Robot lets down fans of telescope [Bye-bye Hubble...]

Columbia Daily Tribune ^ | December 12, 2004 | AP

[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.

[ScottM1968]

Sorry, I didn't see your correction.

[t_skoz]

America's space program: prime candidate for immediate privatization. Not only would it save the taxpayers billions of dollars every year, the useful technology that we have invented because of space exploration could be advanced much more quickly and efficiently than when the government runs the program.

[ScottM1968]

Would ion engines with solar collectors be enough to power it once the launch vehicles got it there? I know ion engines need fuel aside from electricity, but I would imagine we could give it enough.

http://www.qrg.northwestern.edu/projects/vss/docs/Propulsion/1-what-is-the-difference.html

[antidisestablishment]

My thought was just give it away to whoever wants to fix it. First one up gets the Hubble. Makes the current million dollar prize look rather anemic.

[RightWhale]

If the tasks done to develop the Hubble repair robot mission also are aligned with the spiral plan and can be part of the general Moon, Mars, and Beyond mission statement, then the Hubble mission will be valid. If the Hubble mission is yet another one-off NASA project with no connection to anything to follow--like the Apollo program--then it would be a waste of resources.

[RightWhale]

Even more fascinating is that according to the inflation theory, we can see only 10^-30 of the universe, the rest being beyond the light horizon.

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

I don't understand the question. A lot of things can be done in theory. Practical orbital mechanics addresses the question of how a mission can achieve the best results for the buck.

[mad_as_he$$]

Good Idea! As long as Perkin Elmer doesn't do the optics!

[PokeyJoe]

yeah... that would work. First one to fix it gets to keep it.

[ScottM1968]

I'm just wondering if ion engines, with their much longer lifespan, are powerful enough to keep the equipment at the Lagrange point once the telescope has been delivered.

Generally, they produce very little power but are very efficient. Gas-only-based propellants will be exhausted much more quickly over time.

[The_Victor]

It's politics damning the Hubble, not science.

Hubble is being damned by reality. Hubble was not designed to be serviced, either by astronauts or robots. Spend the money on a new telescope.

[Old Student]

How about we just replace the administrators? As far as I know, the astronauts and technicians are all for going where they want to go. Heck, I'd go, even though not truly qualified. I can fix comm systems, and aircraft, and even play with cameras once in a while. I'd risk it.

[Phsstpok]

As pointed out by Lonesome in Massachussets

Posted by Lonesome in Massachussets to Phsstpok
On News/Activism 12/12/2004 12:04:47 PM CST · 35 of 50

The "super Hubble" project is already in progress.

http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/webb_ngst_030108.html

Other stuff I've found googling off of this information indicates that the James Webb Space Telescope should cost about a third of Hubble (max $500,000,000) and would be stationed at L2, one of the Lagrange points (I'd worry about other junk that is predicted to collect there interfering, but what do I know?).

Sweet looking instrument.  Apparently MUCH more light gathering capability than Hubble.  Due for launch in 2010 on an expendable booster.

Isn't it amazing the things that get discussed on FR? It's why I love this place so.

[Old Student]

"Now, how about they raise money from all of the sentimentalists to loft a simple booster up to attach to Hubble simply to raise it to a more stable orbit?"

I've got $20 or so to kick in, and if we put it in geosyncronous orbit, it'll be there when we have time to play with it.

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

I'd worry about other junk that is predicted to collect there interfering, but what do I know?.

L1/L2/L3 are not stable, so stuff won't collect there. It's takes energy to stay there. Every little tug by the moon and the eccentricity of earth's orbit would tend to disrupt these orbits.

[Nowhere Man]

How about we just replace the administrators? As far as I know, the astronauts and technicians are all for going where they want to go. Heck, I'd go, even though not truly qualified. I can fix comm systems, and aircraft, and even play with cameras once in a while. I'd risk it.

I'd consider going too, I can fix transistor radios and vacuum tubed radios and if I ever get a "round tuit" our first color TV, a 1970 Zenith 23" set. B-) I've also dabbled in wireless networks as well as work with computers.

[snopercod]

The astronauts aren't timid. To a man (and woman), they would go the Hubble in a heartbeat. It's congress and the NASA management [sic] that are timid.

[Old Student]

That's two, anyway. I'm expendable, how about you? Uncle trained me as an aircraft mechanic, then photographer, and then electronics tech, and I've been playing with computers since 1975 or so. I have a wired/wireless-hybrid network at home, for instance. "Dabbled" would be a good description of my computer experience, too. I'm on my 7th or 8th OS, counting MSDOS and all versions of Windows as only 2, and I've only fiddled with Linux a teensy bit.

[Phsstpok]

It really would be interesting to see how much a simple booster mission would cost. We clearly have the technology and adapting a "lock on" mechanism shouldn't be that hard, especially if we're not concerned about disturbing the "fine tuning" on the instruments, since they'd be allowed to permanently shut down before boost.

We're really talking about off the shelf components and some novel programming, so it's going to be almost 100% launch costs. A Delta II launch costs $55 million. I'm betting we're talking well under $150 million for the whole "mothball" mission to preserve Hubble for later retrieval (heck, build an on-orbit museum around it at one of the Lagrange points in 50 years).

[Future Snake Eater]

Wasn't there a plan to put a telescope in orbit around the Moon in order to get some better pictures on the dark side than are possible in LEO?