 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Shuttle / January 2004Hubble Servicing Flight cancelled...
Or so it seems, anyway. http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0401/16hubblesm4/ "NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe told engineers and scientists today that he has decided to cancel a planned shuttle mission in 2006 to service and upgrade the Hubble Space Telescope, one of the most scientifically productive spacecraft ever launched." (The possible retrieval mission is cancelled, too...)  Signature-Andrew Gray shimgray@bigfoot.com > Or so it seems, anyway. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > (The possible retrieval mission is cancelled, too...) Considering that, by law, Nasa is required to provide for the safe disposal of Hubble, what alternatives are available? The telescope in its present form has no facility for controlling its re-entry. The plan had been to retrieve it using the shuttle, or possibly to fit a propulsive module that would allow controlled re-entry. Without the shuttle neither of these options are available, i think. > > Or so it seems, anyway. > > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > would allow controlled re-entry. Without the shuttle neither of these > options are available, i think. My specialty is fixing people, not satellites, but I still have to ask: Why not have a rocket-launched repair robot for these situations? It would undoubtedly be more efficient than a human shuttle crew and would be able to stay in orbit indefinitely for use whenever a problem turned up. Even better, you could make one reusable, encasing it in a reentry shell and returning it to Earth whenever it ran out of fuel or needed to be launched with spare parts for saay, Hubble. Doc >Considering that, by law, What law is this? If US law doesn't apply to Guatanamo Bay ... how could it apply to Earth orbit? > Nasa is required to provide for the safe disposal >of Hubble, what alternatives are available? The telescope in its present >form has no facility for controlling its re-entry. The plan had been to >retrieve it using the shuttle, or possibly to fit a propulsive module that >would allow controlled re-entry. Without the shuttle neither of these >options are available, i think. According to CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/01/16/hubble.telescope.ap/index.html The Hubble will eventually fall out of orbit and crash to Earth, probably in 2011 or 2012. To make that event safe, Grunsfeld said, NASA will design and build a small robot craft that will be launched and guided to the Hubble. The robot craft would "grab the Hubble and bring it into the atmosphere in a controlled manner," he said, guiding the school-bus-sized craft to harmlessly splash into a remote part of an ocean NASA was supposed to have the Shuttle ready to rescue Skylab. Shuttle was delayed and Skylab killed thousands of australian bushflies and possibly a few snakes. So, you cancel the Shuttle mission to bring down Hubble, and it isn't very hard to predict that whatever plans NASA had to rescue Hubble for safe re-entry will be late and Hubble will again fall somewhere in Australia. If Hubble is left to its own from now on, how long before its orbit becomes decayed enough that the telescope will not provide much value to scientists ? Would this point in time occur before the Shuttle retirement in 2010 ? Once Hubble's orbit starts to decay sufficiently, does it present a collision risk with satellites ? or are satellites in orbits below Hubble all able to use thrusters to avoid collision ? Frankly, I really do not see why NASA would cancel the plan to rescue Hubble. It is just as important as completing the station. > NASA was supposed to have the Shuttle ready to rescue Skylab. Shuttle was > delayed and Skylab killed thousands of australian bushflies and possibly > a few snakes. ...and gave a few people some prized souvenirs to display in the trophy case at home. Lucky people. > So, you cancel the Shuttle mission to bring down Hubble, and it isn't > very hard to predict that whatever plans NASA had to rescue Hubble for > safe re-entry will be late and Hubble will again fall somewhere in > Australia. Well, not unless Hubble is intentionally deorbited while it still has sufficient maneuvering propellant for that. They did that with Mir which worked out ok in the end, but had waited just a little too long to deorbit while clinging to national pride and a very faint hope of last minute restored funding for continued use of Mir... to the point where Ground Control couldn't really make more precise estimations of debris zone due to having lost some control over maneuvering from waiting too long. > If Hubble is left to its own from now on, how long before its orbit > becomes decayed enough that the telescope will not provide much value to > scientists ? Would this point in time occur before the Shuttle > retirement in 2010 ? I don't recall details right now, but there was at least one article presented by interested Hubble-related researchers that floated several proposals for a Hubble repair / reboost / enhancement mission or two... they said that unless something happens, they can expect Hubble's orbit to be reasonably stable (if decaying) until at least about 2011-2012 or so. Current plans, unless changed, is to deorbit it in 2010... unknown if the recent proposals will affect