Hubble mistake - Action needed

SpaceNut · 2004-08-16 07:42:02

Another issue with Hubble is not just servicing it before it is to late but one of is it more cost effective if more instruments should also fail before what we had planned force other follow up missions to keep what was just invested worth while.

deagleninja · 2004-08-16 23:22:35

Ouch! Hubble, a white elephant?

I can't believe you just compared the most successful machine of all time to that orbiting disaster waiting to happen we call the ISS.

Do I love Hubble? Well, yes I do.

Is it worth saving? Yes, it is.

Would saving Hubble be expensive? Of coarse.

Does NASA have anything better to do in the next 4 years? Sadly, no they don't.

The circular logic of our politicians and fellow posting members blows my mind. I thought most of us agreed that the ISS was built primarily to give the shuttle a destination in LEO. I thought we agreed how horrible a mistake it was to push ahead with the ISS. And now I am hearing people say that Hubble isn't worth saving? Are ye daft? Repairing the HST is the ONLY thing the shuttles are good at. As we have seen, grounded shuttles don't save NASA money (or they wouldn't need additional funding to return to flight). It is insane to think NASA is going to find something better to spend their time and our money on in the next four years before Hubble is usless.

Euler · 2004-08-16 23:41:31

Repairing the HST is the ONLY thing the shuttles are good at.

The choice isn't between a shuttle servicing mission and letting Hubble die. Post Columbia, NASA is to afraid of the risks involved to send a shuttle up to Hubble's orbit. Instead, the choice is between saving Hubble with an extremely expensive robotic mission (that would cost more than a new, better telescope), or letting Hubble die and spending the money on something else.

The circular logic of our politicians and fellow posting members blows my mind. I thought most of us agreed that the ISS was built primarily to give the shuttle a destination in LEO. I thought we agreed how horrible a mistake it was to push ahead with the ISS.

Actually, I think that a space station is a logical and necessary next step for our manned space program. The execution of building the ISS has not been that great, but we are gaining useful experience and learning new things. The shuttle actually isn't all that good for building ISS-the mass penalty for getting into the ISS orbit hurts it a lot more than it hurts expendable launchers.

deagleninja · 2004-08-17 01:04:44

Well you said it, not I. NASA is afraid.

Of the almost limitless disasters that can destroy a shuttle and its crew, sending a shuttle to HST's orbit is but one. Nearly the entire scientific community agrees that any additional risk in sending a shuttle to the HST's orbit is negligable.

We are going to send shuttles up anyway and take the chance another freak accident can happen, but we arent going to service Hubble......moronic.

GCNRevenger · 2004-08-17 09:25:22

"Nearly the entire scientific community agrees that any additional risk in sending a shuttle to the HST's orbit is negligable."

Well, thats nice, but they don't matter. The most delicate part of Shuttle, the TPS, is a fatal liability if you can't reach the ISS. If it were just the risk of losing another Shuttle vehicle to go up and service HST, then i'm sure NASA would do it, but the hurt to NASA's credibility as a competant manned spaceflight organization would be irreperable. Congressional investigations would be calling for O'Keefes' head, CNN guest experts questioning NASA's sanity to - for the third time - kill another crew of astronauts by pushing an "unsafe" vehicle with a "flawed" heat shield... and for what? To try and fix a telescope that won't last much longer any way? The public would not understand... nor forgive.

Losing another Shuttle to TPS failure is not an option, and the risk of fatal damage to NASA is too great in order to save a few hundred mil but not using a robot. NASA is also going to need every last shuttle flight between now an 2010 to fulfill our promise, treaty, international comittment to finish the ISS. When faced with the choice between an ISS payload that has to get up there and fixing HST, then its not really a question at all.

"Is it worth saving? Yes, it is.
Would saving Hubble be expensive? Of course"

I contest that this is not so. Hubble is NOT worth saving. It is a simple cost/bennefit issue, that it will cost no more to build a new telescope with similar or superior capabilities than it will be to fix Hubble with any kind of mission. The new telescope would be in a better orbit, it could be more advanced, and it would more likly work than a repair mission. Since it simply won't cost any more, then I can't see why you can honestly state that fixing HST is a good idea.

