Should we let Hubble Telescope die?

It appears that the white house has asked NASA to scrap the mission that will save the aging Hubble Space Telescope (HST). The mission to refurbish the HST is expected to cost over a billion dollars, and the white house thinks that NASA can make better use of the funds.In my opinion this would be a great loss for science. When you consider the amount of scientific data gained from the HST, and then factor in the idea that NASA has already built new cameras and lenses for Hubble that will peer even deeper into space, makes this an absurd idea. Hubble’s best has yet to come.So I ask you this: with no immediate plans for a replacement for the HST in the works, would it be a better to put the billion dollars elsewhere and not refurbish the HST letting it fall into the atmosphere, or should NASA go ahead with the mission, replace the gyroscopes and lenses and gain even more valuable scientific data?This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 01-22-2005 15:18 AMThis message has been edited by Demosthenes Fan, 01-22-2005 15:49 AM

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

I think the funding should go into research to build a more advanced telescope. At least that would get my interest.

TrueCreation, if I knew that the funding was going to go to a new telescope I wouldn’t be as upset as I am now. I do know that NASA is planning on launching the James Webb Telescope in 2011, but that will be an infrared observatory and won’t be able to record visible light. I may be overreacting but I just believe that this is a dark time for astronomy in general.

---

I wish more people would shave with Occam's Razor. Orson Scott Card

While I find it sad that Hubble will no longer be, I see the trade-off of going to Mars to be very exciting. I think we can all agree spending needs to me majorly cut back because of the deficit, and NASA is taking a bite of the funding cuts just like everyone else; including DoD which is near and dear to my heart.The funds simply won't be there to pursue both missions.

---

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

The fact I don't have to foot the bill either way aside, I have to say I disagree. The money would be far better spent on Hubble, a proven asset, rather than throwing money (and much more of it) at the manned space program.We've seen NASA having its budget crippled for at least the last decade by the cost of the orbiting white elephant (aka the ISS), for no obvious return, and I can see Bush's mission to Mars going the same way.I'd love to see some geologists getting their hands on Mars, but it would cost lots and lots and lots of money. More than I think you guys would be willing to spend. So why not save money by sticking with the robots?BTW Has GWB ever referred to any of this Moon/Mars stuff after his Visionary Speech?

Are you talking about a manned mission to Mars? I can assure you, it ain't going to happen anytime soon.

I think before another optical telescope was put up that there are some considerations of new design possibilities to consider first.The hubble is great at PR, as people just love the (colorized digitally massaged) pictureswe now have technology to combine images electronically to create a larger virtual diameter telescope able to resolve much finer details.consider a new space telescope that is not one satellite but four or six in sychronous orbits and time synchedput two out at the (whatchamacallit)^* locations on the earth orbit.now lets go look AT planets not just for them eh?any new telescope should do something more or different than the one(s) before it.{added by edit}
^* - Lagrangian pointsThis message has been edited by RAZD, 01-23-2005 22:46 AM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

cool idea.. I agree. just as the VLA transformed the abilities of radio telescopes an Optical aray in space would also create huge dividends.While we are at it why not concider putting a huge optical aray on the dark side of the moon? AND create a maned base at the same time... if you needed a reason to go back to the moon there you go.

going to the moon makes much more sense to me than the space station or mars.you get the science bases (and yes the far side is shielded from the "noise" from the earth)you learn how to build the habitats and live on the edge of inhospitality.then we can go to titan(oh wait did someone say mars? maybe another set-up on deimos, without the gravity well to get back out of)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

a mirror on the moon AND Demios?!!?! just think of the baseline on that array!! Whoot.

yeah but signal time ...the orbit points I was trying to remember before are the Lagrangian pointsin this case I would use the L4 and L5 locations (L1 is being used by SOHO and L2 by WMAP and L3 being on the other side of the sun which would make it blocked for signal transmissions)see Orbits in Space and search the page for {Lagrangian} (it's way down).

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

I would like to see the Hubble refurbished. It's a lot of money, but I think it would be worth it in the end. The photos from the Hubble are absolutely spectacular and I think they would only get better.

Although I like the idea of a manned mission to mars, I agree that building a base on the moon makes a lot more sense, and I personally have detested the space station from just about the beginning.I mean a space station in general is a good idea, but the scaled down version was simply ludicrous... and compared to a moon base, cannot offer the same prospects. I don't see that happening. With the methane rich environment our ability to have a manned colony there seems remote. On top of the fire hazards, the atmosphere would hardly give us an eye on the Universe.Admittedly though I was excited about the Titan mission and have loved all the imagery coming back. That seems to be an excellent example of an unmanned mission to a remote, hard to access, environment. I wish they'd release the info they got from the sound recording device. As visual as I am I'd love to hear what another planetoid sounds like.Before more Titan missions I'd rather see some sub-ice missions to Europa. Visions and data from an off world sea which might actually be water, would be very very cool.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)"Don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

you go to Titan for fuel and to study Titan. that would be the place to set up a space station, and with a ready source of energy that far from earth you have just expanded your area study capability tremendously. you wouldn't need to carry energy for the return.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}