Closing a Window on the Universe

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Jan17.html

"Closing a Window on the Universe"
_Washington Post_ - Sunday, January 18, 2004; Page C01

Excerpts:

'Margon, now with the Space Telescope Institute on the campus of Johns
Hopkins University in Baltimore, is one of hundreds of astronomers,
scientists and engineers in the Washington region whose job it is to
keep the Hubble telescope running and in good working order. Yesterday,
Margon said, many of those people were still stunned by NASA's decision
to end shuttle service missions to the telescope orbiting 350 miles
above the Earth.'

'The next space shuttle service mission -- the fifth since the telescope
was deployed in 1990 -- was scheduled for next year. Without further
service, the telescope will develop fatal malfunctions and stop
operating. Scientists estimate that Hubble can continue working for
three to four years.'
....

'O'Keefe said the decision to scrap the next scheduled servicing mission
to the telescope that revolutionized astronomy was based on safety
issues concerning the shuttle rather than budget considerations.'
....

'Margon said part of the frustration is that he and others believe that
Hubble has not yet reached its scientific peak. "A lot of people have
put much of their scientific life into this," Margon said. "And there
was no question that it would eventually come to an end, but it has not
reached the peak of its capabilities yet. The best is yet to come from
Hubble. This is not like you are taking an old racehorse out to pasture
because it no longer wins races."'
....

'By any scientific measure, it has been the most successful astronomical
exercise in history. Images sent back to Earth from Hubble have helped
scientists determine the age of the universe. In 1995, Hubble was
pointed at the same patch of sky for 10 days and programmed to take long
exposures. What Hubble captured with those images enabled scientists to
find at least 1,500 galaxies at various stages of evolution. Some of the
galaxies were 10 billion light-years away.'

'The Hubble was scheduled to operate until 2010, when plans called for
the more advanced James Webb Space Telescope to replace it. Beckwith
said the Webb telescope will need about 100 employees at the institute,
but their services won't be required for about seven years.'

See the URL for the rest of the article.

--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com

"Scott M. Kozel" wrote in message ...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Jan17.html

'Margon, now with the Space Telescope Institute on the campus of Johns
Hopkins University in Baltimore, is one of hundreds of astronomers,
scientists and engineers in the Washington region whose job it is to
keep the Hubble telescope running and in good working order. Yesterday,
Margon said, many of those people were still stunned by NASA's decision
to end shuttle service missions to the telescope orbiting 350 miles
above the Earth.'


Come on! Space isn't running away! Once we're on the Moon we can
set up a hundred Hubbles, which an astronaut can walk to if they need
repair. You've collected more data by now than you could evaluate in
a century anyway!

Concentrate on a bit of space we can reach for a change! Myself I'm
more interested in getting a close-up look at the planets from a Moon-
based observatory than at far-away galaxies. But that doesn't mean we
can't look at those! There's room enough for everyone up there!


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

Ool wrote:



Come on! Space isn't running away! Once we're on the Moon we can
set up a hundred Hubbles, which an astronaut can walk to if they need
repair. You've collected more data by now than you could evaluate in
a century anyway!


We can't get to the Moon, that's just a pipe dream cooked up
to buy some votes this November. NASA has been essentially
gutted, and is so underfunded now that it's tottering on the
edge of irrelevancy. Even if the desire, the real desire,
was there the economy has been so damaged by the current
administration that there's no realistic hope of getting
even a fraction of the funding needed to do the things that
the current administration claims it wants to do.

Once Hubble is gone, it's gone. Period.

JazzMan

--
************************************************** ********
Please reply to jsavage"at"airmail.net.
Curse those darned bulk e-mailers!
************************************************** ********
"Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of
supply and demand. It is the privilege of human beings to
live under the laws of justice and mercy." - Wendell Berry
************************************************** ********

"JazzMan" wrote in message ...
Ool wrote:

Come on! Space isn't running away! Once we're on the Moon we can
set up a hundred Hubbles, which an astronaut can walk to if they need
repair. You've collected more data by now than you could evaluate in
a century anyway!

We can't get to the Moon, that's just a pipe dream cooked up
to buy some votes this November. NASA has been essentially
gutted, and is so underfunded now that it's tottering on the
edge of irrelevancy. Even if the desire, the real desire,
was there the economy has been so damaged by the current
administration that there's no realistic hope of getting
even a fraction of the funding needed to do the things that
the current administration claims it wants to do.

Once Hubble is gone, it's gone. Period.


So what do you care about the rest of the Universe if you're convinced
that we won't be able to reach even our closest spatial neighbor?
What's the point of looking at the furthest stars if they'll forever
remain "out there," never "up ahead?"

I find the fact frustrating that astronomy is all about places we can
never reach. Screw looking! I, for one, would like to go somewhere
for a change! After that we can go back to looking, preferably from
an even better vantage point than LEO.


The Space Shuttle has always been a foul and expensive compromise.
Even if the CEV were never to reach the Moon, as you claim, it could
at least shoot more Hubbles into space. A rocket with the shuttle's
loading bay capacity that can launch a comparable payload *cheaply* is
long overdue anyway.

