12 replies to this topic

[Saru]

Is NASA right to abandon the Hubble space telescope ?

This will be a formal debate in which two members will debate for and against the decision to abandon the Hubble space telescope. The two participants will take it in turns to each make up to 5 posts in this thread to put their arguements across, aswell as an optional introductory opening paragraph and conclusion.

Participants are allowed to quote from their oponent to discuss points made by that person. Quoting from other sources is also permitted in moderation, as long a link/source reference is included. Using large amounts of quoted material however is not allowed.

Please also note that only the two participants of this debate and the debate organiser will be permitted to post to this thread while the debate is running. If anyone else posts to the thread, that post will be removed.

The two members who will be taking part in this debate are Scar and UniversalAbsurdity.

We tossed a coin in order to decide which side of the arguement each participant is supporting. The result is that Scar will be arguing against the abandoning of the Hubble, and UniversalAbsurdity will be arguing for the abandoning of the Hubble.

To start off, both participants are allowed to post an introductory opening paragraph, however you may skip this if you wish. Once the introductory posts have been made, the participants can take it in turns to post in the debate. An optional conclusion can also be posted right at the end. There is no set time limit for this debate, participants can take as long as they need for each post.

Thank you again to you both for taking part, and good luck.  

[Scar]

Hubble has provided us with the revelation of our universe "as it was in the beginning". We cannot allow such a travesty to transpire. Hubble has provided us with awe inspiring pictures of wonder and marvels that will engross the generations. This has been accomplished at a meagre 1% of NASA’s total budget!

Life without Hubble would be living without vision.    

[Universal Absurdity]

True, the hubble is responsible for some of the greatest leaps in cosmology, and understanding our universe (not to mention some awesome pictures).
But lets look at the realistic side of the decision to abandon the Hubble.

The recent columbia disaster has shown that there are more problems with shuttle upkeep than previously thought. Because of this the columbia investigation board has urged nasa to have a higher standard of safety.

The next service mission for the hubble was scheduled for 2006. This puts a strict time limit on preparing the shuttle. Having a higher safety standard would not allow a servicing mission so soon, as the new standards have uncovered quite a bit of problems that had previously gone unchecked.

Optimistic views from O'keefe - NASA's administrator has placed the next feasable mission in 2007, in the meantime there are a number of things that could happen to the hubble which would require unique repair tecniques that NASA is not prepared for. If NASA is unable to come up with these repair tecniques by the time the shuttle is ready for launch it would delay the mission even more. Thus leaving a larger window of time for the hubble to wear out, or get beat up by cosmic debris, which would require more time to develop tecniques for repair...and the circle would go on.

Contrary to popular belief, this would not be the end all to space telescopes. NASA does have plans to send a telescope into orbit in 2011. The James Webb Space Telescope. It will be an infra red telescope (the main argument from astronomers is that the next service mission would include an infra red update to the hubble).
Not to mention that there are new ground based telescopes that rival the hubble.
The VLT (very large telescope) for example is an array of 4 telescopes each with an 8 meter mirror. They can be used together to create the largest light gathering source in the world link

The end of the hubble is not the end of space exploration. The issues of safety dont make it into the mainstream as much as than the upsetting news, which is unfortunate.



* on a personal note i will be sad to see it go. but what must be done, must be done. even if its nothing.

Attached Files

•  skywatch.gif   0bytes   0 downloads

[Scar]

By the year 2000 Hubble had surpassed every mission in NASA’s history providing the world with 35% of all space related discoveries over the past 20 years . Over the past 10 years Hubble has continued  to be the number one most scientifically productive mission by NASA to date.

The safety concerns that have been officially voiced by NASA,  have recently been compared to the International Space Station missions, which regardless of safety concerns must be carried out in order to stop the 200 tonne station careering back to earth. According to the NASA shuttle launch schedule, (updated on January 30) seven shuttle missions to the ISS are scheduled to go ahead. Not to mention the most intrepid planned journey’s to date set out by the Bush administration,
AKA Mars.

A document with an anonymous author, recently circulating capitol hill has made a sturdy argument for the continuation of the Hubble servicing missions

“The final planned HST Servicing Mission, SM4, will be at least as safe as shuttle flights to the International Space Station (ISS). If shuttle return-to-flight occurs prior to the full implementation of an autonomous inspection and repair capability, the overall risks during a flight to Hubble would be comparable to those associated with an ISS flight in which the shuttle failed to reach ISS. Ultimately, when an autonomous inspection and repair capability is implemented, a mission to Hubble will then be as safe as any mission to ISS. Thus, an HST flight requires few, if any, unique capabilities to ensure safe flight beyond those developed for flights to the ISS. NASA plans to provide a Shuttle rescue capability for all flights. The flexibility to schedule SM4 immediately prior to one of the ISS flights provides a ready capability to mount a rescue mission if needed. Risks of micrometeoroid and orbital debris damage to shuttle on ISS flights exceeds that on flights to HST, given the flexibility in the latter to place the shuttle in a protective orientation.”

