Finally, a sensible solution to the Hubble debate - ... that we can all agree on...maybe.

srmeaney · 2005-04-02 11:17:10

Bugger the fifth service mission. Bring it home, fix the errors and redeploy for a final mission outside the Asteroid belt. There is no reason to waste money on a replacement Hubble unless you think Stereoscopy of distant worlds can work with two telescopes in space.

Palomar · 2005-04-02 12:55:00

Ian, why? Is the Hubble really that important? How does Hubble advance human space exploration in any amount?
Can I just say how angry I am at this whole 'Human space exploration' thing. To me, it does not matter, humans or robots, it is simply a matter of which is more efficient. And NASA must decide for which situation humans might get the job done more efficiently: Whether it be concerning manned Mars exploration, or, in this case, servicing the Hubble.
NASA will always do well when it has a clear goal, a clear objective, in mind. That goal in 1961 was to land a man on the moon within the decade, and NASA did a reasonable job. After that, NASA hasn't really had a goal, hence the mandness that is the Shuttle/ISS.
But today, the goal should not be to return a man to the moon, or to land a man on Mars.
The goal should be simply this: To answer some damn-good questions, and to do so as effectively and efficiently as possible. Not some wishy-washy contestable 'human space vision'.
-Mike
*Shakes head* I believe that you are ignoring the fact that humans are hard-wired to be explorers. It is literally in our blood... The trouble is that none of us really has the reasources to explore, so we make do with exploration by proxy.
Proxy explorers have been all over the Earth, and have bascially been everywhere worth going to. We need a new destination... And in the farther future, who knows, humanity will then be able to fulfill its other programming... to expand.

*Well said, GCN.

Sorry, Michael; I can't help being a bit perplexed/mystified as to how you could possibly feel comfortable participating in a forum such as New Mars, which is decidedly pro- manned space exploration. :hm: Seems a major conflict of purpose, intent and interest... ???

--Cindy

Dook · 2005-04-02 15:27:01

I think we can really learn as much from rovers, orbiting satellites, and sample return missions as we could by landing humans there. For most planetary bodies those machines are the only way we are going to learn anything. How are we ever going to land humans on Venus?

But sending humans to mars and bringing them home safely isn't just about science. If we can go to the moon and back, we can do anything.

RobertDyck · 2005-04-02 15:51:05

This OSS board is still in la-la land, Shuttle this and Shuttle that, oblivious to the realities of the STS situation.

Well, yea, Ok. I was going to add a sentence that I would like to see Shuttle decomissioned before 2007, but I felt that was too wishy-washy. I left it over-simplified to make the point. The reason I listed shuttle manifests for Shuttle-C/orbiter comibination flights was to finish ISS quickly so the orbiter could be cancelled some time in 2006. If we could get the Mini-Shuttle Space Taxi I described (or some other crew transportation to LEO) operational in 2006 then we could do that. I've argued that the work already done on HL-20 would permit development of this space taxi relatively quickly, but I don't see how it could be ready for 2006. Politics means we will have Shuttle operational until the next crew transporation system is ready, so reality is Shuttle will be there for 2007-08. Perhaps SM5 will be Shuttle's last mission. That would be a fitting end to a fine orbiter.

Mad Grad Student · 2005-04-02 16:20:14

I think we can really learn as much from rovers, orbiting satellites, and sample return missions as we could by landing humans there. For most planetary bodies those machines are the only way we are going to learn anything. How are we ever going to land humans on Venus?
But sending humans to mars and bringing them home safely isn't just about science. If we can go to the moon and back, we can do anything.

Robotic exploration alone is pathetically limited in capability when compared to manned exploration. Pause for a second and think about the performance specs of the MERs. The two rovers are the most advanced hardware ever sent to the surface of another planet successfully and have almost single-handedly nailed shut the coffin of all doubts about a watery past for Mars, which would make you think at first that they are quite capable machines. However, they run on less power than a hairdryer, move at a maximum rate of 100 meters per day (!), and require complex sets of directions to carry out the most simple tasks.

For all the wonder that Opportunity has brought to the scientific community and the world in general, it has done nothing that a single human couldn't do in a few hours of hiking. The rover has been there for over a year, a person could do everything it's done and more in less than a day. Moreover, robots are inherantly limited to do only tasks that were specifically designed into their repitoire of abilities. For all we know one of the rovers may have driven repeatedly over a rock that was once a mat of algae, but if either of them ever do this we will never know because they don't have the right tools to find such rocks.

The future of robotic exploration does not look particularly bright for eliminating people from the picture either. No matter how andvanced robots become they will always be limited by their design specifications and the large communications lag time between planets. Because people design robots, logic dictates that they can only explore as well or not as well as us. Robots are great at tasks that people are bad at, such as inspecting nuclear reactor cores and disarming bombs. They are very bad at tasks that we are good at, such as exploration, by comparison.

I don't think there's any way that robotic exploration alone can ever satisfy our natural hunger for new horizons. People are smarter, better, and a better value than robots, and as soon as society develops the will to do so they will form the backbone of space exploration. There's really no other way you can do it.

Michael Bloxham · 2005-04-02 18:21:15

Sorry, Michael; I can't help being a bit perplexed/mystified as to how you could possibly feel comfortable participating in a forum such as New Mars, which is decidedly pro- manned space exploration. Seems a major conflict of purpose, intent and interest...
--Cindy

Cindy, this is the point I was trying to make. I don't mind, robots or humans, whichever gets the job done better. And NASA must realize that humans can do a helluva lot better than robots. I am therefore ecstatically pro human space exploration.

Read the above post; I agree with it 100%. I just don't like the idea of human exploration for human explorations sake (?). NASA is heading in the wrong direction with this one, IMO. NASA is, afterall, a conglomerate of engineers, not (definately not) charismatic visionaries. I'd like to avoid the wishy-washy side of the 'human space vision' thing and return to common sense. Because, most of the time (but not all of the time, ISS being a good example of when not to use humans...), when conducting space exploration, humans are better than robots. Even the humble engineers know that.

-Mike

SpaceNut · 2005-04-06 11:03:38

Chair of House Science Space & Aeronautics Committee Endorses Hubble Deorbit

The United State’s commercial, civil and military space organizations must begin to work much more closely to avoid duplication of effort
He also endorsed the idea of forgoing a robotic mission to repair the Hubble Space Telescope and instead proceed with a robotic mission to equip the spacecraft with a module allowing for the safe de-orbit of the vehicle at the end of its life.

dicktice · 2005-04-06 15:05:56

"Humble Engineers"? There ain't no such thing!

LtlPhysics · 2005-04-07 00:31:20

For all the wonder that Opportunity has brought to the scientific community and the world in general, it has done nothing that a single human couldn't do in a few hours of hiking. The rover has been there for over a year, a person could do everything it's done and more in less than a day.

That's something of a shared feeling. I can understand why NASA was so cautious while they were unwrapping the rovers because they were, as one of the guys put it, "priceless."

But when a tally is taken of all of the recent rovers; pathfinder, spirit, etc., and the probes to come; third generation rover(s), nukes, flyers, balloons, return samples, kites, drillers, snakes, whatever, what do you have at the end of the day, besides billions of dollars of spent robotics?

Well, you do have quite a bit of science accomplished, but the larger questions will remain unanswered until a geologist shows up. And the infrastructure and vehicle needed to get the geologist there won't exist.

SpaceNut · 2005-04-18 09:55:04

It becomes clear as we launch our ships to the heavens and beyound that we must keep the skies over head clear for orbiting hazards that circle this big blue marble we call Earth.

In some what unrelated stories of Near Earth Asteriods scale rating system, the space shuttle chance of damage going up or down, orbital debri strikes to ISS, the now out of fuel Dart as well as others and finally the Hubble once gyro's stop and batteries are dead could be another of those hazards.

But unlike the others the Hubble could watch for this debri.

All the other stories followed by the Hubble's possible use:

Asteroid Danger Scale Revised to Be Less Alarming
or in Asteroid Warnings Toned Down
U.S.-China Space Debris Collide in Orbit
[url=http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/custom/space/orl-asecshuttle18041805apr18,1,487652.story?coll=orl-news-headlines-space&ctrack=1&cset=true]Could shuttle land without crew aboard?
NASA looks at how to get the orbiter back if astronauts took refuge on the space station.[/url]

[url=http://www.al.com/news/huntsvilletimes/index.ssf?/base/news/111381572517890.xml] Hubble work to help spot launch debris
Software to check video of shuttle's exterior at liftoff [/url]

Is this just another reason for not killing?

SpaceNut · 2005-04-22 05:40:00

Space Watch: Is there life after Hubble?

We all know that Griffin has said that if all goes well with the shuttles return to flight that a reconsideration of a mission to the Hubble might be pausible.
This article later within the shuttle context looks at and of a final mission at the approximate time of retirement as a secondary means to increase or extend the useful time before it would be sent to its grave in the Ocean.

The complete robotic mission is being dismissed at this time and the partial just was not enough to satify those for extending it until the Jwst was in orbit.

Can we combine the best of shuttle, partial mission stabilization and the deorbit into a unit that could be used to not only fix what is broken for now but also to extend it once something should start to fail again.

If I recall correctly the partial mission would have brought up batteries and gyro's (not sure if other about other stuff). While the deorbit was just an engine and fuel to bring it down.
The robotic was in addition to the partial list was to do some of the replacement items but it may have had difficulties with some of them.

