So *was* Hubble maintenance cancelled because of the moon plan?
Greg Kuperberg
Ken Arromdee <arro...@violet.rahul.net> wrote:
>It seems that everyone's saying different things about whether it is
>or not. Is there anyone who actually knows?
The fact that the news came at the same time as Bush's speech, and the
fact that it blindsided astrophysics teams that were still maintaing
fresh Hubble equipment, establishes that the cancellation is part of
the new "Bush plan". The Administration never said exactly what they
thought it would take to service Hubble, but they clearly did decide
that it wasn't worth it. NASA's own chief scientist, John Grunsfeld,
cited the space initiative as an influence.
That's not the same as saying that Hubble was cancelled directly
because of the moon base idea. Such a direct link can only be a matter
of opinion. It seems hypothetical to me, because I don't think that
there will be a moon base.
Personally I don't know whether to clap or puke. For the most part,
puke. Hubble is one of the world's most exciting science laboratories.
They are taking the shuttle away from it to service the space station,
which is one of the world's most boring science laboratories. The one
reason to clap is that they have finally severed the last connection
between good science and astronauts. The whole thing turned out to be a
Faustian bargain. Space science could benefit from a new era of honesty.
--
/\ Greg Kuperberg (UC Davis)
/ \
\ / Visit the Math ArXiv Front at http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/
\/ * All the math that's fit to e-print *
Cardman
(Ken Arromdee) wrote:
>It seems that everyone's saying different things about whether it is or not.
>Is there anyone who actually knows?
It is obvious enough given the available facts.
Due to the Columbia accident an extra danger was highlighted in going
to non-ISS orbits, when the crew of a damaged Shuttle had serious
problems, when transfer to the ISS is not an option.
Also the Shuttle now requires a visible inspection before going for
reentry, which can only be done from the ISS.
So going to service the Hubble, even if the risk is minimal, fails to
achieve these two extra safety objectives.
There is also the case that if there is ever another Shuttle accident,
then there could well be no more Shuttle flights ever. And so the best
idea is to finish the ISS quickly, focusing on the international
sections to honour NASA's agreement with them.
As if they lose another one, then the Shuttle will really never fly
again.
The other facts are that NASA for years has been concerned about the
cost that it requires to service the Hubble, when these Shuttle
flights are not exactly cheap.
Even during the last serving mission comments were made that the
public will have to allow Hubble to die some time.
So NASA is not exactly sad to see Hubble go, when they get an extra
ISS flight, which means that the station is completed one flight
earlier and they save $1.2 billion, when they scrap the Shuttle
support systems months before.
The only link between Hubble and this Moon program is that NASA is
required to raise an extra $11 from it's own budget. Most of this
comes from the Shuttle and the ISS, but some projects will certainly
be cut or suspended.
This does not really apply to Hubble, when the new hardware has
already been paid for and is almost complete. And even stopping this
Shuttle flight won't save money in the next five years, when this
flight will just move elsewhere.
The reason why this Hubble cut was announced now is a good/bad idea,
where this Moon program, unfairly, is taking some of the blame. In
like do you want Hubble, or do you want to do to the Moon?
So there you have it, when the Hubble is not going to be serviced due
to the Columbia accident.
Stephen Souter
gr...@conifold.math.ucdavis.edu (Greg Kuperberg) wrote:
> Personally I don't know whether to clap or puke. For the most part,
> puke. Hubble is one of the world's most exciting science laboratories.
> They are taking the shuttle away from it to service the space station,
> which is one of the world's most boring science laboratories. The one
> reason to clap is that they have finally severed the last connection
> between good science and astronauts. The whole thing turned out to be a
> Faustian bargain. Space science could benefit from a new era of honesty.
OK, then let's *be* honest.
Just as it was Apollo & astronauts which largely put lunar science where
it is today, so it was the shuttle and its astronauts which now allows
you to label Hubble "one of the world's most exciting science
laboratories".
The reasons are obvious. Without periodic service calls from the shuttle
the Hubble would have died a long time ago. Indeed, it would have been
stillborn, for it was the shuttle and a crew of astronauts who made
possible the repairs necessary to correct the error in Hubble's mirror.
Had that particular service call never happened Hubble would still be
the laughing-stock the mirror blunder made it; and doubtless one you and
others would be trying hard to forget.
I only hope that Congress can be persuaded to do what it did with the
New Horizons Pluto mission: override NASA & the president and keep at
least the possibility of another servicing mission alive when (like NH)
others would have preferred to see it die.
But that, of course, will require the aid of an astronaut or two.
--
Stephen Souter
s.so...@edfac.usyd.edu.au
http://www.edfac.usyd.edu.au/staff/souters/
Greg Kuperberg
Stephen Souter <s.so...@edfac.usyd.edu.au> wrote:
>Just as it was Apollo & astronauts which largely put lunar science where
>it is today, so it was the shuttle and its astronauts which now allows
>you to label Hubble "one of the world's most exciting science
>laboratories".
I said it was *one* of the most exciting, not *the* most exciting. It is
not currently as exciting as WMAP, for example. WMAP was a spectacular
success, mercifully unassisted by astronauts in any way, shape, or form.
Yes, Hubble is a great telescope, but let's face it - it's also hyped.
They say that one of Hubble's big achievements was to measure the age
of the universe, I presume to within 10% or so. WMAP measured it to
within 1%:
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm/mr_age.html
WMAP was only $150 million and it slaughtered some much more expensive
competition.
These "small" projects are the unsung heroes of modern astronomy.
They are actually very large projects, they just aren't elephantine.
They are small enough that they aren't national embarrassments if they
fail disastrously (e.g. the sad fate of WIRE).
I suspect that even moderately larger unmanned projects like Spirit are
a few too many eggs in one basket. Knock on wood.
Rand Simberg
gr...@conifold.math.ucdavis.edu (Greg Kuperberg) made the phosphor on
my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>They are taking the shuttle away from it to service the space station,
>which is one of the world's most boring science laboratories.
No, they're taking Shuttle away from it because they want to avoid a
repeat of Columbia.
MSu1049321
with an attachment to the canadarm, which they didn't put on Columbia. And
there are remote free-flying cams like the Aercam/Sprint, already available or
relatively easy to make with off the shelf parts, that can inspect any areas
the arm cam would miss. Just as a joke, though, we could sugges the Hubble
itself could look the shuttle over on it's way up.... before it makes it's
climbing burn to Hubble's orbit...
probably that can't be done for technical reasons involving pointing Hubble
towards earth and blowing out it's sensors or something. But you have to give
the idea points for creativity;-)
Jorge R. Frank
news:20040122223819...@mb-m07.aol.com:
> A visible inspection can be done without going to the station. They
> can do it with an attachment to the canadarm, which they didn't put on
> Columbia. And there are remote free-flying cams like the
> Aercam/Sprint, already available or relatively easy to make with off
> the shelf parts, that can inspect any areas the arm cam would miss.
And what the hell good is standalone inspection, if you can't repair the
damage...?
--
JRF
Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.
Stephen Souter
gr...@conifold.math.ucdavis.edu (Greg Kuperberg) wrote:
> In article <bupsed$hpb$1...@spacebar.ucc.usyd.edu.au>,
> Stephen Souter <s.so...@edfac.usyd.edu.au> wrote:
> >Just as it was Apollo & astronauts which largely put lunar science where
> >it is today, so it was the shuttle and its astronauts which now allows
> >you to label Hubble "one of the world's most exciting science
> >laboratories".
>
> I said it was *one* of the most exciting, not *the* most exciting. It is
> not currently as exciting as WMAP, for example. WMAP was a spectacular
> success, mercifully unassisted by astronauts in any way, shape, or form.
That's like boasting you don't need automotive mechanics to keep your
car running.
Which would all be very well if the kind of car you preferred could only
ever be used once, had a limited range of destinations it could take you
to (the ones preset in the factory), and once it's taken you there ha to
be discarded because it could not be service or refueled (although it
might well exceed its specs and go a few miles farther before breaking
down or running out of fuel). Next time you needed a car you have to go
down to the automotive supply centre and buy a new one.
If you want to keep that same car going for 20 years you need a human
being or two to service it every now and again.
> Yes, Hubble is a great telescope, but let's face it - it's also hyped.
*All* space programs are hyped to some extent, including WMAP. (Why else
would it need a website to boast of its achievements?)
> They say that one of Hubble's big achievements was to measure the age
> of the universe, I presume to within 10% or so. WMAP measured it to
> within 1%:
>
> http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm/mr_age.html
Hubble was launched in 1990. WMAP in 2001. Dunno about you, but I'd kind
of expect a later mission using more recent technology to be able to
deliver better value than an earlier one, especially in what I presume
to have been one of its more important scientific objectives. But to use
that to then denigrate the earlier mission's achievement...
Well, do you also propose to use WMAP's map of the cosmic microwave
background to denigrate the one drawn up from COBE's data?
