PDA

View Full Version : Why upgrade Hubble?



TRUTHisnotfacts
2009-May-10, 07:28 PM
NASA is going to Hubble scope so it can service the upgrade to Hubble .

why does it need a upgrade? I have no idea ..Its interesting that it always needs to be upgraded with it going over its 18 year birthday .

I think they need to build a super space telescope and let Hubble just stay the same and not drink tax money

slang
2009-May-10, 07:41 PM
why does it need a upgrade? I have no idea ..Its interesting that it always needs to be upgraded with it going over its 18 year birthday .

You have not read any of the mission stories linked to here the last couple of days, have you?

novaderrik
2009-May-10, 08:03 PM
NASA is going to Hubble scope so it can service the upgrade to Hubble .

why does it need a upgrade? I have no idea ..Its interesting that it always needs to be upgraded with it going over its 18 year birthday .

I think they need to build a super space telescope and let Hubble just stay the same and not drink tax money
you do realize that technology keeps getting better and better, don't you?
the Hubble was first dreamt up in the late 60's, designed thru the 70's, and built in the 80's.
when they got it up there, they discovered that the main mirror was flawed- but it still took some fantastic pictures compared to anything that came before. they were able to correct that flaw by installing different optics to get it as good as it was designed to be- the first "upgrade". over the years, different cameras, gyros, and solar panels have been installed to extend it's life and improve it.
do some research on the history of the Hubble and what it has contributed to our knowledge of the universe. also pay attention to the upgrades that have been done over the years and why they were done and what we have learned about doing on site repairs 350 miles up.

TRUTHisnotfacts
2009-May-10, 08:19 PM
You have not read any of the mission stories linked to here the last couple of days, have you?

well hubble telescope is going to be retired by 2015 ... what more can they learn from upgrading ?

You can only upgrade something until its memory is complete ...After that you need a new scope ...

TRUTHisnotfacts
2009-May-10, 08:24 PM
you do realize that technology keeps getting better and better, don't you?
the Hubble was first dreamt up in the late 60's, designed thru the 70's, and built in the 80's.
when they got it up there, they discovered that the main mirror was flawed- but it still took some fantastic pictures compared to anything that came before. they were able to correct that flaw by installing different optics to get it as good as it was designed to be- the first "upgrade". over the years, different cameras, gyros, and solar panels have been installed to extend it's life and improve it.
do some research on the history of the Hubble and what it has contributed to our knowledge of the universe. also pay attention to the upgrades that have been done over the years and why they were done and what we have learned about doing on site repairs 350 miles up.



But the Hubble is old to date ..Ya it was good back then and I think its more on the line of 1960s technology...The Digital Age has been found and now we have the tecno on how to build real HIgh Reflective Imaging mirrors with no blurry scope .

R.A.F.
2009-May-10, 08:26 PM
You can only upgrade something until its memory is complete...

Ok...you're going to need to explain what you mean by this.

slang
2009-May-10, 08:34 PM
well hubble telescope is going to be retired by 2015 ... what more can they learn from upgrading ?

You can only upgrade something until its memory is complete ...After that you need a new scope ...

From post #175:
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts125/090507preview/

4 pages of good read. Well worth the time if you know little about this mission.

TRUTHisnotfacts
2009-May-10, 08:37 PM
Ok...you're going to need to explain what you mean by this.

It means that Hubble is to old ...It can be updated but the visual effects can only look so far out into the past , Also it can only look so deep into what it finds ...

NASA could upgrade Its memory for 1000 years but the quality and Images will not get any more clear and can not change the value from a old scope to visual image scope


New scopes of the future are going to be real cool they could zoom into a star system and find planets and take images of earth planet clear as venus is to earth

TRUTHisnotfacts
2009-May-10, 08:48 PM
From post #175:
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts125/090507preview/

4 pages of good read. Well worth the time if you know little about this mission.


There is no question that Hubble is a Interesting scope to say the least , Its 18 years old and still working .

