Hubble Space Telescope to be axed

Sparks

From the weblog of a worker at the Space Science Institute which runs Hubble:

The End Of An Era


No more servicing missions to Hubble, as per the directive of the current head of NASA, Sean O'Keefe.

Hubble has six guidance gyros. But they fail at fairly regular and now predictable rates. Nearly every servicing mission to Hubble has replaced gyros as part of the work done. It needs three to do most of the science it now does, although there is a scheme in the works to do a greatly attenuated kind of science with two. We currently have four working gyros. Expectations were that we would almost certainly be down to two by the time the next servicing mission occurred, and possibly even down to one. So, figure, at around the time of what would have been the next servicing mission, Hubble will probably be no more, or soon, very soon, to expire.

Haven't heard yet about their final plans to control dump it. Last I heard, the talk was that some sort of small retro would be fitted to it via a shuttle mission, so it's re-entry into earth's atmosphere could be controlled.

This is of a piece with Bush's directive, that anything that doesn't support his new moon and mars missions is to be cut. So likely Hubble won't be the only thing that does deep space science that goes, and quite possibly some of the stuff that does near earth science will also be trashcanned (like for instance, all the stuff that provides data about that pesky global warming that isn't supposed to be really happening...)

The end of an era in deep space exploration draws to a close. The era of the total militarization of space dawns.

http://www.brucegarrett.com/brucelog_2004_1_1.htm#b22

The really, really ****-with-your-head heartbreaking thing is that this is because $11 billion over five years couldn't be found for NASA. That's $2.2 billion a year. For the record, last year saw $3.5 billion spent on ring tones for mobile phones.
:mad:
Talk about having your head somewhere warm and dark...

albertw

That implies that Bush is axing Hubble, which isnt true. The HST has been marked for end of life for a long time. There are other telescopes planned to take its place. Granted I doubt any will capture the public eye as Hubble has with the images it has shown. Its just now a question of whether to break it up or try to bring it back in one piece for the Smithsonian.

Cheers,
~Al

Sparks

No, Hubble's axing was by no means definite. And the followup James Webb Telescope has been delayed by "at least a year or two" ....

bus77

Seems to be a waste to let it go like that, Why dont they pick it up and bring it to the moon with them?
the mammy says Bush is goin to the moon coz he thinks Osama's up there

mike65

This is sort of a sad day that we have to announce this," said NASA Chief Scientist John Grunsfeld, an astronaut who helped upgrade Hubble in 2002. "But I have to tell you, as somebody very close to the project, I can tell you they made the right decision. It's one that's in the best interests of NASA."

The decision means an advanced camera and light-splitting spectrograph - both already built - will not be installed. It also leaves Hubble's continued operation at the mercy of its aging gyroscopes, batteries and other equipment.

Based on the past performance of the gyros and other gear, engineers believe the observatory has a 50-50 chance of remaining in operation until mid 2007, three years shy of when NASA had earlier planned to retire the observatory.

Hubble's replacement, the James Webb Space Telescope, will not be launched until around 2011 at the earliest. Foregoing the final servicing mission means the gap between Hubble and Webb will stretch years longer than scientists had hoped.

"We're going to try to get as much life as we can out of the Hubble Space Telecope," Grunsfeld said. "We have a commitment from the office of space science that we will continue to support the research and analysis work even beyond (Hubble's demise)."

Seems crazy to allow a several years gap for the sake of a single servicing mission. Heres a thought - maybe the ESA should offer to fund the mission and buy out Hubble
when its replacment is launched. (two chances of that happening I'd say!)

Mike.

vibe666

it's stupid to get rid of it without a working replacement there.

and it's also stupid to axe it on the grounds of expense, sonsidering i was watching a program last night on the US govt.'s black budget (money spent, not decared to congress) which is in the region of $30 billion dollars anually which gets spent on all sorts of things that the US won't even admit exists such as area 51 stuff and classified projects like laser research and other bleeding edge weapons tech.

kinda makes you wonder who it is they think they are going to be fighting! might waznt to think about keep[ing hubble going so they can see the little green men on their way to get us!

spongebob

The reason is safety, I agree with the analysis.

http://www.arstechnica.com/

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0401/16hubblesm4/

"The Columbia Accident Investigation Board had recommended that any shuttle mission not destined to reach the International Space Station would need to have a stand alone ability to inspect and repair a damaged shuttle. SM4 was the only mission that would not be destined to the ISS and these stand alone procedures would need to be developed for a single flight. Coupled with President Bush's recent announcement for completion of the ISS and plans for a future moon mission, SM4 became expendable."

