Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

NASA Review: Hubble Headed For Deorbit-Option Only
space.com ^ | April 1, 2005 | Leonard David

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.

That’s 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 agency’s program executive for the Hubble Robotic Servicing Mission, Mark Borkowski, who also led last week’s 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 we’re 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 don’t want to sound like we’re irrationally inflexible," he added, "but at this point we don’t see a likelihood that there is some new information out there that’s 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. "That’s 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. That’s probably a significant technical challenge…not insurmountable…but, again, it’s 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.

Hubble’s health

Just how healthy is the Hubble at this point in time?

The telescope’s gyroscopes are the first threat to the observatory’s 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 Hubble’s 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 we’re doing it…somewhere into 2008," he explained.

To reach that 2008, there is now talk of turning one of Hubble’s three working gyros off. A two gyro option appears workable, while maintaining the telescope’s 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 week’s preliminary design review for Hubble servicing was "one of the better ones I’ve 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. "We’ll then issue whatever direction we need to issue...whatever notification we need to make to Congress about how we’re 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 Hubble’s 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 can’t be done…they just take that as a challenge," said one senior official taking part in last week’s 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 don’t see any showstoppers," the source said.


TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: beyond; exploration; hubble; mars; moon; nasa; space; station
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-103 next last
To: Neville72; All

I agree with you..


41 posted on 04/01/2005 7:29:48 AM PST by KevinDavis (Let the meek inherit the Earth, the rest of us will explore the stars!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Neville72
Hubble's time has come and gone. It was revolutionary in it's time but now will be superceded by other space telescopes that do much more.

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.

42 posted on 04/01/2005 7:29:52 AM PST by RadioAstronomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

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.


43 posted on 04/01/2005 7:30:09 AM PST by Paradox (Occam was probably right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Paradox; Congressman Billybob; Aracelis
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.

44 posted on 04/01/2005 7:33:21 AM PST by RadioAstronomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer

Oh, really?

There there should be no problem, right?


45 posted on 04/01/2005 7:33:42 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer

Or another way of looking at it, the Hubble won't even come close to doing what the JWST will be capable of.


46 posted on 04/01/2005 7:33:49 AM PST by Brett66 (W1 W1 W1 W1 W1 W1 W1 W1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife; Physicist
There there should be no problem, right?

Yes, if we only can get NASA to not be so timid and fly the new upgrades to Hubble.

47 posted on 04/01/2005 7:34:59 AM PST by RadioAstronomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Brett66
Or another way of looking at it, the Hubble won't even come close to doing what the JWST will be capable of.

Two completely different bands. They complement each other, not compete.

How are you doing my friend?

48 posted on 04/01/2005 7:36:36 AM PST by RadioAstronomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer

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.


49 posted on 04/01/2005 7:37:27 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer

NASA's not timid, they just have better things to do with the resourses available to them.


50 posted on 04/01/2005 7:39:54 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife; Physicist
Scientists were happy with that because most of them are LIBERALS and because it's so nice to have your grants safely funded.

Think back to who killed the SSC. Another serious (actually HUGE) loss to science.

51 posted on 04/01/2005 7:40:16 AM PST by RadioAstronomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
Why not sell the Hubble to Richard Branson for $1, since he has developed a cheaper method of going from here to there.

He hasn't.

52 posted on 04/01/2005 7:41:13 AM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife; Physicist; Aracelis
NASA's not timid, they just have better things to do with the resourses available to them.

Like? (And don't push some pie-in-the-sky manned Mars BS). We can't even get back to the moon.

53 posted on 04/01/2005 7:42:11 AM PST by RadioAstronomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer

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!!!!!!


54 posted on 04/01/2005 7:42:24 AM PST by Neville72
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
He hasn't.

Yuppers.

55 posted on 04/01/2005 7:43:11 AM PST by RadioAstronomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer
There is a "safe mode" where the HST uses a backup system to keep itself oriented. I was thinking boost it to a higher orbit if neccessary until something can be worked out, but I guess the main problem is that there are only 3-5 years of battery left.

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..

56 posted on 04/01/2005 7:43:32 AM PST by Paradox (Occam was probably right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer

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.


57 posted on 04/01/2005 7:47:27 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Neville72
The Moon is a goal??? Errr, we went there 30 years ago. Some itsy bitsy, uninspiring goals you've got there.

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.

58 posted on 04/01/2005 7:47:58 AM PST by RadioAstronomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife; RadioAstronomer
NASA's not timid, they just have better things to do with the resourses available to them.

ROFL!!! Yeah, like collecting paychecks for not doing any work!

59 posted on 04/01/2005 7:48:29 AM PST by Aracelis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer

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....


60 posted on 04/01/2005 7:49:11 AM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-103 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson