|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Time to scrap the Hubble telescope?
"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote
If so, and since HST shows no sign of slowing down in its production of outstanding science, why not consider launching a modernized but essentially similar Hubble-2? Doubtless LockMart would be glad of the business, and might even have some spare KH-11 hardware around that could be used. In a word: Money. Well, yes. But say that money were an explicit constraint: could a much-like-Hubble Hubble-2 be built and launched in five years for two to four gigabucks total, we-really-mean-it-do-not-exceed cost? Say the price of a half to one STS launch per year for those five years? It doesn't seem too absurd for an agency that is funded at $15G/yr to scrounge up that kind of money for a kind instrument that has been proven to produce staggeringly wonderful results and shows no signs of stopping. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Time to scrap the Hubble telescope?
"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote:
All the more reason to dig out the Kodak mirror, grab the old equipment already removed from Hubble and build a Hubble II. Toss it into a high orbit, assume once it breaks it breaks and now you've got another world class sat for a miniscule cost of the original. The bigger problem I think would be funding the ground operations after launch. Bad idea. Hubble might be one of a kind and highly valuable now, but it's design is grossly obsolete, even with updated instruments. The Nexus side / sub project (which, sadly I think, got axed) of NGST showed a better and cheaper way to get Hubble class optics. Hubble was designed and built at a time of great change in telescope systems, especially optics. The type of monolithic mirror used on Hubble has been surpassed by perhaps more than one full generation of optical designs (depending on how you count). If they were redesigning a spacecraft today to match Hubble's capabilities it would be lighter and cheaper and probably much more capable even in the same basic package. It's almost too bad that ESA hasn't succumbed to the classic "well if they're doing it, we're doing it!" behavior and designed a Hubble class next generation space telescope on the cheap (and it could be done, easily). But I suppose they haven't because they've already got an in with NGST / JWST and they've still got a decent stake in Hubble, while it lasts. Oh, and the mirror is a relatively minor cost of any observatory, the big costs are in instrumentation and other systems. It's easy to think "mirror = observatory", but that's not the case and simply having a free mirror around would not really substantially decrease the cost of a new space telescope. In fact, the needs of having to design the telescope around the "free mirror" would probably cost more than a from scratch design. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Time to scrap the Hubble telescope?
"Alex Terrell" wrote:
My specific interest is more composition and orbit determination for resourc e usage, rather than space guard. Would the spectral "sorting" enable any of that? The aim would also not be to find all NEOs within a region, but to randomly identify a few that could then be analysed for material composition and rendezvous profile, a few y Here's the funny part. Hubble has a lot of decent capability for multi-spectral imaging and even some basic spectrometers, but spectroscopy is much more forgiving, generally, to things like atmospheric disturbance. So it really pays just to have the biggest light-bucket you can get, and that means, for now, ground based telescopes. And indeed, spectroscopy is where the big ground based telescopes excell. That's why things like the cosmological supernova searches, which nailed down the accelerating expansion of the universe, or doppler velocity planet searches are done using big ground based telescopes (both are spectroscopic studies). |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Time to scrap the Hubble telescope?
"Allen Thomson" wrote:
Well, yes. But say that money were an explicit constraint: could a much-like-Hubble Hubble-2 be built and launched in five years for two to four gigabucks total, we-really-mean-it-do-not-exceed cost? Say the price of a half to one STS launch per year for those five years? It doesn't seem too absurd for an agency that is funded at $15G/yr to scrounge up that kind of money for a kind instrument that has been proven to produce staggeringly wonderful results and shows no signs of stopping. You're far behind the times. NGST won't cost near that much, even if it overruns its budget by a huge margin. And really a new Hubble replacement could just about fit within one of those new fangled New Frontiers mission budgets (depending on design, of course). This is one of the classic problems of publically funded science. There's often a tendency to chase after the "edge" and eschew the fundamentals or "retreading" what's been done, even when you can do so at relatively little cost in comparison. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Time to scrap the Hubble telescope?
