Hubble Mistake **2** - Action still Needed

BWhite · 2005-02-02 16:47:20

Can a congressional subcommittee overrule the White House's order to forget about a servicing mission?

Without the line item veto, that is a tricky question.

Whether the White House can refuse to spend money Congress appropriates is a complex legal question concerning relations between two co-equal branches of government.

Often Congress will tie funding to something else. Service Hubble or $X billion for pet project Y gets cancelled.

= = =

PS - - Can a subcommittee overrule? No.

Congress as a whole? Probably.

Edited By BWhite on 1107384501

SpaceNut · 2005-02-02 21:15:52

Here are a few evening articles:
Hubble Repair Could Hinge on Who Pays at NASA
Congress Frets Over Saving Hubble Project

SpaceNut · 2005-02-03 05:35:47

Accounting may ultimately decide Hubble's demise

A shuttle mission to the aging Hubble could cost as little as $400 million or as much as $2.2 billion, a panel of experts told members of the House Science Committee. Three separate reviews have concluded that a robotic mission to Hubble could not be ready in time to save the telescope before its batteries die, which is expected to occur as soon as 2007.

In the past, NASA has "charged" the science directorate roughly $350 million to $400 million for shuttle servicing missions to the Hubble. The agency now says a return trip could cost at least $1 billion.

Legislators hear options to keep Hubble working

Gary Pulliam, an official with Aerospace Corp., which studied the options for NASA, said the cost estimates for robotic servicing range from $1.3 billion to $2.2 billion.
Just using a robot to deorbit the telescope -- necessary to safely guide the school bus-sized telescope back to Earth -- could cost $300 million to $1.1 billion.

Then being discussed as another option is

As for a new instrument -- an option known as "rehosting" -- its promise was described by Colin Norman, a physics and astronomy professor at Johns Hopkins University and a member of the team developing the Hubble Origins Probe, or HOP.
This "free-flier" mission would take the instruments intended for the Hubble and put them into orbit as part of a new telescope. Norman said a conservative estimate for the project is $1 billion.

SpaceNut · 2005-02-03 06:50:30

Hubble Hearing and Presented Testimony February 2 , 2005 - Full Committee Hearing - Options for Hubble Science

links can be found on Nasawatch for each topic:

House Science Committee Explores Options for Hubble
House Science Committee Democrats Urge Administration to Preserve Hubble
House Science Committee Hearing Charter: Options for Hubble Science

What I find funny is how the price tag for any mission keeps ballooning from what is a modest price to something that is way over budget.

SpaceNut · 2005-02-03 12:07:22

Earth orbit turning into cosmic scrapheap Manmade debris crowds the not-so-friendly skies

This article though starts out about debri it ends sort of on man made objects coming down. This is what is proposed with Hubble and some day with the ISS.

Fall of Hubble
So far this month there have been a couple of U.S. Delta rocket stages that have reentered, as well as a Russian Proton motor.
All this is small stuff compared to something big coming in on its own -- like the Hubble Space Telescope. There’s good reason why an eventual "controlled" reentry is being planned for that orbiting eye on the universe.
Orbital debris analysts have figured out the risk to humans down below if Hubble should plow through the Earth’s atmosphere in an uncontrolled manner.
At least two tons (2,055 kilograms) of the estimated 26,000 pounds (11,792 kilograms) of the observatory would survive the plummet from space. Such a fall would produce a debris track that stretches over 755 miles (1,220 kilometers) in length. The analysis suggests that the risk posed to the human population in the year 2020 is 1:250 -- a risk that exceeds NASA’s own safety standard.

SpaceNut · 2005-02-08 07:29:08

While there is still alot of effort for and against funding any activity for deorbit as well as repair. There still continues the effort to prolongs its useful life.

Colorado scientists and lawmakers vowed Monday to continue the fight to save the Hubble Space Telescope, despite NASA's decision to abandon all rescue efforts.

NASA plans to spend $93 million to develop ways to prolong Hubble's life by sending commands from Earth, and to bring it safely into the ocean when it dies.
Two Boulder-built, next-generation Hubble science instruments with a combined price tag of $170 million are awaiting installation on the telescope.
Ball Aerospace & Technologies also built Wide Field Camera 3, the other instrument awaiting installation.

Senator Barbra Mikulski and House Science Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert have Vowed To Fight For Hubble.

dicktice · 2005-02-08 17:14:45

I was about to suggest that the funding to retain the Hubble might be made an international expense rather than an exclusively NASA obligation, since the instrument is being used for the advancement of pure science. Now, suddenly, I read that the issue isn't necessarily the money--but the "risk" factor! What risk, that we didn't have before? Was it "ignorance is bliss," that enabled us to launch, and now that we know, don't have any more stomach for it? My contention is that "knowledge is strength" and that, in engineering, "the next time inherently is always less risky."

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-08 18:25:52

Well, good luck.

The price is still the biggest concern.

You'll need to raise several hundreds of millions of dollars to lower the cost to the American taxpayer enough to make it worthwhile. Also Soyuz can't do it, a robot can't be built in time, which leaves only Shuttle as the possible way to get to Hubble before its batteries & gyros will likly die... and Shuttle will cost between $1.3 and $1.5Bn, perhaps more with the new pins-and-needles Shuttle preperation and extra Hubble replacement parts.

As far as safety, NASA is faced with two issues:

1: Shuttle is not safe enough because of its sheer complexity and lack of escape option: Millions of parts, many fairly old, most that cannot fail, was and is a true monument to design stupidity. The chance that something will break or somthing will be overlooked (gears installed backwards in Shuttle tails? hairline cracks in fuel lines that were luckily found? etc) is signifigant even though the estimated risk of failure may be low.

2: Shuttle has a weak spot: the heat shield is flimsy. Even with the improved tank from Lockheed at Michoud, the Shuttle tank will shed foam bits no matter what... this is unavoidable, they just won't be bits that are as big. Then there is the chance that Shuttle's heat shield could be damaged from space debries or other problem, since it can't take any punishment at all. The heat shield on Shuttle has a historic 2% failure rate aproximatly (Columbia destroyed, Atlantis damaged) and 3-4% chance of signifigant damage (RCC cracks, tiles shed). If this risk is cut in half by the new tank and hole repair cement, thats still 1-2%.

These two issues therefore add up to one thing: Shuttle is not very safe. Almost certainly below the minimum safety that NASA deems as being "man-rated." There are no ways to practically fix these two problems, so the solution is to simply not fly Shuttle very much. The 20-odd flights that it will take to make the ISS useful and fulfill international obligations is a calculated risk by NASA... they can always find astronaut volunteers (heck I would go)... but adding flights to this number increases this risk accordingly.

So as far as "ignorance is bliss," its just that it took Columbia to force NASA to accept the dismal reality of the situation. They simply ignored these fundimental problems. Launching a small number of flights is not an especially large risk, but its not a trivial one.

Also, since the heat shield is so flimsy, the ISS makes it possible to send up a second rescue Shuttle to recover the crew before the first Shuttle & ISS supplies ran out. It is not clear that a second Shuttle could be safely prepared and launched in time to save a crippled Shuttle before its supplies alone were exausted. The ISS signifigantly reduces the risk to the crew due to heat shield or other on-orbit critical damage.

I bet that NASA would be wary to take the risk of launching a Shuttle to anywhere besides the ISS or even launching one more flight then they have to at all. To say nothing of the cost.

SpaceNut · 2005-02-08 22:56:15

Over the past year I have discussed these and many other issues with the director of the Hubble and it is Nasa that has the problem of flying it the way that it is. It is of little consequence that most if not all former astronauts would fly such a mission to the Hubble with the shuttle.

Now why can a combination of a progress and a soyuz ship not be used to do the Hubble repair if launched from a site closer to the equator. Or even an Arriane, soyuz combo.

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-09 11:56:29

If you could get a group of astronauts willing to take that ~1-in-50 or less chance of "incident," and it was just them, then I wouldn't have much against it.

But its not just them...

-Its the waste of hundreds of millions of dollars on a bad investment, you get fewer years with a less powerful telescope for a higher cost and higher risk.

-The risk to NASA's continued exsistance... that losing another Shuttle could be extremely damaging to NASA, heads would roll and the agency could be gutted, all which will push back a trip to Mars for many years... perhaps decades... To give the AltSpace folk the time they need to catch up to where we are now and to where the gov't would trust them to do it.

-The ISS, that if we lose another Shuttle, the ISS is done for. NASA will take another few dozen months, which would require the Shuttles be requalified after the 2010 deadline. A cost which NASA cannot sustain.

About using Soyuz out of French Guiana, there are a few reasons...

-Soyuz cannot capture Hubble, it lacks a practical docking mechanism or robot arm. If you put magnets or something on the front of the capsule to attach to the big flat spot on the back, that would block the airlock. If you can't physically connect Soyuz to Hubble with a structural support (not a cable), then repair is impossible.

