Zubrin to debate Hubble - with Sean OKeefe on CNN

clark · 2004-03-22 14:57:34

Ugh. Come on Bill, you know this. But I appreciate the constant hammering all the same.

The Administration, and NASA, have to wait for the Space Commission report, due this summer.

Anything that is added by the Admin, or by O'keefe in the mean time will only hamper their efforts by causing confusion. It allows for detractors to use any differences in interpretation as a wedge to break down the whole goal. It also distracts the Space Commission since they would then have to get into the politcal ring now, weighing in on these issues before they've looked at all the options.

There is a current vacumn becuase there are few details, and as such, any loon under the sun can say just about anything and sound right.

Bill White · 2004-03-22 15:12:04

Ugh. Come on Bill, you know this. But I appreciate the constant hammering all the same.
The Administration, and NASA, have to wait for the Space Commission report, due this summer.
Anything that is added by the Admin, or by O'keefe in the mean time will only hamper their efforts by causing confusion. It allows for detractors to use any differences in interpretation as a wedge to break down the whole goal. It also distracts the Space Commission since they would then have to get into the politcal ring now, weighing in on these issues before they've looked at all the options.
There is a current vacumn becuase there are few details, and as such, any loon under the sun can say just about anything and sound right.

Heh! Okay, I guess we are even on that "moon first" business.

But with Endeavor not flying until 2006 and the Aldridge commission not supposed to tamper with

ISS completion;
then the moon;
then Mars

how much can they really do?

Neil deGrasse Tyson! I think I will go to my local parish church and light some candles for that man to wish him luck!

clark · 2004-03-23 07:27:54

But with Endeavor not flying until 2006 and the Aldridge commission not supposed to tamper with
ISS completion;
then the moon;
then Mars

Members have mentioned that they will alter the timeline if there are issues of saftey. I believe this is the 'saftey valve' if things go too far north. It's looking more and more likely that ths Shuttle fleet will simply be grounded permanently, leaving little option but to pursue SDV modification of the exsisting fleet. Basically, take the manned component out and you no longer have to worry about all of the CAIB report.

All they need is congressional buy-in to ammend the Iran-counterproliferation treaty and we can send all the people we want into space on Soyuz. That means the ISS can be used for that 'biomedical' research that is part of the Bush plan.

Plans for the moon will be constrained by CEV development- we need to look there to see what the Moon base will look like.

I don't think we will see much from the Commission about Mars other than stuff related to robotic missions involving sample returns and in-stui resource utilization.

You light a candle Bill, I'll get my voodoo doll and see if I can take care of the detractors.

clark · 2004-03-23 08:53:25

Well, this is almost timely. At least I got to say some of it first...

MSNBC:

[http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4580820/]Hubble debate

Perhaps this is a foretaste of the politicization of the Hubble debate. Dizikes has impeccable credentials as a technology journalist, but he also recently wrote an article for ‘Salon’ about “What Kerry Has To Do To Defeat Bush”. Making the Hubble decision a minor key for political attack could well be one such tactic. That’s a sure way to introduce further irrationality into an already overheated debate characterized by lots of smoke and very little light, which is an insult to the true mission of Hubble: To see things more clearly.

dickbill · 2004-03-23 11:23:33

It's not about Hubble but the shuttle. In
[http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/23/natio … 3SHUT.html]http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/23/natio … 3SHUT.html
New York Times, registration required (free)

they say that the shuttle had flaw in the aerobrakes and that it flew with that default, potentially fatal, for decades.
Then I though about that:
Their is probably no "perfect" aircraft ever made. I remember the F104 starfighter with a very bad record in some countries (germany or Belgium I think, where many F104 crashed).
Any aircraft has some good and bad. That's part of the design, why now, aircraft must be suddenly perfect to fly ?

I don't say that to save the Shuttle, it's too old anyway, but it's the concept to exploit the smallest details to conclude ultimatly that the aircraft had defaults and shouldn't be used.
Is it just me or I see politic everywhere now ?

Bill White · 2004-03-30 07:53:13

The ISS "safe haven" may not be all [http://www.floridatoday.com/news/space/ … rescue.htm]that safe after all.

= = =

Maybe we need the X-38 to give the ISS crew a safe haven. ???

Josh Cryer · 2004-04-22 15:11:50

There was a special on Tech TV the other day about Hubble (I think the show was Secrets of Tech or something not very memorable). They essentially went through the process of designing the Hubble, how the mirror error occured (apparently the calibration device has a chip on it the size of a width of human hair; causing an error on the mirror itself ten thousandths the width of a human hair), and how they fixed it.

It was a good special. I was especially astounded at how long it took them to make the mirror. 5 years. To make the most astoundingly imperfect mirror ever made. Perfectly imperfect!