A shuttle mission could do all the repair and replacement with the astronauts and inaddition could bring up the combined deorbit/ partial battery and gryo unit. Since one would not need to go back up again the final mission at end of shuttle retirement would not be needed.

SpaceNut · 2005-04-22 07:56:22

The effort by many still prgresses on to save the hubble and I wonder once it has been done this time whether for some far off future that it will also begin again anew when some other piece of it begins to break.

Interesting to recieve this letter but will share.

Dear Hubble supporter,

Some time in the last 14 months you have contacted SavetheHubble.com. You're receiving this message because we believe you can make a difference in Hubble Space Telescope’s fate.

It’s Hubble’s 15th annirvesary. We’ve been collecting electronic signatures in our Save the Hubble petition list since February the 6th, 2004. To the present date, April 22nd, 2005 almost 5000 people from all around the planet have signed it. Yours is probably there!

Save the Hubble.com has also received hundreds upon hundreds of e-mails from people who are deeply concerned with the telescope’s future. Many of them have been directly involved in Hubble’s project, construction and operation. Some of them have worked on the Apollo program, some on other space programs. Scientists, astronomers, amateurs, housewives, public workers, students and children have written to us. Each and every one of them love science, knowledge, discovery. The technologically savvy are devastated with the impact Hubble’s demise will have in visible light and specially ultraviolet Astronomy.

The Washington Times (Robert Zimmerman,UPI) published on it’s electronic edition of Apr. 21: (…)“Astronomy and Astrophysics in the New Millennium, a report published in 2001 and sometimes called the decadal survey -- and written by some of the most important astronomers in the world -- outlined the priorities of the community for the period 2011-2020. Those recommendations bluntly rejected any plans to launch an optical or ultraviolet instrument to replace Hubble. (…) even though NASA officials and astronomers often claim the James Webb Space Telescope -- once called the Next Generation Space Telescope -- is meant to replace Hubble, such statements are not true. The Webb is not an optical instrument. It will not match Hubble's resolution and it is being designed to operate almost entirely in infrared wavelengths, as recommended by those earlier panels.(…)”

Hubble Space Telescope –“ the orbiting space wonder” - has been a unique source of marvel and inspiration for a significant part of humanity; it has opened a magic window to the universe. More than a fantastic scientific instrument Hubble is the “living” proof of what we humans can achieve if we work united and in peace. We cannot let it “die”.

Fernando Ribeiro
SavetheHubble.com

Please, find attached a zip file with the petition list in Txt format. In case your e-mail does not allow attachments, please check the petiton list at www.savethehubble.com/cgi/list.pl

www.SavetheHubble.com will be back online april 24th 2005 at 8:33:51 PM EDT, 12:33:51 PM GMT. That’s the exact time of the launch of mission STS – 31 to deploy Hubble Space Telescope.

PS: I apologize if you're receiving this message more than once. It is not spam, I'm sending them personaly and I'll not be bothering you again soon... : )

GCNRevenger · 2005-04-22 08:46:22

Oh now here we go again... I thought it was settled that for obvious and irrefutable reasons that a HST servicing mission is simply a bad scientific investment...

-A Shuttle mission, at ~$1.5Bn (assuming four flights a year plus $200-300M for HST ops/parts), will cost aproximatly as much as Hubble-II ($800-900M est) and a robot deorbit stage ($300M est) would, for only about half the telescope-years (~4-5 vs 10+ easily) of operation. Even if Shuttle were flown for a marginal cost of $300M, adding a modest ~$100M sum each for mission operations and parts , Hubble-II is still a better deal per-dollar.

-A Shuttle mission would risk the lives of the astronauts in a vehicle that we know has a heat shield of questionable reliability, plus the mission would disrupt ISS construction schedules if a high degree of completion is required.

-Many of Hubble's unique abilities will soon be copied by adaptive optics equipped ground telescopes, but one of the things that space telescopes can do that they can't - wide field imaging - Hubble is not capable of. Hubble-II would be. Low-noise imaging is another unique strength of space telescopes, and Hubble-II in a higher orbit would also be superior.

-The astronomers would live a few years without a UV/Vis space telescope. To believe otherwise is to irrationally glorify the importance of their profession and their persons in the face of spending our limited money wisely. There were professional astronomers before Hubble, and there will be afterwards too.

-The chance that something unrepairable on Hubble is increasing, some power systems have already failed and probobly cannot be repaired. Hubble has now outlived its design life so therefore betting on it working for years to come is a signifigant gamble... a gamble of hundreds of millions of dollars and years of lost telescope time, compared to the reliable Hubble-II option.
-------------------------------------------------------------

Now then... a robotic repair mission is clearly out of the picture in the time required, about 1.0-1.5yrs, before such a mission would have to be almost ready to roll out to the pad: if Hubble loses its batteries or too many gyros (no solar pannel allignment), its electronics will freeze and the telescope will perminantly die. HOWEVER, a robotic mission purely for deorbiting is perfectly reasonable given how easy it is. The little DART mission, with bigger fuel tanks and launched on a Delta-II, could have probobly accomplished the mission with some remote control help. It would be pretty easy, and would not have to beat the Hubble-death deadline.

And now for the likes of Mr Ribeiro... anti-scientists, a menace and not an ally to the cause:

The number one question I have for the Riberioites: So we service Hubble one more time. Then what? What happens when Hubble inevitibly starts to fail again? ...There are some in NASA even writing studies for ANOTHER servicing mission past this one. Where does it stop? When is just one more one too many? ...And if there is such a limit, why not this one?

The real answer is that Riberioites are driven by sentimentality and feelings, which are the very things that have no place in quantifying and comparing competing investments of this magnetude. Notice the 5th paragraph of his Dear HST Supporter letter, how the -first- thing he cites as Hubble's greatest achievement isn't scientific at all, but a feel-good verbal group-hug about it being a "magic window" or something...

It is my opinion that science is hardly even a peripheral interest, and he and those like him are willfully ignoring the facts about the Hubble situation because of the sentimental attachment to the telescope... Sentimentality has no place in deciding what we do with Hubble.

SpaceNut · 2005-04-26 11:02:55

Well Hubble is now 15 and thou it is somewhat aging it still is turning some real interesting stuff out.
The chances for repair does deminished with each passing day followed by months and then finally by the years. But Hubble does not have all that much more to live unless a mission of some sort is sent. Or we can beleave in rencarnation by the HOP but that is still a long ways off with no funding.

That said thou Nasa is still continuing forward.
Robotic Arm Practices for Possible Hubble Repair

Tucked away in a cavernous building at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, an 11-foot robot arm spends its days showing off for a team of engineers.
It shines its lights, locates equipment, flexes its grippers, loosens screws and even wields power tools -- just like an astronaut can.
Engineers here have spent the last six months putting the robotic arm through its paces to see if it can service the Hubble Space Telescope. They do not know whether the National Aeronautics and Space Administration will end up servicing Hubble at all, let alone whether it will entrust such work to a robot.

I wonder how much that has cost?

Regardless of how the robotic arm ends up being used, Cepollina said he is confident that robotics have a future in space work in general.
Using pre-existing robotic technology and training it to work on Hubble, Cepollina said, "We've integrated things together to deal with the future."

But have we really gone that far done the road if all we do is practice here on earth?

John_Frazer · 2005-04-26 20:06:13

I'm willing to bet real money that the official position of the Mars Society is that anyone posting here is completely free to express anything that's contrary to the stated goals of the Mars Society.
To be taken seriously though, you will need to satisfy everyone else that your reasons are better than the reasons of the writers who say things contrary to you in Society publications. Simply stating a possition, restating it, and getting angry and abusive when anyone tries to call you on it doesn't cut it.

pardon me if this has been seen before in the ten pages of this topic. I briefly scanned through it, but didn't see any of the publications I'm going to reprint here.

