Posted on 04/01/2005 5:12:21 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
A major review last week of servicing the Hubble Space Telescope has led NASA officials to a "deorbit only" position.
Thats an outcome from an intensive preliminary design review held last week at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. That appraisal involved volumes of technical data, with over 200 experts from NASA and aerospace industry contractor teams attending.
The assessment backs an earlier decision by the White House to scuttle the Hubble. A robotically-controlled liquid-fueled motor would eventually be docked to the telescope. Once ignited, the engine would push the huge observatory into a controlled nose-dive into a remote ocean spot.
Intensive work has been underway at Goddard to develop the tools, technology, and procedures for telerobotic servicing of Hubble. That NASA-contracted effort has been led by MD Robotics of Brampton, Ontario.
Impressive, but not revelatory
"The NASA position is [that] we are not contemplating continuing the telerobotic servicing mission," said the space agencys program executive for the Hubble Robotic Servicing Mission, Mark Borkowski, who also led last weeks review. "We are planning to convert to a deorbit-only mission," he told SPACE.com.
Borkowski said that those engaged in working toward the Preliminary Design Review (PDR) did a "super job". But he mirrored the view of an earlier National Academy of Sciences look at Hubble servicing options. That blue-ribbon panel study took the position that the chance of success for a robotic makeover of Hubble was remote.
"Now were going to go through a very deliberative decision process here [at NASA Headquarters]. We will listen to what people have to say," Borkowski said. "We dont want to sound like were irrationally inflexible," he added, "but at this point we dont see a likelihood that there is some new information out there thats going to cause us to have a revelation. What we saw was impressive, but not revelatory."
The PDR captured the work done to date on telerobotic servicing. There is no plan to do a critical design for a robotic servicing mission, Borkowski said.
Risk management plan
The four-day long review last week also brought to the forefront several issues needing close watch.
One is the entire concept of doing an autonomous docking of deorbit hardware with Hubble, Borkowski said. "Thats not a trivial little exercise," he said.
Provisions are being made in the event that Hubble could be in a slow tumble. "We have to account for a lot of this being done autonomously. Thats probably a significant technical challenge not insurmountable but, again, its the kind of thing that makes you scratch your head about the schedule," Borkowski advised.
Among other issues deserving of added attention, Borkowski continued, is software development. Keeping close tabs on software development will be key, to avoid any potential risk of impacting the deorbit schedule. Lastly, integrating all the computer smarts and hardware is likely to create surprises. A risk management plan to deal with uncertainty will be needed, he said.
Hubbles health
Just how healthy is the Hubble at this point in time?
The telescopes gyroscopes are the first threat to the observatorys scientific utility, Borkowski said. Gyro lifetime is based on a probability distribution, he said, but studies point to the hardware working out as far as 2008. "And we think our batteries will be good until then."
There are a range of projections when Hubbles batteries might fail, with sometime around 2010 the best guess, Borkowski said. "Our best estimate is we probably will be able to continue to do science as were doing it somewhere into 2008," he explained.
To reach that 2008, there is now talk of turning one of Hubbles three working gyros off. A two gyro option appears workable, while maintaining the telescopes roster of science looks into the universe. That third gyro would be placed in storage mode, brought on line in the event that one of the operating gyros breaks down.
Last weeks preliminary design review for Hubble servicing was "one of the better ones Ive seen," Borkowski. Volumes of technical documents were amassed, he said.
"We now have a job here in the agency to collect all that information and to make a good comprehensive, deliberative decision about how to convert the mission to deorbit only," Borkowski stated.
Moving forward on that decision should happen in early May. "Well then issue whatever direction we need to issue...whatever notification we need to make to Congress about how were proceeding," Borkowski concluded.
Robots versus humans
While NASA blanches at any suggestion of humans versus robots in regards to future space exploration, the ongoing Hubble saga has brought to center stage such deliberation.
For example, leaders from two public space advocacy groups have called for repairing and upgrading the Hubble Space Telescope dismissing telerobotics in favor of humans.