the timeline although it seems likely it's a done deal for deorbiting rather than any future repair/enhancement missions. However, I don't know if that takes into effect the upcoming Solar Max which should be peaking around then... resulting in expansion of atmosphere (and increased drag, coming down sooner... which is what happened with Skylab when STS-1 ran late.) Probably did take that in consideration for HST lifetime without repair or reboosting, but I just don't personally know that for sure. > Once Hubble's orbit starts to decay sufficiently, does it present a > collision risk with satellites ? or are satellites in orbits below Hubble > all able to use thrusters to avoid collision ? Satellites generally use maneuvering fuel *extremely* conservatively -- they don't have a comfortable margin for anything other than stretching out a service life (and hoping nothing requires larger than planned fuel usage). It's often so tight that people are more willing to send one on a free return trajectory around the moon sometimes to fix satellite with Earth orbit issues rather than waste what precious fuel they have onboard, even at expense of waiting a while for it to return. (At least one satellite or maybe two has already done that, for that reason.) Most likely Hubble would just have to be aimed with some planning -- likely with tracking data by NORAD -- to hopefully miss significant orbiting bodies during its final descent to the ground. From what I understand, the NORAD database of orbiting celestial objects is pretty comprehensive and well charted and tracked. If they deorbit while it still has propellant and maneuvering control and capabilities, they can probably better predict the impact footprint and keep it as narrow as possible. If they wait too long... well, then you could have an *huge* potential impact zone like we did with Mir. > Frankly, I really do not see why NASA would cancel the plan to rescue > Hubble. It is just as important as completing the station. Unfortunately, the bureaucrats in charge of the purse strings don't seem to share the same passion for science. The ones leading NASA generally understands; the ones that defines NASA's budget are by definition, career politicians, and 'for the good of science' doesn't always win when deciding which projects/proposals/agencies to fund and what stuff to cut. By that, I mean the White House and Congress has the final say in how NASA is funded; it is up to NASA's administrator and his/her deputies to stretch every single allocated dollar. Very difficult situation when there is some reluctance in Congress to fund the proposed White House plan / vision for the future of the manned space program. -Dan > > NASA was supposed to have the Shuttle ready to rescue Skylab. Shuttle was > > delayed and Skylab killed thousands of australian bushflies and possibly [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Well, not unless Hubble is intentionally deorbited while it still has > sufficient maneuvering propellant for that. Hubble does not have a propulsion system. Ted Molczan >Well, not unless Hubble is intentionally deorbited while it still has >sufficient maneuvering propellant for that. >If they deorbit while it still has propellant and maneuvering control and >capabilities, they can probably better predict the impact footprint and >keep it as narrow as possible. If they wait too long... well, then you >could have an *huge* potential impact zone like we did with Mir. Unless I'm much mistaken, Hubble has no propellant. SignatureRabbit arithmetic - 1 plus 1 equals 10 Remove spam and invalid from address to reply. > Well, not unless Hubble is intentionally deorbited while it still has > sufficient maneuvering propellant for that. They did that with Mir which > worked out ok in the end, Hubble has 0 propellant. That is why it needs a Shuttle mission every few years to reboost it (as well as add new gizmos inside for new research). There is nothing that can be done to affect Hubhle's altitude, only its attitude. They would need to send something like Progress which can be remotely controlled and which has its own engines to deorbit the big tin can. The problem is that Hubble was designed to be grappled by the shuttle's arm. Does it have any means with which something like progress could attach itself to it and tug it out to the pacific ? I am curious as to why NASA would have made the statement about cancelling flights to Hubble without offering a specific solution for its deorbiting. In my opinion, the should have kept the shuttle mission in the books until the shuttle replacement is available. (assuming thats such a vehicle would have ability to grapple Hubble and either bring it down with it, or attach some deorbit engines to it. > The problem is that Hubble was designed to be grappled by the > shuttle's arm. Does it have any means with which something like > progress could attach itself to it and tug it out to the pacific ? No. It has no docking mechanism, nor a passive Kurs system. > I am curious as to why NASA would have made the statement about > cancelling flights to Hubble without offering a specific solution for > its deorbiting. They have, actually. Goddard is getting $300 million to build a deorbit stage that will autonomously rendezvous and grapple HST. > In my opinion, the should have kept the shuttle mission in the books > until the shuttle replacement is