Why We Must Defend Hubble
Robert Zubrin
President, Mars Society
February 1, 2004
Last week, the Steering Committee of the Mars Society released a statement supporting the new Bush space initiative, but taking strong exception to the decision by NASA Administrator O'Keefe to cancel all future Space Shuttle missions to the Hubble Space Telescope, including SM4, the nearly-ready-to-go flight that would have installed the new Cosmic Origins Spectrograph and Widefield Camera 3 instruments.
Since the release of that statement, I have received many communications congratulating the Mars Society for this stand, which several in the non-Mars science community characterized with words such as "unexpected but very welcome." A few space advocates, however, have written me, questioning why those whose primary concern is to further the human exploration and settlement of space should fight to save an astronomy project.
The answer to this is straightforward. We must defend Hubble because the abortion of the Hubble program is a crime against science.
Furthermore, the grounds given for deserting Hubble are irrational, and constitute a form of moral cowardice that if accepted as the basis of space policy, would absolutely prevent any human missions to the Moon, Mars, or anywhere else.
These points are explained in greater detail below.
1. A CRIME AGAINST SCIENCE: The Hubble Space Telescope is, as explained in more detail in the appended talking points, the most productive scientific program in human history. It has revolutionized astronomy, and made discoveries that have caused us to radically revise our concept of the nature of the universe. It is emblematic of our society's commitment to the search for truth. If you support that commitment - and we do - then you must defend Hubble.
2. DESERTING HUBBLE IS IRRATIONAL: Giving up on Hubble makes no sense. Given the commitment to continue flying the Shuttle program through 2010, adding the two Shuttle flights required to upgrade Hubble and then reboost it to make it operational through 2015 would only add about 1% to the Shuttle program's cost, while increasing its science return by several orders of magnitude. The safety argument given by Mr. O'Keefe for canceling Shuttle flights to Hubble while allowing them to ISS is also without rational basis. It is true that when flying to the ISS, the crew has a safe-haven on orbit, which is not available to Hubble flights. However Hubble missions leave the Cape flying east-southeast, while launches to ISS go northeast. Thus in the event of a launch abort, Hubble missions can ditch in warm tropical waters while ISS flights must come down in the frigid North Atlantic, where the crew's chances for survival would be much less.
Furthermore, because ISS flights take off with much heavier payloads than Hubble flights, they require full functionality of all three engines for nearly 100 seconds longer than Hubble missions if they are to perform an abort-to-orbit. This makes landing in the drink on ISS missions considerably more likely. Finally, NASA calculations show that the danger of fatal impacts by micrometeors and orbital debris to be over 60% greater on ISS missions than Hubble missions.
If we put this information together with the fact that only two Shuttle missions are needed to make Hubble operational for another decade, while over 20 are needed to complete the ISS, it is apparent that Mr. O'Keefe's assessment that the Hubble program poses greater risk than the ISS program is irrational.
3. HUBBLE DESERTION PREVENTS HUMAN EXPLORATION: Desertion of Hubble discredits the human spaceflight program because Hubble is the one example to-date wherein the human spaceflight program can show more science return per dollar than robotic spacecraft. For example, Hubble, including its four Shuttle support missions to date, has cost about twice as much as the Galileo probe to Jupiter, but it has produced at least a hundred times the science return. Fleeing from Hubble is fleeing from the human spaceflight's program primary scientific accomplishment. The cost of retreat is much worse than that, because the space agency is now proposing to begin a program of human exploration to the Moon and Mars. Yet it is patently obvious that a human mission to the Moon or Mars cannot be done at a lower level of risk than the Shuttle mission to the Hubble. So, if we don't have the guts to go to Hubble, we are not going to the Moon, Mars, or anywhere else. And if we are not going to engage in human interplanetary travel, then the primary rationale for the Space Station program -- learning about the effects of long-duration spaceflight on human physiology -- loses its foundation as well.
In the face of massive public outrage about his decision, Administrator O'Keefe has agreed to allow it to be reviewed by Columbia Accident Investigation Board Chairman Admiral Hal Gehman. Hopefully Gehman will rectify the situation. But if he does not, then Congress will have to act. They will have to take action, because ultimately the question of whether we rise to the challenge of the Hubble upgrade mission is not one of the technicalities of Shuttle flight safety, but of societal values.
If humans are to explore space, cowardice is not an option. It is not a matter of ignoring risks, but of facing them, and knowing the odds, bravely putting it on the line to do what has to be done. That attitude is the human quality known as courage. It has been the primary requirement for every significant achievement of humanity to date, and it will be the spirit necessary if we are to go to Mars.
So in every meeting with Congressmen from now on, our message must be to support the pioneer spirit through three key points:
* Fund the new space exploration initiative
* Set the program's sights on Mars
* Show that it is serious. No desertion of Hubble!
The following talking points explaining the value of Hubble were sent to me by Mars Society members with extensive knowledge of astronomy.
Those wishing to gain a deeper knowledge of the Hubble program may wish to consult such excellent books as "Hubble: Mirror of the Universe" by Robin Kerrod (2003), or "Hubble Vision" by Carolyn Collins Petersen and John Brandt (1998).
Hubble Space Telescope TALKING POINTS
Jason Held
1. There are 1.36 million web pages that talk about Hubble. A telescope which sees to the very beginning of space and time is a popular American topic.
2. Hubble's current accomplishments
* Proved the existence of Black Holes.
* Clarified the reason for quasars (active galactic nuclei powered by black holes).
* Proved that gamma ray bursts come from distant galaxies in the early universe.
* Hubble was used in what may be one of the most important scientific discoveries of our time -that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, driven by an unknown force.
* Hubble has been used to watch the process of the death of stars and imaged solar systems in the process of formation. In this sense, Hubble is Humanity's only Time Machine
* Provided spectacular views of the Shoemaker-Levy 9 comet's collision with Jupiter.
* Gave new understanding of the atmospheres of Neptune and Uranus, as well as the first detailed images of Pluto and its moon, Charon.
* Discovered "Northern Lights" on Saturn, Jupiter, and Ganymede.
3. Wide Field Camera 3 (WFC3) and Cosmic Origins Spectrograph (COS) are both COMPLETED products, ready for installation and designed specifically on Hubble. They are designed specifically to plug into Hubble, not the ISS. Configuring the ISS to accept these instruments will require money to configure ISS to accept them. How much will this cost?
4. With WFC3 and COS, Hubble can conduct valid, useful, and relevant science until 2010. WFC3 will:
* Study the formation of galaxies in IR and UV from 500Myr.
* WFC3 is unique in that it looks at a large patch of the sky in good detail
* Specifically missioned to study the birth and death of stars
* Detection of redshift galaxies, offering insights to galaxy evolution
* 4-12x gain over current instrumentation (WFC2)
5. ¡K.and COS will:
* Fine point UV resolution for faint UV targets (not available on next generations of space telescopes), perfect for distant quasars
* Spectroscopy to study ages of deep space objects, dynamics, chemical enrichment of gasses, as well as stellar and planetary origins
* 20 times more sensitive in UV than previous Hubble instruments
6. If Hubble is retired early we also risk losing a large amount of information because there will be no comparison between Hubble and the James Web Space Telescope. This loss in continuity will make comparisons between the platforms far more difficult and thus lots of information will never be found.
Accomplishments (from http:hubble.nasa.gov/overview): Every day, Hubble archives 3 to 5 gigabytes of data and delivers between 10 and 15 gigabytes to astronomers all over the world.
As of March 2000, Hubble has:
* Taken more than 330,000 separate observations.
* Observed more than 25,000 astronomical targets.
* Created a data archive of over 7.3 terabytes. (That is like completely filling a PC every day for 10 years.)
* Provided data for more than 2,663 scientific papers.
"The observations from a single day would fill an encyclopedia."
-Hubble.Nasa.Gov
"Not since Galileo turned his telescope towards the heavens in 1610 has any event so changed our understanding of the universe as the deployment of the Hubble Space Telescope"
-NASA Website

HUBBLE'S ACCOMPLISHMENTS SO FAR
Peter Detterline
* It is the most scientifically productive craft in the history of space exploration.
* Taken more than 330,000 separate observations.
* Observed more than 25,000 astronomical targets.
* Created a data archive of over 7.3 terabytes. (That is like completely filling a PC every day for 10 years).
* Provided data for more than 2,663 scientific papers.
* Every day, Hubble archives 3 to 5 gigabytes of data and delivers between 10 and 15 gigabytes to astronomers all over the world.
* Using images from the craft, scientists have determined the age of the universe, about 13.7 billion years.
* Hubble discovered that a mysterious energy, called the dark force, is causing all of the objects in the universe to move apart at an accelerating rate. This force is still poorly understood.
* Hubble has provided information crucial to understanding the structure of our universe.
* Hubble continually tests physical theories and reveals new phenomena throughout the universe, especially through the investigation of extreme environments.
* Hubble helps scientists understand how both dark and luminous matter determine the geometry and fate of the universe.
* Hubble instruments have helped us understand the dynamic and chemical evolution of galaxies and stars and the exchange of matter and energy among stars and the interstellar medium.
* Hubble has expanded our knowledge of how stars and planetary systems form together.
* Hubble has provided detailed images that assist us in understanding the nature and history of our solar system, and what makes Earth similar to and different from, its planetary neighbors.
ADVANCEMENTS WITH CONTINUED OPERATIONS
* There are observations that can only be done with the Hubble. For example: Hubble's ACS instrument is the only facility that can be used to search for such faint objects as asteroid binaries.
* ACS doubled Hubble¡¦s field of view and collects data ten times faster than the Wide Field and Planetary Camera 2, the telescope's earlier surveying instrument. The new Wide Field Camera 3 is three times better than the ACS.
* The two new cameras (WFC3 and COS) are already built at a cost of $167 million dollars, and probably could not be adapted for use with any other telescope. They would make Hubble 10 times more capable of examining the early universe.
Wide Field Camera 3 specifics
* As revealed by recent HST and other studies, the spectral characteristics of galactic populations pushes the discovery space into the red and blue extremes of HST capability. These are the regions that WFC3 is designed to explore.
* Designed to study the controlling mechanisms of star formation in galaxies and to learn how to interpret the flood of tantalizing data on very distant galaxies. This provides important clues for galaxy evolution.
* WFC3 is particularly well suited to the detection and study of several important classes of high redshift galaxies.
* It is optimized to study the astrophysics of the interstellar medium, including star forming regions, stellar winds, supernovae remnants, planetary nebulae, and other interstellar material.
* This will be a prime instrument for studying weather patterns and climatic variations on the outer planets of our solar system.
* WFC3 offers the prospect of measuring water and ices on Mars and the outer planetary satellites. Observations by HST complement measurements made by spacecraft since the latter can only carry out local measurements and are less well suited to follow seasonal variations.
Cosmic Origins Spectrograph specifics
* The Cosmic Origins Spectrograph (COS) will bring the diagnostic power of ultraviolet spectroscopy to bear on such fundamental issues as the ionization and baryon content of the intergalactic medium and the origin of large-scale structure in the Universe; the ages, dynamics, and chemical enrichment of galaxies; and stellar and planetary origins.
* It has the ability to make quantitative measurements of physical parameters such as the total mass, distribution, motions, temperatures, and composition of matter in the Universe. Such data are essential to draw a complete picture of the Universe.
* COS gives HST the greatest possible grasp of faint UV targets, a capability perhaps not available from future space-based observatories for decades.
* COS can determine the abundances and kinematics of hot gas in galaxy halos, the impact of violent starbursts and supernovae on interstellar and intergalactic environments.
* COS can determine the ages of globular clusters, which can be used to reconcile the ages of the oldest stars in galaxies with the age of the Universe.
* The origins of stellar and planetary systems will be investigated by studying the physical processes and chemical abundances in the cold interstellar medium.
For further information on the Mars Society, visit our website at
http://www.marssociety.org]www.marssociety.org.

