Sure, Hubble’s main instrument is down, but the observatory itself isn’t out for the count just yet. A servicing mission is planned for next year, remember.
But for a while it wasn’t clear if NASA was going to give Hubble one last tune up or not. During that time, a couple of enterprising independent filmmakers put together a documentary called "Saving Hubble". The trailer is online, and it’s pretty interesting and engaging, and even — gasp — fun! They have a blog, too.
If NASA had PR guys like this I suspect a lot of their public image problems would go away.
Don’t forget, if you have an astronomy question — maybe about Hubble? — send it to me for "Q & BA"!
January 30th, 2007 at 10:48 am
Hubble is a constant and dangerous threat to people who believe the universe is 6000 years old. A lot of them would love nothing more than to see it removed from the public consciousness.
January 30th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
Hey! I know this game… it’s Defender….
January 30th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
Naw, it’s Lunar Lander!
As for Steve’s comment about those believing in a 6000 year old universe being threatened by HST, I’m sure they will (or perhaps already have) simply said something to the effect of “God just made these things seem far away,” or “Sure, they’re far away, but God just sped up the light to get to us faster so we could see His glorious creation” or some similar nonsense.
January 30th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
I understand that numerous people are sentimental about the HST, but sentimentality is itself antithetical to scientific progress. The Hooker telescope at Mt. Wilson had a longer career than the HST has enjoyed, and has been the instrument of discoveries more paradigm-shattering in their time than what’s generally come from the HST. Nevertheless, there’s no “save the Hooker” campaign to keep it in the mainstream past its effective lifetime.
What’s needed isn’t to save the Hubble. What’s needed is abundant funding to replace the Hubble with newer, more capable instruments.
January 30th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
Getting science to the people shouldn’t be discounted.
People know Hubble. Even if the satalite isn’t worth saving for research ( I think it is, but even if it’s not ) maybe it’s final mission should be to use that notoriety to educate people why things like the HTS are important.
It makes me think about Carl Sagan. From what I understand Sagan was something of a ‘standard’ astronomer, but he was known. And he got people to think about science.
Hubble is like an ambassador to people. It takes photos they can look at. It has a memorable name and distinctive shape. It has that door on the front so when you see a picture of it, you can see its “working.”
These things stick in people’s minds and put science out in the public in a way lesser known (dispite maybe being more useful) tools can’t.
Science won’t go anywhere if “the” people (the ones who pay the taxes for these projects) arn’t emotionally attached to the process.
January 30th, 2007 at 7:49 pm
Does anyone know if the HST’s ultimate fate has been decided yet? When it is finally decommissioned, will they simply deorbit it into the ocean or bring it back? It was, after all, designed to fit in the Shuttle’s cargo bay.
Maybe the very last Shuttle mission should be to bring back the HST so it can be put on display at the Smithsonian. It can replace the mock up that’s there now (at least I think there’s an HST mock up there, but I might be thinking of Skylab).
- Jack
January 30th, 2007 at 9:48 pm
I quite disagree with Mark (and agree with Kingnor). In the short term, yes, more can be gained from newer or different projects. But sentimentality is important, too. I strongly believe that science must be made accessible (and interesting) to the general public. Among other things, they ultimately control the funding for these projects–there are plenty of people who think space exploration is a waste of money. Furthermore, as science appears to be losing ground, especially in the U.S., I believe it is vital to help bring the laity back into the world of science. If something like Hubble can get the public excited about astronomy and produce good science, then I am all for keeping it.
January 31st, 2007 at 8:24 am
Jack, I think HST is planned for deorbit. Hopefully, controlled deorbit (part of the servicing). Unplanned deorbit is so much more fun (think Skylab), but some fun is just too much.
While it might be interesting to return on Shuttle and put on display, I think that will have a lower priority than ending the Shuttle program.
January 31st, 2007 at 10:38 am
I doubt, with the coming NASA budget cuts, that HST will be able to be retrieved even if NASA wants to. Time for privately funded “Save HST” campaigns to pull out all the stops for a possible retrieval mission; if they can’t keep it going, maybe they can bring it home!
January 31st, 2007 at 9:15 pm
kingnor/Darmok,
Keep in mind that what the public fell in love with wasn’t principally the telescope, but rather what the instrument yielded: the unprecedentedly crisp, subtle, awesome astronomical images. I think people would rather continue to accrue more such images than cling to a telescope which *IS* doomed to become unoperational. The HST was designed to be serviced by the STS orbiter, and currently can be serviced only by the orbiter, yet the STS program is destined for cancellation rather soon. Why cling indignantly to a dead horse? If we insist upon putting too much of our finite funding into preserving hardware for public relations purposes instead of actual scientific dividends, then there’ll eventually be no more dividends, that is to say, no more spectacular space telescope images, and the public will wonder what was done with their tax money. I’m a tax payer, and I want to progress into the future, not regress into the past.