SpaceNut · 2004-08-17 09:36:46

What would it take to place a skylab sized module just for that purpose near the Hubble?

deagleninja · 2004-08-17 09:53:28

BUT GCN, there is no replacement for the HST being built or even on the drawing board. Would it be possible to simply wave our hands and magically produce Hubble 2.0 to replace it, hell, even I would be in favor of that.

The next space telescope, tentitively scheduled for 2011, will not be an optical telescope. It may well yeild valueable scientific information, but it can't inspire. The public won't be excited about pictures that aren't a true representation of what we would see. It simply isn't 'real' to the general population because we don't see in ultraviolet.

If NASA can't take risks then they are unfit to lead our space exploration program. It doesn't matter what kind of spaceships we build, people will die. Instead of O'Keefe addressing the public in a bold and ambitious manner he has been using his airtime to appologize and promise not to risk astronauts lives.

This isn't cautious, this is ridiculous. Would our military be effective if we never entered a situation where lives were at stake? Would a single skyscraper have been built if the engineers were not willing to deal with loss of lives?

Had I been O'Keefe, I would had said something like the following after the Columbia tradgedy:

'We always strive to protect our astronauts, but risk is part of our buisness. Perhaps next time you vote against funding that NASA needs badly to safely transport its pioneers to space, just perhaps you will think twice.'

SpaceNut · 2004-08-17 09:56:36

Nasa News Release : The Marshall Center has been selected as the site of NASA's Discovery and New Frontiers Program Office.

http://www.msfc.nasa.gov/news/news/rele … 4-214.html

Marshall gets planet probe assignment
Center will manage, send missions for robotic explorations.

http://www.al.com/news....180.xml

What impact will this change of operations for Marshall Center have in the long run?

GCNRevenger · 2004-08-17 10:13:37

BUT GCN, there is no replacement for the HST being built or even on the drawing board. Would it be possible to simply wave our hands and magically produce Hubble 2.0 to replace it, hell, even I would be in favor of that.
If NASA can't take risks then they are unfit to lead our space exploration program. It doesn't matter what kind of spaceships we build, people will die... This isn't cautious, this is ridiculous... "risk is part of our buisness. Perhaps next time you vote against funding that NASA needs badly to safely transport its pioneers to space, just perhaps you will think twice."

Oh yes, and I suppose that its just as easy to wave our hands and magicly make a robotic repair mission in only two years? Or to wave our wand and make an ISS payload go away to make room for Hubble on the schedule? No, it would be just about as difficult to design a new telescope in several years than it would be to pour reasources into a rush job to make a robot, and the fact remains that the STS system is booked solid until retirement for ISS construction.

Hey, if it were a flight of the tried-and-true CEV, well built and not a compromise hypersonic ming vase like Shuttle, that failed and burned up I think that the would be an acceptable risk. But this is different, the Shuttle has a fatal weakness, as clearly and painfully illustrated by the shots of Columbia becoming a meteor over Texas. NASA knows Shuttle has a fatal weakness, and since it has happend before and so seared into the publics' minds, that it would be a FAR greater loss than just the ship and crew... given that NASA has twice now lost a Shuttle because of its insistance that Shuttle could fly flaws or no without a backup plan, it could kill NASA.

So no, the risk is not worth it... I don't think its even worth the risk of the vehicle, crew or NASA's credibility or not. And are you naieve to think that the media would forgive them this in hindsight?

Having O'Keefe publicly stand up and ask tell that "its the stingy taxpayers fault" would be political suiside too, by the way.

SpaceNut · 2004-08-17 11:06:33

Can I suppose that GCNRevenger that you feel the same way about the ISS if it should come down to keeping it up there and going, after the shuttle is fully retired.

John Creighton · 2004-08-17 11:12:08

Can I suppose that GCNRevenger that you feel the same way about the ISS if it should come down to keeping it up there and going, after the shuttle is fully retired.

Not to speak for GCN but I think it is very premature to decide what to do once the ISS reaches the end of its life. We don’t know what vehicles will be available then to service it. We also don’t know what technology would be available for a future space station. I personally would like to see a future space station made of, lighter materials, with better radiation shielding, less likes, a stronger structure and an engine so it can reboots itself. Heck maybe the ISS2 could travel to the moon. I know you in any design tradeoffs have to be made. But we won’t know what tradeoffs will have to be made until we know what technology will be available at that time. Hence the discussion is very premature.

GCNRevenger · 2004-08-17 11:43:01

Another thing to note about the Shuttle being used to finish the ISS, that the order to build ISS came from "above" any of the NASA administrators and from the executive branch... I wonder if NASA would finish the ISS if they were given the choice rather than Clinton/Gore telling them to. And now that the deal has been signed, its a deal we aren't easily going to get out of, particularly given how much has been invested already.

deagleninja · 2004-08-17 16:23:59

'Oh yes, and I suppose that its just as easy to wave our hands and magicly make a robotic repair mission in only two years? Or to wave our wand and make an ISS payload go away to make room for Hubble on the schedule?'

Actually, the testing and training is already underway. The technology IS available and need only be adapted to deal with vaccum and extreme temperature changes. As for the ISS, nowhere is it written that we need to sacrafice our equipment (HST) to meet the demands of other nations not sharing the burden of lifting and assembling. I mean, for goodness-sake, we don't even have an agenda for the damn thing.

'And are you naieve to think that the media would forgive them this in hindsight?'

So the media dictates government policy? It's not as if the media even has a positive opinion of NASA or space exploration in general......so what's to lose?

'Having O'Keefe publicly stand up and ask tell that "its the stingy taxpayers fault" would be political suiside too, by the way.'

You misunderstood me GCNR. I said that O'Keefe should have held the politicians to the fire after Columbia. It isn't the taxpayers that quietly kill budget request after budget request in the middle of the night, it is politicians. The public believes that NASA recieves about as much money as the Navy or Air Force.

I don't mean to seem down on O'Keefe, but is it wrong to expect leaders to lead?

GCNRevenger · 2004-08-17 17:19:37

No, a robot arm that might be practical has been tested, but the rest of the spacecraft... NASA said they were only going to do it this month, there isn't even any money aproved for design work yet. JWST though, which would be of similar construction as Hubble-II but much smaller, that has been in the works for a while now. And it wouldn't be a whole lot more difficult given NASA's experience with large space telescopes than a robot they essentially have zero experience with.

The point is, building a new telescope isn't going to be any more difficult than a rush job on a robot that is less likly to suceed, to fix a telescope that will not be as good as a new one, in an orbit thats terrible for space telescopes.

The media can forgive one mistake... NASA has been lucky enough not to get gored over the second... but a third time is pushing our luck. Expose', scandal, and an endless army of bitter ex-NASA employee "experts" is not somthing that voters will casually ignore:

"You KNEW the TPS was too fragile, RCC penitration has happend TWICE (Atlantis then Columbia) and the glass tiles fall off, but you sent those Astronauts up anyway to an orbit they couldn't get to the space station from... and what did you kill them for? Some more pretty space pictures? You could have built a new telescope instead!"

Or how about this... can you imagine the impact to NASA if there were fatal and irreperable TPS damage discoverd on orbit? If an entire RCC pannel broke off or somthing? Can you fathom the tragic drama of the Astronauts saying "goodbye?"

And actually yes, NASA's launch schedule has been booked solid in writing, with our international partners in the ISS recently making design cuts and changes so that assembly could be completed on time. Each shuttle flight from now until the end is spoken for. All of them. By international agreement.

Or, we can build a new, better telescope.

SpaceNut · 2004-08-18 05:31:49

The Case Against Hubble
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/hubble-04p.html

Snipet:
Aviation Week magazine reports that Hubble's engineers have concluded that the problem can't be solved simply by docking a Deorbit Stage to it- equipped with its own set of super-precise gyros- to precisely stabilize Hubble, or radio precise attitude information from the Stage's gyros to Hubble's own attitude-control system.

The is because the docking fixture- where the Stage must attach itself to Hubble- is fastened to a thin, mildly flexible aluminum bulkhead on Hubble's rear.

No matter how precisely the Stage tries to control its own, and the attached Hubble's attitude, the Telescope will wiggle back and forth - only slightly, but more than enough to ruin the super-precise pointing which Hubble must carry out to make any usable astronomical observations.

deagleninja · 2004-08-18 07:16:28

I don't feel as if my point is getting across.

Looking at the numbers, it doesn't seem logical to save Hubble. It is expensive, yes. It is dangerous, all missions are, but yes. Is it worth it? Definately.

As I have said, NASA has nothing better to do in the next four years. We probably won't get much past Core Complete let alone finish the damn thing so why let Hubble die for a space station no one wants?