John_Frazer · 2005-04-26 20:08:08

A Letter from an Astronomer
Feb. 3, 2004

Since the start of the Mars Society's mobilization to defend Hubble,
we have been deluged with letters thanking us for our stand. With the
permission of the author, I decided to publish the one below, as it
contains important technical information that provides valuable
ammunition for those making the scientific case to save the space
telescope.

A special expert panel laying out the scientific and programmatic
necessity for saving Hubble will be included in the agenda of the 7th
International Mars Society Convention, to be held Aug 19-22 2004 at
the Palmer House Hilton, Chicago IL. Registration is now open at the
Mars Society website.

The letter follows.

Dear Dr. Zubrin;
I would first like to applaud the Mars Society's stance on HST. I am
one of many astronomers who first became interested in the science
through the exploration of the solar system and dreams of a human
future in space. Many of my colleagues are rabid supporters of human
spaceflight and the push to go to Mars. I myself traveled to
Hanksville , Utah with Jon Wiley and identified the area as a
candidate site for MDRS. You have many supporters in the astronomical
community who would agree with the statements in this newsletter.

I would like to emphasize one point which does not seem to find its
way into any of the arguments in support of HST, even from
astronomers well versed in the relevant technical issues. Much has
been made of the gap of five or six years between he projected demise
of HST and the planned launch of JWST, and the science lost in that
period of time. The loss is actually much greater.

The label "Next Generation Space Telescope" for JWST is misleading.
JWST is not a successor to HST. If anything, it is a succesor to the
recently launched Spitzer Space Telescope. It is entirely an infrared
instrument, and its capabilities overlap only slightly with those of
HST. Except for specialized, program-driven missions, the loss of HST
will mean the end of optical and UV astronomy in space for much of
the astronomical community. JWST will not be able to observe in these
regions of the spectrum.

Optical astronomy is still the largest segment of the community, and
provides the majority of our information about the local universe. I
do not wish to denigrate JWST. I work closely with one of the co-
investigators on its near-IR camera and do a great deal of public
outreach in connection with it. JWST will do exciting science, but it
is not the same science that HST is capable of doing. Abandoning HST
is not a temporary inconvenience, but rather a permanent and
crippling loss to astronomy. I hope that this point enters public
debate over the fate of the servicing mission.

Again, thank you for all of your efforts,
Patrick Young
Steward Observatory
Tucson, AZ

"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better
than not to think at all. To teach superstitions as truth is a most
terrible thing."
-Hypatia, Librarian of Alexandria (circa 400 AD)
_

Note by RZ; Young's citation of Hypatia in conjunction with the
threat to Hubble is interesting. Hypatia was the last of the great
classical neoplatonic philosopher mathematicians. She was murdered by
a mob of religious fanatics in 415 AD, an act which closed the career
of ancient science. The destruction of the Library of Alexandria
followed.

For further information about the Mars Society, visit our website at
http://www.marssociety.org]www.marssociety.org.

John_Frazer · 2005-04-26 20:16:26

Mobilize NOW to Save Hubble!
March 21, 2005

Over the next few weeks, a series of hearings and meetings between Congress and NASA will determine the fate of the Hubble Space Telescope. It is imperative that everyone concerned with the future of science and the American space program mobilize now to save this great observatory.

The background of the matter is as follows: Built, launched, repaired, and successively upgraded at total cost of some $4 billion, the Hubble Space Telescope has made numerous important discoveries about the nature and structure of the universe. It is the most powerful instrument in the history of astronomy, and far and away the most productive spacecraft that NASA has ever launched. Because it orbits above the atmosphere, which both smears light and blocks out major portions of the spectrum, the Hubble can see things that no ground-based telescope can see, or will ever see. It took decades of hard work by very dedicated people to create Hubble, and an equivalent space-based replacement is decades away. In contrast to the general run of meaningless Shuttle missions carrying silly science fair experiments, the Shuttle flights to Hubble stand as epochal achievements in the history of humanity's search for truth. Indeed, if one considers the moral significance of the scientific enterprise to our society and culture, Hubble emerges not just as NASA's finest work, but as perhaps the highest expression of the human creative spirit in the 20th Century.

At a cost of $167 million, two new instruments, the Widefield Camera 3 and the Cosmic Origins Spectrometer have been developed and built which, once installed on Hubble, would together triple the instrument's sensitivity. Accordingly, NASA had scheduled the SM4 Shuttle mission, which would both add these capabilities and perform certain other maintenance tasks that would extend the life of Hubble through at least 2010. Since under the new space policy, the Shuttles are scheduled to remain operational through 2010, a final Shuttle mission to Hubble could occur at that time, allowing one last replacement of the telescopes batteries and gyros and a reboost of its orbit, thereby making it functional beyond 2015. If SM4 is not flown, however, Hubble's aging gyroscopes would put the space observatory out of commission by 2007. Incredibly, on January 16, 2004, the technically illiterate former NASA Administrator Sean. O'Keefe announced that he had decided to allow that to happen.

Mr. O'Keefe justified his decision by claiming that Shuttle missions to Hubble had to cease because they were unsafe, since, in contrast to missions to the ISS (to which, under the president's policy about 25 more Shuttles would be flown), Hubble missions offer no alternative safe-haven to the crew. This argument was basically nonsense, since the ISS cannot house a complete shuttle crew for long anyway, and moreover there are numerous other features of ISS missions that make them more dangerous than Hubble flights. For example, Hubble missions depart the Cape flying east-southeast, which means that in the event of an abort, the crew can ditch in tropical waters where their survival chances would be much better than in the frigid North Atlantic and Arctic oceans overflown by the northeast flying ISS missions. Hubble missions also take off much more lightly laden than ISS missions, which makes them safer, as less performance is required of the engines to make it to orbit. Furthermore, the micrometeorite and orbital debris danger in ISS orbits is estimated by NASA to be about 60% greater in ISS orbit than in Hubble orbit.

So NASA's own risk analysis did not support Mr. O'Keefe's claim of higher Hubble mission risk, and while the Administrator declined to include such information in his briefings to congressional committees, NASA personnel were quick to leak the relevant data to the press. Mr. O'Keefe countered by ordering high- level NASA officials who were known to be ardent supporters of Hubble to take public stands supporting his decision. The disgusting spectacle of bureaucratic self-humiliation that followed was more reminiscent of a Stalin-era show trial than a technical debate, and appropriately, only excited derision in the press. Mr. O'Keefe then argued that regardless of the actual risk, the recommendations of Admiral Gehman's Columbia Accident Investigation Board precluded a Shuttle flight to Hubble, but in a letter to Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D- MD), a strong Hubble supporter, this claim was rejected out of hand by Gehman himself. Admiral Gehman's response provided Mr. O'Keefe with an exit opportunity from his policy blunder, but the NASA Administrator decided not to take it. Not only that, but when Sen. Mikulski and Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) ordered a National Academy of Science review of the matter, Mr. O'Keefe responded by saying that while he welcomed an NAS review, he would not change his decision regardless of anything they said.

As a final dodge, Mr. O'Keefe then announced that he sincerely wanted to save Hubble, but just could not bring himself to risk human life to do so. Accordingly, he would request $1.9 billion in new funds to develop robots capable of performing the mission. This proposal was very disingenuous. A Hubble upgrade mission requires the coordinated effort of seven highly trained and superbly skilled astronauts using a spacecraft and other equipment that has been specifically designed and extensively tested as suitable to this purpose. In contrast, there isn't a robot on this planet that can change out an overhead kitchen lighting fixture. NASA has a system of technology readiness levels (TRLs) that it uses to determine the appropriateness of including a technology on a mission. According to this system, it would be unacceptable to employ a technology in a mission critical role on an important spacecraft any piece of hardware that was rated lower than TRL 7. At best, the robots touted by Mr. O'Keefe as candidates for Hubble repair were at TRL 4, and their advocacy for such a function represented an arbitrary and complete abandonment of NASA mission planning discipline.