Anyway, I just remembered this special, and this is the only thread this was applicable to. I just hope they can save the Hubble. The rewards have and will far outweigh the risks.

clark · 2004-04-22 17:08:26

O'Keefe was quoted while speaking on the Hill that NASA is evaluating several robotic options to fix, and prolong the life the Hubble. And I for one wholeheartily support any such attempt.

bolbuyk · 2004-04-23 07:52:21

Here is another idea. OKeefe says SM4 needs a safe haven. Zubrin says its doesnt, but okay lets humor OKeefe since he is Director of NASA. :;):
Why is ISS the only potential safe haven?
Launch a Soyuz from Kouru to loiter close to Hubble. Launch SM4 as soon as possible after the Soyuz arrives at Hubble.
Service Hubble.
Use the Soyuz for a close visual fly-by of the orbiter. If no signs of damage, land orbiter and dump Soyuz in Pacific.
If unrepairable damage, transfer crew to Soyuz and dump orbiter in Pacific (or leave on orbit for study then dump in Pacific).
If repairable damage send up appropriate repair kit via Progress from Kouru. Repair orbiter. If in doubt, land crew via Soyuz and land orbiter via remote operation.
= = =
If Soyuz is incapable of automated docking then 2 crew fly up in orbiter SM4 and 1 crew flies Soyuz. Otherwise, 3 crew in SM4 and Soyuz loiters uncrewed near Hubble until SM4 arrives. 3 are sufficient to service Hubble, I am told. 4 is preferred but Soyuz can only carry 3.
Thoughts?

Sorry, I didn't know you made this point already. I made a reply on another thread (When will the shuttle fly?).

But I didn't realize the landing -site of Soyuz, which is traditionally land. I've looked on the world-map and come to some options, namely Australia, Namibia and eventually Mexico. Don't know what is best, but I think Australia. Their desert kcan be reached better than Namibia, I think, annd Mexico is maybe to dense-crowded.

In case of an abort, Soyuz has to land in the Atlantic.

What are your opinions?

Bill White · 2004-04-28 08:00:08

Zubrin v O'Keefe continues. . .

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mp … al/2535272

Palomar · 2004-04-28 08:25:37

*The debate topic that wouldn't die...

--"We even have the odd spectacle of astronaut John Grunsfeld, who had flown on Hubble repair journeys and said just last summer that such a mission was 'worth the potential risk to my life.' Now, as NASA's chief scientist, Grunsfeld is taking the party line."

*"Funny" how that works, huh? Salary increase, Mr./Dr. Grunsfeld? You've been bought?

--"Zubrin believes O'Keefe's rejection of a shuttle flight to Hubble is 'undercutting the entire rationale' for manned missions...'If the risk of (reaching) Hubble is too great, then the risk of Mars is too great, the risk of long-duration spaceflight is too great,' Zubrin said. 'The moral basis is unacceptable for missions that contain risk.'...The view was echoed by an academic who asked that he not be quoted by name. 'If you can't fly 350 miles, on a mission that already has been accomplished safely ... , how are you going to be able to go to the moon and Mars?'"

*Well...Dr. Z's got a point (and an anonymous -- why? -- academician agrees with his point of view). But isn't it also a matter of *priorities*? Even though I'm in favor of keeping Hubble afloat, I'm not convinced whether or not we repair Hubble "proves" we have the wherewithal to go to the Moon (we've already been there multiple times, so what's to prove?) or on to Mars. I think I can see why Zubrin is chiming in (spurring NASA to get on with exploration/challenging them)...but I don't agree with the point of debate being used/how it's being used.

--Cindy

Meanwhile, we're still going nowhere...

Bill White · 2004-04-28 08:36:16

Hubble support - - in an http://www.ryano.net/iraq/?74498]unexpected place.

clark · 2004-04-28 08:45:26

How many ways has that picture been doctored? :laugh:

The Shuttle isn't very space worthy, and it's not just Grunsfeld life on the line for a Hubble mission. And last I checked, those remaining Shuttle's, worth billions, belong to the american tax payer. No astronaut owns the keys, until they do, let them find their own joy ride.

Ever think that perhaps the reason why some of the Astronauts clamor for a Hubble trip is becuase that's why they are an astronaut? In other words, NASA won't be sending them up anymore, becuase they won't be needed.

Thought the same reason about the long duration trips to ISS- fewer astronauts would get time in space (which is the point of being an astronaut, no?).

Equating a rationale decision not to use a fragile space ship that is needed for certain roles with a lack of commitment to manned exploration is a bit of a stretch. This line of reasoning would make more sense if we planned on doing the exploration in the SHuttle. But we're not, we're building some ships that can get us there.