The full article can be found at the link below, detailing all the scientific evidence to back up their argument.  

Cont



[/QUOTE]in the meantime there are a number of things that could happen to the Hubble which would require unique repair techniques that NASA is not prepared for[QUOTE]

When space exploration is the topic not one person alive could account for every eventuality. This is proved in everyday life where the unexpected can happen at anytime. With aeroplane and train disasters to name but a few, occurring despite humanities best efforts.

Key points to note with regards to the components previously planned to be installed in 2006

*     Wide Field Camera 3 (WF3): This camera, which sees in both infrared and  ultraviolet wavelengths, would have replaced the Wide Field Planetary Camera 2. It is two to three times more sensitive in the infrared than Hubble's Near Infrared Camera and Multi-Object Spectrometer (NICMOS).

*      Cosmic Origins Spectrograph (COS): This high-resolution spectrograph, a prism-like instrument capable of studying the chemical composition of far-distant interstellar gas, would have replaced the Corrective Optics Space Telescope Axial Replacement (COSTAR).


Both of these components have been constructed, and if the previously planned servicing mission were to go ahead this would increase Hobbles observational capabilities by a factor of 10 , making the final years of Hubble’s planned lifetime the most scientifically capable and productive. Further to that the servicing mission would have extended the proposed life of Hubble to 2012 allowing the earth for the first time in its history to have to two space based telescopes in orbit for the first time in our history.

Lets not forget that Hubble offered a ringside seat to a once-in-a-millennia event when 21 fragments of comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 collided with Jupiter. As each comet fragment crashed into the giant planet, Hubble caught mushroom-shaped plumes along the limb of the planet, detailed views not possible using any other telescope.


Hubble continues to provide scientists a new way of pin pointing possible Apocalyptic asteroids,

Could we live with ourselves if for the 6 years we had no space based observatory,
mankind was wiped from the face of the universe by such an asteroid ?

(The objective of the above question is to highlight the requirement for a constant space observatory to limit the possibilty of such an event occuring (I am aware that you could not live with yourself if the hypothetical situation came to pass))

Chart of source of space related discoveries
Courtesy of AURA

Attached Files

•  New_Bitmap_Image__367_x_321_.gif   0bytes   0 downloads

[Universal Absurdity]

[Scar]

[Universal Absurdity]

[Scar]

The Whole basis of your argument is safety , I share your concerns as no one should have to die in order to carry out their chosen profession. You could sit and list all the jobs that require an element of risk in order to carry out their Jobs , but NASA, America, the world all know that space exploration is dangerous and life’s have been and will be lost over mans greatest challenge.

Your editing of my comments is reminiscent of Martin Bashirs Micheal Jackson documentry, Its easy to take a small sample of the quoted text and then answer the part you want!

If you are familiar working with large Government or Corporate companies at least in the United Kingdom, Planning and Control is usually a fundamental part of each division's attempt at ...... Planning and controlling the things they do. The fact that I work for a company that does exactly the same thing as Enron did (In USA and UK) and that after that incident I was part of a team which investigated in partnership with PricewaterhouseCoopers, the area's of our business to make sure our accounts where in a... reasonable fashion. I reckon that I would be right in saying that if Enron Financial Planning and control team had a better understanding of the problems they would have been able to better plan and subsequently control the situation before it became their demise.
My comment comparing NASA's Planning and control team for Hubble and Enron’s financial team, was to illustrate that Planning happens years in advance and doesn’t happen the day before otherwise you cannot control the situation. Therefore Hubble would have disappeared a long time ago along with the entire space program if they didn’t already have a  good grasp of this concept.

In actual fact it was to debunk your comment  below;

[Universal Absurdity]

The real issue here is exactly what the topic of this discussion is about "Is NASA right to abandon the Hubble?"

To which your main replies have been all about the discoveries that hubble has made and what would be possible with the next service mission. Thats fine and dandy. The decision made however IS the right decision, which is what i have been arguing. Safety is my main issue, as is theirs.

About planning and controlling issues, no one could have predicted the columbia accident, or the effect it had on nasa's decision making. Not everything can be planned, its not right to put that on nasa's shoulders.

It's funny that you actually contradict yourself, trying to down nasa for their planning and controll comparing them with enron (a fallen company) and not two short breaths later stating that they obviously do have planning and risk assesments. And who's to say that abandoning the hubble was'nt a risk assesment? How long since the last service mission did they have the new parts ready to go? They did have everything planned pretty well untill an accident happened, which made them want to be extra careful. i dont blame them.

[Scar]

[Universal Absurdity]

[Saru]

Thanks again to both of you for this excellent debate, you've done a fantastic job of debating this particular subject.

I should have some results for you later on today    

[Saru]

This was a particularly difficult debate to judge, you both had very strong arguements, countered the points each other made and kept on topic.

The scoring is based on a score out of ten in four areas, relevancy, countering, strength of arguement and style.

I can confirm that UniversalAbsurdity scored the highest, which makes him the official 'winner' of this debate - beating Scar by just 5 points.

Thanks again to both of you for taking part.