If you have not read this book, you should:
__________________________________________________________________________
1.
|
Usually ships in 24 hours
|
Posted on 07/14/2004 1:31:51 PM PDT by neverdem
WASHINGTON, July 13 - An expert panel from the National Academy of Sciences said Tuesday that the Hubble Space Telescope was too valuable to be allowed to die in orbit and that NASA should commit itself to a servicing mission to extend its life, perhaps with astronauts in a space shuttle.
"NASA should take no actions that would preclude a space shuttle servicing mission to the Hubble Space Telescope," the panel said in a letter to Sean O'Keefe, head of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
The committee of outside experts urged the space agency to commit itself to replacing two major instruments on the telescope, as well as upgrading its batteries and gyroscopes to extend its life. These were the same objectives of a shuttle servicing mission that had been planned for 2005 but that was canceled by Mr. O'Keefe six months ago.
Mr. O'Keefe announced that he would not authorize a fourth shuttle mission to the telescope because it would be too risky for astronauts in light of recommendations by the Columbia Accident Investigation Board, which studied the loss of the shuttle and its crew of seven in February 2003.
After an uproar among astronomers, members of Congress and the public, Mr. O'Keefe said there was little chance he would change his mind but that he would consider having the work done by robots if that proved feasible. He agreed to have the National Academy of Sciences' National Research Council study options for extending the telescope's useful life.
On Tuesday, the panel said that while astronauts had repaired the telescope in the past, there was no assurance that robots could do so. A proposed robotic mission would be "highly complex" with inherent difficulties" associated with conducting delicate operations by remote control that have never been tried, it said.
"The proposed robotic mission to Hubble will essentially be an experimental test program that is expected to accomplish specific programmatic objectives at the same time," the panel wrote.
Reacting to the report, Mr. O'Keefe said in a statement that NASA would continue to assess innovative serving options.
While not specifically addressing a shuttle mission, Mr. O'Keefe said, "Just as we are committed to meeting the recommendations and findings of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board and returning the space shuttle to safe flight, we're committed to doing everything possible to safely extend the scientific life of this valuable asset."
Representative Sherwood Boehlert, the New York Republican who is chairman of the House Science Committee, said he endorsed recommendations in the new report.
"We will continue to work with NASA to see that the agency keeps all its options open concerning a Hubble mission and sets aside the funding needed to carry out any mission, whether manned or robotic," Mr. Boehlert said.
Dr. John N. Bahcall of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, N.J., joined other astronomers in praising the report.
"The panel concluded that Hubble is important, that robotics is tough but might work, and that NASA should not close the door on a shuttle visit," Dr. Bahcall said in an e-mail response. "The shuttle could turn out to be the best option."
Keeping the shuttle option open would require NASA to keep together teams of scientists, engineers and others involved with service missions so they could move quickly to ready such a flight, Dr. Bahcall said.
Louis J. Lanzerotti, chairman of the study group, said the panel's final report should be finished in the fall. But because NASA must make decisions soon on plans for a robot mission and other options, the group decided to issue an interim report outlining three principal findings and recommendations.
Calling the Hubble "arguably the most important telescope in history," the panel said scientific returns from it were far from over and could be even greater if it were repaired and upgraded. To keep options open, the group concluded, NASA should immediately take an active role in coming space experiments by the Defense Department to practice robotic rendezvous and docking in orbit. In addition, it said, NASA should keep the shuttle mission option open.
Mr. Lanzerotti said in a telephone news conference that NASA had about a year to make crucial technical decisions that would determine whether robots or the shuttle should be used to repair the telescope. He said both options must be "pursued vigorously" to save the telescope before failing equipment forces it to cease operations, expected to happen by 2007 or 2008.
The panel concluded that a shuttle mission to the telescope was not precluded by the Columbia review committee or inconsistent with its recommendations. Columbia investigators, the new report said, did not set constraints on how to conduct a shuttle mission that was not to the International Space Station.
PING
After all those amazing pics you take the time to post everyday, I really hope we do save Hubble.
It's worth it.
Ditto
There should be a mission to put an even bigger telescope on the moon.
If you have not read this book, you should:
__________________________________________________________________________
1.
|
Usually ships in 24 hours
|
Hubble is only one among several orbiting telescopes. It is very old, it is pretty much time for it to die. There is no non-manned satellite that is worth ANY trips to it by astronauts. Period. Especially with a shuttle. We might as well build a new satellite rather than spending hundreds of millions of dollars to send an astronaut up to change the battteries. We can't keep thinking in this infantile manner. Spacecraft are not toys whose batteries are to be replaced. The only reason Nasa has fixed satellites with shuttles in the past is because it was deluding itself that the space shuttle is a shuttle to space. I think its a travesty that we would strap 7 Americans onto millions of pounds of explosives with a mission to replace hardware on a sattelite. Lets see, there have been a bit over 100 space shuttle mission, 2 of which have killed all on board. That gives you a bit better than 98% survival rate. How would you like it if your survival rate was 98% over the next 2 weeks? Sending astronauts on such a meager and dangerous mission is an insult to them.
How would you like it if your survival rate was 98% over the next 2 weeks?
Life is hell,then you die.
Try getting in a car and driving on the freeway.
Nasa is going to have to spread those wings and fly
or give up. Americans don't give up.
Hubble is no longer as vital as it was. This is an excellent opportunity to make some advances in robotics and then retire Hubble on schedule anyway. We could lose the ISS, though; the ISS is looking a little precarious. Dump ISS--wrong tool for the wrong job.
I'm not saying you shouldn't take risks. I'm saying you should take risks for the right things.
bttt
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.