I agree there doing a professional Job working on that ....I said that it may be time to build a new scope

NickW
2009-May-10, 09:10 PM
They are building a new scope.

slang
2009-May-10, 09:31 PM
I agree there doing a professional Job working on that ....I said that it may be time to build a new scope

Just read the story.. all of it, don't just skim it. They ARE building a new scope. Hubble after SM4 will be a LOT better telescope than it was after the last upgrade, and almost unrecognizable compared to the originally launched scope. Pretty much the only thing things that remains the same are the mirrors, the frame, and the skin (and even parts of the skin are being upgraded).. The actual devices that collect and process the received light are all being upgraded. That means: made better. It has nothing to do with memory, nothing at all.

ToSeek
2009-May-10, 10:18 PM
Split from the servicing mission thread.

Nicolas
2009-May-10, 10:24 PM
I'm not 100% sure it is a factual story (the internet can be a dirty place...) but as far as I know, about 5 "Hubbles" have been built and launched as spy sats. Given the cost of SM4 and the alegged cost of those Hubble copies, one can wonder whether it would have been cheaper/more bang for the buck to build an upgraded Hubble from zero and launch it instead of repairing and upgrading the existing one.

I'm convinced that there still is use for a scope with (the upgraded) Hubble technology in space; my question is whether it wouldn't have been better to replace it rather than repair and upgrade the original one.

Of course at this stage this is not relevant anymore. I mean before money needed for SM4 was spent.

NickW
2009-May-10, 10:58 PM
...but as far as I know, about 5 "Hubbles" have been built and launched as spy sats.

Where did you read that?!

01101001
2009-May-10, 11:36 PM
Where did you read that?!

Probably the likes of Wikipedia: KH-12 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KH-12):


"KH-12" is an unofficial designation of the successor to the KH-11 spy satellite. A system with the official designation KH-12 does not exist because the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) decided to refer to satellites by a random numbering scheme after repeated public references to KH-8, KH-9, and KH-11 satellites.[1] [...] The satellite, with a mass of 19,600 kilograms, has been manufactured by Lockheed. Ground resolution is probably 0.15 meters (6 inches) or better. Like the KH-11 (Crystal), the KH-12 is believed to use a large mirror to capture light, and probably resembles the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) in size and shape.

Van Rijn
2009-May-10, 11:47 PM
Where did you read that?!

Search for "KH-11 Hubble". They are supposed to be at least similar in shape and size, with similar main mirrors. The story as I heard it was that Hubble was based on the KH-11 design, and there was very limited access to it for security reasons. Limited access might have been the reason they didn't catch the problem with the mirror before launch.

NickW
2009-May-10, 11:48 PM
...and probably resembles the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) in size and shape.

I can see how it could be construed that way with the last line you quoted.

01101001
2009-May-10, 11:56 PM
But there's so much smoke and mirrors (some really big mirrors) in the spook business, feints, counterfeints, planted stories, smidgeons of real stories, what they did, what they want you to think, that it's almost useless to use some data from that domain to make conclusion about our reality.

NASA was probably privy to data closer to the truth and made their decision as part of the "they". For all we know the dramatic cost of the Hubble-rescue mission was part of sound spending on the disinformation campaign. Tossing a new, improved Hubble into orbit might not have been money well spent. Who knows?

TRUTHisnotfacts
2009-May-10, 11:59 PM
well its like this Hubble is a space scope ....Not a sat...Even tho they could do the same Imaging ...

NickW
2009-May-11, 12:08 AM
Ummm....it a scope and a satellite.

Hornblower
2009-May-11, 12:09 AM
Search for "KH-11 Hubble". They are supposed to be at least similar in shape and size, with similar main mirrors. The story as I heard it was that Hubble was based on the KH-11 design, and there was very limited access to it for security reasons. Limited access might have been the reason they didn't catch the problem with the mirror before launch.
Horsefeathers! The primary and secondary mirrors were supposed to be a Ritchey-Chretien design which has been known for a century or so, and no access to classified information was needed. The figuring error in the main mirror was the result of sloppy work in assembling the optical testing device that was used to measure the figure.

ravens_cry
2009-May-11, 01:42 AM
Why upgrade Hubble? Simple, it's cheaper then sending up a whole new sat. Telescopes mirrors are expensive, and sending stuff into orbit is expensive. Telescope mirrors are also heavy, and thus even more expensive to send into orbit. It is also perfectly good still. Hale Observatory is over 60 years old, and it is still used for astronomy. With new cameras and other additions, it is more useful then ever. Same with Hubble. With new cameras and other parts taking advantages of advances in the pertinent areas, we can get more and better images, without having to build a whole new telescope.
Would you get a new car every time you need an oil change?

novaderrik
2009-May-11, 03:16 AM
well hubble telescope is going to be retired by 2015 ... what more can they learn from upgrading ?

