Hubble's battery and gyroscopes are failing. © NASA
Posted on 07/21/2004 7:48:54 AM PDT by balrog666
Experts say NASA should pursue rescue mission.
NASA should keep open the option of sending astronauts to fix the Hubble Space Telescope, a panel of experts advised on Tuesday.
The panel was set up by the US National Academies, at the request of NASA, to advise the agency on how best to service and prolong the life of the ageing telescope. Astronomers view Hubble as vital for spying on distant black holes and baby galaxies, and for gleaning clues about the birth of the universe.
In January, NASA administrator Sean O'Keefe said that sending astronauts to repair the telescope was too dicey after last year's Columbia disaster. But after protests from scientists and politicians, the agency said that a robotic repair mission might be possible.
The new report, which will be published in its final version later this summer or autumn, says that there are still uncertainties about a robotic rescue attempt and recommends that NASA continue to explore both robotic and manned missions. "Keeping both of these options open is a prudent thing to do," said Louis Lanzerotti, panel chair and consultant for Bell Labs, New Jersey, at a press briefing on Tuesday afternoon.
The report says that a decision on which option to pursue cannot be made until at least a year from now, but urges NASA to commit to a servicing mission and extend the life of the telescope. "I believe O'Keefe will take our report seriously," Lanzerotti said.
The panel released the interim report because a rescue mission is urgently needed to replace Hubble's failing battery and stabilizing gyroscopes. Lanzerotti said that the capabilities of manned and robotic missions to repair or add instruments to the telescope would be addressed in the final report.
Science ping please.
Work on the robotic mission is already underway, and is very feasable. Full funding will probably be authorized this October for a 2007 launch.
What NASA should give up on is the space station and the idea of manned missions to the moon and to Mars.
Why?
Oh sorry. Thought this thread was about Chelsea's Dad.
Not true.
see:
http://database.aura-astronomy.org/nv/hst_vs_ao_2.pdf
AO does seem like too good of a thing to be true. I myself had a hard time believing that any technique could be devised that would remove the advantage the HST has over any optical device that has to peer through many miles of atmosphere. The fact that AO is limited to infrared alone greatly limits its usefulness, and is a limitation I wasn't aware of until now.
I've always been a great fan of the Hubble. I consider it a program of money well spent, and we need to continue to advance our capabilities in the area of telescopy.
Thanks again!
Wrong! Save Hubble!
I agree. Or put something else in orbit that's even better.
Launch is risky, getting the observatory into proper orbit is risky, sometimes equipment doesn't work as expected, etc, etc, etc. I have high hopes for Webb, but think Hubble deserves to be saved too. Hubble is after all in orbit and doing great science, also almost to the man, the astronuat core has volunteered to do a manned mission to Hubble. I say go for it, unless a robot mission can in fact service Hubble and install the new designed for Hubble. Highly unlikely but maybe.
You are welcome. :-)
Thanks for the ping!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.