Has O'Keef even asked another country if they don't mind waiting for their personal module? Has any attempt been made to contact our so-called partners and stike a deal? Nope.

Why can't Japan wait for their module a year longer so we can service Hubble and then we can share the viewing time with their scientists on a regular basis?

When O'Keefe made his January announcement that Hubble would not be serviced again there was an incredible outcry from teachers, politicians, and supporters like us. When has any NASA program generated that kind of support? Even Apollo was old and unwanted after the first landing.

Killing Hubble only reinforces the public's perception (perhaps correctly) that NASA lacks the determination to follow through will grand schemes.

It isn't about the costs or risks. This is about inspiration. You can't tell the taxpayers 'well we know you want us to keep this here, but we'd rather go ahead and build an obsolete space station'.

Of the two, don't you think that the ISS will cost more lives than one or two more servicing missions? Frankyl I'm suprised no one has died yet.

Grypd · 2004-08-18 09:11:57

The reason that there will be no spare shuttle launches is simple. The ISS is aging it already has maintenance problems and as more modules get added it will only get worse. And I doubt the ISS will be usable in 5 years, most of the ISS partners will know this. So if the USA does want to stop the Japanese flying there module knowing that there is a good chance it will never get to fly at all, Imagine how Japan would feel at this.

The Hubble has done a great job in the past, it really has but its time to let the past go. A new super Hubble could be built for the same cost as the money needed to build a robot mission and to launch it. It would be better as we have learned from all the mistakes that plagued the Hubble at the beginning requiring shuttle missions to fix. Oh and the Hubble 2 would be easily designed for us to use robot repair missions to replace and upgrade parts.

SpaceNut · 2004-08-18 09:24:48

On a note of the shuttle return to flight.
Nasa news release Discovery Milestones Set Stage for Return To Flight
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2004/au … pdate.html

Since the first few flights will require a second shuttle be staged within a reasonable time how far off the time line is the next shuttle in its preperations for any such rescue attempt if needed.

Grypd · 2004-08-18 10:55:39

Im not the only one who has serious doubts as to the feasibility and reason of any repair to the Hubble.

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/hubble-0 … Spacedaily article

If as the report seems to be saying that more could be done with a project expected to overun to the tune of 2 Billion $us then why keep with a project that needs so much. Certainly it makes sense to have a space telescope, just not one out of date. Send a new one and for 2 Billion that is very easily feasible and with a lot more life expectancy. So if there is a mistake it is keeping the Hubble. It has done its job and more time for something better.

SpaceNut · 2004-08-18 11:11:09

Of course with Hubble 2 they needed to update everything to last much longer than the Items did that needed replacing over all the years that hubble has been in space.
Batteries, Gyro's ect...

John Creighton · 2004-08-18 11:26:52

Some quotes from the http://www.spacedaily.com/news/hubble-04p.html]above articale:

But O'Keefe's ignorance of basic details of aerospace technology is now infamous; and this is not the first time he has been tricked into backing a seriously questionable major new program by his more experienced NASA underlings. They hold a strong and predictable desire to keep the agency's total funding level pumped as high as possible, whether it's justified or not.
There's the equal eagerness with which he cancelled the proposed billion-dollar Europa Orbiter, and shocked everyone instead by proposing to replace it with the Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter - a 26-metric-ton behemoth, propelled by a revolutionary new nuclear-electric propulsion system, powered by a miniaturized nuclear reactor, which would cost at least $9 billion to create.
The JIMO mission intends to carry out studies of Ganymede and Callisto, which NASA's own planetary scientists say have far lower priority scientifically than Europa does, and could be done far more cheaply later by simply flying a couple of separate near-duplicates of Europa Orbiter.

Similarly, while orbiting robot repairmen for satellites will indeed be useful for some US space missions in the moderately near future, one is definitely not required - and, in fact, is seriously counterproductive both scientifically and economically - for Hubble.
Once again O'Keefe has been tricked by his technological ignorance and his dishonest underlings into backing a project which would further bloat NASA's funding, and which would actually be destructive to the nation's scientific and space interests, instead of following a far more rational development schedule for it. It's to be strongly hoped that in the cases of both JIMO and the Hubble Repair Robot, that his serious error will be corrected either by himself or by Congress.

SpaceNut · 2004-08-18 11:37:47

I had posted snipet from the same article with respect to the mating of the de-orbit stage if the gyros are left in that unit and not part of any change out operation done by the canadian arm dexter in that it would be unstable for use due to vibrations.

