Posted on 12/12/2004 7:52:14 AM PST by snopercod
Rescue missions expensive, ineffective.
CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) - Trying to save the famed Hubble Space Telescope with a robot would cost $2 billion with just a 50-50 chance of success, an aerospace research group is advising NASA in the coming days.
And that thumbs-down is likely to be preceded by another potentially negative finding from the National Academy of Sciences, due to report on Wednesday.
Both reports could spell doom for the popular, aging Hubble, whose fans have heavily lobbied to get it repaired to prolong its life and continue its stream of stunning and revealing pictures from space.
NASA requested the reviews of the National Academy and the Aerospace Corp., a California-based not-for-profit research group, in hopes that a robotic repair could be made.
An Aerospace Corp. summary provided to the academy estimates a robotic Hubble mission would cost $2 billion and would take at least five years to be ready for launch. By then there would be a less than 40 percent chance Hubble still would be functioning.
Less than three years would be needed to launch a shuttle mission to Hubble, for no more money and with the usual medium risk of mission success, the company said.
The full 100-page report is expected to come out this week or next, a company spokesman said.
In an interim report over the summer, a National Academy panel of scientists, aerospace experts and astronauts who have worked in orbit with Hubble urged NASA to keep its options open for one last service call by space shuttle astronauts. The panel did not rule out a robotic mission but noted its complexity and the technical challenges.
But NASA Administrator Sean O’Keefe has stuck by his guns that regardless of what the academy or the Aerospace Corp. says, no people will risk their lives to fix Hubble.
On Wednesday, the National Academy of Sciences will issue its final report on the subject.
"These reviews have tended to reinforce NASA’s sense that although" a robotic mission "is feasible, it will be extremely challenging and will require very disciplined management," the space agency said in a statement Tuesday.
NASA will spend the coming year evaluating the robotic rescue plan and decide next summer whether to proceed. If nothing else, the space agency promises to launch a deorbit tug to guide Hubble down over the ocean - and not over populated areas - well before it would tumble in on its own during the next decade.
I definitely agree with that. But the public (probably not a majority, but whipped into a frenzy by a left leaning media) doesn't like the cost. Congress is hesitant to fund NASA at levels resembling Apollo, and until GWB (maybe), NASA has not had a genuine advocate in the Whitehouse since JFK.
Webb by the way does not "see" in visable light, it is an IR telescope. So a replacement for Hubble is not even on the NASA's drawing board.
When I read about the options facing NASA with regard to Hubble and the science it is producing, I remember reading that they already had a replacement on the drawing board. However I don't recall the details, but for $2bil, I'm sure NASA could construct (and maybe place in orbit) a similar telescope with better comm, data processing, power dist/control, GN and C, and without the myopic primary mirror. And properly designed EVA servicability
Those of us who love the US space program need to lean on Congress to provide funding, and lean on NASA to look for profitable ventures that can be partnered with private industry so that we have alternatives without Congress. < /soapbox>
FReep on FRiend.
I am x NASA to not get me started on Congress and funding.
It's money, time, and the age of the Hubble that's damning the Hubble. It's just a cranky old satellite, and as such it's just like that old car you keep pouring money into: at some point you just have to say, "enough."
It's probably better science, and a sounder decision, to build something new.
Yes, but oddly enough you can establish a stable "halo" orbit around one of these points. For example, the SOHO observatory is in a halo orbit about the Earth-Sun L1 point. Ahhh, fun with orbits....
Space is a dangerious place to work, if we lack the courage to go there then we are finished as a nation because other nations still have the balls to go. I don't think mirror technology has changed a great deal in the last thirty years, at least not relatively small mirrors like Hubble has. I also do not think the lots of little mirrors all controled by little acuators like Teak is needed in space nor a good idea since lots of moving parts means lots of chances for a break down. If I am correct then one still needs to grin and polish a mirror so all this talk about building a new and better Hubble is largely just happy talk. Yes we could built it slightly better, easier to service so that maybe a robot could do it. But a quantum leap over Hubble, I don't think so. And it would not be cheap to build either. But hey maybe the Chinese will let us use thier space telescope if we ask real nice.
Instead of using the tug to put Hubble in the salt water, why not push it up into a higher orbit? Maybe in 20 years or so someone with their head not stuck in their ass can go fix it. What NASA has become makes me want to puke.
Actually, I think it would ... doesn't Hubble use star trackers as its primary attitude reference?
That is not the problem. The HST uses torque rods as a part of its attitude control. Those will not work (at least the ones on the HST) at GEO.
Exactly!!!
'course, it's all academic anyway... If one wanted to lift the HST to GEO, one could strap on bigger torque rods.
(And who said engineers can't talk dirty....)
The money is in the mirror, mirrors degrade over time. It is a use it or lose proposition. The Fools in D.C. have opted to lose it, because they are afraid to try to fix it.
Much bigger ones!!! LOL
Look at the mag field strength at Geo vs Leo. Yes, they are used for wheel desaturation. BTW, there is no bi or monoprop on the HST. Wheels and torque rods only.
Like I said, NASA is afraid to fly. The instruments for upgrading Hubble are already bought paid for and built. All that is needed is the courage to fly the mission.
A replacement for Hubble is not even on the drawing boards, Webb is an IR satelite not a visible light telescope like Hubble and there is no gareetee Webb will even be build or launched in 2011. Building a bigger better Hubble would cost billions of dollars, and the USA can't afford to build another Hubble. Either we save Hubble or we are out of the space telescope business for a long long time. Hubble is at the moment mankinds finest telescope, and NASA is just going to let it burn up in the atmosphere.
You think there is going to be a 1 tillion dollar mission to the moon? Or a many tillions of dollers mission to Mars. Where is the money going to come from? Where is the replacement for the shuttle? Where is the Saturn 5 type heavy lift rocket (60 tons)? We are witnessing the end of the US manned space program. Once the last shuttle is grounded the NASA is finished with manned missions.
Problem solved.
That is news to me, all of the equipment is on hand, the only remain cost is the cost of the launch and recovery (500 million for a shuttle launch). And since Hubble has been serviced sucessfully three times already I would think the chances of success are about the same as the chances for a successful launch (way better then 40%).
Botton line is we now have a NASA that is afraid to fly the shuttle. The Shuttle is a complex machine, but has prooven itself to be a good space ship. Losing one to enviromentally friendly foam was maddening, when one recalls that the unfriendly foam did not break off. Losing one to frozen 0 rings was bad, but to lose one to foam?
NASA certainly is not what it used to be.
Read the article. Right now, they give it a 50-50 chance. By the time they can actually do it (five years) , the chances drop to 40%. Estimated cost is about 2 billion.
We are talking about a manned shuttle flight, not a robot mission. Risks are small, cost is just the cost of a launch and sucess is almost certain.
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.