> WMAP was only $150 million and it slaughtered some much more expensive
> competition.
You get what you pay for. WMAP is certainly cheap next to Hubble. But
then WMAP is a single-shot mission with a handful of specialist
objectives and a 4-year lifespan. Hubble is a 2.4m astronomical
telescope with a 20-year lifespan and a series of broad objectives.
Namely (drawn from "http://hubble.nasa.gov/faq.html"):
A. To determine the constitution, physical characteristics,
and dynamics of celestial bodies.
B. To determine the nature of processes which occur in the
extreme physical conditions existing in and between
astronomical objects.
C. To determine the history and evolution of the universe.
D. To determine whether the laws of nature are universal in
the space-time continuum
Hubble can also be serviced and upgraded. Meaning its capabilities could
be increased, hardware problems fixed, and its lifespan could have been
extended beyond 2010.
By contrast, if WMAP had had a hardware problem of the seriousness of
Hubble's mirror there would have been no way to fix it even though the
thing might otherwise be working fine. If the science required could not
be done as a result, then if that science still needed to be done
somebody somewhere would have to find the money to build (and launch)
another one.
> These "small" projects are the unsung heroes of modern astronomy.
> They are actually very large projects, they just aren't elephantine.
> They are small enough that they aren't national embarrassments if they
> fail disastrously (e.g. the sad fate of WIRE).
Small missions produce small results.
In any case, it's no good you singing the praises of "small"
astronomical projects when astronomers themselves are voting with their
feet by queuing up to use (not to mention asking for funding to build
more) "elephantine" optical & radio telescopes on the ground. All that
suggests is that astronomers are making do with WMAP & co in space
simply because they are *forced* to, not because that is the way they
would choose to do it had they a say in the matter (and the necessary
funding).
The very fact that they are choosing to build 8m+ optical telescopes on
the ground in ever growing numbers suggests that if they did have the
money they would prefer to put a dozen Hubbles in orbit rather than a
dozen projects like WMAP.
> I suspect that even moderately larger unmanned projects like Spirit are
> a few too many eggs in one basket.
Actually, since there are two rovers NASA has done the wise thing by
*not* putting "too many eggs in one basket"!
> Knock on wood.
Indeed! Here's hoping its present troubles are merely a temporary glitch.
Greg Kuperberg
Stephen Souter <s.so...@edfac.usyd.edu.au> wrote:
>In article <bupu0g$2mk$1...@conifold.math.ucdavis.edu>,
> gr...@conifold.math.ucdavis.edu (Greg Kuperberg) wrote:
>> exciting. It is not currently as exciting as WMAP, for example.
>> WMAP was a spectacular success, mercifully unassisted by astronauts
>> in any way, shape, or form.
>That's like boasting you don't need automotive mechanics to keep your
>car running.
Or, perhaps, that you don't need auto mechanics because you ride
a bicycle. WMAP is about as much cheaper than Hubble as a bicycle is
cheaper than a car. If you like cars for their engineering, or their
features, or to impress other people, then of course they are much more
impressive than bicycles. But if you just want to get from A to B,
a bicycle might well be better. It will certainly be cheaper, not only
for you but also for the public works department.
I think a lot of the disagreement about the best space science missions
is between engineers who imagine building space rockets (even if they
don't themselves) and scientists who imagine using them (even if they
don't themselves). Better engineering is not always better science,
because the scientists just want to get from A to B. I'll allow
that even manned spaceflight involves a lot of amazing engineering.
But the best engineers do not lose sight of the users for the gears.
If the mission is science, they should stick to what they scientists want;
if it is commerce, they should stick to what turns a profit.
Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )
Ken Arromdee wrote:
>
> It seems that everyone's saying different things about whether it is or not.
> Is there anyone who actually knows?
>
What does servicing Hubble even have to do with the 'moon plan'? Finding
any connection at all will be nearly impossible.
Cardman
The main connection is that both were announced at nearly the same
time. There is also the little matter that President Bush said that
NASA had to find $11 billion out of it's existing budget, which can be
obtained by cutting projects... like the Hubble upgrade.
That may have been a factor, but of course the Columbia disaster was
the real reason.
Joann Evans
>
> In article <bupsed$hpb$1...@spacebar.ucc.usyd.edu.au>,
> Stephen Souter <s.so...@edfac.usyd.edu.au> wrote:
> >Just as it was Apollo & astronauts which largely put lunar science where
> >it is today, so it was the shuttle and its astronauts which now allows
> >you to label Hubble "one of the world's most exciting science
> >laboratories".
>
> I said it was *one* of the most exciting, not *the* most exciting. It is
> not currently as exciting as WMAP, for example. WMAP was a spectacular
> success, mercifully unassisted by astronauts in any way, shape, or form.
One has to ask who is being 'excited.'
To anyone whose field of study is, or is related to determining the
age of the Universe, of course it is. Joe average, won't get excited
about it. Because...
> Yes, Hubble is a great telescope, but let's face it - it's also hyped.
...Joe average relates more easily to images at optical wavelengths,
than most other space science data. Some of it has been cool enough to
virtually 'hype' itself.
Not to say that science should be done on the basis of what looks
good to the public (much of whom can't really *interpret* even the
pictures, and what they really mean), but some things really *are* more
exciting to the public at large, than others. This must always be
remembered, as it's the most esoteric stuff that tended to get William
Proxmire's infamous 'awards.'
And BTW, shuttle crews kept Solar Max alive for longer than would
otherwise have been the case, as well. I suspect a number of other
failed sats could've been fixed, had they been in shuttle-accessable
orbits, and not so expensive to fly to, as well.
> They say that one of Hubble's big achievements was to measure the age
> of the universe, I presume to within 10% or so. WMAP measured it to
> within 1%:
>
> http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm/mr_age.html
>
> WMAP was only $150 million and it slaughtered some much more expensive
> competition.
>
> These "small" projects are the unsung heroes of modern astronomy.
> They are actually very large projects, they just aren't elephantine.
> They are small enough that they aren't national embarrassments if they
> fail disastrously (e.g. the sad fate of WIRE).
LOL! Most people don't know what that was, either...!
Again, remember that what's important to you or I, isn't necessairily
important to the people paying the bills. Even when they fail.
> I suspect that even moderately larger unmanned projects like Spirit are
> a few too many eggs in one basket. Knock on wood.
--
You know what to remove, to reply....
Joann Evans
>
> In article <buqo0c$2ni$1...@spacebar.ucc.usyd.edu.au>,
> Stephen Souter <s.so...@edfac.usyd.edu.au> wrote:
> >In article <bupu0g$2mk$1...@conifold.math.ucdavis.edu>,
> > gr...@conifold.math.ucdavis.edu (Greg Kuperberg) wrote:
> >> I said [Hubble] was *one* of the most exciting, not *the* most
> >> exciting. It is not currently as exciting as WMAP, for example.
> >> WMAP was a spectacular success, mercifully unassisted by astronauts
> >> in any way, shape, or form.
> >That's like boasting you don't need automotive mechanics to keep your
> >car running.
>
> Or, perhaps, that you don't need auto mechanics because you ride
> a bicycle. WMAP is about as much cheaper than Hubble as a bicycle is
> cheaper than a car. If you like cars for their engineering, or their
> features, or to impress other people, then of course they are much more
> impressive than bicycles. But if you just want to get from A to B,
> a bicycle might well be better. It will certainly be cheaper, not only
> for you but also for the public works department.
The last time I rode my bicycle, I got a flat. Even though cheaper
than my car, I didn't abandon it, I walked it home for some human
maintenance.
Even 'cheap' (relatively or absolutely) doesn't necessairily mean
irreperable or disposable.
> I think a lot of the disagreement about the best space science missions
> is between engineers who imagine building space rockets (even if they
> don't themselves) and scientists who imagine using them (even if they
> don't themselves). Better engineering is not always better science,
> because the scientists just want to get from A to B.
Which often requires better engineering, if A is much farther away
than the last goal, and/or a more capable (usually meaning more massive)
probe is to address a previously researched goal.
Otherwise, we'd still be launching Vanguards.
> I'll allow
> that even manned spaceflight involves a lot of amazing engineering.
> But the best engineers do not lose sight of the users for the gears.
> If the mission is science, they should stick to what they scientists want;
> if it is commerce, they should stick to what turns a profit.
Fortunately, a vehicle that's effictive at doing the latter, more
readily addresses the former. *Someone* pays for the launch of a pure
science mission, too.
Joann Evans
>
> msu10...@aol.com (MSu1049321) wrote in
> news:20040122223819...@mb-m07.aol.com:
>
> > A visible inspection can be done without going to the station. They
> > can do it with an attachment to the canadarm, which they didn't put on
> > Columbia. And there are remote free-flying cams like the
> > Aercam/Sprint, already available or relatively easy to make with off
> > the shelf parts, that can inspect any areas the arm cam would miss.
>
> And what the hell good is standalone inspection, if you can't repair the
> damage...?
Understood, but some whould say that that's the same logic by which
there was no Columbia imaging by milsats...
James Matthews
Stephen Souter <s.so...@edfac.usyd.edu.au> wrote:
> Hubble can also be serviced and upgraded. Meaning its capabilities could
> be increased, hardware problems fixed, and its lifespan could have been
> extended beyond 2010.
But each one of those servicing missions costs as much as a brand new
Hubble, or 3 or 4 WMAPs. If NASA had been willing to divert the cost of
Hubble servicing missions from the manned space program we could have
had lots of Hubbles (and/or other things). But of course that would
never happen -- at NASA the fact that Hubble required hyper-expensive
shuttle missions was considered a feature, not a bug.
As Greg wrote, it was a Faustian bargain. Astronomers got a great
telescope but in return they had to shill as Exhibit A in NASA's case
for the scientific utility of the shuttle. Now that the shuttle is
scheduled for retirement (and considered too unsafe to fly anywhere but
ISS) the bargain has broken down.
If visible light astronomy is sufficiently important (and/or popular
with the taxpayers) it should be able to compete for funds against the
other space science projects under consideration. The link to manned
space was a temporary anomaly.
--
Jim Matthews
Fetch Softworks
http://fetchsoftworks.com
Karl Hallowell
> In article <bupu0g$2mk$1...@conifold.math.ucdavis.edu>,
> gr...@conifold.math.ucdavis.edu (Greg Kuperberg) wrote:
>
> > In article <bupsed$hpb$1...@spacebar.ucc.usyd.edu.au>,
> > Stephen Souter <s.so...@edfac.usyd.edu.au> wrote:
> > >Just as it was Apollo & astronauts which largely put lunar science where
> > >it is today, so it was the shuttle and its astronauts which now allows
> > >you to label Hubble "one of the world's most exciting science
> > >laboratories".
> >
> > I said it was *one* of the most exciting, not *the* most exciting. It is
> > not currently as exciting as WMAP, for example. WMAP was a spectacular
> > success, mercifully unassisted by astronauts in any way, shape, or form.
>
> That's like boasting you don't need automotive mechanics to keep your
> car running.
>
> Which would all be very well if the kind of car you preferred could only
> ever be used once, had a limited range of destinations it could take you
> to (the ones preset in the factory), and once it's taken you there ha to
> be discarded because it could not be service or refueled (although it
> might well exceed its specs and go a few miles farther before breaking
> down or running out of fuel). Next time you needed a car you have to go
> down to the automotive supply centre and buy a new one.
The Hubble is worse. It's unique and requires $200-500 million dollars
(the incremental cost of a shuttle mission) missions to replace parts.
I'd rather boast about a limited vehicle that doesn't need repair than
one that needs consistently hundreds of millions of dollars for repair
missions.
Let's see what's more expensive? Sending up another $150 million
mission or repairing the existing one?
> > These "small" projects are the unsung heroes of modern astronomy.
> > They are actually very large projects, they just aren't elephantine.
> > They are small enough that they aren't national embarrassments if they
> > fail disastrously (e.g. the sad fate of WIRE).
>
> Small missions produce small results.
>
> In any case, it's no good you singing the praises of "small"
> astronomical projects when astronomers themselves are voting with their
> feet by queuing up to use (not to mention asking for funding to build
> more) "elephantine" optical & radio telescopes on the ground. All that
> suggests is that astronomers are making do with WMAP & co in space
> simply because they are *forced* to, not because that is the way they
> would choose to do it had they a say in the matter (and the necessary
> funding).
>
> The very fact that they are choosing to build 8m+ optical telescopes on
> the ground in ever growing numbers suggests that if they did have the
> money they would prefer to put a dozen Hubbles in orbit rather than a
> dozen projects like WMAP.
You neglect to mention that the cost of an 8 meter ground-based
telescope is vastly cheaper than a space-based telescope these days.
For example, the two 10 meter Keck telescopes cost around $180 million
to "develope" according to here.
http://www.noao.edu/system/tsip/keck_cost.html
OTOH, the planned James Web telescope (with a lifespan of ten years,
half that of Hubble) is projected to cost almost $825 million
according to this pdf report. It cannot be repaired.
http://www.colorado.edu/ASEN/asen5519/JWS-Telescope.pdf
The Hubble cost somewhere around $2 billion excluding the costs of the
repair missions.
Karl Hallowell
kha...@hotmail.com
Stephen Souter
James Matthews <matt...@fetchsoftworks.com> wrote:
> In article <buqo0c$2ni$1...@spacebar.ucc.usyd.edu.au>,
> Stephen Souter <s.so...@edfac.usyd.edu.au> wrote:
>
> > Hubble can also be serviced and upgraded. Meaning its capabilities could
> > be increased, hardware problems fixed, and its lifespan could have been
> > extended beyond 2010.
>
> But each one of those servicing missions costs as much as a brand new
> Hubble, or 3 or 4 WMAPs.
Hubble itself cost $1.5 billion (and doubtless more in today's dollars).
Does "one of those servicing missions" add up to that?
> If NASA had been willing to divert the cost of
> Hubble servicing missions from the manned space program we could have
> had lots of Hubbles (and/or other things). But of course that would
> never happen -- at NASA the fact that Hubble required hyper-expensive
> shuttle missions was considered a feature, not a bug.
Why would the concept of being able to service a thing so as to extend
its lifespan or its capabilities be considered a "bug"? Don't you get
your car serviced so it last longer? If your home PC develops a fault do
you throw it away and buy a new one? If you would like a CD burner for
your PC or it needs more RAM or a larger hard drive do you upgrade your
existing PC that may only be two or three years old or buy a brand new
one?
> As Greg wrote, it was a Faustian bargain. Astronomers got a great
> telescope but in return they had to shill as Exhibit A in NASA's case
> for the scientific utility of the shuttle. Now that the shuttle is
> scheduled for retirement (and considered too unsafe to fly anywhere but
> ISS) the bargain has broken down.
>
> If visible light astronomy is sufficiently important (and/or popular
> with the taxpayers) it should be able to compete for funds against the
> other space science projects under consideration. The link to manned
> space was a temporary anomaly.
That's like saying having service centres for PCs and automobiles is a
"temporary anomaly" and one day we'll go back to the way it *should* be
done: every time a car or PC develops a problem we go out and buy a new
one.
If human beings could roam space with more or less the same freedom (and
not much greater cost than the way) we now roam the Earth, are you
suggesting that each time a $1.5 billion space telescope broke down they
would rather go out and spend another $1.5 billion (if not more after
inflation is taken into account) to put up a replacement than to service
an existing facility?
If so, then ground-based telescopes like the Hale 200-inch reflector
would have been packed off to museums long ago.
Greg Kuperberg
Stephen Souter <s.so...@edfac.usyd.edu.au> wrote:
>Hubble itself cost $1.5 billion (and doubtless more in today's dollars).
>Does "one of those servicing missions" add up to that?
And doubtless less with today's approaches. JWST is not exactly the
same telescope as Hubble, but it is a better telescope in various ways.
The projected budget is $800 million or so. That really is comparable
to the cost of a Hubble servicing mission, counting both the shuttle
time and the cost of the equipment.
Two main reasons that JWST should be cheaper: (1) they can use the
newest technology for everything, and (2) they don't have to man-rate it.
Besides, how much it costs to send astronauts to Hubble doesn't matter
any more, because it won't happen again. Personally, I'm glad that
astronauts won't soon risk life and limb just to service a telescope.
I know that they know the risks. I know that a little mortal risk is not
much compared to a billion dollars. Even so, it is unethical to risk
lives needlessly just for scientific curiosity. It's a bad precedent.
Rand Simberg
gr...@conifold.math.ucdavis.edu (Greg Kuperberg) made the phosphor on
my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>Besides, how much it costs to send astronauts to Hubble doesn't matter
>any more, because it won't happen again. Personally, I'm glad that
>astronauts won't soon risk life and limb just to service a telescope.
>I know that they know the risks. I know that a little mortal risk is not
>much compared to a billion dollars. Even so, it is unethical to risk
>lives needlessly just for scientific curiosity.
What does "risk lives needlessly" mean? People risk their lives
driving up to Keck to service it. Should they no longer do so?
Greg Kuperberg
Rand Simberg <simberg.i...@org.trash> wrote:
>What does "risk lives needlessly" mean? People risk their lives
>driving up to Keck to service it. Should they no longer do so?
There is an ethical difference between the more than 1% risk of death
from servicing Hubble and the less than 0.01% risk of death from driving
up to Keck. Yes, I see that three workers died in a fire at the Subaru
telescope next to Keck. Even so, when the total risk is below 0.1%, you
can talk about safety standards. Above 1%, you can talk about safety,
but there are no standards.