You can only upgrade something until its memory is complete ...After that you need a new scope ...

how much memory is on the Hubble, and how much does it need at any given time?
you'd be really freaked out if you were to actually read up on the Hubble and discover what it has for a computer processor- a processor that is actually faster than what is actually needed to make the Hubble function properly...

Van Rijn
2009-May-11, 04:50 AM
Horsefeathers! The primary and secondary mirrors were supposed to be a Ritchey-Chretien design which has been known for a century or so, and no access to classified information was needed. The figuring error in the main mirror was the result of sloppy work in assembling the optical testing device that was used to measure the figure.

I might have a faulty recollection, but I thought I had read, a long time ago, that access to the telescope was (more than typical for NASA projects) limited. I did find this,

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/07/28/us/losing-bid-offered-2-tests-on-hubble.html

showing that the winning bidder didn't test the mirror in the telescope because NASA deemed it too expensive. Losing bidders claimed they could have done a better job testing the mirror without installing it in the 'scope. Here's part of the article:


NASA officials have said that the Perkin-Elmer optical assembly was not tested after it was put together because it would have required a test that may have cost more than $100 million.

Mr. Wollensak said the Perkin-Elmer design did not allow for the primary mirror to be tested after it was placed into the assembled telescope. He said that the instrument was designed to work in zero gravity and that the gravity of Earth caused the glass to sag slightly, which would have changed the focus.

But Kodak and Itek, Mr. Wollensak said, had developed a way to prevent the sag and thus test the mirrors as an assembled unit.

Nicolas
2009-May-11, 01:16 PM
Why upgrade Hubble? Simple, it's cheaper then sending up a whole new sat.

Sorry that I don't have time to google it, but can anyone tell me what the original cost of Hubble (excluding service missions) was? And the cost of SM4 (4 billion I believe)?

rommel543
2009-May-11, 05:33 PM
I personally think that we should be going up more often. Hubble shouldn't have gotten to the state that it is currently in, proactive maintenance is always better than reactive. Once they do finally retire the scope I really hope they don't simply park it in a graveyard. With the contributions it's made to science and the advancement of our knowledge in space, I believe it deserves a better fate and the cost to go get it and bring it home it worth it.

Nicolas
2009-May-11, 07:18 PM
When the shuttle is retired, there is no way to bring it "home" (its home is space, not earth) in one piece except for developing an amazing craft to do just that, which would be a multi-billion endeavour. So we likely won't ever see Hubble in a museum. But that's space technology for you. The point is that it's not on earth. The Viking landers, Mars rovers, Apollo LM's, heck the complete Saturn 5's used to fly people to the moon, they're either shot away from earth or gone by using them (expendables).

ravens_cry
2009-May-11, 07:24 PM
When the shuttle is retired, there is no way to bring it "home" (its home is space, not earth) in one piece except for developing an amazing craft to do just that, which would be a multi-billion endeavour. So we likely won't ever see Hubble in a museum. But that's space technology for you. The point is that it's not on earth. The Viking landers, Mars rovers, Apollo LM's, heck the complete Saturn 5's used to fly people to the moon, they're either shot away from earth or gone by using them (expendables).
Which will make the future feild of astro-archeology all the more exciting. Going boldly where Mans machines have gone before.

Nicolas
2009-May-11, 07:28 PM
In case of Hubble, that would likely mean the bottom of the Pacific with a toothbrush...

nauthiz
2009-May-11, 07:47 PM
how much memory is on the Hubble, and how much does it need at any given time?
you'd be really freaked out if you were to actually read up on the Hubble and discover what it has for a computer processor- a processor that is actually faster than what is actually needed to make the Hubble function properly...

An 80486 CPU running at 25 MHz, with 2 megabytes of RAM. It doesn't need much on-board storage, just enough to facilitate the guidance and collection software and facilitate getting data transferred to the ground. There's also a solid state device for longer-term storage, but I don't know how big it is - probably not much, since it was launched in the late '90. Maybe a few hundred megabytes.

