A special edition of the Space
Mailbag
Last week's article about the planned
demise of the Hubble Space Telescope in
2010 spawned several letters to Leonard
David, SPACE.com's Senior Space Writer,
and now more comments are pouring in directly to the Space Mailbag. Some are
impassioned. Some are wild. A sampling:
Newly added comments as of 8:10 a.m. ET Aug.
6:
Rich Bloom:
We need to ask our children what they would like us to do with "HUBBLE".
Then we have to do it with their instructions.
Sarah Schwartz:
Hi. My name is Sarah and I am 14 years old. My dream is to grow up and become
an astronomer. I believe that Hubble should stay in orbit taking pictures of
the wonders of the universe. The pictures Hubble takes each day help astronomers
learn more about the universe we live in. Hubble has been a part of our journey
to learn as much as we can about the cosmos, and it has had a tremendous impact.
I think Hubble is a treasured part of space history, and should be treasured
and remembered.
Ron Skidmore:
The education of our children in the next decade is too important to
our nation. Why not create a space and astrophysics wing forward of the space
station and the HST could become the central focus of an exciting new future
in the classrooms across America. Junior and senior high students could log
on to the live feed from the HST. High school courses could be centered on learning
about space exploration through the eye of Hubble. You could have the futurists
in our nation's classrooms design a thin disposable clear cover to protect the
optics of the HST. What promise the future would hold for our children is we
went this extra mile in space.
Billy Johnson:
[Hubble] is more than just a little piece of American history. It a major landmark
for all of mankind, and should be treated as such.
Corwin Christensen:
Why set a date when the switches are going to be turned off? Hubble makes
new and exciting discoveries every day. We could miss the greatest discovery
in history if we pick an arbitrary date and time to euthanize Hubble.
Richard Connamacher:
Thinking of the Hubble being discarded breaks my heart. Did we close
down all the other telescopes here on Earth
just because there is a bigger one in Hawaii? No, having more than one view
on the heavens is a good thing. … Maybe Congress should be pressed to give enough
money to NASA to run both Hubble and JWST simultaneously - just think of the
science that could be done with two functioning, fully complementary space telescopes.
Joel Barnett:
The best honor to Hubble would if possible be placed in orbit around the Moon.
It would be a thrill to see it shinning, coming around at a time when the sunlight
would reflect off of it. Its useful days would not end so quickly.
Comments added at 1:50 p.m. ET Aug. 5:
Micheal
Moery: We went to the Moon for almost completely symbolic reasons
- why not retrieve the Hubble Space Telescope for most of the same reasons?
Michael
O'Brien: Maybe if NASA were run as a business instead of a government
agency, they would put more effort into finding ways of keeping Hubble flying
instead of letting it burn up in the atmosphere. If it's not your money, it's
easy to throw away old toys when something new and better is promised.
Dennis
Payne: What might prove more interesting than simply losing the device
to the Earth's atmosphere may be to send it on a slow trajectory for Mars rendezvous
or tour of the solar system before the end of its useful life. Even if it ceased
to function it would not land on someone's head.
Kenneth
"Alan" Runyan, Jr.: I remember when the Hubble Space Telescope first
launched aboard the shuttle, and I remember the utter heartbreak of discovering
that it was malfunctioning. And then NASA came up with a daring and exciting
plan to repair the crippled telescope. The plan was an overwhelming success
and heralded a new age in our collective view of what space exploration could
be. Have we lost that
spirit of true human achievement in a world post-Columbia?
Comments added at 4:45 p.m. ET Aug. 4:
Doug
Robertson: What
about the possibility of using an airbrake-to-parachute based descent or an
airbrake-to-bouncing-ball style landing similar to the Mars mission? It seems
that this would serve two purposes; the first would be to gather real world
empirical data on using an airbrake based descent system and the second would
be to retrieve a very significant historical artifact. Both endeavors would
be worth the effort individually and together they could create a historic project.
Santiago
Sanchez: Considering that so many institutions throughout the world
have benefited from the use of Hubble, perhaps they would be willing to provide
funds for the continued operation of Hubble. Given the number of universities
and research centers and others that benefit from Hubble, surely we could pool
the resources to offset at least a substantial part of the costs.
As far as the missions themselves,
if humanity is not willing to take the risks associated with servicing the Hubble
telescope, then maybe we need to reconsider this whole notion of space exploration.