-No facilities exsist for manned Soyuz launchers from French Guiana, and would take time to construct. Time Hubble doesn't have. It takes a little more then a launch pad to fly a manned Soyuz.

-Hubble cameras, batteries, and gyros are fairly large. Camera modules imparticular are phone-booth sized packages. The tiny Soyuz has no place to put them, and probobly couldn't handle the extra mass. Nor could it carry a maneuverable deorbit module that any mission would demand.

-Ariane and Soyuz capsules are incompatible, there is no time to modify them. Ariane is not man-rated either.

Most of all the issue is time... that Hubble's batteries, which it needs to keep its electronics warm to prevent them from being destroyed by the cold, must be replaced before they fail. Assuming a few months to integrate and prepare the actual repair vehicle, that leaves you with as little as eighteen (18) months before the batteries go dead... Any longer then that, and the chance you can get there in time starts to drop dramatically. This is one of the main reasons NASA abandoned the robot option, besides its extreme cost.

Edit: Also, if the gyros fail, Hubble will likly start spinning and that would kill it too... the solar pannels wouldn't be oriented to the sun that would kill the batteries in hours, and there would be no stationary spot to grab onto to capture it either.

Euler · 2005-02-09 13:13:56

-No facilities exsist for manned Soyuz launchers from French Guiana, and would take time to construct. Time Hubble doesn't have. It takes a little more then a launch pad to fly a manned Soyuz.

Aren't they already building Soyuz facilities in French Guiana?

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-09 15:03:17

For the satelite launcher version yes, manned Soyuz no.

Grypd · 2005-02-09 17:03:39

Though it seems to allways be the plan that manned launches using soyuz will come from Kourou

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-09 17:21:42

Uh, no it hasn't. You can't reach the ISS as easily from French Guiana as you can Baikanour or Plestek... so why would Russia put a manned Soyuz facility there?

You could build one, but that would take time. Time Hubble doesn't have.

You still can't use Soyuz to fix Hubble either, it is too small, too light, and doesn't have the capture hardware.

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-09 17:47:50

NASA and the AAS Hubble Alternatives report says that the chance that Hubble's batteries will fail gets pretty high in 2007. So, it makes sense that this is kind of a deadline, past which the risk that the expensive mission will be for nothing becomes unacceptable.

Since it will take several months probobly to prepare, test, and assemble any kind of rescue mission reguardless of method, then that gives us eighteen months to finish all planning, construction, and much of the training.

Given this fairly short time frame, I think that its safe to say that only a Shuttle mission can probobly do the job in time.

SpaceNut · 2005-02-09 19:44:47

Well it was only a little while ago that I had synically proposed letting the military shot it down.

Article from the TheSpoof.com, hee hee
Bush Orders Army to Shoot Down NASA’s Hubble Telescope. "Hooah!"

“We hit that sucker with the 2nd round. Hooah!” exclaimed a young lieutenant from Bravo Battery. “Sure beats the livin' crap out of firing blanks all day long!” Pieces of the Hubble Telescope soon began falling from orbit over a three state area. A large fragment fell on Bill Clinton’s boyhood home in Arkansas. Bush administration officials were quick to deny that this was planned. A smaller fragment hit an outhouse in Mississippi causing minor injury to a sharecropper and interrupting his morning duties.

Some would love it if this were for real

Manchu4 · 2005-02-10 16:11:23

In reviewing the posts to the subject at hand, one thing is a common thread. We all want a system, whether land or space based system, to provide astronomers with a tool to conduct science. Clearly the Hubble was never meant to be a tool which would last forever. Its time to move on. Land based systems with adaptive optics can do the job. To risk another shuttle mission to provide another few years of service is clearly not cost-effective. Better to plan on a new Hubble 2 which can have a longer service life and be configured to have periodic robotic replacements.

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-10 16:58:11

Better to plan on a new Hubble 2 which can have a longer service life and be configured to have periodic robotic replacements.

There is not even any need for this. A telescope launched into a higher orbit will have a longer battery & gyro life then one in Hubble's orbit. So, a new telescope will last so long that it will be pretty old by the time it needs servicing. Old enough that its life beyond the servicing will be too short to warrent the servicing to begin with.

Expendable telescopes make the most sense, particularly since it would be difficult ($$$) for a repair mission to reach said higher orbit.

SpaceNut · 2020-12-14 18:01:51

topic to fix

SpaceNut · 2021-03-30 18:00:23

The telescope had been in a safe mode for a while but it's back up and working once more.