Mind you I hope that they pick it up some day on their way BACK from the space station, it deserves its spot in the Smithsonian.

M

vibe666

i reckon it's last mission should be to have it pointed at mars to see what happened to Beagle 2 before colin pillingers sideburns go awol and strangle him to death.

oh, well. next contact time is on jan 22nd, so you never know, it might turn up. kinda interested to see if it's going to work, or if it's just ended up being another crater on the surface of mars.

only time will tell. although i'm not going to hold my breath.

ykt0di9url7bc3

crying shame

Sparks

Having slept on it and read a lot more, I find I'm somewhat less outraged now by the decision to cancel SM4 - but I'm more annoyed by the fact that there isn't any planned replacement (the James Webb Space Telescope isn't an optical telescope, it's an infrared telescope whereas Hubble did optical and UV astronomy - there's no replacement for the UV proposed and adaptive optics on the ground can only do so much to compensate).

It's more annoying because this strikes me as a Bertie move rather than a Bush one - announce a great plan, and then the "sacrifices" needed, get those first and then abandon the funding for the "great plan" to leave you worse off than you were before

Here's hoping that Kucinich or Clark get in in the election, and properly fund the programme so that Hubble can be replaced and the programme can actually do things right...

dod

Why Hubble is being dropped
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3406079.stm

Without doubt the Hubble Space Telescope is one of the most important telescopes ever built. Its clear view of the Cosmos, above the turbulent and distorting atmosphere, has changed our understanding of the Universe in which we live.

Its science is remarkable, its images iconic and it had much more to give. So why is it being abandoned?

Few were expecting such an announcement about the demise of Hubble.

Just a few weeks ago Steven Beckwith, the director of Hubble's home institution, the Space Telescope Science Institute in Maryland, told BBC News Online that he was looking forward to the next servicing mission and the upgrade Hubble would receive.

Mr Beckwith said that Hubble was working more efficiently than when it was new and could get even better. With Hubble's replacement - the James Webb Telescope - not due in orbit until 2012 at the earliest, he hoped that Hubble could survive until the handover.

So what happened? Why is Nasa abandoning one of the most productive scientific instruments of all time?

Safety first

The main reason is safety. It is said that the decision was made solely by Nasa's chief, Sean O'Keefe, and that it was not related to President George Bush's new space plan for a return to the Moon and missions to Mars. Money was not an issue.


Whatever happens Hubble's end will be tricky and expensive - doing nothing is not an option

Following the loss of the space shuttle Columbia in February last year, all shuttle fights will now be to the International Space Station (ISS).

This is so that the shuttle crew have a lifeboat in space if there are any problems.

But Hubble is not in an orbit from which it is possible to get to the ISS. New safety and inspection procedures would have had to be developed just for this one mission and it was deemed unfeasible.

Hubble's next servicing mission was due in 2005. During it two major instruments - the Wide Field Camera 3 and the Cosmic Origins Spectrometer - would have been installed. They would have been magnificent additions to Hubble, significantly boosting its performance.

Now they are not going the scientists concerned will be devastated and will want to explore other ways to get them into space. Even if they are successful in flying them, it will be on a smaller mission and they will not benefit from Hubble's extraordinary ability to intercept light from the cosmos.

Although abandoning Hubble solves one problem it raises another - a big one.

Debris danger

Left alone, Hubble will fall back to Earth sometime in 2012 and it is big enough not to burn up completely.

"Its main mirror, and its titanium support ring, will survive and reach the ground," Steven Beckwith told BBC News Online.

It is estimated that left alone there is a one in 700 chance of human casualty being caused by an uncontrolled Hubble re-entry. That is, everyone agrees, unacceptable.

The plan was that on a follow-on shuttle visit a propulsion module would be attached to Hubble to bring it down in a controlled way, onto an uninhabited region of the Earth. Clearly that plan cannot now happen.

The de-orbit module will still have to be fitted, only by an automatic docking, and currently Nasa does not have the technology to do that. Russia does. So perhaps they may be asked to help out.

But whatever happens Hubble's end will be tricky and expensive. Doing nothing is not an option.

