HST Mark II?

[Dave Mitsky]

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=16050

Personally, I think it's a great idea.

Dave Mitsky

[antoniseb]

Originally posted by Dave Mitsky@Feb 3 2005, 02:33 PM
Personally, I think it's a great idea.

Agreed, it could be made more reliable and cheaper to service than Hubble, and won't have the Perkin-Elmer flawed mirror. 1 Billion dollars is a lot of money for NASA to swallow, but if Congress ponies up the money, it shouldn't slow other projects.

[spacepunk]

if

That's a big " if " !!!!

[antoniseb]

Originally posted by spacepunk@Feb 3 2005, 07:05 PM
That's a big " if " !!!!

If it were a tiny "if" I wouldn't have mentioned it.

On the other hand, of all NASA space science missions, Hubble has certainly gotten the best public relations going for it. I can't think of another project out there that would even have a chance of getting indepentent funding.

[John L]

If the main mirror is larger than 5 meters then I'll say go for it. If it's not that big, then its a waste of money. The James Webb will be up in 2011 and have a 6.5 meter mirror, and will do the job well.

[antoniseb]

Originally posted by John L@Feb 3 2005, 07:30 PM
If the main mirror is larger than 5 meters...

Right, and it won't be. I don't think that money from other missions should be spent on a Hubble replacement. That billion dollars could build two 30-meter ground based telescopes with adaptive optics. There is little work that Hubble can do now that ground based telescopes can't do better. At this point the long deep field, and the near UV stuff are it.

James Webb Space Telescope won't cover the things that Hubble does, but it will do more important things for the current state of astronomy and cosmology than what the 25 year old Hubble can do.

But, as I noted above, Hubble has good PR, and who knows what's going to happen.

[wstevenbrown]

Great idea! Unstated behind the story is the hard reality that whoever provides funding exercises control. Has J-H considered a joint stock company? I would buy stock in such a company, and trust J-H to administer. They have demonstrated both competence and integrity

The James Webb will be up in 2011 and have a 6.5 meter mirror

That's a long wait. For an IR-optimized system. Contingent on promises by 1) US Congress and 2) NASA.

I have been patient since before Sputnik. It is now in short supply. [Insert rant about venal politicians vs. pee-pul with insectile attention spans] If we don't maintain a presence in visual-range observations; in short, if we stop making pretty, dramatic pictures, we will lose the attention of the folks footing the bill for the soi-disant cutting-edge projects-- like for instance, JWT, various interferometers and astrometric missions, various planet-detecting schemes, the Pluto-Charon flyby, gravity-wave detectors... To the degree that we can separate science from politics, we should. Best regards-- Steve

[Duane]

To the degree that we can separate science from politics, we should. Best regards-- Steve

Yep I certainly agree with that comment!

Seems to me that we've discussed this a couple of times previously in news stories that appeared about hubble. I agree that the cost of servicing Hubble would be better put to use building a new scope (or scopes) utilizing the instruments that are already built for hubble, along with the twin mirror that was made for it. The housing, electronics etc would be the only part that would need to be made.

Seems like a logical use of the money--but then again, we are dealing with politicians here!

[Erimus]

Believe it or not, though I'm in favor of another servicing mission, I'd gladly take this instead--especially if the telescope is larger than HST. I just don't want another quarter billion dollars worth of already-completed hardware sitting around gathering dust because NASA changed its mind about a servicing mission.

[Decepticon]

Originally posted by antoniseb+Feb 3 2005, 02:34 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (antoniseb @ Feb 3 2005, 02:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-John L@Feb 3 2005, 07:30 PM
If the main mirror is larger than 5 meters...

Right, and it won&#39;t be. I don&#39;t think that money from other missions should be spent on a Hubble replacement. That billion dollars could build two 30-meter ground based telescopes with adaptive optics. There is little work that Hubble can do now that ground based telescopes can&#39;t do better. At this point the long deep field, and the near UV stuff are it.

James Webb Space Telescope won&#39;t cover the things that Hubble does, but it will do more important things for the current state of astronomy and cosmology than what the 25 year old Hubble can do.

But, as I noted above, Hubble has good PR, and who knows what&#39;s going to happen. [/b][/quote]

That billion dollars could build two 30-meter ground based telescopes with adaptive optics. There is little work that Hubble can do now that ground based telescopes can&#39;t do better.

Excellent Point.

James Webb Space Telescope won&#39;t cover the things that Hubble does,

From what I understand it does not take Optical Images/Visible wavelenghts.?

[Dave Mitsky]

Ground based telescopes are not financed by NASA so the cost of a replacement for the HST won&#39;t affect such construction.

http://astro.nineplanets.org/bigeyes.html

While the JWST&#39;s spectral range does, in fact, include the visible light spectrum, it is optimised for IR so it won&#39;t have the pretty picture PR value that NASA so desperately craves for public support.

From http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/jul...bble_12-22.html

"Scientists and engineers are now building Hubble&#39;s successor, called the James Webb Space Telescope. Webb is designed to view both visible and infrared light, which is the part of the spectrum that best shows the oldest and farthest-away galaxies."

