Hubble Saved!

[asterroc]

*Squeeee!*

It's official, there's going to be one more mission to service Hubble in 2008!

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/oct/HQ_06343_HST_announcement.html
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/10/31/hubble/index.html
http://www.hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2006/53/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6102690.stm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15489217/

As I described in more detail elsewhere, there's a few things that I feel are crucial to a useful mission:

1. Boost the telescope's orbit


2. Replace the dying batteries


3. Replace the dying gyroscopes

Things like upgrading cameras are a bonus. Also, keep in mind that this mission does NOT solve the issue of what to do when it "dies" - re-enters the atmosphere. Parts of the main mirror will probably survive re-entry (that is, not burn up), and it's been estimated that there's up to a 1 in 700 chance of human fatality from an uncontrolled descent. NASA still has not addressed that concern.

x-posted

Comments

[galbinus-caeli.livejournal.com]

Good list.

Personally I don't see any reason Hubble should EVER be retired. Curving shiny surfaces don't go obsolete and pretty much everything else can be replaced. Yes, fifty years from now when there are mirrors in orbit ten times the size it might be less useful, but it could probably still be a teaching tool. Isn't the Lowell Telescope still in use after a century?

[zandperl.livejournal.com]

If we had infinite resources, I'd agree with you. However, I expect that at some point it will cost more to maintain Hubble than to launch new telescopes, teaching or not. Cost effectiveness must be considered - but the question is how do we measure that? Hubble's captured the hearts and imaginations of two generations of children, that alone makes it worth a lot, but still. *shrug* No easy answers here.