It's not a failing of our spirit, but our hardware. I recall reading that NASA is looking at using the robo-nauts that they have been working on for the last decade, so perhaps Zubrin should refresh himself on what NASA robotics just might be capable of.

Unless of course he knows everything.

clark · 2004-04-29 09:03:56

LOL! A rebuttal to the op/ed piece that Bill linked to above...

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.h … tml?id=950

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=950]Link

Rebuttal to Comments by the Houston Chronicle and Robert Zubrin Regarding NASA's Hubble Repair Options
Dennis Wingo
Thursday, April 29, 2004

To us the most valuable part of our proposal is that after the Hubble rescue is accomplished we can bring the HTARV back to ISS where it can replace the Russian Science Power Tower that currently is not funded. The HTARV would be able to supply ISS with up to 50 kilowatts of additional power for science and exploration activities carried out at ISS. It would also be able to reboost ISS for a fraction of the cost of bringing conventional liquid propellants to ISS on the European ATV or Russian Progress, thus freeing up this valuable upmass for dry cargo for maintenance or human consumption.
Later the HTARV or its sibling could be used to ferry an L1 outpost space station to that orbit as a waypoint and safe haven on the way to the Moon or Mars. An L1 station where spacecraft, manned or unmanned, can be refueled, would lead to a doubling of the payload delivered to the Moon and even greater gains for Mars.
This I think may be at the root and core of my friend Bob's [as in Zubrin] objection of a robotic servicing mission. It invalidates Mars Direct. A robust infrastructure of an ISS, an L1 outpost/gateway, and a vibrant Lunar resource utilization depot on the Moon, makes Mars Direct obsolete with its dependence upon a Saturn V class heavy lift vehicle. This infrastructure makes the Moon an important location for the production of fuel and even hardware for a Mars mission, just as President Bush spoke of in his January 2004 speech.
Mars Direct as a mission architecture has as its fatal weakness, a dependence upon a heavy lift launch vehicle requiring over $10 billion dollars in development with its first launch more than a decade away. For that same price and quicker than that time we can place this infrastructure elaborated above into place for a lunar landing.
An on orbit assembled HTARV would advance the President's agenda for exploration, save the cost of a dedicated Shuttle mission, and meet all of the requirements of the cancelled SM4 servicing mission for no more than the cost of the original deorbit mission announced a few months ago. This project would involve JSC, MSFC, GSFC, and NASA Langley, in a project that would provide an intelligent mix of manned and robotic spaceflight. My friend Bob and Cragg Hines darkly hinted to the Houston community that if the robotic mission to Hubble was approved it would be tantamount to the closing of JSC and the shuttering of manned spaceflight. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

I suggest any interested parties read the full article, it is quite informative.

Bill White · 2004-04-29 09:34:40

My good friend Dr. Robert Zubrin chimes in as the scientist with sufficient gravitas to back up these assertions proclaiming that "no one outside of O'Keefe's direct orders agrees with him that such a robotic mission is possible". Well Bob I am not under O'Keefe's orders and I agree and attest that it is possible.

He forgot to add. . .

"And I am actively seeking a lucrative contract from O'Keefe. . ."

RobS · 2004-04-29 09:36:33

Wow, this is fascinating! Wingo is a member of the "Solar Ion Tug/L1 Gateway" Caucus, which is basically what I advocate (read my "Mars-24" plan; it's based on solar-ion tugs and L1 Gateway, advocated originally by NASA's NExT team). I agree with him; build a big solar-ion tug, move Hubble to ISS, fix it and move it back then use the tug to keep ISS in orbit. The technology will pioneer a vehicle we need to go back to the moon and on to Mars reasonably inexpensively.

-- RobS

Bill White · 2004-04-29 09:38:52

My good friend Dr. Robert Zubrin chimes in as the scientist with sufficient gravitas to back up these assertions proclaiming that "no one outside of O'Keefe's direct orders agrees with him that such a robotic mission is possible". Well Bob I am not under O'Keefe's orders and I agree and attest that it is possible.

Now, in plain English:

"And I am actively seeking a lucrative contract from O'Keefe. . ."

A team that was put together under the auspices of my company, SkyCorp Incorporated and our European company Orbital Recovery has come up with a solid mission plan that meets ALL of the requirements of the now cancelled SM4 mission and allows for the servicing of Hubble in perpetuity by crews from the Shuttle or from the International Space Station. Orbital Recovery is already in an intensive design study with our prime contractor Dutch Space, funded by Orbital Recovery with matching funds by the European Space Agency ESA.

Perhaps the future of America's space program will hang in the balance this summer.

clark · 2004-04-29 09:54:30

the future of America's space program will hang in the balance, this summer.

Sounds like a movie preview. :laugh: And the show goes on...

Now, in plain English:
"And I am actively seeking a lucrative contract from O'Keefe. . ."

