Comments on: The last fix

By: Brian Mingus

Brian Mingus — Sat, 30 May 2009 15:43:15 +0000

I predict that we will service Hubble again.

By: Dr Fish

Dr Fish — Wed, 27 May 2009 02:04:42 +0000

@GingerYellow: those are indeed pretty pictures *of* the LHC.

They’re just not *by* the LHC…

By: James

James — Tue, 26 May 2009 09:59:17 +0000

Hah!

By: Tszap

Tszap — Tue, 26 May 2009 06:07:49 +0000

“you’ll actually fly a small integer number of times (at best). ”

…and a non-integer number of times at worst.

By: Meredith

Meredith — Tue, 26 May 2009 05:53:41 +0000

I would love nothing more than to be an astronaut who travels to the moon to help establish or refurbish a telescope there!!

@NIM: well said.

By: Anne

Anne — Mon, 25 May 2009 22:43:36 +0000

I’m not sure I agree about even the short-term absence of manned servicing missions: there was at least one scheme to bolt an X-ray telescope to the ISS, and that would have been more or less easy to go out and tinker with. The economics of sending someone up to tinker with a telescope change when that someone is already up there.

Now, if you want to argue that there’s no economic reason to have the ISS, well, I can’t really argue with you, but the fact is that we do have it, and we are committed to having people in it, so why not let some of them go outside and tinker with a telescope? Unfortunately, I don’t think it’s a particularly good place to put an X-ray telescope, and that proposal seems not to have been a success.

By: amphiox

amphiox — Mon, 25 May 2009 22:16:29 +0000

The only worthwhile reason to send humans into space is with the intent of colonizing space.

And the reason to colonize space is to ensure the long term (or at least longer term) survival of the human species.

Any manned mission that does not contribute in some way to the ultimate establishment of a permanent and self-sustaining space colony (one that would survive on its own even if earth were obliterated the next day by an asteroid, say), either by obtaining required experimental observations, or building infrastructure, or actually putting people in place, is a waste of money, as machines can do any and all other goals cheaper and better.

By: mathmanprime

mathmanprime — Mon, 25 May 2009 22:11:01 +0000

Count Ibis: well, as they say, not exactly. The utility of the VLT as an interferometer is a very small part of it’s overall effectiveness (I consider the VLT to be the best of all ground-based observatories in terms of the range of science it does and the productivity of its instruments).
Free-flying interferometers in space, with baselines of 10s of kilometers or far more, will far outclass the VLT interferometer. The aperture of the JWST (has there ever been a WORSE name chosen for a major observatory?) almost matches that of a single VLT ‘scope and its location will make it far more productive (for the mostly IR science it’s been designed for).
NIM, have you actually MET any astronauts? I have, and though there are certainly exceptions, I’ve mostly been underwhelmed (I could tell a story about a particularly bad commencement address by a very unfortunate astronaut, but I’ll be good). They’re mostly roughly as interesting as any really good engineer (read into that what you will). They have a dangerous, glamorous, and oh so tedious job. I frankly couldn’t imagine training for YEARS for each and every mission, with the likelihood being that you’ll actually fly a small integer number of times (at best). The recent crew certainly did do a herculean job, and I salute their skill and courage . Better planning in the 70′s and 80′s would have meant that they wouldn’t have had to risk their lives on this mission, however.

By: Count Iblis

Count Iblis — Mon, 25 May 2009 21:33:40 +0000

You can't operatate something similar to the Paranal Observatory from space. It can be operated from the Moon.

By: NIM

NIM — Mon, 25 May 2009 21:31:52 +0000

All these people complaining about the cost of humans in space and how useless the ISS is are just secretly jealous that they don’t get to be astronauts.

By: graviton383

graviton383 — Mon, 25 May 2009 21:27:29 +0000

I am looking forward to MANY pretty pictures from both ATLAS & CMS late this Fall…

By: mathmanprime

mathmanprime — Mon, 25 May 2009 21:08:20 +0000

mk: the short answer for the total cost of Hubble during its life is that no one knows, primarily because NASA doesn’t want anyone to know how much a shuttle mission really costs, even if it’s just to go into LEO and wave out the window. We can estimate things though at around $10 Billion on the low end and about double that on the high end. So, you’re correct, it would have been less expensive (and incredibly less dangerous) to launch 5 different Hubbles, none of them from manned vehicles. Of course, there were very, very few reasons that could justify the cost of the shuttle fleet other than launching and servicing Hubble (and other satellites, until that was, correctly, deemed too dangerous and too expensive) and building the incredibly useless ISS.

By: mathmanprime

mathmanprime — Mon, 25 May 2009 21:00:14 +0000

Telescope on the moon? Sure, we could do it, it would only cost about 10x as much as an orbiting ‘scope and 100x as much if you want people to service it. The thing about the moon is uh, you sorta have to land SLOWLY, ya know?

By: Ellipsis

Ellipsis — Mon, 25 May 2009 20:22:57 +0000

But would it have been cheaper, though, to have launched 5 new (but not repairable) Hubbles than have the 5 servicing missions? It certainly seems counterintuitive, but the answer may be that it would have been.

By: mk

mk — Mon, 25 May 2009 19:07:34 +0000

How much did it cost to build the Hubble?
How much did it cost to launch it and put it in orbit?
How much did it cost to repair it the first time?
How much the second time?

By: tacitus

tacitus — Mon, 25 May 2009 18:19:25 +0000

Absolutely, astronomy stands to benefit greatly from a sustained human presence on the Moon.

By: Julianne

Julianne — Mon, 25 May 2009 17:11:36 +0000

Daniel — There may wind up being a telescope on the moon at some point, which could be repaired by people. But, short term, yeah, this is it.

By: Ginger Yellow

Ginger Yellow — Mon, 25 May 2009 16:40:23 +0000

"Okay, the LHC is pretty cool too, but it doesn’t produce pretty pictures. " I beg to differ.