I wonder if any more missions are planned to repair and upgrade the old eye in the sky.

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2021/03 … tmosphere/

SpaceNut · 2023-05-10 18:22:38

I am not finding the Hubble topic that I wanted but this one will do.
Ingenious Plan Could Save NASA’s Hubble Telescope

The plan goes a little something like this: a non-crewed rocket would launch a water-propelled "space tug" thruster into low-Earth orbit, which would then drag the Hubble up by some 31 miles. Then, after undocking, it'd remove any space junk that could mess with the telescope's new orbit.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/20 … ossibility

SpaceNut · 2024-06-17 18:04:35

The Hubble has had its share of problems but like the Voyager probes it takes a liken and keeps on ticking.

The Hubble Space Telescope is back in business

GW Johnson · 2024-06-18 18:22:14

What they ought to do, failing a servicing mission, is reboost it to prevent entry too soon, and then bring it home in a "Starship" to be a public monument. That does require a Starship/Superheavy system actually ready to take on real missions. SpaceX still has a ways to go yet.

GW

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#101 2005-02-02 16:47:20

Re: Hubble Mistake **2** - Action still Needed

#102 2005-02-02 21:15:52

Re: Hubble Mistake **2** - Action still Needed

#103 2005-02-03 05:35:47

Re: Hubble Mistake **2** - Action still Needed

#104 2005-02-03 06:50:30

Re: Hubble Mistake **2** - Action still Needed

#105 2005-02-03 12:07:22

Re: Hubble Mistake **2** - Action still Needed

#106 2005-02-08 07:29:08

Re: Hubble Mistake **2** - Action still Needed

#107 2005-02-08 17:14:45

Re: Hubble Mistake **2** - Action still Needed

#108 2005-02-08 18:25:52

Re: Hubble Mistake **2** - Action still Needed

#109 2005-02-08 22:56:15

Re: Hubble Mistake **2** - Action still Needed

#110 2005-02-09 11:56:29

Re: Hubble Mistake **2** - Action still Needed

#111 2005-02-09 13:13:56

Re: Hubble Mistake **2** - Action still Needed

#112 2005-02-09 15:03:17

Re: Hubble Mistake **2** - Action still Needed

#113 2005-02-09 17:03:39

Re: Hubble Mistake **2** - Action still Needed

#114 2005-02-09 17:21:42

Re: Hubble Mistake **2** - Action still Needed

#115 2005-02-09 17:47:50

Re: Hubble Mistake **2** - Action still Needed

#116 2005-02-09 19:44:47

Re: Hubble Mistake **2** - Action still Needed

#117 2005-02-10 16:11:23

Re: Hubble Mistake **2** - Action still Needed

#118 2005-02-10 16:58:11

Re: Hubble Mistake **2** - Action still Needed

#119 2020-12-14 18:01:51

Re: Hubble Mistake **2** - Action still Needed

#120 2021-03-30 18:00:23

Re: Hubble Mistake **2** - Action still Needed

#121 2023-05-10 18:22:38

Re: Hubble Mistake **2** - Action still Needed

#122 2024-06-17 18:04:35

Re: Hubble Mistake **2** - Action still Needed

#123 2024-06-18 18:22:14

Re: Hubble Mistake **2** - Action still Needed

Board footer

Re: Hubble Mistake 2 - Action still Needed

Re: Hubble Mistake 2 - Action still Needed

Re: Hubble Mistake 2 - Action still Needed

Re: Hubble Mistake 2 - Action still Needed

Re: Hubble Mistake 2 - Action still Needed

Re: Hubble Mistake 2 - Action still Needed

Re: Hubble Mistake 2 - Action still Needed

Re: Hubble Mistake 2 - Action still Needed

Re: Hubble Mistake 2 - Action still Needed

Re: Hubble Mistake 2 - Action still Needed

Re: Hubble Mistake 2 - Action still Needed

Re: Hubble Mistake 2 - Action still Needed

Re: Hubble Mistake 2 - Action still Needed

Re: Hubble Mistake 2 - Action still Needed

Re: Hubble Mistake 2 - Action still Needed

Re: Hubble Mistake 2 - Action still Needed

Re: Hubble Mistake 2 - Action still Needed

Re: Hubble Mistake 2 - Action still Needed

Re: Hubble Mistake 2 - Action still Needed

Re: Hubble Mistake 2 - Action still Needed

Re: Hubble Mistake 2 - Action still Needed

Re: Hubble Mistake 2 - Action still Needed

Re: Hubble Mistake 2 - Action still Needed