In fact, the impossible combination of safety standards and extreme risk
has just killed the shuttle program.
If you want to play Evel Knievel on your own time and with your own
contraptions, then hey, it's a free country. Large organizations such
as governments and research institutes shouldn't get involved.
Joann Evans
> Two main reasons that JWST should be cheaper: (1) they can use the
> newest technology for everything,
Why is that necessairily so? At the time, Hubble used largely new
technology, too.
(Save for things like its processors that were, even then, several
generations behind the state of the art, but whose performance,
espically in an ionizing radiation environment, was known from
experience. Similar choices are made with undersea cable repeaters,
because of their relative inaccessability, too.)
> and (2) they don't have to man-rate it.
The word you want is 'man-tended.' (Which has no particular relation
to cost that I know, anyway. Humans have also repaired satellites
(specifically satcoms) and parts of Hubble (the corrective lenses) *not*
explicitly designed for human access.
You 'man-rate' something humans *ride* on.
> Besides, how much it costs to send astronauts to Hubble doesn't matter
> any more, because it won't happen again. Personally, I'm glad that
> astronauts won't soon risk life and limb just to service a telescope.
That's an argument for more reliable spacecraft, not automatically
disposable satellites.
> I know that they know the risks. I know that a little mortal risk is not
> much compared to a billion dollars. Even so, it is unethical to risk
> lives needlessly just for scientific curiosity. It's a bad precedent.
Know any volcanologists? Antarctic researchers? Oceanographers?
Infectious disease researchers? Personal risk in the service of science
was not created by the space program.
But merely going to *service* a satellite needs to become a common,
routine, non-newsworthy event.
> --
> /\ Greg Kuperberg (UC Davis)
> / \
> \ / Visit the Math ArXiv Front at http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/
> \/ * All the math that's fit to e-print *
Joann Evans
> The Hubble is worse. It's unique and requires $200-500 million dollars
> (the incremental cost of a shuttle mission) missions to replace parts.
> I'd rather boast about a limited vehicle that doesn't need repair than
> one that needs consistently hundreds of millions of dollars for repair
> missions.
As I said elsewhere in the thread, that's an argument for better
vehicles to carry crews up for routine repairs (and other uses) not for
big satellites that are abandoned at the first signifigant malfunction.
Space flight isn't *inherently* dangerous or expensive. (though the
*shuttle* in particular, is some of both). You're working the wrong end
of the problem.
Cardman
<s.so...@edfac.usyd.edu.au> wrote:
>Hubble itself cost $1.5 billion (and doubtless more in today's dollars).
>Does "one of those servicing missions" add up to that?
Since that funding included research and development for Hubble, then
simply making another copy of Hubble, with adding in the new $200
million science instruments would be vastly cheaper.
And I hear that another Hubble main mirror is already to go...
A servicing mission would cost around $1.2 billion depending on flight
rate, which makes me think that a Hubble #2 could be done for much
less.
Rand Simberg
gr...@conifold.math.ucdavis.edu (Greg Kuperberg) made the phosphor on
my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>In article <408dc0a2....@news.west.earthlink.net>,
>Rand Simberg <simberg.i...@org.trash> wrote:
>>What does "risk lives needlessly" mean? People risk their lives
>>driving up to Keck to service it. Should they no longer do so?
>
>There is an ethical difference between the more than 1% risk of death
>from servicing Hubble and the less than 0.01% risk of death from driving
>up to Keck.
No, there's not.
>Yes, I see that three workers died in a fire at the Subaru
>telescope next to Keck. Even so, when the total risk is below 0.1%, you
>can talk about safety standards. Above 1%, you can talk about safety,
>but there are no standards.
You're just pulling arbitrary numbers out of the...air.
>In fact, the impossible combination of safety standards and extreme risk
>has just killed the shuttle program.
The risk isn't that extreme.
>If you want to play Evel Knievel on your own time and with your own
>contraptions, then hey, it's a free country.
Evil Knievel does much riskier things than a Shuttle flight.
>Large organizations such
>as governments and research institutes shouldn't get involved.
So, no more wars, eh?
G EddieA95
>has just killed the shuttle program.
>
>If you want to play Evel Knievel on your own time and with your own
>contraptions, then hey, it's a free country. Large organizations such
>as governments and research institutes shouldn't get involved.
What about the scientific efforts in Antarctica and in the ocean? In both
environments, the human risks probably equal or exceed those on Shuttle and
governmental entities support both. Should Antarctic and oceanic science be
abandoned, where automation is impractical?
G EddieA95
>*shuttle* in particular, is some of both).
It's inherently dangerous in that human beings are taken to a deadly
environment where lots of engineering effort is needed to keep them alive.
It's inherently expensive in that enormous amounts of costly, complicated
equipment is needed to get there and back, and (now that Shuttle is going away)
will be thrown away after each flight.
G EddieA95
>
CMIW, but doesn't man-rating also apply to payloads that are *carried* in a
manned ship?
Greg Kuperberg
Rand Simberg <simberg.i...@org.trash> wrote:
>>If you want to play Evel Knievel on your own time and with your own
>>contraptions, then hey, it's a free country.
>Evil Knievel does much riskier things than a Shuttle flight.
Not especially. Evel Knievel (note spelling) made dozens, maybe
hundreds of motorcycle jumps, and he didn't even ONCE get killed :-).
If you take his most famous, most dangerous jumps, there were still at
least a dozen of those. Even those then were not much more dangerous
than a shuttle flight, where the risk of death is historically 1 in 50.
Again, if you want to play 1 in 50 roulette with your life, that's
your choice. Astronomers should have nothing to do with it.
>>Large organizations such as governments and research institutes
>>shouldn't get involved.
>So, no more wars, eh?
As they say, war can be a necessary evil. Manned spaceflight
in support of curiosity is unnecessary recklessness.
Rand Simberg
gr...@conifold.math.ucdavis.edu (Greg Kuperberg) made the phosphor on
my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>Again, if you want to play 1 in 50 roulette with your life, that's
>your choice. Astronomers should have nothing to do with it.
And astronomers do have nothing to do with it. Orbital telescope
repairmen are not astronomers, and no one is asking astronomers to
risk their lives (any more than is required to drive up and down
narrow winding mountain roads).
>>>Large organizations such as governments and research institutes
>>>shouldn't get involved.
>>So, no more wars, eh?
>
>As they say, war can be a necessary evil. Manned spaceflight
>in support of curiosity is unnecessary recklessness.
Again, your definition of "unnecessary" is arbitrary. Do you have a
realistic and affordable plan to do Hubble servicing without sending
up people?
Rand Simberg
gedd...@aol.com (G EddieA95) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
>> You 'man-rate' something humans *ride* on.
>>
>
>CMIW, but doesn't man-rating also apply to payloads that are *carried* in a
>manned ship?
They have to be rated for the Shuttle, but that's not what most mean
by man-rating.
Stephen Souter
gedd...@aol.com (G EddieA95) wrote:
If it's "inherently dangerous" to service an satellite in LEO it will
presumably be even more so when human beings return to the Moon or set
off for Mars.
Should NASA therefore tell Bush that his grand plan is too dangerous for
poor vulnerable humanity to attempt? :-)
Gary W. Swearingen
> As they say, war can be a necessary evil. Manned spaceflight
> in support of curiosity is unnecessary recklessness.
You're real concerned about space astronomy's cost in deaths.
How about considering it's cost in lives? Space scopes have cost at
least 5 billion US$, so with an average wage of say 30 thousand US$/yr
(or post-tax high wage) over a working life of 40 yrs, means that over
4,000 man-lives have been spent (wasted in some minds) in support of
space astronomy. Lives that could have been spent developing fusion
or genetic engineering or watching TV. A few middle-aged deaths is
nothing by comparison. And even less if the analysis is based on the
costs of all spaceflight.
No, safety concerns are not based on cost/benefit/risk analysis;
they're based on the avoidance of social and political consequences.
Things hit the fan; reporters write nasty articles; people,
organizations, contries are embarrassed; money flow changes; people's
careers and power are effected; programs are cancelled; etc. We
probably lost one man for every mile-an-hour increase in jet speed in
the 50's without a halt in the increase. We loose tens of thousands
of innocent lives to alcoholic drivers and poor drivers without taking
serious steps to reduce it significantly. Just because our culture
now says drunkenness is funny and/or macho and that driver testing is
inconvenient and that such frivoulous deaths don't embarrass us, while
we consider spacecraft deaths an embarrassment to our country.
Greg Kuperberg
Gary W. Swearingen <unde...@comcast.net> wrote:
>gr...@conifold.math.ucdavis.edu (Greg Kuperberg) writes:
>> As they say, war can be a necessary evil. Manned spaceflight
>> in support of curiosity is unnecessary recklessness.
>You're real concerned about space astronomy's cost in deaths.
No, I'm not all that concerned. I'm just saying that the Evel Knievel
aspect of the space shuttle is a minus.