GCNRevenger · 2004-08-18 14:27:31

"NASA has nothing better to do in the next four years"

Actually, they kinda have a space station to finish...
1: NASA has said they will essentially complete ISS, including all lab modules, truss sections... basicly everything but the US Hab module and some of the logistics componets. This is pretty much set in stone by international treaty. Given the choice between fulfilling international commitment of a $100Bn project and a desire to fix the old Hubble (which has had a good long life), the decision is not a decision at all.
2: The last Shuttle must be on the ground by Dec 31 2010, by executive order. This leaves less than five years between RTF and this date to plan and prepare any mission.
3: Every last shuttle flight, all of them, are required to reach this goal. It is not about any country waiting longer for their module as you make it sound, just NASA rearranging the schedule to make room for HST, but that their module would never be launched at all! So, I don't see any reason to bother with asking our partners about it.

"This is about inspiration." Then they will be ever more inspired by a newer, bigger, better telescope... just like MER rovers inspire, but who talks about the old Pathfinder skateboard anymore? Hubble will be missed, but it won't be missed more than a new telescope loved.

"Of the two, don't you think that the ISS will cost more lives than one or two more servicing missions? Frankyl I'm suprised no one has died yet."

The statistics work out like this: the TPS system on Shuttle has a historical failure rate of around 2% per launch. Closer to 4% if you count signifigant tile shedding. With the ISS, this becomes a small or even non-issue, but a HST mission will be exposed to this risk. Right now, its looking like signifigant RCC damage or tile shedding will not be repairable on orbit, and smaller repairs are questionable. So yes, flights to ISS are substantialy less risky than to equitorial orbit.

But more then that... NASA can sustain losing HST and replacing it with somthing more impressive much much more than it can afford to lose another Shuttle crew, particularly on a much less noble mission to fix an obsolete telescope we could more easily replace than on a mission that (supposedly) fosters international cooperation, yeilds more tangible bennefits, etc.

BWhite · 2004-08-18 14:43:07

2: The last Shuttle must be on the ground by Dec 31 2010, by executive order. This leaves less than five years between RTF and this date to plan and prepare any mission.

Huh?

I recall GWB speaking in a firm voice at a press conference but when was the executive order signed? Can you link a copy?

Euler · 2004-08-18 14:50:50

The reason that there will be no spare shuttle launches is simple. The ISS is aging it already has maintenance problems and as more modules get added it will only get worse. And I doubt the ISS will be usable in 5 years, most of the ISS partners will know this.

It is not aging that badly. The ISS is not Skylab or Mir; it was designed to have a lifetime of 30 years. A few things have broken and been repaired, but that was expected and not a sign of general deterioration.

3: Every last shuttle flight, all of them, are required to reach this goal. It is not about any country waiting longer for their module as you make it sound, just NASA rearranging the schedule to make room for HST, but that their module would never be launched at all! So, I don't see any reason to bother with asking our partners about it.

It seems a bit surprising that it needs so many launches. ISS does not have that many modules, and a lot of the shuttle missions do not bring up any significant portions of the ISS. Do they need the shuttle launches because they need the shuttle crews to help with assembly?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#151 2004-08-16 07:42:02

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#152 2004-08-16 23:22:35

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#153 2004-08-16 23:41:31

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#154 2004-08-17 01:04:44

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#155 2004-08-17 09:25:22

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#156 2004-08-17 09:36:46

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#157 2004-08-17 09:53:28

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#158 2004-08-17 09:56:36

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#159 2004-08-17 10:13:37

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#160 2004-08-17 11:06:33

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#161 2004-08-17 11:12:08

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#162 2004-08-17 11:43:01

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#163 2004-08-17 16:23:59

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#164 2004-08-17 17:19:37

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#165 2004-08-18 05:31:49

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#166 2004-08-18 07:16:28

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#167 2004-08-18 09:11:57

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#168 2004-08-18 09:24:48

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#169 2004-08-18 10:55:39

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#170 2004-08-18 11:11:09

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#171 2004-08-18 11:26:52

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#172 2004-08-18 11:37:47

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#173 2004-08-18 14:27:31

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#174 2004-08-18 14:43:07

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

#175 2004-08-18 14:50:50

Re: Hubble mistake - Action needed

Board footer