available. (assuming thats such a > vehicle would have ability to grapple Hubble and either bring it down > with it, or attach some deorbit engines to it. There are a lot of folks who want to keep the shuttle mission on the books. SignatureJRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. > > The problem is that Hubble was designed to be grappled by the > > shuttle's arm. Does it have any means with which something like [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > There are a lot of folks who want to keep the shuttle mission on the books. Why not use the deorbit stage to boost Hubble into a cold storage orbit where it can be retrieved someday for posterity. > Why not use the deorbit stage to boost Hubble into a cold storage > orbit where it can be retrieved someday for posterity. Deorbit is a lot easier than boosting to a storage orbit, even for the same delta-H, because you can use atmospheric drag to your advantage: just wait for Hubble's orbit to decay naturally to a very low orbit, then use the deorbit stage to finish it off with a relatively small delta-V. The same delta-V applied to reboost will buy Hubble more time, but that's just dumping the deorbit problem on someone else's lap; it doesn't solve it. SignatureJRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. > If Hubble is left to its own from now on, how long before its orbit becomes > decayed enough that the telescope will not provide much value to scientists ? > Would this point in time occur before the Shuttle retirement in 2010 ? Hubble's scientific usefulness is limited by the lifetime of its onboard gyroscopes, which fail at the rate of about 1 per year. It has 6 gyroscopes. Two have failed already. If two more fail the Hubble cannot do science. Jason > > If Hubble is left to its own from now on, how long before its orbit > becomes [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > gyroscopes. Two have failed already. If two more fail the Hubble cannot do > science. The important thing here is the Hubble decision has nothing to do with Shuttle retirement... there would be plenty of money to do a servicing mission before 2010. The issue is that with post-Columbia on-orbit inspection requirements, NASA is reluctant to make any non-ISS missions. Bruce This is a hard but probably necessary decision given the concerns about the shuttle. It's definitely a sad day. We should recognise that at $250 m/year (IIRC) Hubble was a very expensive mission to run. I do hope that this money is used for other science projects rather than being diverted to fund Bush's new space initiative. I would think that with the money saved from the servicing mission it would be possible to fund a partial replacement for Hubble. Modern mirrors are much thinner and lighter so a replacemant would be far cheaper than the original. Judging by the Kepler mission, $400m can buy you a 1.4m primary mirror (although aperture is limited by the .95m Schmidt corrector) launched into heliocentric orbit. Take a look here..... http://www.kepler.arc.nasa.gov/spacecraft.html Hubble's mirror is 2.4m IIRC. A new telescope for UV work and wide field high resolution imaging might be affordable if the requirements are kept in check. I'm aware of JWST, but that won't be ready for years and is in a different class financially. Didn't that project consider doing a 2.2m "engineeriing demonstrator" at a claimed price of $200m? > > If Hubble is left to its own from now on, how long before its orbit > becomes [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Jason Lets not forget that there are volumes of data from hubble still to be analized...Hubble does a teriffic job..and we learn so much (and still will long after hubble is gone) i agree its a waste, but in perspective is not that bad...seeing taht there will be future telescope which are desing with hubble legacy in mind > NASA was supposed to have the Shuttle ready to rescue Skylab. Shuttle was > delayed and Skylab killed thousands of australian bushflies and possibly a > few snakes. Horrors... [snip] > Frankly, I really do not see why NASA would cancel the plan to rescue Hubble. They looked at doing it, but considering just the committment to finishing ISS, the requirement for new safety procedures (which at this point mean no non-ISS missions), the number of remaining shuttles...Hubble gets the cut. > It is just as important as completing the station. Hardly. It's been up for what, 13 years, needs upgrades/repairs to continue functioning, is competing against enormously-better groundside telescopes, and several non-visual orbiting observatories. It's nearing its useful life, IIRC, it has alreaded exceded original planned life. In any case, it won't be left to fall randomly, there is a commitment to join with a robot-docking module to de-orbit the Hubble to a planned spot. Probably somewhere in northern Oz. :} Seriously, probably in the south Pacific. > In any case, it won't be left to fall randomly, there is a commitment to > join with a robot-docking module to de-orbit the Hubble to a planned [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Seriously, probably in the south Pacific. Agreed. No need to reenact Operation British in real life. :) SignatureGlenn Shaw Indianapolis, IN USA To e-mail, remove NOSPAM and transpose CAST and NET > > It is just as important as completing the station. > > Hardly. It's been up for what, 13 years, needs upgrades/repairs to > continue functioning, is competing against enormously-better groundside > telescopes, and several non-visual orbiting observatories. It's nearing > its useful life, IIRC, it has alreaded exceded original planned life. The assertion that Hubble is nearing the end of its useful life or has been eclipsed by better ground based telescopes is completely false. Check the astronomical literature (http://xxx.lanl.gov) to see what Hubble continues to do. Jason > The assertion that Hubble is nearing the end of its useful life or has been > eclipsed by better ground based telescopes is completely false. Well, that's actually partially a point of contention. 