In December 2004, the NAS-National Research Council committee reported back, and rejected the robotic repair, calling for reinstating SM4 in its place. Mr. O'Keefe subsequently announced his resignation, but then, before departing, submitted a NASA budget containing no funds for either SM4 or robotic repair. Instead, Mr. O'Keefe requested $300 million to develop a special spacecraft to deorbit Hubble, i.e. crash it into the ocean in a controlled fashion. This proposal is remarkable for its irrationality. NASA calculates that if Hubble were to re-enter without direction, there is a 1/10,000 chance that the resulting debris would strike someone. That works out to a probability of one life saved per $3 trillion spent. If life-saving is the mission, $300 million could do a lot more good spent on tsunami relief, body armor for the troops, highway safety barriers, childhood vaccinations, swimming lessons, take your pick.

Humanitarian and scientific budgets cannot be directly compared, because they serve different objectives. However the proposed Hubble deorbit budget is NOT a scientific expense; its purpose is to save lives, and thus it must be considered a humanitarian expense, and judged accordingly. A reasonable estimate is that one life is saved for every $3,000 spent on Tsunami relief. At that rate, the decision to waste $300 million in potentially useful humanitarian funds on deorbiting Hubble amounts to the willful killing of roughly 100,000 people – mostly children. It is irresponsible, irrational, and immoral in the extreme.

The damage done to NASA and the new space initiative by Mr. O'Keefe's irrational actions has been substantial, and threatens to become much worse and long lasting if his decision is allowed to stand. Effectively, by choosing the most valuable part of the old space program and selecting it for destruction as collateral damage of implementing the new, the former Administrator has branded the President's vision with the mark of Cain. Opponents of the new policy have blamed the loss of the space telescope on the Moon-Mars initiative, and indeed, it is difficult to take seriously the claims of scientific purpose of an agency which chooses to abandon its capabilities so flippantly. Why should NASA receive more funds to build new space telescopes when, like a spoiled child bored with a two-hour old toy, it willfully throws away the one it already has? And how can anyone believe that an agency which is afraid to embrace the risks involved in launching astronauts to Hubble will ever be ready to send humans to Mars? Congress has spent many billions funding NASA to create the hardware needed to implement the Shuttle/Hubble program, only to be confronted with a NASA Administrator who refuses to use it. If Mr. O'Keefe's decision to desert Hubble is not reversed, how can Congress know that after they spend further tens of billions for human flight systems to the Moon and Mars, that the agency leadership won't get cold feet again?

Americans committed to a sane, moral, and courageous space policy need to mobilize now to save Hubble. Everyone should call their own Senators and Congressional representatives, ask to speak to their legislative aides, and demand that the SM4 mission to save and upgrade Hubble be reinstated, and that not a penny of the taxpayers' money be spent on the immoral Hubble de-orbit mission. If NASA has funds available for humanitarian purposes, those funds should be spent to save lives, not wasted to validate the capricious decisions of a Philistine careerist bureaucrat who has since moved on to greener pastures.

Given the decision to maintain the Shuttle flying in a given year, the incremental cost of flying an additional Shuttle mission such as SM4 is only about $100 million. Instead of stupidly and heartlessly wasting $300 million to destroy Hubble, we should use $100 million to save and upgrade this gem of science and civilization, and spend the other $200 million to save the lives of tens of thousands of destitute children far more worthy of our charity than the Hubble deorbit program. Call congress and tell them so!

All congressmen and Senators can be reached through the Capitol switchboard number, 303-224-3121. In addition to calling your own representatives, you should also call the office of House Science Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) [202-225-3665, 202-225- 1891 (fax), and Senate Space Subcommittee Chairwoman Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-TX) 202-224-5922, 202-224-0776 (FAX). Emails should also be sent to President George Bush at president@whitehouse.gov.

For further background explaining why O'Keefe's arguments for deserting Hubble have absolutely no merit, an article written by Mars Society president Dr. Robert Zubrin and published in Space News February 9, 2004, is reproduced below.

Don't Desert Hubble
Robert Zubrin
Space News
February 9, 2004

On January 16th, NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe announced that
he had decided to cancel all future Space Shuttle missions to the Hubble
Space Telescope, including SM4, the nearly-ready-to-go flight that
would have installed the new Cosmic Origins Spectrograph and Wide
Field Camera 3 instruments. This decision came atop an overall policy
shift by the Bush administration to phase out the Shuttle and
International Space Station (ISS) commitments by 2010, thereby
clearing the way to redeploy their budgets towards supporting human
exploration of the Moon and Mars. While the general redirection of
NASA's human spaceflight program from Earth orbital activities
towards planetary exploration was a valuable and long-overdue step,
canceling the Hubble upgrade mission was a huge mistake.

The Hubble Space Telescope has been the most scientifically
productive spacecraft in history. Through Hubble, we have observed
directly the planetary cometary impacts that drive the evolution of
life, witnessed the birth of stars that make all life possible, and
measured the size and age of the universe itself. Because of Hubble,
we now know that ordinary matter is a very small part of the universe
and that the expansion of the universe is speeding up, not slowing
down as previously thought – thereby revealing a new and
unexpected force of nature. The astronaut missions that have made this
possible stand as epic achievements in the chronicles of humanity's
search for truth.

Now we have a chance to push further. The Cosmic Origins Spectrograph
and Wide Field Camera 3 designed to bring the Hubble to its full
potential have already been built and tested at a cost of $167
million, and promise an enormous scientific return upon delivery to
orbit. With the help of these instruments, Hubble would be able probe
deeper into space and time, helping to reveal the processes that
governed the origin of the universe and that will determine its
ultimate fate. How can the decision abort such a program possibly be
justified?

Certainly not on the basis of cost. If the Bush plan were to stand
down the Shuttle immediately, and save the $24 billion required to
operate it through 2010 so as to initiate the Moon/Mars program this
year with substantial funding, that would be one thing. But given the
decision to return the Shuttle to flight, canceling the Hubble
upgrade would only save a pittance. It takes about $4 billion per
year to maintain the standing army of engineers and technicians that
support the Shuttle program, but it only costs an additional $100
million or so to fly five Shuttles in a given year instead of four.
Thus the additional cost to the taxpayer to fly both SM4 and a
subsequent flight a few years later to replace the Hubble's
batteries and gyros and reboost it to a higher orbit where it could be
functional well into the next decade would only be about $200
million, or less than one percent of the Shuttle program's budget
over its remaining life. From a financial point of view, the decision
to abandon the Hubble upgrade while continuing Shuttle flights
amounts to throwing out the baby while keeping the bathwater.

Safety arguments won't wash either; if the Shuttle is safe enough
to fly to the ISS, it's safe enough to go to Hubble. It is true then
when flying to the ISS, the crew has a safe haven, so that if they
should discover damage to the Shuttle's thermal protection tile
system, they could retire to the space station and survive for a
short time while they wait for retrieval by a Russian Soyuz capsule.
In this scenario, ISS missions would possess a safety features that
Hubble missions lack. But tile damage during launch is not the only
source of Shuttle flight risk. According to most analysis, the
greatest source of flight risk stems from the possibility fatal
impacts by micrometeor or orbital debris (MMOD). ISS orbits are much
more hazardous in this respect than Hubble orbits. For example, on
STS-113, the last Shuttle station flight, the calculated probability
of loss of vehicle and crew by MMOD was 1/250. In contrast, the last
Hubble servicing mission (STS-109) had a much lower calculated MMOD
probability of 1/414.

After MMOD, it is believed that the greatest risk faced by Shuttle
flights stems from the possibility of engine failure during launch.
Because Hubble missions lift off with a much lighter payload than
most ISS missions, they are can deal with this danger much more
effectively. For example, in order to be able to abort to orbit on an
ISS mission such as STS-113 (Endeavor), all three Shuttle main
engines must fire for a full 282 seconds before one cuts out. In
contrast, on Hubble missions such as STS-103 (Discovery), only 188 s
of full three-engine operation is required. This lower full-power
time requirement for Hubble missions is a critical safety advantage,
because the maximum time that either ISS or Hubble missions can
attempt a Return to Launch Site (RTLS) abort is about 232 s. Thus
Hubble missions have a 50 second overlap during which either a RTLS
or orbital abort is possible, whereas ISS missions have a 50 s gap in
which neither is possible.

If the Shuttle cannot perform either an RTLS or orbital orbit, it
might be able to reach a transoceanic landing site, but in all
probability will have to splash down in the ocean. When they depart
the Cape, Hubble missions fly east-southeast, and they thus have the
possibility to ditch in warm tropical waters. In contrast, ISS
flights leave the Cape traveling northeast, and their crews face the
bleak prospect of aborts into the frigid waters of the North
Atlantic, where their chances for survival would be much less. Thus,
while no true quantitative engineering analysis has been done to
establish whether and to what extent individual Shuttle flights to
ISS are more or less risky than individual Hubble missions, there is
good reason to believe that it is Hubble flights that offer greater
safety.

However, if we include the consideration that only two Shuttle
flights would be needed to make Hubble operational through 2015,
while at least 20 missions will be needed to complete the ISS, it
becomes apparent that the risk associated with the latter program is
at least an order of magnitude greater.

A comparison of mission risk associated with Shuttle flights to ISS
and Hubble is presented in the table below.

