Posted on 06/24/2006 9:44:14 AM PDT by SunkenCiv
The primary instrument aboard the Hubble Space Telescope shut down this week, an unwelcome reminder that the observatory's future is tightly tied to NASA's upcoming space shuttle launch... Project managers expect the telescope's Advanced Camera for Surveys to be out of commission at least through the end of the month, but have high hopes it eventually will be recovered... If engineers' initial troubleshooting efforts are correct, the problem should be resolved by switching to a backup electronics unit. A circuit on the primary unit is believed to have failed. The backup unit was extensively tested before Hubble was put into orbit in 1990 but has not been powered on since... The efforts to extend Hubble's life were sparked by the prospect of reinstating a previously canceled fifth servicing mission to Hubble by space shuttle astronauts. Former NASA administrator Sean O'Keefe canceled the mission, which had been planned for late 2004 or early 2005, after the 2003 Columbia accident and the findings of the board the investigated the disaster. The backlash to O'Keefe's decision was swift and harsh. O'Keefe's successor, Michael Griffin, pledged to reinstate the flight if post-Columbia safety upgrades proved successful. NASA is most concerned with having a shuttle fuel tank that does not shed debris during launch.
(Excerpt) Read more at dsc.discovery.com ...
Sounds like this one is (all together now) all Bush's fault!!!
Does anyone else remember the design life of HST? Or that we got the STS instead of the SSC? Now the jewel HST depends on the obsolescent (I considered an alternative epithet) STS for its extended life and the SSC is forgotten.
[in unison] Pretty soon there will be foreign telescopes in orbit doing the job that American telescopes won't do.
The Hubble was designed to fit into the STS bay. Like the STS, the Hubble is getting pretty old. My view, FWIW, is that the Shuttle should be retired immediately and the completion of the ISS abandoned. If the ISS is to be completed, it should be done with expendible heavy-lift boosters. Also, the pieces of crap ISS modules designed and built by the Russians should be removed and jettisoned.
If the STS is to be flown at all, it should be for repairs to the Hubble. However, a repair bay for the Hubble could be launched with the same expendible boosters; the Hubble could be taken inside (robotically by remote control from the ground); the technicians to do the repair/refit to the Hubble could do so in a shirtsleeve environment, and arrive at the bay using the new crew vehicle now being developed.
Well, the thermal protection on the shuttle bottom surfaces is crucial [on shuttle top much less so] - and it is that "belly" that faces the fuel tank. If the tank were to be attached from the opposite side, on the shuttle "back", the danger would be much less.
If deployed on it's original timetable the HST was supposed to have been retired sometime before 2000 and replaced by one of several more advanced telescopes, almost all scrapped by either Congress or Clinton. It was delayed several times and finally launched in 1990 after several mission design changes:
When originally planned in 1979, the Large Space Telescope program called for return to Earth, refurbishment, and relaunch every 5 years, with on-orbit servicing every 2.5 years. Hardware lifetime and reliability requirements were based on that 2.5-year interval between servicing missions. In 1985, contamination and structural loading concerns associated with return to Earth aboard the shuttle eliminated the concept of ground return from the program. NASA decided that on-orbit servicing might be adequate to maintain HST for its 15- year design life. A three year cycle of on-orbit servicing was adopted. (from the Space Telescope Institute web site... which is really out of date...)
So even with the amended launch schedule it's a year beyond planned end of life.
If by SSC you mean either Spitzer Space Telescope or Superconduncting Super Collider, the Space Transportation System predates both of them by a good many years. Or are you referring to some other launcher/orbiter? The vertical launch STS was indeed a bastard compromise. The alternative, however, was not a better space ship. It was no space program at all.
Right now it looks like Burt Rutan's t/Space is in the lead to win the commercial contract for launch capabilities to get crew and supplies to the ISS and low Earth orbit. President Bush has pushed us in exactly the right direction, putting NASA back in the exploration business and turning over LEO to commercial operators. The added benefit is that it should work the way air mail service did to fund the development of a new industry.
On a seperate note, I was obviously confused by your use of the abbreviation SSC. It's always helpful to use the full spelled out version of an acronym before starting to use the acronym. There are too many duplicates floating around now to not lead to terminal confusion. I traded six emails with a colleague about how to deal with a security problem. We were both using the acronym VM. I meant virtual machine and he meant virus management. We couldn't understand why we were having so much trouble making our respective points. ;^>
Indefinite. Was designed to be serviced as parts wear out and new cameras designed. Should last into the 2020s, However, I fear it will not make it till 2008.
Except that there isn't any structure there that can handle that kind of a load, or anywhere near that kind of a load. There would also be a huge balance problem.
For balance problems - I was under the impression that shuttle engines are vectorable. Attachment support would have to be engineered in.
What ya gona do bout that big ol' vertical stabilizer. Kinda in the way.
Regardless, why would you want to carry/expend fuel for "balance"?
Doesn't that sort of add to the already poor economics?
Put two smaller ones on the wings instead, or make it foldable.
Glory Days
In one of the most detailed astronomical images ever produced, NASA's Hubble Space Telescope captured an unprecedented look at the Orion Nebula in January 2006 using the Advanced Camera for Surveys.
?
The most recent triumph (of which I'm aware) is finding the two new moons of Pluto -- Nix and Hydra.
What I mean is, why are you telling me this? :'?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.