Posted on 01/29/2007 1:10:46 PM PST by Sleeping Freeper
I wonder how much it would cost to put up a Keck style telescope, (other than an astronomical amount, I mean.)
And I wonder just how far they can stretch the synthetic aperture of it.
Assuming you didn't have to service it every few years, where would you put your telescope?
It's time we let Hubble die and focus on the next generation observatories.
What next gen?
Optical? I would either use L5 or the lunar surface.
To the moon, Alice...
Yep.
If I'm not mistaken this project (below) has already been delayed. You're in a much better position than I am to say so correct me if I'm wrong. There are other observatories on the back burner because NASA is underfunded for the President's mandate for the Moon/Mars missions we both know won't happen. You also know how I feel about the waste of money on manned spaceflight as opposed to robotic missions. Wasting more money keeping Hubble limping along isn't the answer.
The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) is a large, infrared-optimized space telescope, scheduled for launch in 2013. JWST will find the first galaxies that formed in the early Universe, connecting the Big Bang to our own Milky Way Galaxy. JWST will peer through dusty clouds to see stars forming planetary systems, connecting the Milky Way to our own Solar System. JWST's instruments will be designed to work primarily in the infrared range of the electromagnetic spectrum, with some capability in the visible range.
JWST will have a large mirror, 6.5 meters (21.3 feet) in diameter and a sunshield the size of a tennis court. Both the mirror and sunshade won't fit onto the rocket fully open, so both will fold up and open only once JWST is in outer space. JWST will reside in an orbit about 1.5 million km (1 million miles) from the Earth.
The James Webb Space Telescope was named after a former NASA Administrator
If they can keep it warm until next year, Hubble will be fine for a while. That repair mission is going to be widely watched around the world...
Depending on how the election in 08 goes, it may all die and no next generation.
As I understand it, the servicing mission was planned some time ago, and was only put in question do to the shuttle observing new safety precautions. So I do not view a final servicing mission as going above and beyond trying to save a dated asset. Rather as a final extension of a unique asset that has no replacemnt on orbit now or in the near future. I am no Hubble hugger. But if we have the tools and the will, I believe the replacement hardware stand ready and safety issues covered, I see this as all together appropriate to do. Certainly the astronauts strongly wish to do this mission.
There are advantages to being in space somewhere as well. Among other things, one can point in almost any direction when one wants to.
That can be useful for catching such things as someone dropping a string of pearls.
I like the moon location too. I see an advantage there, too. If it were possible to manufacture the primary mirror there, then it wouldn't have to be transported. It would be a challenge, of course, but it could be made very, very, large.
Certainly the astronauts strongly wish to do this mission.
Astronauts strongly wish to do any mission that might further the notion they serve a useful purpose.
Don't we all?
!
I am eagerly anticipating the Webb. However, the Webb is an IR scope whereas the Hubble is visible and UV. They are complimentary as apposed to being redundant.
Hubble is important and is not being replaced.
Hubble has new trouble as I'm sure you're aware and NASA has said there will be no attempt to fix the main camera which went into safe mode Saturday. Meanwhile, this will mark the 5th Orbiter mission dedicated to Hubble repair. At more than a billion a pop it seems to me the Hubble could have been replaced with newer and better observatories for the cost of keeping it alive, especially when you consider that the Hubble's original design parameters were dictated by NASA's desire to launch it from the Shuttle.
Every article I read about the Webb observatory calls it the successor to Hubble including NASA press releases. I guess they think more knowledge can be gained from concentrating our search in the infra red than launching another "Hubble" scope.
In any case, there are several smaller projects with costs in the 300 to 500 million range languishing at NASA due to the costs associated with the Shuttle, the ISS and the president's moon/mars program. I think we would both agree the better science would come from those programs as opposed to continual funding of those 2 white elephants, the Shuttle and the ISS.
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.