Table: Comparison of Shuttle Hubble and ISS Mission Risk
Feature--------------------ISS---------------Hubble---Safer Option
Haven on Orbit? -----------Yes----------------No----------ISS
Micrometeor Danger
(MMOD)---------1/250 (STS-113)----1/414 (STS-109)---Hubble
Ocean Abort Site----North Atlantic---Equatorial Waters---Hubble
No Return
(RTLS) time --------232 s(STS-113)---231 s (STS-103)---Equal
Abort to Orbit time--282 s (STS-113)--188 s (STS-103)--Hubble
Press to MECO
(1 engine out)------391 s(STS-113)------265 s (STS-103)---Hubble
Press to MECO
(2 engine out)------425 s(STS-113)----380 s (STS-103)---Hubble
# of Program Flights Needed-->20---------------2------Hubble
* Press to MECO means time required at full three-engine power before
the planned orbit can be achieved.

Furthermore, consider this: Under the new space policy, the President
intends to ask Congress to spend billions of dollars to develop
technology to enable human Moon and Mars missions. Yet Congress has
just spent $167 million to develop the instruments for SM4, only to
be told by the NASA Administrator that he is now afraid to fly the
Shuttle to deliver them. If such behavior is accepted, what guarantee
can lawmakers have that after they spend billions to develop manned
Moon or Mars exploration hardware, a future NASA administrator might
not also get cold feet? It is difficult to understand how an agency
which is too risk-adverse to undertake a Shuttle mission to Hubble
could possibly be serious in considering a piloted mission to the
Moon or Mars.

The decision to cancel the Hubble mission thus completely undermines
the President's call for human planetary exploration. Unless we
are willing to accept risks equal to, and in fact significantly
greater, than those required to upgrade the space telescope, human
explorers are not going to the Moon, Mars, or anywhere else. And if
we are not going to engage in human interplanetary travel, then the
primary rationale for the Space Station program – learning about
the effects of long-duration spaceflight on human physiology – must be
brought into question as well.

The point is not that we should be blasé about risk. The point is
that there are certain things that require accepting risk to achieve,
and are worth the price that such a course will entail. The search
for truth, carried forward by necessarily perilous human activities
in space – whether at Hubble, or on Mars – is one of them.
Nothing great has ever been accomplished without courage. If we
abandon courage, we turn our back on all that has made our
civilization one worth celebrating.

In the face of massive public outrage about his decision,
Administrator O'Keefe has agreed to allow it to be reviewed by
Columbia Accident Investigation Board Chairman Admiral Hal Gehman.
Hopefully Gehman will rectify the situation. But if he does not, then
Congress will have to act. They will have to take action, because
ultimately the question of whether we do what it takes to keep our
eyes open upon the heavens is not one of the technicalities of
Shuttle flight safety, but of societal values.

The desertion of Hubble is an offense against science and
civilization. It represents a departure from the pioneer spirit, and
its ratification as policy would preclude any possibility of a human
future in space. It is an inexcusable decision, and it needs to be
reversed.
**** **** ****
Note added; March 21, 2005. Admiral Gehman did in fact answer the Senators' inquiry by stating that Hubble missions were no more dangerous than ISS missions. Mr. O'Keefe chose to ignore his answer.

So congress must act. To get congress to act, you must act. Call your representative and Senators today. 202-224-3121

John_Frazer · 2005-04-26 20:21:36

Wall Street Journal Blasts Hubble Desertion Decision
February 24, 2004
For further information about the Mars Society, visit our website at
http://www.marssociety.org]www.marssociety.org.

In an article printed in the Wall Street Journal February 20, WSJ
science editor Sharon Begley blasted NASA Administrator Sean
O'Keefe's decision to abandon the Hubble Space Telescope.
Begley's article was based on interviewing numerous scientists,
astronauts, congressmen, and engineers, including Mars Society
president Robert Zubrin. In the course of these interviews she
assembled an overwhelming case showing that the Hubble desertion
decision is unjustified.

Begley's article requires one point of clarification. The
information refuting O'Keefe's contention that ISS missions are safer
than Hubble missions which Zubrin supplied Begley were not Zubrin's
own calculations, but NASA calculations supplied to him by brave
Shuttle program engineers in defiance of a gag order from NASA
headquarters. Other NASA engineers have also chosen to defy O'Keefe
to in order to provide the public with accurate information on this
issue; and a set of NASA documents carrying similar information to
some of that published by Zubrin was posted with the authors' names
removed on the New York Times website in association with an article
on Hubble by Times science reporter Dennis Overbye on February 7.

It is unfortunate that Mr. O'Keefe has decided that it within his
purview as a manager to insist that NASA engineers withhold analysis
that does not support his opinions. It was precisely such managerial
insistence on dictating technical reality to engineers that prevented
any effective action to avert the Shuttle Columbia tragedy. This
illegitimate exercise of management authority was harshly condemned
afterwards by the Columbia Accident Investigation Board. In response,
Mr. O'Keefe pledged to discontinue the practice. Apparently, that
has not occurred.

Some excerpts from Begley's Wall Street Journal article follows.

Crews May Be Able To Rescue the Hubble With Little Safety Risk
By Sharon Begley
20 February 2004
The Wall Street Journal

WHEN NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe announced that the space shuttle
would make no more flights to the Hubble Space Telescope, he
condemned Hubble to a lingering death from loss of battery power and
failing gyroscopes, probably by 2007. Because Mr. O'Keefe said his
decision was based on safety, stunned Hubble fans were left in a
bind. It's tough to argue that solving even the most profound
mysteries of the cosmos is worth the lives of a shuttle crew.

The cost, however, may not be that high. Engineers inside and outside
NASA, including former astronauts, have lit into the claim that
Hubble-bound flights are riskier than those to the International
Space Station, the only destination Mr. O'Keefe wants on the
shuttle's itinerary. His reasoning: Only the station can provide
a "safe haven" where a shuttle crew could await rescue or repair
potentially lethal damage incurred during launch, as happened to
Columbia a year ago when foam tore into its skin.

That argument isn't washing in the tightknit community of former
astronauts. "Give me a break," says one who is now in
academia. "You're not going to launch the shuttle again unless you
think you've fixed the problem that took out Columbia, so that one
[requiring safe haven] won't happen again. What will get you next
time is a problem that keeps you from reaching ISS at all. That makes
a mission to Hubble no riskier than one to the ISS."

IT MIGHT EVEN be safer. NASA's own analyses show that a greater risk
comes from impacts by micrometeor or orbital debris. The station's
orbit is riskier on this score. Using NASA data, aeronautical
engineer Robert Zubrin, president of the Mars Society, calculates
that on the last shuttle flight to the station the probability of a
fatal collision with a micrometeor or space junk was 1 in 250; on the
last mission to Hubble, it was 1 in 414.

Hubble-bound missions are also safer as measured by the risk of
engine failure during launch. Hubble missions usually carry a lighter
payload than most station missions. They, therefore, need less thrust
to get anyplace,which affects their abort capability.

For a station-bound mission to execute an abort-to-orbit, in which
the shuttle parks in orbit while a safe landing plan is worked out,
all three main engines must fire for 282 seconds, calculates Dr.
Zubrin. But for a Hubble mission to abort to orbit, the engines have
to fire for only 188 seconds. That's 94 more seconds of safety.

Hubble missions look even better if your goal is a return-to-launch-
site abort. Whatever its destination, the shuttle's main engines must
fire for no more than 232 seconds if it is to glide back to Cape
Canaveral. If its engines failed between 232 and 282 seconds, a
station-bound flight could not execute either kind of abort (to orbit
or to Florida), calculates Dr. Zubrin. That's a potentially deadly 50-
second window. But Hubble missions have the window from 188 to 232
seconds in which either abort can be performed.

"Safety is a red herring for politics and money," says the ex-
astronaut. "Engineers within NASA have let the agency down by not
coming forward to point out the flaws in this decision." …

One whispering campaign alleges that new ground-based telescopes can
make equally impressive discoveries and that Hubble's best years are
behind it

But the new telescopes will not observe in the many wavelengths
(especially ultraviolet) that Hubble does, and so will lack its
breadth. It's hard to top Hubble's record of discovery, from helping
to find a mysterious "dark energy" speeding up the universe's
expansion to spying the raw materials for planets around stars. And
with the spectrograph and camera the shuttle was supposed to deliver
in mid-2006, "Hubble's best years were going to be ahead of it," says
Dr. Beckwith.

There's one more oddity about Mr. O'Keefe's safety calculus. "If
we're afraid to fly to Hubble, what does that say about missions to
the moon and Mars that President Bush has called for?" asks Rep. Mark
Udall, Democrat of Colorado.

If we aren't going to be serious about those destinations, the
rationale for shuttle flights to the space station -- learning how
long-duration spaceflight affects human physiology -- is pointless.

**** **** ****
A complete discussion and strategy meeting for the fight to save
Hubble will be held at the 7th International Mars Society Convention,
Palmer House Hilton, Chicago, Illinois, August 19-22.

For further information about the Mars Society, visit our website at
http://www.marssociety.org]www.marssociety.org.

__

NASA Documents Show Hubble Missions Safer than ISS Flights
Feb. 29, 2004

Documents leaked by NASA engineers show that the agency's own
calculations predict a greater safety hazard on ISS flights than
Hubble missions. This directly contradicts statements made by
Administrator O'Keefe that the agency had evaluated Hubble missions
as substantitally more dangerous. The "Hubble missions are too risky"
line had been used by Mr. O'Keefe as the rationale for abandoning
missions to the space telescope while continuing flights to the ISS.
Only two Shuttle flights to Hubble (one in 2005 or 2006 and one circa
2010) are needed to make the space telescope operational through the
year 2015. Over twenty Shuttle flights are needed to complete the
ISS.