1. If left alone, then yes, Hubble is nearing the end of its useful life if/when all gyros fails, not to mention lack of on-board propulsion to escape effects of a decaying orbit *and* an upcoming Solar Maximum... Therefore, its continued usefulness will depend on #2... which is the more interesting and problematic issue for 'what's the best approach' and 'how?' 2. Everything is technically possible. It's just a matter of priorities and willingness to fund them, as well as revised safety policies post-STS-107. Could NASA fund multiple telescopes? They seemed to think they could do Hubble or JWST, and that JWST was already a done deal and to become a reality. It isn't so much that Hubble couldn't do useful science... it's more a question of how to handle funding -- so far, NASA management appears to want to cancel all upgrade projects in order to make the recent White House announcement more palatable to Congress and the taxpayers. It'd take a miracle for Hubble to survive that with its upgrade ideas. Without repairs or upgrades, it's a certain thing that Hubble will eventually end up in fiery pieces... the issue then therefore becomes how to deorbit it safely. With the post-STS-107 safety policies in place now, there's a big push to save the Shuttle for only ISS missions, so that would rule out the original plans for dealing with Hubble deorbiting. That leaves perhaps spending about the same amount of money originally slated for the Hubble deorbiting mission via Shuttle, on unmanned technology to do the job. All this is based on the central idea that NASA wouldn't pay for both Hubble and other telescopes regardless of type (e.g. JWST) at the same time. > Check the astronomical literature (http://xxx.lanl.gov) to see what > Hubble continues to do. ...and perhaps the Hubble site at http://www.stsci.edu as well. -Dan > All this is based on the central idea that NASA wouldn't pay for both > Hubble and other telescopes regardless of type (e.g. JWST) at the same [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > ...and perhaps the Hubble site at http://www.stsci.edu as well. The HST's successor is already under construction, scheduled to be launched in 2010 on an expendable rocket to the Earth's L2 Lagrange Point, 940,000 miles from Earth where there will not be manned service missions. September 10, 2002 NASA ANNOUNCES CONTRACT FOR NEXT-GENERATION SPACE TELESCOPE NAMED AFTER SPACE PIONEER Excerpts: 'The space-based observatory will be known as the James Webb Space Telescope, named after James E. Webb, NASA's second administrator.' 'The James Webb Space Telescope is scheduled for launch in 2010 aboard an expendable launch vehicle. It will take about three months for the spacecraft to reach its destination, an orbit 940,000 miles or 1.5 million kilometers in space, called the second Lagrange Point or L2, where the spacecraft is balanced between the gravity of the Sun and the Earth.' 'Unlike Hubble, space shuttle astronauts will not service the James Webb Space Telescope because it will be too far away.' 'The James Webb Space Telescope will be able to look deeper into the universe than Hubble because of the increased light-collecting power of its larger mirror and the extraordinary sensitivity of its instruments to infrared light. Webb's primary mirror will be at least 20 feet in diameter, providing much more light gathering capability than Hubble's eight-foot primary mirror.' > The HST's successor is already under construction, scheduled to be > launched in 2010 on an expendable rocket to the Earth's L2 Lagrange [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > NASA ANNOUNCES CONTRACT FOR NEXT-GENERATION > SPACE TELESCOPE NAMED AFTER SPACE PIONEER http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20020806ngst.html > > All this is based on the central idea that NASA wouldn't pay for both > > Hubble and other telescopes regardless of type (e.g. JWST) at the same [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Point, 940,000 miles from Earth where there will not be manned service > missions. But isn't that one of the missions to be cancelled under Bush's "manned moon only" directive? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services. The original sender is unknown. Any address shown in the From header is unverified. > But isn't that one of the missions to be cancelled under Bush's > "manned moon only" directive? No, because that isn't the directive. Bush's directive includes support for unmanned probes in all aspects of space exploration. Bruce > > But isn't that one of the missions to be cancelled under Bush's > > "manned moon only" directive? > > No, because that isn't the directive. Bush's directive > includes support for unmanned probes in all aspects > of space exploration. We have yet to see any of the details, but the directive only gives NASA an extra $200 million per year, but directs more than $2 billion per year be spent on the "manned moon only" plan. The way I see it, that means evertyhing else will have to be cut $1.8 billion a year. Which pretty much eliminates everything else. The CAIB, of course, said that the only way the shuttle could safely be returned to flight is with a massive _increase_ in funding. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services. The original sender is unknown. Any address shown in the From header is unverified. > We have yet to see any of the details, but the directive only > gives NASA an extra $200 million per year, but directs more than [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Which pretty much eliminates everything else. Huh? NASA's budget is over $15 billion/year. A $1.8 billion cut won't even come close to eliminating everything else. You could get a good bit of the way there just by eliminating OSP and SLEP. SignatureJRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. > > "Hagar" <Anonymous-Remailer@See.Comment.Header> wrote in > message [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > gives NASA an extra $200 million per year, but directs more than > $2 billion per year be spent on the "manned moon only" plan. No, the directive does not do that. Please refer to O'Keefe's latest budget projections for a better idea of what we're talking about. Bruce > > > It is just as important as completing the station. > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > astronomical literature (http://xxx.lanl.gov) to see what Hubble continues > to do. It's planned lifespan was to be 15 years. That's what, two years from now? > So, you cancel the Shuttle mission to bring down Hubble, and it isn't very > hard to predict that whatever plans NASA had to rescue Hubble for safe > re-entry will be late and Hubble will again fall somewhere in Australia. *blink* Hubble fell on Australia in the past?!? My god man, does NASA know about this? I can only assume it bounced back up into orbit off some rotting vegemite. And survived! That is one tough satellite. One might almost think it was forged in the factories of the Venusian Fire Women, for use in early warning in case of attack from the Zeta Reticulans, or any of the many many enemies Earth has out there in the universe. No wonder SM-4 was canceled, it isn't needed! In fact, I'd bet none of the servicing missions were needed at all, and it was all just a ruse to coverup the torrid affairs those Fire Women that some astronauts have been enjoying as part of their perks. So I now propose a bold venture: Hubble *MUST* be retrieved, and its material studied for use as an inpenetrable shuttle heat shield. Only this will give us the perfect Orbiter, the invulnerable orbiter. And boy are we gonna need it when those Fire Women come looking for their cosmic kalediscope and find it missing! I wouldn't want to be Bob Haller on that day, I tell you what. For all his insisting on perfect safety *AND* servicing Hubble (which as we know isn't needed at all!), he will surely be blamed for this blatant theft of GUTH Venus property! And we all know what the Firewomen do to those who cross their path... SignatureThis is a siggy | To E-mail, do note | Just because something It's properly formatted | who you mean to reply-to | is possible, doesn't No person, none, care | and it will reach me | mean it can happen >> So, you cancel the Shuttle mission to bring down Hubble, and it isn't >> very hard to predict that whatever plans NASA had to rescue Hubble >> for safe re-entry will be late and Hubble will again fall somewhere >> in Australia. > *blink* > Hubble fell on Australia in the past?!? Bruce.... Bruce... Bruce.... - What is it Brian?? Look through this. I can see the pub from 'ere! >>Considering that, by law, > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >will design and build a small robot craft that will be launched and >guided to the Hubble. And just how much will this cost? Presumably it's no coincidence that this story was released in the wake of Spirit's successful deployment, and at the same time as a "leak" of images from the Hubble Ultra Deep Field. SignatureRabbit arithmetic - 1 plus 1 equals 10 Remove spam and invalid from address to reply. >>The Hubble will eventually fall out of orbit and crash to Earth, >>probably in 2011 or 2012. To make that event safe, Grunsfeld said, NASA [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > of Spirit's successful deployment, and at the same time as a "leak" of > images from the Hubble Ultra Deep Field. I think those pictures came out the day - well, morning, at least - before, but ICBW. It's probably prompted as much by the fact that making definite statements about future Shuttle plans is the in thing this week <g> (It is a decision, but there's no technical reason NASA couldn't choose to prepare and send a repair mission at a later date; it'd just take a few years lead time and the political decision.) Signature-Andrew Gray shimgray@bigfoot.com >>According to CNN: >>http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/01/16/hubble.telescope.ap/index.html [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > And just how much will this cost? $300 million, last I