As for why it needs a servicing mission, well, for the same reason that ground-based telescopes often get maintenance upgrades - because better instruments means better science, and because stuff breaks. It's just that work that's done on ground-based observatories, though just as common, doesn't ever make the news because doing so doesn't involve astronauts.

Getting Hubble designed, built, and launched took decades, so I very strongly doubt that building a brand new space telescope would be cheaper than just upgrading Hubble's instrumentation. Improvements in ground-based technology such as interferometry also do not mean that ground observatories can replace it. While interferometers can get better resolution, thanks to light pollution they're still unable to resolve anything that's less than about 100,000,000 times brighter than what Hubble can see.

slang
2009-May-11, 08:11 PM
When the shuttle is retired, there is no way to bring it "home" (its home is space, not earth) in one piece except for developing an amazing craft to do just that, which would be a multi-billion endeavour

One of this mission's tasks:

* Attachment of the soft capture mechanism to permit future attachment to a deorbit rocket motor or NASA's planned Orion capsule

Perhaps it can be used to raise Hubble to a safe orbit rather than bring it down, if there'd be a cheap way of doing that. Who knows, maybe we'll have a cheap way to bring it back a hundred years from now. In some other thread someone raised the idea to bring famous Earth orbiting spacecraft together in one location, for space tourists. :)


An 80486 CPU running at 25 MHz, with 2 megabytes of RAM.

Until about two or three years ago I used a 486, 80 MHz, 24 Mb RAM as firewall. It broke... hardware failure. They did some things right when designing and building Hubble!

Nicolas
2009-May-11, 09:13 PM
Gotta love milspec. I use an all-original components military The Hallicrafters FM receiver (comms, but receives anything up to 100MHz in broadband FM!) which has been working just fine since -hold tight- 1944. If something ever blows in it, it's likely going to be a tube which is easily replaced. Or maybe an old cap.

Hubble doesn't use tubes, so that's one less issue. :)

nauthiz
2009-May-11, 09:39 PM
:think: Though tubes might fare better in space than they do here, what with not having to worry so much about the vacuum being compromised. . .

Nicolas
2009-May-11, 10:07 PM
good point :)

OTOH, they might have huge problems giving away their heat...

PraedSt
2009-May-11, 10:08 PM
which has been working just fine since -hold tight- 1944.
I was; and I still fell over.

Nicolas
2009-May-11, 10:13 PM
I hope the receiver never falls over, as even without its "flight case" it's about 45 kg. Excluding antenna.

My ex-grandma-in-law still makes waffles on a (non-milspec :)) electrical waffle iron from somewhere in the 1940's which only required new internal foil once. Bakelite all over the place. :)

This stuff has seen WW2 and still works. I love technology. :)

nauthiz
2009-May-11, 10:24 PM
I use a waffle iron of about that vintage. It's not milspec, but from the weight of the thing alone you'd think it is. It makes much better waffles than the newfangled ones any of my friends own.

Hornblower
2009-May-11, 11:00 PM
First, my apology for the "Horsefeathers!" in my last post. In light of some of the rudeness that has marred this forum in the last couple of days, I should have been setting a better example.

Now, back to Hubble. Following is an account of the source of error in adjusting the null corrector that was used in figuring the primary. It is the kind of blunder that could make a skilled amateur telescope maker wonder whether to laugh or cry.

http://www.optics.arizona.edu/optomech/student%20reports/synopsis/2008/521%20synopsis%20Tianquan%20Su.pdf

cjameshuff
2009-May-11, 11:00 PM
OTOH, they might have huge problems giving away their heat...

The plates and grids are vacuum-insulated even on Earth, and the cathodes you want hot. And all of it is rather insensitive to heat. You've still got the heat from the equipment as a whole to deal with, of course, and there's the issue of powering it all. And tube electronics do tend to use things like high power resistors that will get hotter than they would on Earth.

mike alexander
2009-May-12, 01:09 AM
My brother says his Hammarlund HQ 100 receiver (ca. 1960) is still his favorite for much of his ham work.