Let them build their CEV! Then scream for a new space telescope to
be launched with it, and I shall scream with you!



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

January 18, 2004

Ool wrote:

I find the fact frustrating that astronomy is all about places we can
never reach. Screw looking! I, for one, would like to go somewhere
for a change! After that we can go back to looking, preferably from
an even better vantage point than LEO.

In other words, fly blindly ahead.

The Space Shuttle has always been a foul and expensive compromise.
Even if the CEV were never to reach the Moon, as you claim, it could
at least shoot more Hubbles into space. A rocket with the shuttle's
loading bay capacity that can launch a comparable payload *cheaply* is
long overdue anyway.

Let them build their CEV! Then scream for a new space telescope to
be launched with it, and I shall scream with you!

I'm so sorry to have to inform you, that CEV stands for Crew Exploration Vehicle. It
will most likely launch on an EELV, which we already have. The CEV won't be 'shooting'
any space telescopes into space. My deepest sympathies and condolences go out to you.

Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net

"Thomas Lee Elifritz" wrote in message ...
Ool wrote:

I find the fact frustrating that astronomy is all about places we can
never reach. Screw looking! I, for one, would like to go somewhere
for a change! After that we can go back to looking, preferably from
an even better vantage point than LEO.

In other words, fly blindly ahead.

It's not as if we'd crash into Alpha Centauri on the way to the Moon
if we don't pay attention.


The Space Shuttle has always been a foul and expensive compromise.
Even if the CEV were never to reach the Moon, as you claim, it could
at least shoot more Hubbles into space. A rocket with the shuttle's
loading bay capacity that can launch a comparable payload *cheaply* is
long overdue anyway.

Let them build their CEV! Then scream for a new space telescope to
be launched with it, and I shall scream with you!

I'm so sorry to have to inform you, that CEV stands for Crew Exploration Vehicle. It
will most likely launch on an EELV, which we already have. The CEV won't be 'shooting'
any space telescopes into space. My deepest sympathies and condolences go out to you.

Details, details! There's no pleasing *some* people, really!

They have to replace the Shuttle with something of similar or higher
capacity, which can eventually take the CEV into LEO and even higher.
Can you do that with today's firecrackers? No! So whatever they'll
come up with will also be able to take a bus-sized telescope along for
the ride in the trunk.

Don't be so negative! The sooner this show gets on the road the soon-
er the sideshows can tag along. But not if you keep whining that you
want your rusting old jalopies from the Seventies back.



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

JazzMan wrote:

Ool wrote:

Come on! Space isn't running away! Once we're on the Moon we can
set up a hundred Hubbles, which an astronaut can walk to if they need
repair. You've collected more data by now than you could evaluate in
a century anyway!

We can't get to the Moon, that's just a pipe dream cooked up
to buy some votes this November. NASA has been essentially
gutted, and is so underfunded now that it's tottering on the
edge of irrelevancy. Even if the desire, the real desire,
was there the economy has been so damaged by the current
administration that there's no realistic hope of getting
even a fraction of the funding needed to do the things that
the current administration claims it wants to do.

Once Hubble is gone, it's gone. Period.

The HST's successor is already under construction, scheduled to be
launched in 2010 on an expendable rocket to the Earth's L2 Lagrange
Point, 940,000 miles from Earth where there will not be manned service
missions.

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20020806ngst.html
September 10, 2002
NASA ANNOUNCES CONTRACT FOR NEXT-GENERATION
SPACE TELESCOPE NAMED AFTER SPACE PIONEER

Excerpts:

'The space-based observatory will be known as the James Webb Space
Telescope, named after James E. Webb, NASA's second administrator.'

'The James Webb Space Telescope is scheduled for launch in 2010 aboard
an expendable launch vehicle. It will take about three months for the
spacecraft to reach its destination, an orbit 940,000 miles or 1.5
million kilometers in space, called the second Lagrange Point or L2,
where the spacecraft is balanced between the gravity of the Sun and the
Earth.'

'Unlike Hubble, space shuttle astronauts will not service the James Webb
Space Telescope because it will be too far away.'

'The James Webb Space Telescope will be able to look deeper into the
universe than Hubble because of the increased light-collecting power of
its larger mirror and the extraordinary sensitivity of its instruments
to infrared light. Webb's primary mirror will be at least 20 feet in
diameter, providing much more light gathering capability than Hubble's
eight-foot primary mirror.'

January 18, 2004

Ool wrote:

In other words, fly blindly ahead.

It's not as if we'd crash into Alpha Centauri on the way to the Moon
if we don't pay attention.

No, but crashing into the moon on the way to the moon is always a distinct possibility.

Let them build their CEV! Then scream for a new space telescope to
be launched with it, and I shall scream with you!

I'm so sorry to have to inform you, that CEV stands for Crew Exploration Vehicle. It
will most likely launch on an EELV, which we already have. The CEV won't be 'shooting'
any space telescopes into space. My deepest sympathies and condolences go out to you.

