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 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-103 next last
To: Paradox
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..

Currently their systems can't service Hubble.

61 posted on 04/01/2005 7:49:22 AM PST by RadioAstronomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | 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.

You go there or you go nowhere. A lot less flash with the limited cash but a long way toward getting a spacefaring structure in place. The Mars is a goal down the road.

62 posted on 04/01/2005 7:50:35 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
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....

How much got spent already on the robot idea? Remember FTS? It was difficult enough just to control one from the vicinity on "station". Finally was killed.

63 posted on 04/01/2005 7:51:28 AM PST by RadioAstronomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer
Note to self. Don't get your BP elevated by reading codswallop about Hubble and our space program.

I know you're home recuperating after that dangerous assignment, but there are better things to do with your time than read unenlightened, willfully ignorant posts. Don't waste your time, my friend.

64 posted on 04/01/2005 7:51:34 AM PST by Aracelis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Aracelis

Thanks. :-)


65 posted on 04/01/2005 7:53:11 AM PST by RadioAstronomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Aracelis

Wait!

There's going to be a new sheriff in town.


66 posted on 04/01/2005 7:53:57 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: null and void; Cincinatus' Wife
It would take many fewer much safer launches.

The individual launches might not be any safer, but since they would be unmanned no one would get hurt if there were a malfunction. Even if the risks were the same per launch, with fewer launches there is a lower probability of encountering a catastrophic failure lifting modules for the ISS.

67 posted on 04/01/2005 7:57:55 AM PST by Paleo Conservative (Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! Andrew Heyward's got to go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer
How much got spent already on the robot idea? Remember FTS? It was difficult enough just to control one from the vicinity on "station". Finally was killed.

Yeah, there are an awful lot of autonomy issues involved with proximity operations. If you could put a man in the loop... of course, that means you need absolutely solid continuous comm, which raises the stakes quite a bit.

Hmmmm.... Come Monday, I think I'll spring this one on my class.

68 posted on 04/01/2005 8:00:10 AM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer

Not saying we shouldn't do all those things on the moon that you mentioned--sadly we should have been doing it over the last 25 years. But all should be done in the context of how does it help us get to Mars. If we'are going to eventually be a spacefaring civilization we have to have some goals that are larger than repetitious baby steps.


69 posted on 04/01/2005 8:01:03 AM PST by Neville72
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer
Military vehicles are regularly constrained for safety reasons. This is no different. The Hubble telescope is not worth any man's life. We can build a new one.
70 posted on 04/01/2005 8:01:45 AM PST by The_Victor (Doh!... stupid tagline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
Wait! There's going to be a new sheriff in town.

I'm not holding my breath. It's been a long time since we as a nation have had cajones. For instance: Could you imagine that there would have been any debate over saving the Hubble when President Kennedy was in office?

Maybe we should ask the Chinese for some help.

71 posted on 04/01/2005 8:02:38 AM PST by Aracelis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

Less equipment, fewer systems, (e.g. no need ofr life support) = less to go wrong, fewer failures.


72 posted on 04/01/2005 8:06:32 AM PST by null and void (innocent, incapacitated, inconvenient, and insured - a lethal combination for Terri...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Aracelis
It has nothing to do with ability to do it.

We have X amount of $$$ and it just isn't worth the time, money and yes, potential risk. Look how it takes 2+ years to return to flight after we lose a shuttle.

Fear of failure should be more correctly called LIBERALS' love of trying to carve money off NASA's budget and micromanage the agency.
73 posted on 04/01/2005 8:08:32 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

"You've got to go there(Moon)or nowhere"

Oh really? Did Opportunity and Spirit make a landing on the moon that I am unaware of.


74 posted on 04/01/2005 8:08:38 AM PST by Neville72
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Aracelis
I'm not holding my breath. It's been a long time since we as a nation have had cajones.

Tell it to our boys in Baghdad.

What you're really bitching about is priorities. The basic fact is that Congress has different priorities than you do. It's not a matter of testosterone, except maybe for you.

75 posted on 04/01/2005 8:09:00 AM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Aracelis
Maybe we should ask the Chinese for some help.

Maybe we should...

76 posted on 04/01/2005 8:09:02 AM PST by null and void (innocent, incapacitated, inconvenient, and insured - a lethal combination for Terri...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Aracelis

I'm talking about Michael Griffin.


77 posted on 04/01/2005 8:09:03 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer
Currently their systems can't service Hubble.

How about with a little help from their friends?

I understand why they don't want to do anything, I just see it as such a waste at this point..

78 posted on 04/01/2005 8:09:29 AM PST by Paradox (Occam was probably right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Neville72

Oh, Mars has a lot of missions - Spirit and Opportunity and there are more in the pipeline that will be carried out.

BUT we will have a manned base on the Moon, long before we send men to Mars.


79 posted on 04/01/2005 8:11:43 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
Tell it to our boys in Baghdad.

No disrespect intended to our fighting men and women. They are doing a magnificent job. However, since you brought it up...what do you think Truman's response to 9-11 would have been?

It's not a matter of testosterone, except maybe for you.

Personally, I find the stuff darned annoying and only have use for it in small quantities...or as an amusement when I watch my male Betta flare his gills.

80 posted on 04/01/2005 8:23:49 AM PST by Aracelis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-103 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