Although some of Hubble's scientists are reported to be preparing job applications at other institutes, there is still a lot of science Hubble can do. But with the announcement that it will not be re-serviced, most of its science is now behind it and it could cease working altogether at any time.

Hubble has six gyroscopes which control its pointing. Only four are working. In normal circumstances it requires three for normal operations (though some science can be done with two) . So if any more fail, as they are bound to do eventually, that could spell the end its life.

If all goes well Hubble will continue exploring and will still have a few surprises for us. Abandoned it may have been, but it has not finished yet.

Sparks

Originally posted by dod
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3406079.stm

Mr Beckwith said that Hubble was working more efficiently than when it was new and could get even better. With Hubble's replacement - the James Webb Telescope - not due in orbit until 2012 at the earliest, he hoped that Hubble could survive until the handover.

What handover? Hubble is an optical telescope which also does UV astronomy. Webb is an infrared telescope that doesn't do either UV or optical astronomy (well, it can do it - badly - but it's not designed for it).

The main reason is safety. It is said that the decision was made solely by Nasa's chief, Sean O'Keefe, and that it was not related to President George Bush's new space plan for a return to the Moon and missions to Mars. Money was not an issue.

And that's right up there with WMDs. If SM4 went ahead, the new safety recommendations would mean a second shuttle would have to be prepped as a rescue mission (and don't ask what happens if that shuttle gets into trouble...) and that would cost money. That money would cut into bush's proposed plan and thus it can't happen - and so Hubble's SM4 mission is cancelled and with it, Hubble. So it is about money. If money were no issue, it'd go ahead.
Hell, there's $200 million in instrumentation sitting on the bench for SM4 to install in Hubble, and the cost of the de-orbiting rocket pack is estimated at $300 million. But the shuttle launch would be around $6-700 million (including the backup shuttle prep), so it's a case of axing the more expensive option.

Now I can understand that - if the money was really that tight. But it isn't - $96 billion has been spent on invading Iraq in the last year alone. $750 billion was spent on education. Arnie's now looking for a loan for california of $15 billion. So the money's there alright, if you have the political will to take it.

Instead, you have people bitching about $1 billion over five years as extravagent. And important missions like Hubble being short-changed and terminated early, with no replacement even on the drawing board (at least in NASA - ESA does have a design, Darwin, but it's years off yet).

halenger

Will the even bother with James Webb? Granted Bush wont be in power then (2 terms max, right?) but if the next president, assuming Bush even gets reelected doesn't value Space at all he might cut the budgets altogether and we say Bye Bye moon, mars, Hubble etc.

Just cause he starts something doesn't mean his successor's will definately finish them...

I didn't even know James Webb didn't do optical. It'll be such a shame. Hubble produced some of the most magnificent images in the history of mankind!

I wonder if they'll put an optical telescope on the moon with the moonbase!

Jilm

Story on the BBC site here

Nasa chief Sean O'Keefe, responding to criticism, has agreed to reconsider his decision to abandon the successful Hubble Space Telescope.

williamgrogan

We can hardly complain in Europe. The Yanks have carried out the vast majority of space exploration. The EU soon will have 500 million people v 300 million in the USA, so why can’t we have a similar budget for space research? Only for the French there would be no ESA.

Sparks

Originally posted by williamgrogan
We can hardly complain in Europe.

Well, actually, there are reasons why we can. Firstly, as pointed out by the words spoken from and written on the moon, spaceflight should be more a human endeavour than a national one.
Secondly, and more directly, the HST contributes to the human pool of knowlege, not the US one.
Thirdly, many of the scientists, engineers, techniques, components and designs that made the US space programme possible were european in origin.

The Yanks have carried out the vast majority of space exploration.

More by historical accident though. The EU didn't exist at the time the US was starting off, and since it's formation we've seen the first EU steps with the ESA, the astronaut corps, and now the Aurora programme.

Give it a few decades and we'll be launching designed-by-committee vehicles and killing astronauts because of managerial decisions as well...
:rolleyes:

williamgrogan

He who pays the piper..........

Today's EDITORIAL from the New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/29/opinion/29SUN1.html?th

you have to register

PS

I read somewhere that the Russians were interested in sending up a mainteance mission. Presumably this is an ideal opportunity for the the EU (ESA) & the Russians to ask the Americans can we take over Hubble. They can share the research with us and from now on we pay for the maintenance.

A Russian mission with an mixed EU crew would cost peanuts in comparision to the aborted Shuttle mission.