NASA Says 'No' To Hubble Reprieve

BBC ^ | 2-10-2004 | Dr David Whitehouse

[Huck]

Bummer.

[jpsb]

The incredibly stupid decisions of this administration continue to amaze me. I never thought I would seen a Republican administration show such an inability to think. I never thought I would see NASA display such fear at the thought of sending a man into space. NASA needs to get out of the space business, NASA doesn't have the neccessary guts to go into space.

[KellyAdmirer]

Regarding a possible shuttle mission to Hubble, Readdy said schedule pressures and logistics would be formidable

Well, if it's difficult, might as well not try to do it at all! Somewhere along the line, the "right stuff" became the "timid stuff."

[Dave S]

You going to volunteer to fix Hubble?

[Robe]

which would repair failing gyroscopes and upgrade detectors, the telescope will eventually stop functioning and will need to be nudged out of orbit toward Earth in a controlled descent

Why deorbit?... why not give it a bump into a higher orbit, do an orderly shut down and put it in "deep freeze" til we have a way to fix it?

Unless of course Hubble is a little on the obsolete side...and better technology is coming on line soon.... then it's just a matter of some scientists wanting to keep their jobs at the peril of others (Just Idle Thoughts....JIT)

[Frank_Discussion]

A binding constraint to return to flight is that Shuttle must have a safe haven, and the ISS is the only choice for the timeframe of a Hubble servicing mission. You can't launch a shuttle mission to both Hubble and ISS.

NASA get's bashed for not following the rules and not having enough safety measures in place, so it establishes a no-tolerance policy against rule-breaking, along with new rules to acheive a greater safety margin for the program. Then people get all up in arms when the rules restrain the available missions, so there's a bunch of complaining that NASA's "not thinking" or is somehow cowardly.

I want to see Hubble refurbished, too. But it won't be a shuttle mission to do it, since the people signing the check have demanded more restraints. For NASA's blame in this, if it had followed existing rules we may not have been discussing the whole issue.

It's a mess.

[Core_Conservative]

Maybe the Administration and NASA ought to try to sell the Hubble to the highest bidder. Then it is out of their hands, and some money in the pocket to boot. I also think that NASA should be put on the market and turned into a private industry.

[boris]

The thing is obsolete; better pictures are available from giant ground scopes with adaptive optics. The shuttle itself is obsolete and should remain grounded. If we lose another one, I guarantee the last two will never fly.

There's a better replacement for Hubble on the way (Webb); be patient.

--Boris

[Timm]

Good thing we spent all that money on a manned shuttle program. After all, would we want to forego all of the benefits of sending people into space, as opposed to less expensive robots? Humans can make repairs on existing satellites, and can solve problems that machines can't.

Oh wait, they can't. It turns out that a hundred billion dollars later it's too dangerous to send men to fix satellites. Oh well.

[jpsb]

Have you ever heard the expression "a bird in hand". Web is still on the drawing board and with 500 billion dollar deficets, new entitlement programs, a commitment to the ISS a dollar droping like a rock and a "new mission" to go to trhe moon and mars,(yea right, like we've got a trillion dollars for that) there is a good chance Web will never be built. Even if Web is built and successfully launched it is not a low earth orbit telescope, if anything goes wrong (Murphy) Web will be space junk. Hubble is up thre and working extremely well, doing great science, you want to trade that for a promise to do something in 10 years or so?

[hchutch]

Dumb does not begin to describe this one...

Until the replacement is up and running, kleep the Hubble going. If they have to, re-rig Enterprise to go up to fix Hubble. But this is just mind-boggling.

[blam]

"There's a better replacement for Hubble on the way (Webb); be patient."

That's what I've read also.

[Mr. Jeeves]

Hmmm..."Webb" and "Hubble"...I'm having flashbacks... ;)

[Monty22]

The only 'dumb' thing they did was not get a space plane replacement ready. The shuttle's just too creaky for missions at this point. I hate to see Hubble go too, but we need a new one and a new delivery/maintenence system first.

[hchutch]

Too bad the Clinton Adminsitration killed NASP, VentureStar and the DC-X. The DC-X really had promise - but it came from the SDI program and that made it anathema to the Left.

[Kakaze]

" re-rig Enterprise to go up to fix Hubble. But this is just mind-boggling "

Re-rig Enterprise?........Now thats mind boggling.

Best thing for hubble, push it to a high parking orbit, with a unmanned manned rocket pack, then service it with a C.E.V> test flight. Save some old technology as we develope some new technology.

[Arkinsaw]

They just can't win for losing. They get slammed for non-safety and then get slammed for concentrating on safety. They are responding to what the public wants, which is what agencies should do, and the public wants safety at this time.

[Thermalseeker]

There's a better replacement for Hubble on the way (Webb); be patient.

True, but do we have the launch capacity without the shuttle to put it in orbit?

[isiti]

You going to volunteer for Hubble?

In a heartbeat!