Details, details! There's no pleasing *some* people, really!

They have to replace the Shuttle with something of similar or higher
capacity, which can eventually take the CEV into LEO and even higher.

I agree, unfortunately, they just canceled all that silly SLI stuff, for SEI.

Can you do that with today's firecrackers? No! So whatever they'll
come up with will also be able to take a bus-sized telescope along for
the ride in the trunk.

Well, the Proton and Delta IV heavy aren't exactly firecrackers, but I agree in principle. Unfortunately, they
intend to launch things in components, ISS style, so no STS II, SSTO, HLV, RLV ... everything is canceled.

Don't be so negative!

Your optimism is so, um, refreshing, but unfortunately, unless you intend to build something yourself, what
you see is what you get.

The sooner this show gets on the road the soon-
er the sideshows can tag along. But not if you keep whining that you
want your rusting old jalopies from the Seventies back.

It's not whining, it's ankle biting. Unfortunately, that is exactly what they intend to do, bring Apollo back.
There is hope, though, in the form of an election. However, I'm not exactly optimistic about that either.

If you really want to go somewhere, the Delta IV medium has a 6000 lb escape velocity capability, complete
with an upper stage and engine weighing about 5000 lbs, and presumably some excess residual fuel, all for the
relatively reasonable price of 80 million dollars. That, I am somewhat optimistic about. And, when they retire
the shuttles, that should free up some SSMEs for SSTO demonstration. That has some moderate amount promise.

Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net

I don't know or is it just me.

The news reports I read said that they wouldn't use the Shuttle to service
the Hubble. OK, so why not put together a collection and pay the Russians
to do it. For 20 Million they'll take a tourist into space maybe for a "Few
Dollars More" we could get a service trip to the Hubble. A win-win
situation --- we get the Hubble serviced and the Russians get a little more
space time.

Just my thoughts anyway.

"Scott M. Kozel" wrote in message
...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Jan17.html

"Closing a Window on the Universe"
_Washington Post_ - Sunday, January 18, 2004; Page C01

Excerpts:

'Margon, now with the Space Telescope Institute on the campus of Johns
Hopkins University in Baltimore, is one of hundreds of astronomers,
scientists and engineers in the Washington region whose job it is to
keep the Hubble telescope running and in good working order. Yesterday,
Margon said, many of those people were still stunned by NASA's decision
to end shuttle service missions to the telescope orbiting 350 miles
above the Earth.'

'The next space shuttle service mission -- the fifth since the telescope
was deployed in 1990 -- was scheduled for next year. Without further
service, the telescope will develop fatal malfunctions and stop
operating. Scientists estimate that Hubble can continue working for
three to four years.'
...

'O'Keefe said the decision to scrap the next scheduled servicing mission
to the telescope that revolutionized astronomy was based on safety
issues concerning the shuttle rather than budget considerations.'
...

'Margon said part of the frustration is that he and others believe that
Hubble has not yet reached its scientific peak. "A lot of people have
put much of their scientific life into this," Margon said. "And there
was no question that it would eventually come to an end, but it has not
reached the peak of its capabilities yet. The best is yet to come from
Hubble. This is not like you are taking an old racehorse out to pasture
because it no longer wins races."'
...

'By any scientific measure, it has been the most successful astronomical
exercise in history. Images sent back to Earth from Hubble have helped
scientists determine the age of the universe. In 1995, Hubble was
pointed at the same patch of sky for 10 days and programmed to take long
exposures. What Hubble captured with those images enabled scientists to
find at least 1,500 galaxies at various stages of evolution. Some of the
galaxies were 10 billion light-years away.'

'The Hubble was scheduled to operate until 2010, when plans called for
the more advanced James Webb Space Telescope to replace it. Beckwith
said the Webb telescope will need about 100 employees at the institute,
but their services won't be required for about seven years.'

See the URL for the rest of the article.

--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com

"J Stutzmann" wrote in
ink.net:

I don't know or is it just me.

The news reports I read said that they wouldn't use the Shuttle to
service the Hubble. OK, so why not put together a collection and pay
the Russians to do it. For 20 Million they'll take a tourist into
space maybe for a "Few Dollars More" we could get a service trip to
the Hubble. A win-win situation --- we get the Hubble serviced and
the Russians get a little more space time.

It's been explained, several times, but once more won't hurt.

1) HST lacks a Soyuz-compatible docking mechanism and passive Kurs system.

2) Current Soyuz variants (TM, TMA) are optimized as space station ferries,
have a very limited free-flight capability (4.2 days), and most likely lack
independent EVA capability as well.

3) Soyuz lacks the cargo capacity to carry the replacement gyros HST needs,
much less the replacement instruments that had been planned.

4) Soyuz cannot reach HST's orbit (28.45 degrees inclination) from
Baikonur, the proposed Soyuz pad at Kourou will not be ready for several
years, and even when it's ready, it will not be designed to accommodate
manned Soyuz flights (e.g. handling facilities for Soyuz spacecraft,
hypergolic loading, crew ingress/egress on pad, etc).

--
JRF

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