Yes, sad indeed, and it doesn't make sense to me either. First of all, the risk involved...NASA is going to fly many more missions to the ISS using the remaining shuttles, so why could they not squeeze two missions into one flight? Then, the so called huge cost to service it etc. From what I've read, all that needs replacing are 4 of the 7 gyroscopes, the batteries, and a few other small-ish things here and there. According to that report it will cost them $75 million to bring Hubble safely back down to Earth, and $93 million to keep it operational. Can they really not find the $18 million extra that is needed, or even try to get that amount from sponsors? Then there are the new instruments that NASA have already made that were planned for installation in Hubble - what about all the money spent on those that will now most likely be scrapped?
Now that makes a lot of sense, they could surly get $18 in corporate sponsorship easily. Huge big Intel/AMD sign on the side.
Don't laugh, with the way the Amreican government is cutting science budgets, this is a real consideration. Large, private companies may be the only way to keep space exploration alive.
Well, I can't say anything for certain, but I can provide a little bit of insight based on what I hear around the water cooler. This really isn't possible. Remember, space exploration is largely an international effort nowadays. One of the biggest problems facing the missions is crew time. Each country has their share of experiments to perform, and the space station alone requires enough maintenance to last a long while. Nearly every moment the crew is on board is accounted for with some task, counted down to the minute. It would be very difficult for the US to tell the other countries that their crew time allocations are no longer a priority because we want to fix the Hubble while we're up there. Second, I think the added complications of trying to fix the Hubble, then flying over to the spae station would make the possibilities even more remote. This is the world of technology and government spending. 4 gyroscopes and a couple batteries cost millions upon millions of dollars, money that simply isn't there anymore. We would love nothing more than to get a blank check from congress. Unfortunately, the general public isn't too keen on the whole space exploration thing, so when the NASA funding comes up, congress gives in to public pressure and cuts a lot of the needed funds. "How could that possibly benefit us down here?" is a common question. Fact is, the amount of science and technology we have today that is a direct result of NASA research is amazing. All is not lost, though. I hear there is a newer telescope in development. And, the current plan has new vehicles replacing the shuttles around the 2011 mark, give or take a year or two (the current fleet is due to retire in 2010, I believe). Things are becomming exciting with the return to flight, and new progress is being made every day. We got to listen to a presentation today that covered the major milestones for the next decade or so. Things look pretty exciting. -monkey
Good points on the '2 missions in 1' that I mentioned, and yes, even small parts would cost ridiculous amounts of money. But still, looking at the quoted figure of $95 million, that would be the total cost involved, i.e: dedicated shuttle mission, cost of replacement parts, etc. I also wonder, this $95 million, is this the cost for the more expensive robotic mission, or for a human one?
I'm not certain whether or not the projected cost is for a human or robotic mission. A robotic mission would be nice because there would be no crew constraints to think about - a moot point now that the mission has been scrapped. For some reason I keep thinking that robotic was what everyone wanted, but again, my limited knowledge of the space staion workings seems monumental compared to my knowledge of the Hubble program. I do agree that it seems like an aweful waste to scrap the Hubble. I always loved looking at all the cool deep-space images that come out of it. It just boggles my mind that scenes like that exist, and in such galactic proportions. But if a newer, better telescope is in development, I suppose the end result will be worth it. -monkey
AFAIK NASA was pushing the robotic mission because of the risk involved with the human one, whilst at the same time, complaining that the robotic mission would cost too much money. In the meantime however, the actual 'robot' has been built, and tested on a Hubble model, so there's even more money wasted. A replacement orbiting telescope is scheduled for launch in 2011 (from the report I read), but, IIRC it is designed to only last for a very small timescale compared to that of the Hubble, also, IIRC again, the replacement one will not be serviceable. Not sure about any of those points though.
more people die shoveling snow each year then NASA has lost over there lifetime.....fix hubble or we stop shoveling snow forever