Gandalf223
2009-May-12, 02:05 AM
I believe it [Hubble] deserves a better fate and the cost to go get it and bring it home it worth it.

I agree that would be nice, but it might not be possible, even if NASA were to decide it was worthwhile. Hubble is large and very heavy; with HST on board the shuttle might be too heavy for the landing gear or for the runway.

Ara Pacis
2009-May-12, 02:17 AM
Nah, just leave it in space until we need it for the future space museum in orbit. And then we can enjoy Ben Stiller making a movie about that one too.

novaderrik
2009-May-12, 04:05 AM
I agree that would be nice, but it might not be possible, even if NASA were to decide it was worthwhile. Hubble is large and very heavy; with HST on board the shuttle might be too heavy for the landing gear or for the runway.

i don't think so- they had to have a contingency plan to land the shuttle if the cargo bay doors were unable to open for some reason.
so it was theoretically possible that they could have launched the shuttle with the Hubble and not been able to get rid of it before landing.

ravens_cry
2009-May-12, 04:28 AM
In case of Hubble, that would likely mean the bottom of the Pacific with a toothbrush...
Despite what Indiana Jones and Lara Croft would have one believe, lots of archeology involves toothbrushes.

01101001
2009-May-12, 06:38 AM
I agree that would be nice, but it might not be possible, even if NASA were to decide it was worthwhile. Hubble is large and very heavy; with HST on board the shuttle might be too heavy for the landing gear or for the runway.

I read today the original plan was to return it on a shuttle, for display in a museum -- but it has lasted too long and the shuttles lasted not long enough.

This wasn't it, but says similar: Space.com: Hubble FAQ (http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/090505-sts125-hubble-repair-faq.html)


NASA originally discussed plans to return Hubble to Earth at the end of its mission, but with the shuttle fleet retiring that's not in the cards now. Lead STS-125 spacewalker John Grunsfeld has said even if NASA wanted to, Hubble may now be too big and heavy (with all the added hardware over the last 19 years) to fit in a shuttle payload bay.

Nicolas
2009-May-12, 06:56 AM
Despite what Indiana Jones and Lara Croft would have one believe, lots of archeology involves toothbrushes.

As well as the Pacific, but I hope for them not the two combined. :)

cjameshuff
2009-May-12, 03:56 PM
When the shuttle is retired, there is no way to bring it "home" (its home is space, not earth) in one piece except for developing an amazing craft to do just that, which would be a multi-billion endeavour.

Such a "large payload return" craft might see occasional use for other purposes, it wouldn't necessarily be something built just to bring Hubble back.

Even so, using such an existing vehicle, it would cost at least tens of millions of dollars...and probably require a manned launch and EVA to pack it up for the return trip. The same EVA could be used to do needed construction instead, the same launches could put up new experiments. On the other hand, retrieving the Hubble wouldn't be a zero-science mission...there may be interesting things to learn about aging of materials and electronics in orbit.

Nicolas
2009-May-12, 04:08 PM
Such a "large payload return" craft might see occasional use for other purposes, it wouldn't necessarily be something built just to bring Hubble back.

If we can use the number of times the Shuttle returned a large payload in the statistics...(as far as I know that's one, excluding the spacelabs which never left the shuttle anyway)


Even so, using such an existing vehicle, it would cost at least tens of millions of dollars...

Something that large, with the capability to rendez-vous with Hubble, and a heat shield to survive re-entry? I'd start at a few hundred million at least, looking at what even an Ariane5 costs to launch.

As for the rest: if you'd have a craft capable of returning with something like Hubble and it would be launched for exampe to place a new scope into orbit anyway, it might pick up Hubble on the return as that's a pretty much "free" extra. I wouldn't spend any significant money on getting Hubble back in one piece though.

nauthiz
2009-May-12, 04:46 PM
I agree that would be nice, but it might not be possible, even if NASA were to decide it was worthwhile. Hubble is large and very heavy; with HST on board the shuttle might be too heavy for the landing gear or for the runway.