>How about considering it's cost in lives?
Yes, the cost of the space shuttle is an even bigger minus. And so is
the fact that Hubble isn't exactly what astronomers wanted. Among other
problems, it has a poor orbit.
Given that the space shuttle will supposedly have a few more flights,
then on balance I would have preferred one more Hubble service flight
to these pointless ISS missions. The ISS missions aren't actually
going be much safer anyway. The ISS needs to be nearby to meet safety
*requirements*, which is not the same thing as actual safety.
My point is just that the Hubble cancellation does have a significant
silver lining. Maybe space telescopes should be funded and maybe they
shouldn't. I think that some of them should. Either way, in the future
they won't be compromised by a bad launch system.
Dick Morris
Enormous amounts of costly, complicated equipment are required to get
you to 35,000 feet in a 747. You wouldn't last very long there either.
G EddieA95
>presumably be even more so when human beings return to the Moon or set
>off for Mars.
>
>Should NASA therefore tell Bush that his grand plan is too dangerous for
No, I didn't say that. The human risk IMO is acceptable, and I think Hubble
should be fixed, even if we have to use a rented Progress+Soyuz to do it. I
was jut taking issue with "not inherently dangerous."
Believe is or not, it is OK to admit that something is dangerous. We just have
to defend the value of the risk.
G EddieA95
>you to 35,000 feet in a 747. You wouldn't last very long there either.
But it is not scrapped after each use, and that keeps the "inherent cost" down.
If we return to the Apollo capsule, I for one believe that what improvements
exist since 1969 in access to space, will vanish.
James Matthews
Stephen Souter <s.so...@edfac.usyd.edu.au> wrote:
> Hubble itself cost $1.5 billion (and doubtless more in today's dollars).
> Does "one of those servicing missions" add up to that?
No, but most of that cost was for design work that would not be repeated
for replacement telescopes. That's one reason it was smart of NASA to
send twin rovers to Mars; once you've spent the bulk of the budget
designing a piece of space hardware it's comparatively cheap to make a
duplicate.
> Why would the concept of being able to service a thing so as to extend
> its lifespan or its capabilities be considered a "bug"?
If a service call costs twice as much as building a new thing (with an
even longer lifespan and even better capabilities) then insisting on
servicing rather than replacement is a bug.
> If human beings could roam space with more or less the same freedom (and
> not much greater cost than the way) we now roam the Earth,
That would be wonderful, but it isn't the reality we live in. Sending
astronauts to Hubble is like you (in Australia) flying a repairman in
from Tokyo to fix your microwave oven; you're better off buying a new
microwave.
Greg Kuperberg
James Matthews <matt...@fetchsoftworks.com> wrote:
>> Hubble itself cost $1.5 billion (and doubtless more in today's dollars).
>> Does "one of those servicing missions" add up to that?
>No, but most of that cost was for design work that would not be repeated
>for replacement telescopes.
This is true, although really the best idea is entirely new kinds of
telescopes, e.g., Chandra and JWST.
>Sending astronauts to Hubble is like you (in Australia) flying a
>repairman in from Tokyo to fix your microwave oven; you're better off
>buying a new microwave.
I've heard an astrophysicist similarly describe the shuttle program as
"milk and eggs delivered by Rolls Royce." His position on it at the
time was that astronomers should thank NASA for the milk and eggs and not
worry about the mode of delivery. Now he might see it differently, I'm
not sure.
Dick Morris
An Apollo CM derivative, or look-alike, could certainly be made
reusable. It could also be launched on a reusable vehicle.
The improvements are vanishingly small already. The Shuttle is more
expensive, and probably less reliable, than what we had back then. I
submit that abandoning what was known to work, in favor of a complex,
winged design, had something to do with that.
Joann Evans
There are safety issues, yes, but they don't use that phrase. Neither
is it done in terrestrial shipping of hazardous materials.
Is flying a shuttle carrying a fueled Centaur in the payload bay
(originally indended to launch Galileo) more dangerous than driving a
tanker truck full of gasoline? I don't know, but one surely takes
additional safety-related steps, compared to inert cargo....
Joann Evans
>
> > Space flight isn't *inherently* dangerous or expensive. (though the
> >*shuttle* in particular, is some of both).
>
> It's inherently dangerous in that human beings are taken to a deadly
> environment where lots of engineering effort is needed to keep them alive.
Gee, I'd better stop riding those commercial aircraft that fly where
I can't possibly breathe, and I don't even have the option to bail
out...espically in the case of the Concorde, but that's gone away, too.
(but for economic, not safety reasons)
> It's inherently expensive in that enormous amounts of costly, complicated
> equipment is needed to get there and back, and (now that Shuttle is going away)
> will be thrown away after each flight.
As I said, one needs a better, more robust vehicle.
Joann Evans
Decades later, we should be able to do better than either...
IMHO, an Apollo-like capsule is fine for a spacs station lifeboat, or
the crew module of a lunar lander (resembling some of the Apollo EOR and
Direct Ascent concepts, but single stage down to Lunar surface and back
to orbit), but riding ballistic capsules on expendables merely to reach
LEO, should remain in the history books.
Jon Berndt
> IMHO, an Apollo-like capsule is fine for a spacs station lifeboat, or
> the crew module of a lunar lander (resembling some of the Apollo EOR and
> Direct Ascent concepts, but single stage down to Lunar surface and back
> to orbit), but riding ballistic capsules on expendables merely to reach
> LEO, should remain in the history books.
Why? Even if it (capsule to LEO) is cheaper? Or, is your statement a hope
that we could find an airliner-type routine/reusable vehicle that is
economical to fill that need?
Jon
Ool
> msu10...@aol.com (MSu1049321) wrote in
> news:20040122223819...@mb-m07.aol.com:
> > A visible inspection can be done without going to the station. They
> > can do it with an attachment to the canadarm, which they didn't put on
> > Columbia. And there are remote free-flying cams like the
> > Aercam/Sprint, already available or relatively easy to make with off
> > the shelf parts, that can inspect any areas the arm cam would miss.
> And what the hell good is standalone inspection, if you can't repair the
> damage...?
You could decide to leave the Shuttle and the astronauts at ISS and
have the Russians take them back down, one by one...
Complicated, I'll admit, and crowded. But imagine their being stuck
near Hubble instead, with only Shuttle resources to tide them over and
no means of returning on their own...
And besides, ISS missions just aren't something the cancelation of
which the US can decide on their own. Hubble is.
If only there *were* a means of bringing the astronauts down some oth-
er way then they could go repair Hubble, leave the decommissioned
Shuttle in orbit, and take a re-entry capsule back down... Or maybe
not! Who knows whose heads the orbiter would fall on one day, with
all those heat-resistant tiles on...
--
__ “A good leader knows when it’s best to ignore the __
('__`> screams for help and focus on the bigger picture.” <'__`)
//6(6; ©OOL mmiv :^)^\\
`\_-/ http://home.t-online.de/home/ulrich.schreglmann/redbaron \-_/'
Ool
> Which would all be very well if the kind of car you preferred could only
> ever be used once, had a limited range of destinations it could take you
> to (the ones preset in the factory), and once it's taken you there ha to
> be discarded because it could not be service or refueled (although it
> might well exceed its specs and go a few miles farther before breaking
> down or running out of fuel). Next time you needed a car you have to go
> down to the automotive supply centre and buy a new one.
Reminds me of the covered wagons the West was won in. They certainly
weren't built to last longer than until their destination was reached.
Locomotives and railroads came later, when there were already places
to go to.
Cars in which you can make a trip from coast to coast and back came
much, much, much, much later.
And let me remind you that while your car could take you from the East
Coast to the West Coast and back today--two hundred years ago it
couldn't have, even if it had been today's technology.
Maybe mining oxygen on the Moon and building a few refueling stations
in space might be a good idea *before* we build a vehicle that can fly
across astronomical distances and back. What do you think?
Ool
> >>If you want to play Evel Knievel on your own time and with your own
> >>contraptions, then hey, it's a free country.
> >Evil Knievel does much riskier things than a Shuttle flight.
> Not especially. Evel Knievel (note spelling) made dozens, maybe
> hundreds of motorcycle jumps, and he didn't even ONCE get killed :-).
Does that statistic count other daredevils, too, who did similar
stunts as he?
> If you take his most famous, most dangerous jumps, there were still at
> least a dozen of those. Even those then were not much more dangerous
> than a shuttle flight, where the risk of death is historically 1 in 50.
This is all besides the point. The point is that no alternative for
the Shuttle exists. The Shuttle itself wouldn't have had to be evil.
The fact that it was all they did for decades, ever since Apollo was
canceled, is the evil thing.
Hubble's demise is the result of American manned space exploration
having been dead for a long time, other than for that expensive Shut-
tle thingy, incapable of taking us anywhere in space that can be rea-
sonably called "anywhere." (Like the Prez said: Distance from D.C.
to Boston is as high up as we got in the last 30 years.)