Every single person that has ventured beyond our atmosphere knows of the inherent
risks of space travel, yet they chose to pursue a career as an explorer. I believe
that if you were to ask for volunteers from among the current and future cadre
of astronauts (and cosmonauts), there would be more than enough of them, willing
to venture out to the Hubble telescope - in spite of the risks.
In addition, we have a tried
and true piece of hardware that we know works. Yet, we want to bring it down
before the replacement is up and running. What if there is a technical flaw
in the new telescope that went undetected? What happens if there is a mishap
while lifting it up to orbit? We could find ourselves in a position where we
tossed out a perfectly good telescope and because of unforeseen events, the
new one is unavailable for years, if ever!
Comments added at 1 p.m. ET Aug. 4:
Doug Salter:
Any task in space has it risks, but to not repair/upgrade a devise that
works because of the risk is just plain short-sighted.
Andrew Harpin:
The thing is it can't last forever, but if we can salvage it we may allow people
in the future to know where it all started.
Chris Rasmussen:
It MUST be displayed by the Smithsonian because of its status as a true
breakthrough in the realm of observing platforms, the vast array of astronomical
images, and well, it's a very large and interesting device which should be seen
by the taxpayers who footed the bill.
Janice Houston:
When NASA wants to save a satellite, they do. A good example is LDEF [Long
Duration Exposure Facility], which was
stuck in space after the Challenger accident. It was in peril of burning up
in the atmosphere but it was felt that it should be rescued and a way to do
it was found. A way needs to be found for the Hubble.
Initial comments:
Kris
Pate writes: I read your article today and I have probably a simplistic
question about this problem. Wouldn't it be possible to bring the Hubble into
the same orbit as the space station and somehow secure it to the station? I
know it would not be the optimal usage of the telescope, but would increase
the life span and usability of the telescope. In addition it would make it more
serviceable than it is today.
Leonard David replies: Theoretically, it
would be possible to change the orbit of Hubble Space Telescope (HST) to match
that of the International Space Station, but this would be very technically
challenging and, consequently, very expensive. The orbits of the two objects
are very different, so would require design and development of a propulsion
stage (aka, rocket) to be attached to move the HST. [The shuttle cannot change
orbits this drastically.]
Also, it is not clear that HST could physically survive such a drastic maneuver.
Finally, the environment around the Space Station may be too "dirty" -- gases
and particles coming off the Space Station and Shuttle -- for effective observation.
Ed Woods writes: I enjoyed you article
about the HST. I don't think it would serve any good in letting it crash and
burn. It's an American icon that brings me the same feeling I get when I go
to the Franklin Institute in Philly and see their telescope.
I have an idea but don't know if it is feasible. I would attach it to a vehicle
powered by a solar sail and set some course around the universe. The images
it could collect -- 10 years, even 5 years, from now -- would lend some good
science. It would be like uncaging a bird. After all, it has seen most of the
universe... now let it go there.
Sam Easton writes: I think it would be
a nice idea to interview some other scientists (with open minds), or open up
some kind of forum on SPACE.com to allow novel ideas on what the Hubble
could be used for.
It just seems excruciatingly painful to consider burning up in Earth's atmosphere
a billion(s) dollar piece of working space hardware that has proven itself.
Surely even if a private company had it handed to them for free they could make
it viable. Maybe use it to point back at Earth, or keep an eye on the space
station, who knows.
Penny McCracken writes: I hate the very
idea of abandoning something which has been as wonderful (and expensive) as
the Hubble. While I am no scientist, I did spend 34 years working for aerospace
corporations -- and in some small way, I have had pride in contributing to the
success of our space efforts.
Arthur C. Clarke wrote that putting something in geostationary orbit would
involve putting an object up at 22,600 miles above earth. Would that be also,
a permanent orbit? Or, would that too, degrade over time? Or, being in a fixed
spot over Earth, would it limit the area of sky seen by Hubble?
I have also wondered, in the area of military use, if Hubble can see so far
OUT into the Universe, what could it see, if they pointed it at Earth? Our military
satellites seem to be producing some very good results. So, one wonders, naturally,
if it could be used for military purposes? Or, would it be like my telephoto
lens - too close to SEE anything as close as objects on Earth? … In any case,
throwing away the multibillion dollar Hubble seems stupid, at best, criminal
at worst.
advertisement