Yeah, well, okay.

However, his rebuttal is concerning the feasibility of robotic alternatives to save Hubble, which the article he is responding to, which uses Zubrin as the scientific backing to make some rather silly remarks, is stating.

Zubrin is just going to make it harder for the Mars Society to be heard.

There are non-shuttle solutions to fixing Hubble (26 in fact!). If Zubrin really cared about saving Hubble, he would make sure that NASA chose one of those 26 by focusing on that issue. But he dosen't. He just uses Hubble as an exscuse to be heard.

The man is right on some things, but not this.

clark · 2004-04-29 10:11:50

And from CNN.com

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/04/2 … .html]Link

NASA: Robotic repair of Hubble 'promising'
By Brian Berger and Leonard David

Among the robotic technologies presented to NASA were Johnson Space Center's Robonaut and the University of Maryland's Space Systems Laboratory's Ranger robot.
Robonaut is a human-like android designed by the Robot Systems Technology Branch at Johnson in a collaborative effort with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. The Robonaut project is focused on developing and demonstrating a robotic system that can perform the same duties as a spacewalking astronaut.
The University of Maryland's Ranger robot is flight ready, according to its designers, and has dexterous manipulators capable of working on Hubble. The Ranger robot has already undergone testing against Hubble servicing tasks, according to project personnel.

There is a picture of a robonaut on the CNN link.

John Creighton · 2004-04-29 10:39:24

Among the robotic technologies presented to NASA were Johnson Space Center's Robonaut and the University of Maryland's Space Systems Laboratory's Ranger robot.
Robonaut is a human-like android designed by the Robot Systems Technology Branch at Johnson in a collaborative effort with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. The Robonaut project is focused on developing and demonstrating a robotic system that can perform the same duties as a spacewalking astronaut.
The University of Maryland's Ranger robot is flight ready, according to its designers, and has dexterous manipulators capable of working on Hubble. The Ranger robot has already undergone testing against Hubble servicing tasks, according to project personnel.

To me this is really exciting, Robots in space, and ion tugs, the ability to construct space infrastructure without the expense of launching and supporting astronauts. More and more equipment will be launched in space each year and, each year there will be more and more spare parts for the robots to utilize in construction and all without heavy lift.

story.robonaut.jpl.jpg 08.20.03.SLES.Hubble.1.jpg
P.S. Can I get in troble for posting pictures that say copywrite on them?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2004-03-22 14:57:34

Re: Zubrin to debate Hubble - with Sean OKeefe on CNN

#52 2004-03-22 15:12:04

Re: Zubrin to debate Hubble - with Sean OKeefe on CNN

#53 2004-03-23 07:27:54

Re: Zubrin to debate Hubble - with Sean OKeefe on CNN

#54 2004-03-23 08:53:25

Re: Zubrin to debate Hubble - with Sean OKeefe on CNN

#55 2004-03-23 11:23:33

Re: Zubrin to debate Hubble - with Sean OKeefe on CNN

#56 2004-03-30 07:53:13

Re: Zubrin to debate Hubble - with Sean OKeefe on CNN

#57 2004-04-22 15:11:50

Re: Zubrin to debate Hubble - with Sean OKeefe on CNN

#58 2004-04-22 17:08:26

Re: Zubrin to debate Hubble - with Sean OKeefe on CNN

#59 2004-04-23 07:52:21

Re: Zubrin to debate Hubble - with Sean OKeefe on CNN

#60 2004-04-28 08:00:08

Re: Zubrin to debate Hubble - with Sean OKeefe on CNN

#61 2004-04-28 08:25:37

Re: Zubrin to debate Hubble - with Sean OKeefe on CNN

#62 2004-04-28 08:36:16

Re: Zubrin to debate Hubble - with Sean OKeefe on CNN

#63 2004-04-28 08:45:26

Re: Zubrin to debate Hubble - with Sean OKeefe on CNN

#64 2004-04-29 09:03:56

Re: Zubrin to debate Hubble - with Sean OKeefe on CNN

#65 2004-04-29 09:34:40

Re: Zubrin to debate Hubble - with Sean OKeefe on CNN

#66 2004-04-29 09:36:33

Re: Zubrin to debate Hubble - with Sean OKeefe on CNN

#67 2004-04-29 09:38:52

Re: Zubrin to debate Hubble - with Sean OKeefe on CNN

#68 2004-04-29 09:54:30

Re: Zubrin to debate Hubble - with Sean OKeefe on CNN

#69 2004-04-29 10:11:50

Re: Zubrin to debate Hubble - with Sean OKeefe on CNN

#70 2004-04-29 10:39:24

Re: Zubrin to debate Hubble - with Sean OKeefe on CNN

Board footer