -0400, "Keith F. Lynch"
wrote:

I disagree. There isn't anything about being *paid* which makes
someone smarter.

....Agreed. In fact, most of the really dumb decisions made by
corporate marketing goons are made by the ones who have degrees that
say they're smarter than the average goon.

OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr