Hubble mistake - Action needed

dickbill · 2004-03-13 13:26:26

[http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=12183]Lunar Astronomical Observatories
*I haven't yet had the opportunity to read the entire PDF.
--Cindy

The entire article is interesting. In short, the authors point out that while the moon is still at advantage site for an astronomical observatory compared to low earth orbit, it is at disadvantage compared to Lagrange points (where gravitational forces cancel each other).
For interferometers where several telescopes are requested, it appears that "flight formation" techniques that are necessary in the case of a space-flying interferometers, can be mastered at the nanometer scale on a baseline of million of Km !. ("relative knowledge positioning at the level of the nm in a base of 5.10^6 km !, actual spacecraft positioning maintain at the centimeter level in a flying interferometer". With a base of the order of million of kilometers ?, hmmm, I am skeptical here). And that this would be barely more difficult than aligning the telescopes on the lunar ground.
Well, it seems that the Moon is not even a good spot for telescopes anymore.

Mlawsky · 2004-03-18 22:28:25

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/03/0 … index.html
Tell 'em with pictures
Worth billions and billions of words
Hubble Need to stay up the a while longer.
Maybe they can pick it up a set in on the moon for awhile.
That might be a good platform.
???

Palomar · 2004-06-01 16:18:44

http://story.news.yahoo.com/fc?cid=34&t … _Space]Hot off the Yahoo! e-presses...

*O'Keefe announces NASA is accepting bids from contractors to repair Hubble via robots. :up:

I suppose we'll hear a little gnashing of teeth and nay-saying about this (usually from the ignorant who don't give a damn about astronomy anyway and who probably don't know the difference between it and dermatology, and thus have zero clue about Hubble's importance).

--Cindy

GCNRevenger · 2004-06-02 11:23:32

Robots? Repair HST? Riiight... It was hard enough for humans to do it, and we're far superior mechanics at the moment... robots that can monkey with screws? Wires? Insulation?

I think it would be easier in the long-run to simply build a new telescope.

Palomar · 2004-06-02 12:16:35

Robots? Repair HST? Riiight... It was hard enough for humans to do it, and we're far superior mechanics at the moment... robots that can monkey with screws? Wires? Insulation?
I think it would be easier in the long-run to simply build a new telescope.

*It's been a few months at least since I've read the specifics of what needs to be done, but -IIRC- the major issues don't involve meticulous dillying around inside the thing.

I don't think anyone expects robots to be capable of manual-dexerity-type manipulation of tiny gears and wires. :-\

As for just building a new telescope...price tag? Exorbiant. Length of time to construct yet another? Etc.

1,000 professional astronomers wouldn't have applauded O'Keefe's decision to send robot repair on the basis of some silly proposal or impossibility of mission.

--Cindy

GCNRevenger · 2004-06-02 12:40:32

I still don't think monkeying around IN the telescope is going to happen... you will need to replace the gyroscopes, probably the solar cells, batteries(?), and the trouble of replacing the camera(s) and such.

What I COULD see happening is a SMV of some sort being sent up to dock with HST and take over attitude control & stationkeeping, leaving the current optics alone, and perhaps hooking up to an umbilical of some sort and take over power generation (or even bypass the control/communications?).

deagleninja · 2004-06-02 12:48:58

It is important to note that we arent't talking about a 'robot', meaning a machine with humanlike abilities using AI or pre-programming. We are talking about remote opperated machines that will still have a human controller. While most would prefer to use their own hands, there are advantages:

A human won't be exposed to the uncomfortable conditions of LEO environment (bulky spacesuits and gloves, temperature changes)

As I understand it, this is going to be a shake-out attempt of using remote controlled robotic hardware. No serious upgrades are planned, simply life extention. Should it be successful, I think we will see Hubble upgraded.

Dook · 2004-06-02 17:33:30

I am usually all for setting high goals and expectations but this is too high. I don't think it can be done. Now I don't know the current level of robot technology so maybe I'm wrong, hopefully I am, but I think you need a human up there.

I remember watching the astronauts trying to fix the hubble the first time, the doors wouldn't open on hubble. They were stuck. So they waited for the temperature to change (don't remember if they waited for sunlight or darkness) but after that the doors freed and they were able to continue. You need a human up there.

Josh Cryer · 2004-06-02 18:01:22

You will, he'll just have robotic limbs, won't have to sit in a stuffy space suit, will be able to have a cup of coffee and take a lunch break, and he can take as long as he wants to get the job done.

I don't understand why it's so "hard" to repair the Hubble. All the parts are interchangable/removable. I watched a documentary about repairing Hubble, and it noted that the job was even possible because of the design; it was designed to be fixed or upgraded easily.

The robot they've built should work as it is. Strap a rocket on to that guy, give 'em a backback of tools and parts, and you're good to freakin' go.

MarsDog · 2004-06-04 10:30:15

Robots have come a long way. Specialized robots are fast and accurate in manufacturing jobs, even assisting in surgeries.
Hard to appreciate just how fast and accurate robots can be until you see one in action.
-
I suspect that robots could have been used, even a long time ago, for Hubble repairs; But it was convenient to use a human, accepting the dangers.

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2004-07-18 15:32:16

it sounds serious
finance and manned missions are big questions now
I hope NASA can sort out its problems

GCNRevenger · 2004-07-18 15:57:29

I'm still eyeing the price tag for a "save Hubble" mission... just how much is this super-robot going to cost?

And how much would it cost to simply build a modernized, perhaps slightly less powerful Hubble-II... this time with minimum of cost/mass and not maximum of optics/ease of modification and stick it on a Delta-IV?

Grypd · 2004-07-19 13:12:27

Im with GCNRevenger on this. I believe that a Hubble 2 would prove a lot better financially and astronomically than one where a special robot has to be designed built and finally launched to orbit to do the repair.

I remember that Skylab the United States Space station was supposed to be saved by something similar. It was awaiting the shuttle to come to its rescue. But the shuttle turned up late and well over budget and so Australia was littered by space debris!

Building a robot that will operate as a construction crew member is a good scientific and useful thing to do. But if you do something do it right. I really think that construction robots will aid mankind in his colonisation of space, be it the Moon or Mars or just in space. But it will take time to get it right. Hubble has been a story of needing repairs and fixes, in all likelyhood so will hubble 2 but it could be made repair friendly unlike hubble and a robot designed to repair/improve the hubble 2 built in sync. We could learn from the experience and make improvements and learn what works and does not. As we have never used robots yet to do this in space.

C M Edwards · 2004-07-20 12:28:54

What I COULD see happening is a SMV of some sort being sent up to dock with HST and take over attitude control & stationkeeping, leaving the current optics alone, and perhaps hooking up to an umbilical of some sort and take over power generation (or even bypass the control/communications?).

Hmmm... Yes, _that_ could conceivably be within the capabilities of a telepresence "robot", even if a full repair mission is not.

Perhaps something similar could be done for other failed satellites?

SpaceNut · 2004-07-23 08:21:32

The biggest problem with Hubble is not the repair but is when. The actual reason that anything is being done in the first place is that it will come down on our little heads if nothing is done. Building a Hubble 2 does not fix this problem.

With Nasa's budget constantly being stripped or lowered it makes it very hard to do anything but to maintain those programs that are already in the pipe line.

Hubble is definitely worth saving but there must be a limit to the cost probably no more than a shuttles cost. Also Nasa must always design into any probe that circles where ever. The ability for a clean deorbit if it wishes to have safety, or no contamination to the environments that these probes circle to not be impacted.

Further more there are limits to any robotic mission and to what it can or can not do. This still means a manned mission sometime in the future to finish the job that a robotic mission can not do.

GCNRevenger · 2004-07-23 08:28:28

NASA has let other large objects re-ener before... I don't see that its a problem. Wasn't the Compton GRT permitted to reenter, even though they knew parts would survive? The world is a big place, the chances of Hubble hitting someplace unfortunate are pretty slim... and what environmental contamination? Its made mostly of aluminum and glass.

dicktice · 2004-07-23 09:30:37

GCNR: Forgive me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be against retaining anything in orbit that will require eventual hands-on servicing, either to upgrade it, keep it working, or both. Well, if your only "contribution" in the case of the Hubble is: how best to deorbit and burn it up in the atmosphere, I'm sorry but you have just lost a fan. Assuming that you mean to launch a booster up to attach itself to the HST, you might just as well boost it up to a higher parking orbit at no more expense, instead of deorbiting it when its essential systems begin to fail, to await the time when human transpart again becomes viable to do the servicing.

Palomar · 2004-07-23 10:27:21

*Um, yeah...some people sound (IMO) rather glib about this. I wonder if those folks have bothered to follow the spectacular results (data and photos, etc.) Hubble has consistently provided over the years?

Imagine if Wolfgang Mozart had developed a wart on one of his fingers and the doctor had glibly recommended amputating all the fingers as the "treatment." :-\

--Cindy

SpaceNut · 2004-07-23 12:40:24

why is it that the only solution to satelite decommissioning is to allow it to burn up in the atmosphere. An article on spacedaily says that Japan agrees to end TRMM mission, Scientists have argued against the plan, noting that the spacecraft is healthy and has enough propellant onboard to continue operations for up to two more years and still permit a controlled reentry.

