NASA budget kills Hubble

[papau]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/space/02/07/budget.nasa.ap/index.html


NASA budget kills Hubble

Monday, February 7, 2005 Posted: 11:24 AM EST (1624 GMT)

CAPE CANAVERAL, Florida (AP) -- With the moon on its horizon, NASA sees an increase in the 2006 budget proposed by the White House on Monday, but the 2.5 percent hike is not enough to save the Hubble Space Telescope.

Only $75 million in the space agency's $16.45 billion budget would go toward Hubble's future involving a visiting robot, and all of that would be used to develop a mission for steering the orbiting observatory into the ocean at the end of its lifetime.

No money is in the budget to send either a robotic repairman or shuttle astronauts to Hubble to extend its lifetime, a decision that is sure to anger astronomers and members of Congress. Late last year, a National Academy of Sciences panel recommended one final visit to Hubble by astronauts.<snip>

[jus_the_facts]

1. ..........

:evilfrown:

[Canuckistanian]

2. That's it. Just forget it.

There will be no more progress, scientifically, socially or philosophically until this idiot is removed from office.
The short-sightedness is breathtaking.

[Tux]

11. Well

We'll have to be rid of Republicians to get progress back. Afterall, Republicians wnat to return to the good old 50's...1850's.

[SnoopDog]

3. One of the greatest scientific instruments ever built...

And this sonuvabitch wants to kill it. What is is afraid of? Learning more about our existence?

I do not know what it cost to build and maintain the Hubble, but it is absurd to kill a useful machine. It is obviously more cost effected to maintain this wonderful tool as opposed to building a new one.

This prick can ask for $80 billion for killing people in Iraq - but not a few funds for science.

When, when is this madness going to stop. This f*cker we call * is killing everything including science.

I cannot wait to have a real president run our country.

[Ian David]

4. Another un-funded mandate. No Astronaut Left Behind.

[Psephos]

5. Worth considering....

The cost of a mission, whether robotic or human, to service the Hubble, is at least $1.5 billion, maybe $2 billion, according to NASA figures cited in a meeting this week of the House Science Committee.

http://www.wired.com/news/space/0,2697,66486,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_4

Hubble was conceived in the 1970s and built in the 1980s, and like the Shuttles, its technology reflects its era. It may be that the best thing to do with Hubble is to use it up, and then move on...rather like you did with your old Windows 3.11 PC.

An international team of researchers led by Johns-Hopkins astronomers says instead of putting more cash into Hubble, we should put the money into a successor. Several new instruments intended for a Hubble upgrade have already been built and paid for, and have been sitting in storage, awaiting a refurb mission. These could be used in a new telescope designed with up-to-date technology, producing major savings.

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=16050

Hubble's main lens, as most people know, was ground incorrectly, and had to be corrected with a helper lens installed later by astronauts. While this correction restored much of the original design function, it did not restore it all, and also introduced lens artifacts into images that have to be digitally subtracted. In other words, Hubble not only uses old technology, it is also a bit hobbled.

The Johns-Hopkins team says that building a new telescope would take about five and a half years, and cost under $1 billion. That price includes the cost of launching on a Delta rocket (no Shuttle needed).

Without servicing, Hubble will last another two to five years. In the worst case, if we followed the Johns-Hopkins team's recommendation, we might be without Hubble-like functionality for a few years. In exchange, we'd get a far superior telescope, for less total money, and no more reliance on Shuttles.

I was a big proponent of servicing Hubble but I've changed my mind. Sometimes less is more.

[SnoopDog]

6. Understood, however...

What is the real cost to repair? Is 1.8 Billion a legitimate figure?

Also, when and where would they get the money to build a new scope? And when would it be completed?

I say we should do both. While a new scope is being built, repair Hubble so that science can proceed.

I know, George the Ass does not believe in science - only the invisible guy in the sky.

[Psephos]

7. There are no perfect answers, but maybe some workable ones

The repair cost estimates are NASA's, and are legitimate.

Presumably, the money for the HOP (Hubble Origins Probe) would come from the money earmarked for Hubble repair. Just because the current budget (which has not been passed yet) doesn't contain funds for Hubble doesn't mean that they can't be restored. Budget priorities are driven by politics, and if there's a perception that enough people want Hubble fixed, the funds will be re-allocated. (Hint hint: write your Congressperson.) To a degree, this has already happened once, based on public outcry to the original plans to abandon Hubble. NASA gave up saying that Hubble couldn't/wouldn't be serviced, and investigated whether a robot mission could do the job. (It turns out the robot mission costs roughly the same as a Shuttle mission, once you factor in the costs of developing the robot.)

Politically, I don't see how we can do both, although I'd love to see that. I think we'll be lucky to do one or the other. The HOP is apparently a much less expensive alternative, so would be the easier political sell.

Check out the HOP page. This thing sounds very cool. You can do much better science with it than you can with Hubble.

http://www.pha.jhu.edu/hop/

[pmbryant]

8. Doesn't look like there's any money for a replacement either

I agree that building a replacement like this is an excellent alternative, perhaps the best one. But the Bushies don't seem to be jumping on that bandwagon. And given their history, I'm not holding my breath for that to change.

--Peter

[jus_the_facts]

9. Oh NOooo....THIS is much more PRESSING....Air Force 2025...

:eyes:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=105&topic_id=2560602

[Ian David]

10. Why not boost it into an orbit on the dark side of the moon?

[Tux]

12. Won't solve anything

Gyros and batteries are expected to fail soon so putting it near the moon won't do any good.

[Wilms]

13. Orbiting the moon is actually a tough thing to do...if I got it right.

When the craft comes round the "light side of the moon", it's tugged on quite a bit by Earth's gravity--warping the orbit.

So you need a lot of rocket fuel to to do that.