heard. SignatureJRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. Question: where would the decision to announce cancelled flights to Hubble have come from ? Would this have originated from NASA and approved by the White House, or the reverse ? Would this have been a knee jerk decision without much thought on the implications, or would that have been as a result of serious study that would have concluded building a robot to go and grapple Hubble and de-orbit it was feasable and cheaper than an additional shuttle flight ? I can understand cancelling a Hubble servicing mission, thus shortening its operational lifetime and thus freeing funds earlier. But cancelling the deorbit mission without having any serious plan to replace shuttle for that duty is irresponsible. > Question: > > where would the decision to announce cancelled flights to > Hubble have come from ? Would this have originated from NASA > and approved by the White House, or the reverse ? It came from the NASA Administrator, according to Anne Kinney Director, Astronomy and Physics Division, Office of Space Science, NASA Headquarters, a decision supported by Code S. See NASA Watch for the direct quotes. > Would this have been a knee jerk decision without much thought > on the implications, or would that have been as a result of > serious study that would have concluded building a robot to go > and grapple Hubble and de-orbit it was feasable and cheaper > than an additional shuttle flight ? The decision was made for safety, not for cost. Code S was willing to pay for HST. Same quote as above. I don't think that a key decision on a major observatory would be made without "much thought on the implications." If you have any evidence that the decision was made without "much thought on the implications" please share it with us. > I can understand cancelling a Hubble servicing mission, thus > shortening its operational lifetime and thus freeing funds > earlier. But cancelling the deorbit mission without having any > serious plan to replace shuttle for that duty is irresponsible. Again, it wasn't about funds. The options were discussed quite a while ago. I haven't seen anything that was not responsible. As an interesting aside, note that a lot of space debris falls every year. Here's an interesting table of large objects reentering. http://www.reentrynews.com/largeobject.html Signaturerk, Just an OldEngineer "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." -- R. Feynman, Appendix F. Marvin <kitfox@nospam.pixie.co.za> wrote in message > Considering that, by law, Nasa is required to provide for the safe disposal > of Hubble, what alternatives are available? The telescope in its present > form has no facility for controlling its re-entry. The plan had been to > retrieve it using the shuttle, or possibly to fit a propulsive module that > would allow controlled re-entry. Without the shuttle neither of these > options are available, i think. Look at the positive side. Maybe it will land on the morons making these decisions. Hubble is a national treasure which really makes the shuttle program (and its cost in lives) worth it. I have no doubt that a crew could be found to make the Hubble upgrades. Go get Story!! If they are so afraid of having a damaged shuttle in orbit on this mission. Put a second one on the pad and let Igor support the now defunct ISS for a few months. The truth is they saw no contracts for Haliburton so cancelled the program. Well done Shrub. JWW45 Ahem, could find themselves in hot water here, as their commitments are to the international community, from whom some moneys have, or are being paid to achieve the upgrade, I understood. It may be that he is cancelling them pending the success or otherwise of the repair technologies for the Shuttle. However, they really will need to think what to do about the re-entry, they got lucky with Skylab, they may not do so again. Brian -- Brian Gaff.... graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them Email: briang1@blueyonder.co.uk ____________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________ | Or so it seems, anyway. | [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] | -Andrew Gray | shimgray@bigfoot.com > Ahem, could find themselves in hot water here, as their commitments are to > the international community, from whom some moneys have, or are being paid [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > However, they really will need to think what to do about the re-entry, they > got lucky with Skylab, they may not do so again. Other (Non Shuttle) De-Orbit options have been at least considered. See http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=9909 According to that article, NASA policy was that Hubble would not be permitted to re-enter uncontrolled. Assuming that still stands (the article is from July 2003), then one of the non Shuttle options would need to be picked. Iain > Other (Non Shuttle) De-Orbit options have been at least considered. See > http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=9909 They all require a shuttle mission to Hubble, either to deorbit it, or to install a propulsion module, or some sort of docking aparatus that woudl allow a robotic propulsion module to dock to it. > Or so it seems, anyway. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > (The possible retrieval mission is cancelled, too...) dumb question, but why could we not do a hubble repair mission using soyuz? If there is no need to transport bulky items, why not? So it is russian and not Us, if we are partners, why not use the best tool for the job? >> Or so it seems, anyway. >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > dumb question, but why could we not do a hubble repair mission using > soyuz? If there is no need to transport bulky items, why not? 1) Hubble does not have a Soyuz-compatible docking mechanism. 2) Current Soyuz variants (TM, TMA) are optimized as station ferries and only have a free-flight capability of 4.2 days, far too short for a Hubble mission. I'm not sure, but I think they now lack independent EVA capability as well. 3) *Any* Hubble servicing mission is going to involve carry bulky items. Replacement gyros, at the very least. Soyuz has very little cargo capability. > So it > is russian and not Us, if we are partners, why not use the best tool > for the job? The best tool for the job - the *only* tool for the job - is the space shuttle. SignatureJRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. Jesus...probably 3/4ths of the Shuttle flights didn't go to a blasted space station and now...one in 25 to 30 is seen as too risky. Well, now we know the cost of Bush's space initiative. I truly hope whatever funds this frees up go to getting the Webb up there. -A.L. Well, guys, I was posting here all about this for the last few months, and the esteemed Jorge Frank, among others, was telling me that I was wrong that Hubble would be lost. My only error was in thinking that the baseline plan, a second Shuttle on standby for the prime Shuttle mission, would be abandoned closer to launch (I thought the plan would be cancelled a year before launch but it didn't even make it into the first budget cycle). But did anyone listen to me? Nooooooooooooo ..................... > Or so it seems, anyway. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > (The possible retrieval mission is cancelled, too...) > Well, guys, I was posting here all about this for the last few months, > and the esteemed Jorge Frank, among others, was telling me that I was [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > be cancelled a year before launch but it didn't even make it into the > first budget cycle). You are correct; I was only reporting the sentiment in Houston (see http://www.nasawatch.com/misc/01.16.04.hst.html) and failed to notice the extent to which HQ is affected by hallerb disease. This is pathetic. A final shuttle servicing mission to HST will involve some elevated level of risk compared to a shuttle mission to ISS, but then again, so will a human lunar mission. An agency that can't risk servicing HST has no business even thinking about the moon. SignatureJRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. > You are correct; I was only reporting the sentiment in Houston (see > http://www.nasawatch.com/misc/01.16.04.hst.html) and failed to notice the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > lunar mission. An agency that can't risk servicing HST has no business even > thinking about the moon. The safety issue is a smoke screen, of course. The HST's true mission was to help justify the shuttle. Now that the shuttle is going away, NASA doesn't need HST anymore. BTW, I will be utterly amazed if the backup plan to attach a robotic retro package to HST is ever funded. Why spend $200 M to save (on average) .001 human lives? Paul > > You are correct; I was only reporting the sentiment in Houston (see > > http://www.nasawatch.com/misc/01.16.04.hst.html) and failed to notice the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > The HST's true mission was to help justify the shuttle. Now that the shuttle > is going away, NASA doesn't need HST anymore. Yep and it's also an easy way to cut one flight from the schedule, the true cost of which is staggering. no doubt we'll see more cancelled flights in future, after all not that many are needed to complete the core ISS. Progress, Soyuz and ATV flights can suport the station. > > Well, guys, I was posting here all about this for the last few months, > > and the esteemed Jorge Frank, among others, was telling me that I was [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > risk compared to a shuttle mission to ISS, but then again, so will a human > lunar mission. Ah, but that wouldn't be done with one of those horribly-dangerous shuttles. So it'll be OK. > An agency that can't risk servicing HST has no business even > thinking about the moon. Any nation that falls prey to "zero permissible risk" as a national course is pretty much cooked. >extent to which HQ is affected by hallerb disease. This is pathetic. A >final shuttle servicing mission to HST will involve some elevated level of >risk compared to a shuttle mission to ISS, but then again, so will a human >lunar mission. An agency that can't risk servicing HST has no business even >thinking about the moon. Perhaps they expect another lostr shuttle soon? What I dont understand is how are they going to grapple the hubble? Better to do a final service mission, install docking adapter, and use the already built parts. Then run hubble as long as possible. In 10 years perhaps the new launch sytstem could service hubble? I think nasa is being gutted, and is going to be shut down:( If NASA can find seven astronauts who are willing to fly a mission to service Hubble, that should be sufficient