I guess the question I have would be can it be put with a controled burn on a path to orbit the moon. I am sure even though the crafts available instruments are not ideal for lunar exploration, that they still could be of some value.
Sending the TRMM gets the mapping ability to the moon long before the 2008 date of the LRO.
Granted it won't be as capable as the one probe does all but it is a start. This probably qualifies more for the robotic booster attachment than does hubble if it would be capable of the mapping mission.

GCNRevenger · 2004-07-23 12:51:12

No no dicktice, you miss my point... That Nasa has let large objects reenter UNCONTROLLED before, I.E. on their own from drag, like the Compton observatory, and that I don't think it unreasonable for NASA to do the same to Hubble... the low chance of hurting anything on the ground what it is, just let the thing fall. No mission required.

As for me being against intricit on-orbit construction and repair, you are essentially correct, I am against going into orbit to build things out of too-small bits or repairing damaged or upgrading obsolete space hardware.

Why? Thats easy, because it generally isn't worth it. To plan, prepare, launch, and execute such a mission will simply cost more than the piece of hardware is worth. It is going to cost about the same to fix HST as it would be to build a new optical ST or a dozen super Earth-based telescopes. Communications satelites are already semi-mass-produced, and now being launched on cheaper foreign rockets, a repair mission beyond attitude control/OMS will cost more than the satelite did. The cost of making them on-orbit-repairable would also drive up the price each considerably. Construction? ISS! Just two or three large Shuttle-C launches could have done the whole thing sans foreign modules, and look where we are now...

Putting things into space is expensive. Working on things in space is MORE expensive than putting it up there all over again.

SpaceNut · 2004-07-23 13:03:11

That also assumed that the unit was still functional while doing the drag to cause the appropriate de-orbit slope. Which may not be the case for Hubble due to the gryo failure and battery condition of expected life remaining.
I agree that a controlled drag will satisfy the condition for safe return.

GCNRevenger · 2004-07-23 13:06:47

Not quite SpaceNut... because the HST has no engines, it can't really control its entry angle at all. It was never intended to, the end-of-life plan for HST was for the Shuttle to bring it back down (which it can't, too heavy due to post-Challenger downmass limits) or slap a deorbit rocket on the back on the last service mission... which now isn't going to happen.

Just the risk of it coming down on top of anybody's head is so small, akin to the risk of being killed by lightning or somthing, that NASA is justified in ignoring the possibility. Let it come down on its own.

SpaceNut · 2004-08-04 11:03:01

NASA Selects Future Mission Concepts For Study
http://www.nasa.gov/home....ts.html

NASA selects astronomy mission proposals for study
http://www.spacetoday.net/getsummary.php?id=2489

One of the nine proposals, the Hubble Origins Probe, would use two instruments, the Wide Field Camera 3 and the Cosmic Origins Spectrograph, originally planned for use on the Hubble Space Telescope.

Palomar · 2004-08-06 07:14:04

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/hubble-04l.html]A gloomy article

*Curtains for Hubble? ("Quit flogging a dead horse and build a new one." - caption)

Article mentions back-up/stand-by shuttle crew in the (unlikely) event a shuttle crew is sent to repair Hubble. Was that always normal/standard procedure for previous Hubble maintenance/repair? I can't recall.

--Cindy

SpaceNut · 2004-08-06 07:23:15

Here is the UPI link for the same article Analysis: Costs could sink Hubble rescue title but with other details.

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=200 … 5953-9102r

The backup shuttle was due to the CAIB recommendations for future shuttle flights.

Now if we were not locked into the shuttle and had another manned rocket configuration to fly. This would be a non issue of repair or to let it drop into the ocean with out a deorbit booster. But since some are crying chicken little on the deobit possibility not being stable at end of life and also due to the lack of another telescope to takes its place of the same capabilities it has become a can of worms.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#76 2004-03-13 13:26:26

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#77 2004-03-18 22:28:25

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#78 2004-06-01 16:18:44

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#79 2004-06-02 11:23:32

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#80 2004-06-02 12:16:35

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#81 2004-06-02 12:40:32

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#82 2004-06-02 12:48:58

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#83 2004-06-02 17:33:30

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#84 2004-06-02 18:01:22

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#85 2004-06-04 10:30:15

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#86 2004-07-18 15:32:16

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#87 2004-07-18 15:57:29

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#88 2004-07-19 13:12:27

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#89 2004-07-20 12:28:54

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#90 2004-07-23 08:21:32

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#91 2004-07-23 08:28:28

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#92 2004-07-23 09:30:37

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#93 2004-07-23 10:27:21

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#94 2004-07-23 12:40:24

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#95 2004-07-23 12:51:12

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#96 2004-07-23 13:03:11

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#97 2004-07-23 13:06:47

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#98 2004-08-04 11:03:01

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#99 2004-08-06 07:14:04

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#100 2004-08-06 07:23:15

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

Board footer