The NASA documents may be downloaded through the links at
http://www.marssociety.org]www.marssociety.org.

The Mars Society welcomes information transmitted to it by NASA
personnel seeking to protect the agency's greatest scientific program
by supplying the public with truthful data. Mr. O'Keefe has no
engineering or scientific education or experience, and his position
that engineering analysis that does not support his opinions be
suppressed is not legitimate. If you send us documents that the
public and lawmakers need to see bearing on this matter, we will
publish them. We can also put you in touch with leading journalists
from major news organizations who will present your data while
keeping your identity confidential.

Fight for Hubble. Fight for NASA. Fight for Science. Fight for Truth.

John_Frazer · 2005-04-26 20:49:27

To those who seem surprised to see continued reasoned debate about saving the HST:
Please show where in a reputable source, we can see figures backing the assertions (contrary to many other sources from qualified observers) that the HST servicing missions will be so horrendously expensive.

Please show also where the idea comes from that a HST servicing mission is so very hazardous to the Shuttle crews. Specifically, show where qualified writers and the many NASA engineers retract their statements or where good data is presented contradicting the fears that it's too dangerous to fly to the HST.

Also this caught my attention.
> The number one question I have for the Riberioites: So we service
Hubble one more time. Then what? What happens when Hubble inevitibly
starts to fail again? ...There are some in NASA even writing studies for
ANOTHER servicing mission past this one. Where does it stop? When is
just one more one too many? ...And if there is such a limit, why not this
one?

I thought it's been known for a long time, that exactly 2 more Shuttle missions are all that's been talked about. What have I missed? Another one to raise it a bit?

Why not this one? Becaause the hardware is finished, and ready to go, the Shuttle is ready to fly again, and only 2 more flights extend it possibly past 2015 while there isn't a hope of a replacement by that time or anytime shortly after that, where the ISS needs more than 20. Because safety reasons which have been endlessly cited by NASA managers and administrators are nonsensical.

SpaceNut · 2005-04-27 05:12:06

Thanks for the recap.

Not to take up anyone else's position aside from the non-sence of safe haven and risk of shuttle damage it should be noted that Griffin has stated that he will review the chances for a shuttle mission after a successful return to flight to the ISS.

That said the cost per flight of shuttle is the total budget dollars for shuttle use (currently to ISS only) for the remaining shuttles (3) which will have been at a minimum slated to fly once but no more than twice within the calendar years budget dollars. The 2005 year shuttle budget not counting the return to flight increase is $4.3 billion.

At a minimum of flight a missions use of shuttle is $1.43 billion and though it goes down with each flight to 716 million. The chances of it staying at that is not true for you would possibly need more man power to reprocess the orbiter, lots of overtime pay and of course replacement parts. So lets stick with the 1.43billion as the average.

Safe haven could be as simple as putting up a bigelow hotel with supplies, launching a modified space hab modules that the shuttle sometimes uses within its cargo bay and yes either of these is an additional cost but are possibilities that can function for the what ifs..

The chicken little problem is moot since eventually even the ISS and any other orbiting piece of hardware will also come down of which none have any deorbit boosters. So do not waste the money.

Sending up a robotic mission to attach and repair as much as possible does have some merit but so would rolling that cost into the replacement HOP unit and placing it into orbit before the HUbble were to come down.

So the question is are we designing telescopes to be upgradeable and if so at what cost limit per time we visit it?

If the other items (safe haven, deorbit ect..) must be addressed then lets do it for the repair of hubble but also for it replacements as well.

This is not all about the Hubble anymore but rather how we are going to deal with any hardware item delivered to space and the justification process that must follow to make better desicions.

The budget of Nasa is limited and unless there are processes within Nasa to lower its operating cost something must pay for the change of goals in order to follow though with Space Exploration Vision and unfortunately this will be what has been placed there as well as future items not deemed neccesary to achieve the goal outlined within the vision of going to the moon, mars and beyound.

GCNRevenger · 2005-04-27 06:12:14

To those who seem surprised to see continued reasoned debate about saving the HST:
Please show where in a reputable source, we can see figures backing the assertions (contrary to many other sources from qualified observers) that the HST servicing missions will be so horrendously expensive.
Please show also where the idea comes from that a HST servicing mission is so very hazardous to the Shuttle crews. Specifically, show where qualified writers and the many NASA engineers retract their statements or where good data is presented contradicting the fears that it's too dangerous to fly to the HST.
Also this caught my attention.
> The number one question I have for the Riberioites: So we service
Hubble one more time. Then what? What happens when Hubble inevitibly
starts to fail again? ...There are some in NASA even writing studies for
ANOTHER servicing mission past this one. Where does it stop? When is
just one more one too many? ...And if there is such a limit, why not this
one?
I thought it's been known for a long time, that exactly 2 more Shuttle missions are all that's been talked about. What have I missed? Another one to raise it a bit?
Why not this one? Becaause the hardware is finished, and ready to go, the Shuttle is ready to fly again, and only 2 more flights extend it possibly past 2015 while there isn't a hope of a replacement by that time or anytime shortly after that, where the ISS needs more than 20. Because safety reasons which have been endlessly cited by NASA managers and administrators are nonsensical.

Several articles have been referenced previously, imparticularly a Spacedaily article or two detailing the Hubble-II plans, which you would have seen if you had botherd to look rather then sit in your irrational "defeault-Hubble-good" position and smugly preach down and demand that others do your legwork for you.

-NASA Goddard SFS estimates the cost of HST SM4 to be aproximatly $1.3Bn including all parts and ground operations. This is credible being that the new parts for Hubble cost several hundred million (one new camera costing $163M!), the average Shuttle launch costing at least ~$800M up to $1.1Bn, and a low nine-digit sum for SM4 operations & engineering.

-The Space Shuttle's TPS system has a historic failure rate of ~3%, with Columbia's shield being damaged twice (once cracked, and destroyed the vehicle the second time) and Atlantis (small RCC hole). Foam is always going to fall off the tank, NASA has just eliminated the specific spot that doomed Columbia... Flights to the ISS have half this risk, flights to anywhere else do not. No inexpensive method that would be definatly ready by the 2007 Hubble-death deadline is practical... What'll it be? 2.0-3.0% or 1.0-1.5%? So yes, there is a serious and credible safety concern.

And its not just the safety of those five astronauts I'm thinking about either. If Shuttle were to be fatally damaged, it isn't clear that a second Shuttle could be sent up to save them in time... can you just imagine the political damage to NASA when the media starts their round-the-clock coverage of those poor astronauts' final hours? Those people that "NASA killed with a mission they knew wasn't safe, just to fix a telescope!" or "NASA can't couldn't even save them in Earth orbit, what about the Moon???"...I think that there would be no more NASA manned flight for a long time.

-The NASA comissioned Hubble Alternatives study calculates that a Shuttle SM4 mission would cost around $1.5Bn, which includes some extra money for engineering and such, which coincides well with the Goddard estimate. They also estimate that a replacement telescope of comperable power could be flown AND the robot deorbiting vehicle for aproximatly this same price. The replacement telescope would do everything that Hubble can do, except that it would have a wide-field mode and last multiples of years longer. Oh, did I mention that wide-field imaging is one of the few things that ground telescopes with Adaptive Optics can't do?

-Johns Hopkins University, who currently are responsable for the scientific management of HST (!!!), do not advocate SM4. Instead, they propose what I believe the ideal solution, a new telescope that they dub the "Hubble Origins Probe" (HOP). This telescope would basically be a copy of Hubble-I and be launched on an EELV rocket... the great thing about it is, it is compatible with Hubble's parts, so those $160M cameras sitting in storage would not go to waste. There is even a spare main mirror in storage too, and you don't need to develop a brand new design, just use the old blueprints. Total cost, $800-900M aprox.

HOP, being that it would operate in a higher orbit, would put much less stress on its batteries and gyroscopes, plus wouldn't need reboosting like Hubble-I does. This would make it last at least twice as long as a Hubble servicing mission would extend the exsisting telescopes' life, perhaps much longer.

Hubble on the other hand, even if you did rush up there to fix it in 2007, risking blood and squandring treasure so the stupid infatuated bleating masses and ultra-selfish premadona astronomers would be able to hold off "saying goodbye!!!" a few more years, might not even last tomorrow. Hubble has now exceeded its design life, and some of its electrical componets have begun to fail. These are not serviceable on orbit, since Hubble was never intended for major surgery while up there, which indicates that the non-repairable systems are likly not far from failure.

So you see... its not even really a question as to which option is better, it is a clear cut-and-dried distinction that is beyond any rational dissent. Better telescope, same money, no risk to crew and the continued survival of NASA... And the astronomers, they will live without a UV/Vis space telescope for a few years, they lived before HST and they will live after it. There is nothing special that justifies their science as being important enough not to spend our money wisely.

Hubble's day is over, just like the day any machine will eventually face... it is time to say goodbye, and start advocating the Hubble Origins Probe.

...i'll address Zubrin's wild vein-popping eyes-bulging anti-NASA nonsense later

Commodore · 2005-04-27 07:16:33

Heres the latests drivel proclaiming Griffin as Hubbles Savior...
http://www.space.com/adastra/adastra_gr … .html]NASA Chief Michael Griffin and Hubble

Among the insanities suggested are not only SM4 but SM5.