I think the original plan was to service Hubble by bringing it back down to Earth in the Shuttle's cargo bay and doing all the work on the ground. If I remember right, the reason for the change in plans had more to do with cost and safety considerations than concerns about whether the Shuttle could pull it off.

rommel543
2009-May-12, 05:22 PM
Well maybe once we get the moon base up and running they can build a museum wing and put it in there. :D

Larry Jacks
2009-May-12, 06:36 PM
If we can use the number of times the Shuttle returned a large payload in the statistics...(as far as I know that's one, excluding the spacelabs which never left the shuttle anyway)

Offhand, I can think of at least two times when a shuttle returned something large. One was the Long Duration Environmental Facility (LDEF). The other that I recall was the return of at least one satellite whose Perigee Assist Motor (PAM) failed to ignite. That satellite was later relaunched. Both of these recoveries happened in the 1980s.

Originally Posted by Gandalf223
I agree that would be nice, but it might not be possible, even if NASA were to decide it was worthwhile. Hubble is large and very heavy; with HST on board the shuttle might be too heavy for the landing gear or for the runway.

i don't think so- they had to have a contingency plan to land the shuttle if the cargo bay doors were unable to open for some reason.
so it was theoretically possible that they could have launched the shuttle with the Hubble and not been able to get rid of it before landing.

It's one thing to do it in an emergency situation like you describe. In addition to your scenario, they would've had to land with the HST in the cargo bay had the shuttle been forced to abort the launch. However, it's possible the constraints are more restrictive for routine operations.

Gandalf223
2009-May-12, 06:50 PM
I read today the original plan was to return it on a shuttle, for display in a museum -- but it has lasted too long and the shuttles lasted not long enough.

This wasn't it, but says similar: Space.com: Hubble FAQ (http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/090505-sts125-hubble-repair-faq.html)

From the article linked above:

Lead STS-125 spacewalker John Grunsfeld has said even if NASA wanted to, Hubble may now be too big and heavy (with all the added hardware over the last 19 years) to fit in a shuttle payload bay.

So.... maybe. Maybe not. :whistle:

Nicolas
2009-May-12, 07:59 PM
If we can use the number of times the Shuttle returned a large payload in the statistics...(as far as I know that's one, excluding the spacelabs which never left the shuttle anyway)

Offhand, I can think of at least two times when a shuttle returned something large. One was the Long Duration Environmental Facility (LDEF). The other that I recall was the return of at least one satellite whose Perigee Assist Motor (PAM) failed to ignite. That satellite was later relaunched. Both of these recoveries happened in the 1980s.


I didn't know they returned the LDEF to earth. The satellite you describe was the one I was thinking about. So that puts the counter to two in the past 28 years.

I don't imply anything positive or negative by that, just the observation that apparently there hasn't been even an occasional demand to return large payloads to earth.

Van Rijn
2009-May-12, 09:19 PM
I read today the original plan was to return it on a shuttle, for display in a museum -- but it has lasted too long and the shuttles lasted not long enough.

This wasn't it, but says similar: Space.com: Hubble FAQ (http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/090505-sts125-hubble-repair-faq.html)

I remember this from quite a bit back. They were planning on having it returned before they launched it. Then the accidents happened, there were the costs, and limited number of flights. Here's an article from about the time they decided to scrap the idea:

http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/hubble_grunsfeld_0306731.html

From the article:

"Initial analysis shows that perhaps four spacewalks are required, significant hardware would have to be jettisoned, and a heavyweight return through the atmosphere would have to be performed. In a sense this mission would be risking human lives, and a unique national resource [the space shuttle], for the purpose of disabling great science, albeit due to necessity at end-of-life," Grunsfeld explains.

I remember I was a little sad when I saw that, but it made sense.

ToSeek
2009-May-13, 01:28 PM
Search for "KH-11 Hubble". They are supposed to be at least similar in shape and size, with similar main mirrors. The story as I heard it was that Hubble was based on the KH-11 design, and there was very limited access to it for security reasons. Limited access might have been the reason they didn't catch the problem with the mirror before launch.

It's common knowledge at Goddard that Hubble was based on spy satellites, and that was one of the reasons the prime contractor got the mission, because they had experience building spy satellites. There's a story that when Hubble started encountered problems with jitter when going in and out of daylight, they went back to the spook side to ask about the problem, and those folks essentially shrugged their shoulders and said, "Yes, we've known about that for years." It just wasn't an issue for them because the pointing restrictions weren't as tight.