Keep in mind that the JWST is untried technology and if it fails there is no possibility of repair.

Dave Mitsky

[Decepticon]

Is there any earth based telescope in the works of resolving planets around other stars?

^ I want to see this before I kick the Bucket.

[wstevenbrown]

D:

Most of the methods proposed for actually imaging planets rely heavily on the method of interferometry-- either using one telescope of extremely large aperture, or several smaller scopes held at a precisely-maintained distance from each other. The best results from such methods can only be obtained outside the atmosphere-- and for extreme precision, outside the ecliptic plane as well.

Spectroscopic methods can be done from the ground, but even these are complicated by looking thru an atmosphere. Hope this helps. S

[Dave Mitsky]

ESA&#39;s Darwin IR interferometer supposedly will be able to detect Earth-sized extrasolar planets and to search for signs of life in their atmospheres.

http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/in...fobjectid=31167

Dave Mitsky

[hardy]

Have we reached the stage in technological ability to place a telescope on one of the poles of Mars, either North or South, that could interface with Hubble to give us a greatly extended 3 dimentional view of the universe? This would help enormously in more accurately establishing distances. Either that, or use the moon as a base for one. Preferably I would choose Mars as we could see both sides of the sun at the same time.

Another option would be to place two identical telescopes in earth&#39;s orbit around the sun, one following and the other trailing the earth, at say 50 or so million kms apart . Likewise they would be linkled to be opperated from a ground station on one of our poles so that they were precisely equidistant from that station at all times.

Ok OK, I&#39;m not paying for it, but let&#39;s drool and dream.... at 76 please allow me that... Come on NASA, you can do it... Just imagine, live 3D footage of the universe in motion.

hardy@ihug.co.nzMy Webpage

[hardy]

Have we reached the stage in technological etc. etc. Sorry folks for that booboo, everyone will have realised that having a telescope at the poles of a planet is going to limit its range to half the hemisphere of space, meaning that we&#39;ll have to have a telescope on each pole to cover the universe.

I wonder if I&#39;m eligable for 2 polo shirts for that?

[hardy]

Please accept this as a further and final correction to my original posting.

Have we reached the stage in our technological ability to successfully place telescopes on both of the poles of Mars, that could interface with Hubble to give us a greatly extended 3 dimentional view of the universe? This would help enormously in more accurately establishing distances.

Another option would be to place two identical telescopes in earth&#39;s orbit around the sun, one ahead and the other trailing the earth, at say 50 or so million kms apart. With earth in the middle and our receiving station placed so that it would monitor both telescopes at the same time, our view of the universe would be greatly enhanced.

Ok OK, I&#39;m not paying for it, but let&#39;s drool and dream.... at 76 please allow me that... Come on NASA, you can do it... Just imagine, live 3D footage of the universe, in motion. If available funding is insufficient for the whole venture then do it in stages.

Thankyou,

Davidhardy@ihug.co.nz[My Webpage

[Spacemad]

Originally posted by Dave Mitsky@Feb 3 2005, 02:33 PM
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=16050

Personally, I think it&#39;s a great idea.

Dave Mitsky

I went along to the site you provided a link to, Dave, & I, also, agree with you that itīs a good idea&#33;&#33;&#33;

[Bobunf]

Does anybody have any evidence that Hubble&#39;s pretty pictures have an effect on NASA&#39;s funding? Funding for other astronomy? For other scientific research?

Frankly, I doubt the aesthetics has any effect at all on funding.

Bob

[Dave Mitsky]

According to _Hubble Wars_ by Dr. Eric J. Chaisson, a former senior staff scientist and director of educational programs at the Space Telescope Science Institute, the unauthorized release of what I facetiously termed "pretty pictures" by non-NASA personnel is what saved the HST from being axed by Congress after the debacle of the improperly ground primary mirror came to light, so to speak.

http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/eric...ic/ericbio.html

http://www.sky-watch.com/books/chaisson1.html

http://www.setileague.org/reviews/hubble.htm

I heartily recommend this book, by the way.

Since public support is very important in maintaining Congressional funding, NASA certainly has to court favorable public opinion.

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/116/1 (see page 2)

http://neil.fraser.name/news/2003/09/22/

Dave Mitsky

[Spacemad]

Here&#39;s an interesting article on why NASA won&#39;t go ahead with the next Hubble servicing mission: Article

[Bobunf]

Very interesting article. I thought Zimmerman presented two important points very well:

First, that the cost of an extra shuttle mission is not the average mission cost (&#036;800+ million), but something much smaller; I got the feeling like between about -0- and well under &#036;300 million.

Marginal cost is not the same as average cost, and drops sharply when the number of items is small.

And second, that the timing for a shuttle mission is not tight; there&#39;s at least a year before the door closes, maybe longer. And it wouldn&#39;t cost much to keep the door open almost to 2007.

Zimmerman didn&#39;t say this, but I think that if anything happened, it could be pretty awful for anything having to do with manned space flight and would even hurt future unmanned missions.

On the other hand, if we never do anything because something might happen--that&#39;s pretty limit-ing.

Bob