It took a tragic accident to eventually make the house of cards col-
lapse, and it's better late than never to pick up doing some serious
space travel once again.
There'll be other Hubbles, once we have the means for launching them
cheaply. Or once we can put them where they are just a little walk
away from a manned space station--or moonbase. And the sooner we work
on that, the better...
Ool
> "Joann Evans" wrote:
Personally I'd like to see such a thing for the sole reason that it
might be able to take me from Europe to Australia in four hours.
Is there a chance of suborbital jet/rocket hybrid planes ever being
built, I wonder? They'd be a practical mode of transport and they
might bridge the gap between aviation and space flight, too.
But now I'm dreaming, meaning I have no idea how practical that is...
Ool
> G EddieA95 wrote:
> > > Space flight isn't *inherently* dangerous or expensive. (though the
> > >*shuttle* in particular, is some of both).
> > It's inherently dangerous in that human beings are taken to a deadly
> > environment where lots of engineering effort is needed to keep them alive.
> Gee, I'd better stop riding those commercial aircraft that fly where
> I can't possibly breathe, and I don't even have the option to bail
> out...espically in the case of the Concorde, but that's gone away, too.
> (but for economic, not safety reasons)
I'm wondering, though, whether the fact that they eventually had one
Concorde crash after all these decades didn't significantly contribute
to its demise, adding a psychological element...
People tend to make decisions based on anecdotes, rather than numbers.
I think the Shuttle proves that.
--
__ "A good leader knows when it's best to ignore the __
('__`> screams for help and focus on the bigger picture." <'__`)
//6(6; 呢OL mmiv :^)^\\
`\_-/ http://home.t-online.de/home/ulrich.schreglmann/redbaron \-_/'
Jorge R. Frank
news:bv8026$523$01$1...@news.t-online.com:
> "Jorge R. Frank" <jrf...@ibm-pc.borg> wrote in message
> news:Xns9478E1EF...@204.52.135.40...
>> msu10...@aol.com (MSu1049321) wrote in
>> news:20040122223819...@mb-m07.aol.com:
>
>> > A visible inspection can be done without going to the station. They
>> > can do it with an attachment to the canadarm, which they didn't put
>> > on Columbia. And there are remote free-flying cams like the
>> > Aercam/Sprint, already available or relatively easy to make with
>> > off the shelf parts, that can inspect any areas the arm cam would
>> > miss.
>
>> And what the hell good is standalone inspection, if you can't repair
>> the damage...?
>
> You could decide to leave the Shuttle and the astronauts at ISS and
> have the Russians take them back down, one by one...
We were talking about non-ISS flights. On such missions, reaching ISS would
be impossible.
--
JRF
Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.
Dick Morris
Would you object to riding a ballistic RLV?
Ool
> "Ool" <ulrich.sc...@t-online.de> wrote in
> news:bv8026$523$01$1...@news.t-online.com:
> > "Jorge R. Frank" <jrf...@ibm-pc.borg> wrote in message
> > news:Xns9478E1EF...@204.52.135.40...
> >> msu10...@aol.com (MSu1049321) wrote in
> >> news:20040122223819...@mb-m07.aol.com:
> >> > A visible inspection can be done without going to the station. They
> >> > can do it with an attachment to the canadarm, which they didn't put
> >> > on Columbia. And there are remote free-flying cams like the
> >> > Aercam/Sprint, already available or relatively easy to make with
> >> > off the shelf parts, that can inspect any areas the arm cam would
> >> > miss.
> >> And what the hell good is standalone inspection, if you can't repair
> >> the damage...?
> > You could decide to leave the Shuttle and the astronauts at ISS and
> > have the Russians take them back down, one by one...
> We were talking about non-ISS flights. On such missions, reaching ISS would
> be impossible.
I know. That's my point, which is that flights to ISS might be ac-
ceptable while flights elsewhere are not, in which they could find
themselves in a situation of either suffocating or choosing to break
apart on re-entry after they've discovered their heat shield is de-
fect.
Chosp
"Karl Hallowell" <kha...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c582c1e3.04012...@posting.google.com...
> The Hubble is worse. It's unique and requires $200-500 million dollars
> (the incremental cost of a shuttle mission) missions to replace parts.
> I'd rather boast about a limited vehicle that doesn't need repair than
> one that needs consistently hundreds of millions of dollars for repair
> missions.
You neglect to mention the fact that the Hubble servicing missions did
not merely maintain Hubble but each one improved it ten-fold - keeping
it ahead of everyone else. Because of this it remains at the the very
front end of astronomical research. The next (already planned) servicing
mission would once again improve Hubble's productivity by another ten-fold.
This would keep it at the forefront for the remainder of its operational
life.
To imply otherwise is disingenuous.
> You neglect to mention that the cost of an 8 meter ground-based
> telescope is vastly cheaper than a space-based telescope these days.
> For example, the two 10 meter Keck telescopes cost around $180 million
> to "develope" according to here.
You neglect to mention that none of these telescopes will ever be
able to see in the ultraviolet range whatsoever. Hubble can.
The already built Cosmic Origins Spectrograph is the most powerful
ultraviolet spectrograph ever built and sits waiting to be installed on
Hubble. There already exists more than $180 million worth of equipment
now in existence waiting. You are advocating throwing a Keck's worth of
existing cameras and detectors away.
Chosp
"Ool" <ulrich.sc...@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:bv8027$523$01$2...@news.t-online.com...
> "Greg Kuperberg" <gr...@conifold.math.ucdavis.edu> wrote in message
news:bv4pf5$gj6$1...@conifold.math.ucdavis.edu...
.
>
> There'll be other Hubbles,
No, there won't.
Even if there were, it is not sufficient reason to throw
it away before it has even reached its scientific peak.
> once we have the means for launching them
> cheaply.
That is not, by any means, guaranteed to occur.
Cheap access to space may simply never occur.
Then we'll have neither.
>Or once we can put them where they are just a little walk
> away from a manned space station--or moonbase.
Once again, space telescopes have fewer pointing constraints
than surface based telescopes. If they are on the northern hemisphere
- the view of the southern sky is limited. If they are on the southern
hemisphere - the view of the northern sky is limited. If they are on the
equator - the view of either pole is limited. You can't view due south
or north because of ambient light scatter from the surface.
Hubble, and other space-based telescopes can view either pole
continuously. It doesn't undergo structural deformations due
to gravity as it would on the moon's surface. The moon's slow rate
of rotation precludes whole classes of observations which can be
easily accomplished in space.
There would unquestionably be greater vibration on a surface
mounted telescope than one in orbit.
Mounting large telescopes on a space station would cause too much
vibration, contamination, and light pollution in addition to the
pointing constraints already mentioned. The station would block
at least half the view.
A telescope and a space station in the same orbit will not maintain
their positions relative to each other for any length of time.
Adding control jets to a telescope increases contamination.
One complaint by every one of the moonwalking astronauts was
that no matter what they did - the incredibly fine and abrasive dust
got into everything they tried to work with and got all over the inside
of the lunar modules. It wore out their spacesuits much quicker
than expected. It turned out to be much finer and much more
abrasive than earth dust and got into everything. The risk of dust
contamination is considerably greater for any telescope on the
moon's surface than for an equivalent one in space.
Radio telescopes on the farside are an altogether different issue.
The radio-quiet nature of the farside offers a truly pristine view
in radio frequencies. For the short term anyway.
Dust contamination would be inherently less debilitating on much
larger arrays. They can also be scaled up much more inexpensively
than optical telescopes.
A communications link with earth from the fareside
would be quite expensive - especially if one wants to preserve
its radio quiet nature. I expect laying a cable link would be
quite a challenge.
None of this applies, of course, to the near term.
Or even mid-term, I suspect.
Ool
> That is not, by any means, guaranteed to occur.
> Cheap access to space may simply never occur.
> Then we'll have neither [space telescopes nor space exploration].
And once again the question is: If space travel will never be afford-
able enough for us to leave--even before the Sun burns out or a comet
strikes, what's the point of even looking at galaxies far, far away?
(Mind you, I don't believe it won't be. *You* put "never" into a non-
conditional clause not I!)
I'm not saying I'm not for looking. But only if we're going, too.
So far all we've been doing for over thirty years is look. If focus-
ing on going means that we'll blink for a moment in the great staring
contest of Ourselves vs. the Universe, then so be it!
> Once again, space telescopes have fewer pointing constraints
> than surface based telescopes.
Speaking of planets and moons obscuring the view, think what a Hubble
in GEO could do, with no Earth *or* Moon significantly in the way! I
don't think we have any means of taking and maintaining a telescope in
GEO, though, do we? 550km is as high as we got for three decades, all
the while ogling billions of light years into deep space.