reason to go ahead with the mission that has been planned for the past several years. The opinions of the administrator or the CAIB or others who never get their feet off the ground are of little concern to me. If the astronauts are willing to put their lives on the line to enable the excellent science that Hubble produces, then shut up and fly the dammed mission. The risks are no higher than those of the previous four service missions, just more obvious. Without the input of the astronaut office, I am left to conclude that the safety argument is designed to head off critics in the science and engineering community as well as members of Congress who would likely oppose a mission cancellation based on economic arguments. Most of the cost of the service mission has already been spent to develop the Cosmic Origins Spectrograph, Wide Field/Planetary Camera 3 and the tools and hardware needed to carry out the mission. The money freed up by cancelling the flight at this point is negligible. The most likely explanation was given by a previous poster. HST was needed to justify the shuttle program, now that shuttle is on the way out, HST is no longer needed, except by those who care about such irrelevant things as science. If there are not seven astronauts who are willing to fly this mission, then and only then will I accept the argument that servicing Hubble is to dangerous to proceed. Dan Schultz >If there are not seven astronauts who are willing to fly this mission, >then and only then will I accept the argument that servicing Hubble is >to dangerous to proceed. I am curious as to the astronaut office's stance on this. I know the HST retrieval mission was killed because the astronaut office vetoed the idea after Columbia. But I really hope the Astronauts themselves haven't lost this degree of confidence in the shuttle that they are no longer willing to service the Hubble. Otherwise, really, why the hell have they been agreeing to fly the damn thing for over 20 years? Of course in a side note, the astronauts today I suppose are used to the safety of a space station. Most of the active veteran astronauts made their first or second shuttle flights to Mir or ISS. Its horribly ironic though that the missions that were deemed "low priority" pre-STS 107 are now seen as the most potentially dangerous flights... -A.L. >>If there are not seven astronauts who are willing to fly this mission, >>then and only then will I accept the argument that servicing Hubble is >>to dangerous to proceed. > > I am curious as to the astronaut office's stance on this. Ask ten different astronauts, you'll get 20 different answers. Seriously. Case in point: John Grunsfeld wearing his astronaut hat (7/31/03): http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=9907 "If astronauts are going to risk their lives to service the Hubble Space Telescope, we should do it in order to enable great science. For the upcoming SM4 mission the Astronaut Office has signed up for and is excited about the prospects of sending a team up to Hubble to install the Cosmic Origins Spectrograph, the Wide Field-3 Camera, and replace the gyros, batteries, and install the Aft-shroud Cooling System. The Space Shuttle Program is aggressively working towards improving the safety of the Shuttle system and to provide solutions to the tile issues, brought to light by the Columbia accident, which will enable an SM4 mission to the Hubble." And John Grunsfeld wearing his management hat (1/17/04): http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/space/2358102 "This was a really tough decision," Grunsfeld said. "I agree it is the right decision." > I know the > HST retrieval mission was killed because the astronaut office vetoed > the idea after Columbia. That's a bit of an oversimplification - see Grunsfeld's comments in the 7/03 article above. SignatureJRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. > >If there are not seven astronauts who are willing to fly this mission, > >then and only then will I accept the argument that servicing Hubble is [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Hubble. Otherwise, really, why the hell have they been agreeing to fly the damn > thing for over 20 years? Because they were wrong for the past 20 years. Now they realize one of the things they were wrong about. Besides which, most astronauts are entirely willing to take larger than assessed risk on a mission. Bruce "Bruce Sterling Woodcock" <sirbruce@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:UV2Pb.13315 > ...Besides which, most astronauts are entirely willing to > take larger than assessed risk on a mission. Precisely. Almost all astronauts suffer the incurable form of the often chronic infection "Go Fever". SignatureDaniel http://www.challengerdisaster.info Mount Charleston, not Charleston, SC > I am curious as to the astronaut office's stance on this. I know the HST > retrieval mission was killed because the astronaut office vetoed the idea after [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Hubble. Otherwise, really, why the hell have they been agreeing to fly the damn > thing for over 20 years? > -A.L. The astronauts are good little soldiers who would never publically question the decisions of their superiors. To show any dissent would be to risk not being assigned to any future ISS missions. Dan Schultz |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.