In a joint statement released this week, Mars Society president Robert Zubrin and Space Frontier Foundation founder, Rick Tumlinson, called upon NASA "to do what is necessary and mount a human mission to repair and upgrade the Hubble Space Telescope."
"The technology simply does not exist to repair and upgrade Hubble using robotic or tele-robotic means. This leaves NASA with a clear choice: either send astronauts to repair and upgrade Hubble as originally planned, or lose the greatest astronomical observatory ever built," their joint press release explained.
Their statement explained that if the space frontier is to be opened, "it can only be done through courage. A decision to mount a human mission to repair Hubble would send a signal that the spirit that built this nation is alive and well."
No showstoppers
But according to insiders close to the Hubble servicing effort, significant progress has been made in readying telerobotic gear. Furthermore, adding more time onto Hubbles life by finessing gyroscopes and better battery management adds up to less pressure in readying a robotic visit.
"When you tell people working on Hubble that something cant be done they just take that as a challenge," said one senior official taking part in last weeks review. The telerobotic experts working on Hubble servicing have "hit a home run" in demonstrating an ability to overhaul the telescope, as well as give it a set of new instruments, the source said.
"We sure dont see any showstoppers," the source said.
I agree with you..
Wrong. Name just one. Hell, if it makes the Hubble-lovers feel better, call one of the new ones Hubble II or Son of Hubble.
I dont care if Hubble is renamed "Barbie" just so long as we don't lose the science.
Then ask them to shut up and help us get to Mars.
The Moon is a far more realistic goal. Much closer and we can do real science there. Let the robots survey Mars.
I was thinking the same thing, sell it to someone, I had thought of Rutan et al, or even to the Russians. I am not an expert on orbital mechanics, and I know its more complicated than it sounds, but how about just sending a little booser to boost it into a slightly higher orbit for the time being, then put the thing into sleep mode or something. NASA doesn't even have to do it, let someone else handle it.
A tumbling Hubble does no one any good. Also there are upgraded science packages waiting to go.
Oh, really?
There there should be no problem, right?
Or another way of looking at it, the Hubble won't even come close to doing what the JWST will be capable of.
Yes, if we only can get NASA to not be so timid and fly the new upgrades to Hubble.
Two completely different bands. They complement each other, not compete.
How are you doing my friend?
Clinton had no vision. He used NASA as a foreign policy department.
Scientists were happy with that because most of them are LIBERALS and because it's so nice to have your grants safely funded.
NASA's not timid, they just have better things to do with the resourses available to them.
Think back to who killed the SSC. Another serious (actually HUGE) loss to science.
He hasn't.
Like? (And don't push some pie-in-the-sky manned Mars BS). We can't even get back to the moon.
The Moon is a goal??? Errr, we went there 30 years ago. Some itsy bitsy, uninspiring goals you've got there.
You want me to name the newer, better space telescopes. OK.
Compton Gamma Ray Observatory, Chandra X-Ray Observatory, and the Spitzer Space Telescope. That should be enough for the star watchers to play with. On to Mars!!!!!!
Yuppers.
I bet the Russians could do something, I mean, the HST orbit is still considered LEO. Just because the shuttle is restricted, doesn't mean the Russians can't do something..
The Moon it is and we're going back.
Clinton killed Clementine II with his line-item veto because it was tied to the Defense Department.
A lot of Mars scientists didn't like the Clem I ice discovery on the Moon. Hell, it made it more interesting and useful. In other words, it got in their way.
Lunar base observatories, radio telescopes, optical telescopes, resources. etc. Not tiny goals at all.
You want me to name the newer, better space telescopes. OK. Compton Gamma Ray Observatory, Chandra X-Ray Observatory, and the Spitzer Space Telescope. That should be enough for the star watchers to play with. On to Mars!!!!!!
Flapdoodle. None do what Hubble does. Why deny an entire two space born bands? What a loss. Sigh.
ROFL!!! Yeah, like collecting paychecks for not doing any work!
When all is said and done, it'd cost at least a billion dollars to service the Hubble, which does make it a resource issue. Now, as to whether NASA would spend it on something more useful....
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.