It's like never going out of the house, all the while gazing out the
skylight window, because we dare not move for fear of missing a shoot-
ing star. And when we see one, what do we do then? Make a wish to
see another one?
Karl Hallowell
> Karl Hallowell wrote:
>
>
> > The Hubble is worse. It's unique and requires $200-500 million dollars
> > (the incremental cost of a shuttle mission) missions to replace parts.
> > I'd rather boast about a limited vehicle that doesn't need repair than
> > one that needs consistently hundreds of millions of dollars for repair
> > missions.
>
> vehicles to carry crews up for routine repairs (and other uses) not for
> big satellites that are abandoned at the first signifigant malfunction.
>
> Space flight isn't *inherently* dangerous or expensive. (though the
> of the problem.
The economic conditions aren't going to improve within the next five
to ten years which optimistically is the lifetime of the Hubble
telescope. Also recall that the Hubble was designed to be maintained
by the Space Shuttle and has served as the excuse for several
maintenance/repair missions (three or four, right?). The economics of
Hubble don't make sense and never did. We could send up multiple James
Webb telescopes for the price of a Hubble.
A decade from now, this might change. But for now, I think it would be
virtual impossible to justify missions that require manned maintenance
except for extreme military applications (like an orbiting nuclear
weapons platform). In other words, the project would have to be
multibillion dollars in value to replace (or have a very high
liability cost if something goes wrong) in order to justify the repair
expenses. Hubble just doesn't. The replacement costs are low relative
to the costs of a repair mission.
Karl Hallowell
kha...@hotmail.com
Karl Hallowell
> "Karl Hallowell" <kha...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:c582c1e3.04012...@posting.google.com...
>
> > The Hubble is worse. It's unique and requires $200-500 million dollars
> > (the incremental cost of a shuttle mission) missions to replace parts.
> > I'd rather boast about a limited vehicle that doesn't need repair than
> > one that needs consistently hundreds of millions of dollars for repair
> > missions.
>
> You neglect to mention the fact that the Hubble servicing missions did
> not merely maintain Hubble but each one improved it ten-fold - keeping
> it ahead of everyone else. Because of this it remains at the the very
> front end of astronomical research. The next (already planned) servicing
> mission would once again improve Hubble's productivity by another ten-fold.
> This would keep it at the forefront for the remainder of its operational
> life.
IMHO, only the first repair mission could be claimed to increase the
productivity "ten-fold" since it improved the natural resolution of
the Hubble telescope for all instruments from around 1 arc-second to
0.1 arc-seconds (by compensating for the perfectly-flawed mirror).
What metric are you using to justify the claim of "ten-fold"
improvements for the other missions?
> To imply otherwise is disingenuous.
If you say so.
> > You neglect to mention that the cost of an 8 meter ground-based
> > telescope is vastly cheaper than a space-based telescope these days.
> > For example, the two 10 meter Keck telescopes cost around $180 million
> > to "develope" according to here.
>
> You neglect to mention that none of these telescopes will ever be
> able to see in the ultraviolet range whatsoever. Hubble can.
> The already built Cosmic Origins Spectrograph is the most powerful
> ultraviolet spectrograph ever built and sits waiting to be installed on
> Hubble. There already exists more than $180 million worth of equipment
> now in existence waiting. You are advocating throwing a Keck's worth of
> existing cameras and detectors away.
It is true that Hubble fills a need in ultraviolet (James Webb is
apparently visible and infrared). But the atmosphere is somewhat
transparent to ultraviolet (particularly the lower frequencies). For
example, Keck does observe in part of the ultraviolet range. Eg,
here's a press release discussing an improvement of Keck's
spectrometer in the ultraviolet range:
http://www2.keck.hawaii.edu/news/hires.html
The Cosmic Origins Spectrograph is a sunk cost. NASA has apparently
(with some cause IMHO) decided that the Hubble is too expensive
(economically or politically) to justify another mission.
OTOH, I must agree with the unmanned exploration people in that the
Shuttle and the ISS have proven to be a disaster for space-based
science. I sympathize with the Hubble proponents, but it doesn't make
sense to repair the telescope, when one can launch an better telescope
for so little or make several huge ground-based telescopes for the
price of a maintenance mission.
Karl Hallowell
kha...@hotmail.com
Chosp
> IMHO, only the first repair mission could be claimed to increase the
> productivity "ten-fold" since it improved the natural resolution of
> the Hubble telescope for all instruments from around 1 arc-second to
> 0.1 arc-seconds (by compensating for the perfectly-flawed mirror).
> What metric are you using to justify the claim of "ten-fold"
> improvements for the other missions?
http://hubble.gsfc.nasa.gov/downloads/sm4/fact_sheet_SM4_manifest_21.pdf
http://hubble.gsfc.nasa.gov/downloads/sm4/COS_facts2.pdf
http://hubble.gsfc.nasa.gov/downloads/sm4/WFC3_facts1.pdf
http://hubble.gsfc.nasa.gov/servicing-missions/sm4.html
> It is true that Hubble fills a need in ultraviolet (James Webb is
> apparently visible and infrared). But the atmosphere is somewhat
> transparent to ultraviolet (particularly the lower frequencies).
Hubble has almost 10 times the frequency range across the
spectrum as does JWST. The only component of Hubble which is
outdone by JWST is NICMOS ( Hubble's infrared detector).
http://hubble.gsfc.nasa.gov/downloads/sm4/NICMOS_facts3.pdf
> For example, Keck does observe in part of the ultraviolet range. Eg,
> here's a press release discussing an improvement of Keck's
> spectrometer in the ultraviolet range:
>
> http://www2.keck.hawaii.edu/news/hires.html
Keck neither duplicates nor even remotely compares to the
performance of Hubble in the ultraviolet and it will, with certainty,
not replace its ultraviolet capablilies - ever.
http://hubble.gsfc.nasa.gov/downloads/sm4/STIS_facts3.pdf
http://hubble.gsfc.nasa.gov/downloads/sm4/COS_facts2.pdf
> The Cosmic Origins Spectrograph is a sunk cost.
Only if needlessly abandoned.
> NASA has apparently
> (with some cause IMHO) decided that the Hubble is too expensive
> (economically or politically) to justify another mission.
If they (and you) are too timid and wimpy to finish Hubble, they
(and you) couldn't be expected to magically raise the courage
to subsequently complete anything else worthwhile.
> OTOH, I must agree with the unmanned exploration people in that the
> Shuttle and the ISS have proven to be a disaster for space-based
> science. I sympathize with the Hubble proponents, but it doesn't make
> sense to repair the telescope, when one can launch an better telescope
> for so little
Please point me to a "better telescope for so little".
or make several huge ground-based telescopes for the
> price of a maintenance mission.
Those ground based telescopes would not have the
anywhere near the spectral range of Hubble.
None of them will work in the ultraviolet.
All of them have greater pointing constraints than Hubble.
The highest resolution images of space
continue to come from Hubble. After the servicing mission
that would continue for Hubble's predicted operational
lifetime.
Without a servicing mission, the expectation that Hubble
will remain fully functional is somewhere around 50%
at the end of 2005 and 30% at the end of 2006.
JWST, at the very earliest, launches in 2011. It is
a very experimental telescope. There is no guarantee
that the mirror will unfold correctly. Nobody has tried to
unfold a 6 meter segmented mirror in space. This is
not like unfolding a radio antenna. The tolerances are
a world apart. No one can go fix it if it is off by even
a hair. Just enough to render it useless.
Once again, they are throwing away the crown jewels
for a promise of pie in the sky.
Karl Hallowell
> "Karl Hallowell" <kha...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
<snip>
> Hubble has almost 10 times the frequency range across the
> spectrum as does JWST. The only component of Hubble which is
> outdone by JWST is NICMOS ( Hubble's infrared detector).
> http://hubble.gsfc.nasa.gov/downloads/sm4/NICMOS_facts3.pdf
>
> > For example, Keck does observe in part of the ultraviolet range. Eg,
> > here's a press release discussing an improvement of Keck's
> > spectrometer in the ultraviolet range:
> >
> > http://www2.keck.hawaii.edu/news/hires.html
>
> Keck neither duplicates nor even remotely compares to the
> performance of Hubble in the ultraviolet and it will, with certainty,
> not replace its ultraviolet capablilies - ever.
> http://hubble.gsfc.nasa.gov/downloads/sm4/STIS_facts3.pdf
> http://hubble.gsfc.nasa.gov/downloads/sm4/COS_facts2.pdf
Good rebuttal.
> > The Cosmic Origins Spectrograph is a sunk cost.
>
> Only if needlessly abandoned.
Actually, it's a sunk cost whether or not it is used. The point is
that if a less costly alternative is found, then one shouldn't stick
will the other just because they spent the money. However, putting
together what else you've said, there's a convincing argument to
install this instrument.
> > NASA has apparently
> > (with some cause IMHO) decided that the Hubble is too expensive
> > (economically or politically) to justify another mission.