Its "arguments"...

First, a shuttle servicing mission would be a concrete demonstration of the importance of humans in space exploration at a time when such a demonstration is needed. Simply put, a successful Hubble servicing mission at this point requires both people and robotic systems working together. A shuttle mission thus supports a central tenet of the Vision for Space Exploration: that we must send humans to explore the space frontier.

This is not exploration, its a repair mission that diverts funds from exploration.

Second, the public wants it. Here at the National Space Society, we have received innumerable pleas from our members to do what we can to "save Hubble." It has stirred some of the strongest feelings amongst the public that we have ever seen as advocates for space. Committing to a plan that the public manifestly desires will be to achieve a key recommendation of the Aldridge Commission: to periodically achieve successes related to space exploration that will buoy public support.

If the public collectively wants to jump off a cliff, should we let them?
Of course not. The public wants pretty pictures. The HOP will deliever prettier pictures for less money. If all choices were put on the table, the HOP would win. But the HOP doesn't get much publicity, does it?

Third, important Democratic leaders want the Hubble to be serviced. As many have noted, achievement of the Vision for Space Exploration will require bipartisan support long into the future. Sens. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) and Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) made their interest in Hubble explicitly clear during the administrator’s confirmation hearing. NASA and the space community must, where possible, seek to maintain bipartisan support for the vision. Such leaders also might be partners in allocating additional resources for such a mission.

No. Theres enought pork being handed out in Washinton as it is. Hubble huggers would have us reduce astronomy to the level of pork. Which is a disgrace.

Fourth, upgrading Hubble would enable it to continue its prodigious scientific productivity. At a time when there are questions from the science community about the president’s Vision for Space Exploration, preserving and extending the life of NASA’s most productive scientific instrument would be a strong sign that the vision will further science.

HOP does more science for less money. This is a no brainer. And these people are suppose to be sciencists afterall.

GCNRevenger · 2005-04-27 08:57:44

Now for a word about Zubrin:

Zubrin is a hateful fool... All of these essays are steeped in emotion and sentimentality both about Hubble and what we "need" to do in space, but short on rational analysis of the situation. They are also staunchly anti-NASA, which is why I think he wrote them the way he did, because he hates NASA and that they aren't the saviors of the world like he dreams them to be, and won't follow his "obvious" vision.

"The answer to this is straightforward. We must defend Hubble because the abortion of the Hubble program is a crime against science... Furthermore, the grounds given for deserting Hubble are irrational, and constitute a form of moral cowardice that if accepted as the basis of space policy, would absolutely prevent any human missions to the Moon, Mars, or anywhere else."

An excelent specimine... Crime against science? Moral cowardice? Preclude VSE? The only crime against science is to not have a rational analysis of Hubble's worth versus the alternatives. As a practical matter, there is nothing special about Hubble beyond its technical abilities... its a machine, a machine that we should have a responsable degree of emotional seperation from just like any machine.

"Giving up on Hubble makes no sense... Fleeing from Hubble is fleeing from the human spaceflight's program primary scientific accomplishment. The cost of retreat is much worse than that... it is patently obvious that a human mission to the Moon or Mars cannot be done at a lower level of risk than the Shuttle mission to the Hubble. So, if we don't have the guts to go to Hubble, we are not going to the Moon"

Here's some more: "giving up", "fleeing", "don't have the guts." Excuse me Bob, but these are not the terms that are relivent to a rational practical analysis of the situation. There is a difference between a Shuttle mission and a Lunar mission, in that we know for fact that Shuttle isn't safe as it needs to be. The only reason we are flying it all is because our of pact with Europe and Russia is worth more then the risk, but Hubble is not.

"Wide Field Camera 3 (WFC3) and Cosmic Origins Spectrograph (COS) are both COMPLETED products, ready for installation and designed specifically on Hubble. They are designed specifically to plug into Hubble, not the ISS. Configuring the ISS to accept these instruments will require money to configure ISS to accept them. How much will this cost?... (followed by all the neat things WFC3 and COS will do)"

Um, what? Hey Bob, did you know there is no telescope at the ISS, riiight? Plus, these very instruments are compatible with HOP as well, and a new instrument (wide-field imager) that isn't compatible with HST. Bob isn't stupid, so why'd he say this?

...more to come

GCNRevenger · 2005-04-27 09:08:54

And that letter from a fan?

"Much has been made of the gap of five or six years between he projected demise of HST and the planned launch of JWST, and the science lost in that period of time. The loss is actually much greater... Abandoning HST is not a temporary inconvenience, but rather a permanent and crippling loss to astronomy."

Note how he speaks of it as some irrevokable precipice, how there "can never be another Hubble" as if it were unique: Hubble is not unique. Build another one, and its abilities and more are restored.

And though it isn't pleasent to state it, to be frank astronomers aren't important enough to exempt their science from a cost/bennefit analysis. We can either trade a few years of "down" time while HOP is built, or we fix Hubble and get half the years (maybe less) with an inferior instrument... And that at the risk that its 15 year old electronics, which have begun to fail already, don't burn out in the next ten. And that-that, only at the risk of five astronauts lives in a vehicle with a known flimsy heat shield with little hope of rescue, which also screws up the ISS schedule. And that-that-that, at the risk of NASA being beheaded because they took a risk without a worthwhile payoff (versus HOP).

It aint' rocket science

Admiral_Ritt · 2005-04-27 09:10:23

These Emotional arguments for saving Hubble would not
have happened had NASA Been Keen enough to see it coming.
I could see it coming, Since I was disappointed with descision
to not service it and bring it down. Once you look at what is
replacing Hubble you realize it's a Museum Piece by now.
How much better would NASA's desicsion have been received if they said they were going to send up a Module
to Kick it up to PERMANMENT ORBIT as a Space Monument.
I think a 2,000 mile High Orbit would keep Hubble around for what 100 years?
Who knows maybe then It will considered an archaelogical Reclic of late 20th century high tech.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#126 2005-04-02 11:17:10

Re: Finally, a sensible solution to the Hubble debate - ... that we can all agree on...maybe.

#127 2005-04-02 12:55:00

Re: Finally, a sensible solution to the Hubble debate - ... that we can all agree on...maybe.

#128 2005-04-02 15:27:01

Re: Finally, a sensible solution to the Hubble debate - ... that we can all agree on...maybe.

#129 2005-04-02 15:51:05

Re: Finally, a sensible solution to the Hubble debate - ... that we can all agree on...maybe.

#130 2005-04-02 16:20:14

Re: Finally, a sensible solution to the Hubble debate - ... that we can all agree on...maybe.

#131 2005-04-02 18:21:15

Re: Finally, a sensible solution to the Hubble debate - ... that we can all agree on...maybe.

#132 2005-04-06 11:03:38

Re: Finally, a sensible solution to the Hubble debate - ... that we can all agree on...maybe.

#133 2005-04-06 15:05:56

Re: Finally, a sensible solution to the Hubble debate - ... that we can all agree on...maybe.

#134 2005-04-07 00:31:20

Re: Finally, a sensible solution to the Hubble debate - ... that we can all agree on...maybe.

#135 2005-04-18 09:55:04

Re: Finally, a sensible solution to the Hubble debate - ... that we can all agree on...maybe.

#136 2005-04-22 05:40:00

Re: Finally, a sensible solution to the Hubble debate - ... that we can all agree on...maybe.

#137 2005-04-22 07:56:22

Re: Finally, a sensible solution to the Hubble debate - ... that we can all agree on...maybe.

#138 2005-04-22 08:46:22

Re: Finally, a sensible solution to the Hubble debate - ... that we can all agree on...maybe.

#139 2005-04-26 11:02:55

Re: Finally, a sensible solution to the Hubble debate - ... that we can all agree on...maybe.

#140 2005-04-26 20:06:13

Re: Finally, a sensible solution to the Hubble debate - ... that we can all agree on...maybe.

#141 2005-04-26 20:08:08

Re: Finally, a sensible solution to the Hubble debate - ... that we can all agree on...maybe.

#142 2005-04-26 20:16:26

Re: Finally, a sensible solution to the Hubble debate - ... that we can all agree on...maybe.

#143 2005-04-26 20:21:36

Re: Finally, a sensible solution to the Hubble debate - ... that we can all agree on...maybe.

#144 2005-04-26 20:49:27

Re: Finally, a sensible solution to the Hubble debate - ... that we can all agree on...maybe.

#145 2005-04-27 05:12:06

Re: Finally, a sensible solution to the Hubble debate - ... that we can all agree on...maybe.

#146 2005-04-27 06:12:14

Re: Finally, a sensible solution to the Hubble debate - ... that we can all agree on...maybe.

#147 2005-04-27 07:16:33

Re: Finally, a sensible solution to the Hubble debate - ... that we can all agree on...maybe.

#148 2005-04-27 08:57:44

Re: Finally, a sensible solution to the Hubble debate - ... that we can all agree on...maybe.

#149 2005-04-27 09:08:54

Re: Finally, a sensible solution to the Hubble debate - ... that we can all agree on...maybe.

#150 2005-04-27 09:10:23

Re: Finally, a sensible solution to the Hubble debate - ... that we can all agree on...maybe.

Board footer