"Devlin" wrote in message ... In article , Allen Thomson wrote: One thing that I wonder about is the wisdom of viewing NGST (JWST?) as a replacement for Hubble, rather than as a separate instrument intended for different, if complementary tasks. IIRC, NGST isn't meant to operate at wavelengths shorter than 600 nm, which doesn't even include all of the visible part of the spectrum, let alone the UV. If so, and since HST shows no sign of slowing down in its production of outstanding science, why not consider launching a modernized but essentially similar Hubble-2? Doubtless LockMart would be glad of the business, and might even have some spare KH-11 hardware around that could be used. What's planned for after JWST? It's only planned to last 5-10 years, so wouldn't its successor need to be on the drawing boards soon? Some information he http://www.aura-astronomy.org/hsl/ |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Time to scrap the Hubble telescope?
In article , "Christopher M.
Jones" wrote: "Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote: All the more reason to dig out the Kodak mirror, grab the old equipment already removed from Hubble and build a Hubble II. Toss it into a high orbit, assume once it breaks it breaks and now you've got another world class sat for a miniscule cost of the original. The bigger problem I think would be funding the ground operations after launch. Bad idea. Hubble might be one of a kind and highly valuable now, but it's design is grossly obsolete, even with updated instruments. The Nexus side / sub project (which, sadly I think, got axed) of NGST showed a better and cheaper way to get Hubble class optics. Hubble was designed and built at a time of great change in telescope systems, especially optics. The type of monolithic mirror used on Hubble has been surpassed by perhaps more than one full generation of optical designs (depending on how you count). If they were redesigning a spacecraft today to match Hubble's capabilities it would be lighter and cheaper and probably much more capable even in the same basic package. That's all very well and true, but until a new gee-whiz replacement actually gets built and flown any superiority the replacement might have over Hubble is pretty much irrelevant. You can't do useful things with a mission that only exists on paper! If nobody is prepared to fund a Hubble 2 that pretty leaves two options: making do with the hardware you already have in space, obsolete or not, or doing without Hubble *and* any replacement. -- Stephen Souter http://www.edfac.usyd.edu.au/staff/souters/ |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Time to scrap the Hubble telescope?
Allen Thomson wrote:
"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote If so, and since HST shows no sign of slowing down in its production of outstanding science, why not consider launching a modernized but essentially similar Hubble-2? Doubtless LockMart would be glad of the business, and might even have some spare KH-11 hardware around that could be used. In a word: Money. Well, yes. But say that money were an explicit constraint: could a much-like-Hubble Hubble-2 be built and launched in five years for two to four gigabucks total, we-really-mean-it-do-not-exceed cost? Say the price of a half to one STS launch per year for those five years? It doesn't seem too absurd for an agency that is funded at $15G/yr to scrounge up that kind of money for a kind instrument that has been proven to produce staggeringly wonderful results and shows no signs of stopping. There seems to be a consensus among folks who build these things that one could build and launch a Hubble-class (2-2.5m) telescope with acquisition/guiding plus a single science instrument for the surprisingly small level of 500M (some proposals come in well below by taking advantage of special opportunities, but NDRs probably mean I can't be any more specific). For example, the optical systems are now basically admitted to be reconnaissance-satellite clones. This only translates into "doable for NASA" if one can make a case for a new kind of science (wide field, IR sensitivity, multispectral capability). This is an agency that has shown little compunction in the past about shutting down functional satellites past their primary missions. Actually, given resources in high demand and new and powerful science capabilities coming along (i.e. JWST vs HST), it can't help being a tough decision. Note to Ed Weiler - guess that makes me a Hubble hugger... Bill Keel |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
UA Scientist Sheds New Lights On Outer Planets With Hubble Space Telescope | Ron | Science | 3 | January 26th 04 01:38 PM |
The Hubble Space Telescope... | Craig Fink | Space Shuttle | 118 | December 6th 03 04:41 PM |
World's Single Largest Telescope Mirror Moves To The LBT | Ron Baalke | Technology | 0 | November 11th 03 08:16 AM |
Heritage Project Celebrates 5 Years of Harvesting The Best Images From Hubble Space Telescope | Ron Baalke | Science | 0 | October 2nd 03 04:31 PM |
New Hubble Space Telescope Exhibit Opens At Goddard | Ron Baalke | Science | 0 | September 30th 03 11:07 PM |