>
> If they (and you) are too timid and wimpy to finish Hubble, they
> (and you) couldn't be expected to magically raise the courage
> to subsequently complete anything else worthwhile.
I think it's fairly clear that it's not lack of courage which is the
problem here, but rather apathy. The politicians don't care how many
space telescopes exist or how well they work as long as there's one in
space. My take is that Hubble has been used as an excuse for more
space shuttle missions and is overly expensive for the mission it
performs. OTOH, that expense is a sunk cost and that repair mission
seems better to me now than merely letting things go.
> > OTOH, I must agree with the unmanned exploration people in that the
> > Shuttle and the ISS have proven to be a disaster for space-based
> > science. I sympathize with the Hubble proponents, but it doesn't make
> > sense to repair the telescope, when one can launch an better telescope
> > for so little
>
> Please point me to a "better telescope for so little".
Hmm, given that the JWST is far more vaporware than I realized, I must
give up on that matter.
> or make several huge ground-based telescopes for the
> > price of a maintenance mission.
>
> Those ground based telescopes would not have the
> anywhere near the spectral range of Hubble.
> None of them will work in the ultraviolet.
> All of them have greater pointing constraints than Hubble.
> The highest resolution images of space
> continue to come from Hubble. After the servicing mission
> that would continue for Hubble's predicted operational
> lifetime.
> Without a servicing mission, the expectation that Hubble
> will remain fully functional is somewhere around 50%
> at the end of 2005 and 30% at the end of 2006.
> JWST, at the very earliest, launches in 2011. It is
> a very experimental telescope. There is no guarantee
> that the mirror will unfold correctly. Nobody has tried to
> unfold a 6 meter segmented mirror in space. This is
> not like unfolding a radio antenna. The tolerances are
> a world apart. No one can go fix it if it is off by even
> a hair. Just enough to render it useless.
> Once again, they are throwing away the crown jewels
> for a promise of pie in the sky.
I think these are good points for preserving Hubble's lifespan perhaps
even ten or more years ahead. I still think the incorporation of the
Shuttle for launching and maintaining of the telescope was a
tremendous mistake, but it's one made long ago. The plan to detach the
scientific arm of NASA from the rest of the program makes more sense
to me all the time.
Another thing is that people should be prepared for future
interuptions of manned travel. For example, if both the US and Russian
programs experience accidents, then that will halt (depending on how
long the Russians stay out) manned travel for at least two years on
the US side.
Karl Hallowell
kha...@hotmail.com
Chosp
> I think these are good points for preserving Hubble's lifespan perhaps
> even ten or more years ahead.
I'm actually very glad to hear that.
The following is an abridged version of a recent discovery announcement
to further demonstrate the value and cutting edge nature of Hubble's
current ultraviolet capability:
OXYGEN AND CARBON DISCOVERED IN EXOPLANET ATMOSPHERE 'BLOW OFF'
From Lori Stiles, UA News Services, 520-621-1877, lst...@u.arizona.edu
February 2, 2004
An international team of astronomers has for the first time detected oxygen
and carbon in the atmosphere of a planet beyond our solar system.
Astronomers led by Alfred Vidal-Madjar of the Institut d農strophysique de
Paris, CNRS, France, used the Hubble Space Telescope for observations of the
planet, called HD 209458b, in October and November 2003. They used Hubble零
sensitive ultraviolet spectrograph to probe the structure and chemical
make-up of the planet零 atmosphere during the transits. Such observations
can only be made from space because Earth零 ozone layer filters out UV
light.
Stephen Souter
Dick Morris <richard....@boeing.com> wrote:
> G EddieA95 wrote:
> >
> > >Enormous amounts of costly, complicated equipment are required to get
> > >you to 35,000 feet in a 747. You wouldn't last very long there either.
> >
> > But it is not scrapped after each use, and that keeps the "inherent cost"
> > down.
> > If we return to the Apollo capsule, I for one believe that what
> > improvements
> > exist since 1969 in access to space, will vanish.
>
> An Apollo CM derivative, or look-alike, could certainly be made
> reusable. It could also be launched on a reusable vehicle.
>
> The improvements are vanishingly small already. The Shuttle is more
> expensive, and probably less reliable, than what we had back then.
One of the reasons the shuttle was more expensive was because it was
expected to be able to do more. It could accommodate a crew of 10 in
more comfort than an Apollo CM. It could also carry a more substantial
payload into LEO than an Apollo CM, although not as much as a Saturn V,
of course.
Another reason was its reuseability. For example, it did not need to
have its heatshield completely replaced after every mission, as would
probably have had to be done had anyone attempted to reuse an Apollo CM.
Had NASA attempted to engineer an Apollo CM to last as long as a shuttle
was expected to last its cost would doubtless have shot up too.
As for reliability....
Well, the figures speak for themselves. There have been over 100 shuttle
flights over 20 years with two losses. If you count Apollo 1, Apollo had
loss and one near-loss (Apollo 13) over a period of six years. The
shuttle has lost two over 20 years.
More lives have certainly been lost overall with the shuttle, but mainly
because the shuttle carried more people. Had Apollo carried a crew of
seven, seven lives would have been lost in the Apollo 1 fire and seven
would have been held in the balance on Apollo 13.
That said, the shuttle is probably the more *dangerous* to fly, in part
because of those sold-rocket boosters. Once they're lit either they take
you into orbit or they go BOOM. They cannot be shut off. There is also
nothing equivalent to Apollo's escape tower.
But that I guess was the trade off NASA made to launch something the
size of the shuttle orbiter into orbit. What NASA should have done was
to either make the entire crew compartment ejectable or have the crew
ride into orbit in part of it that was. But that, of course, would have
only increased the complexity of the shuttle and therefore its cost.
In any case, in the longer term there may well be no real solution so
long as rockets are used to launch people into orbit. People forget, for
example, that if a Boeing 747 were to blow up or disintegrate in
mid-air, there would almost certainly be no survivors either. If ever
NASA or anybody else starts launching 100 or 200 people into orbit in
one vehicle the same will doubtless apply.
--
Stephen Souter
s.so...@edfac.usyd.edu.au
http://www.edfac.usyd.edu.au/staff/souters/
Terrell Miller
> That said, the shuttle is probably the more *dangerous* to fly, in part
> because of those sold-rocket boosters. Once they're lit either they take
> you into orbit or they go BOOM. They cannot be shut off.
I thought there was a long pyro string down the side of the casing that
would basically "open up" the entire SRB, the point of which would be to
rapidly (i.e. within ten seconds) zero out the thrust...
--
Terrell Miller
mill...@bellsouth.net
"It's one thing to burn down the shit house and another thing entirely to
install plumbing"
-PJ O'Rourke
Jorge R. Frank
news:HGuVb.27323$qK3....@bignews3.bellsouth.net:
> "Stephen Souter" <s.so...@edfac.usyd.edu.au> wrote in message
> news:c04nnm$lhk$1...@spacebar.ucc.usyd.edu.au...
>
>> That said, the shuttle is probably the more *dangerous* to fly, in part
>> because of those sold-rocket boosters. Once they're lit either they take
>> you into orbit or they go BOOM. They cannot be shut off.
>
> I thought there was a long pyro string down the side of the casing that
> would basically "open up" the entire SRB, the point of which would be to
> rapidly (i.e. within ten seconds) zero out the thrust...
Yes, the Range Safety Destruct (RSD) packages. However, they would also
have the effect of rupturing the external tank, and destroying the orbiter.
The purpose of RSD is to protect innocent third parties on the ground, not
the crew.
Henry Spencer
Terrell Miller <mill...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> because of those sold-rocket boosters. Once they're lit either they take
>> you into orbit or they go BOOM. They cannot be shut off.
>
>I thought there was a long pyro string down the side of the casing that
>would basically "open up" the entire SRB, the point of which would be to
>rapidly (i.e. within ten seconds) zero out the thrust...
Approximately correct. Unfortunately, this isn't a gentle, gradual event.
When you fire that shaped charge, it slices the SRB casing open, i.e. it
destroys the structural integrity of a very large pressure vessel. The
result is **!!KABOOM!!** with pieces of SRB casing and flaming fuel flying
everywhere a fraction of a second later.
If you do this with the stack still together, it's virtually certain to
destroy the ET as well. (Which is why there are no longer destruct
charges on the ET.) And if the orbiter hasn't already broken up, that will
almost certainly throw it violently out of control, and *that* will break
it up... which is what happened to Challenger after its ET disintegrated.
This is a destruct system, not just a way of shutting the SRBs down.
There *are* somewhat less drastic ways of terminating thrust of a solid
motor. Unfortunately, they are only *somewhat* less drastic; using them
is still a fairly violent event. NASA chose solid boosters for the
shuttle on the assumption that SRB thrust termination was feasible... but
later engineering analysis said that the orbiter and ET wouldn't survive.
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. | he...@spsystems.net