NASA told not to bar manned Hubble repairs

[Dudley_DUright]

A committee of experts told NASA today that it should not give up on the idea of a manned space shuttle mission to service and improve the Hubble Space Telescope.

At the request of NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe, the advisory committee set up by the National Academies has been reviewing various options for servicing Hubble with a crew of astronauts or with a robotic mission.

O'Keefe said in January that the planned servicing mission would be cancelled due to safety concerns in the wake of the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster investigation. Under pressure from politicians and astronomers, he agreed to have the decision reviewed and has since said he might consider a robotic mission.

The committee cautions that the technology and expertise needed for a robotic mission are both in infant stages. Yet four previous manned servicing missions to Hubble were "highly successful," the group points out. It finds that there are no safety procedures required by the Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB) that absolutely preclude a shuttle mission to the orbiting telescope, and so the 20 members recommend further study before anything is ruled out.

"NASA should take no actions that would preclude a space shuttle servicing mission to the Hubble Space Telescope," the report concludes.

more...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5431587

[Massacure]

1. !!!

Kick! :kick:


Kick! :kick:


Kick! :kick:


Kick! :kick:


Kick! :kick:

Good! Stick it up to them cowards!

[LastDemocratInSC]

2. It's not a matter of cowardice

It's a question of risk management and the unnecessary exposure of valuable, and limited, national assets.

The shuttle has a history of 2 catastrophic failures in 113 launches - that's 1 in 57. Many lesser known but still serious failures have occurred on the launch pad, during the climb to orbit, and during orbital flight. These other failures could have been catastrophic but instead caused delayed flights, at least one launch abort to a low orbit, and early returns on several flights.

STS-93, in 1999, could easily have resulted in the loss of the vehicle and crew. That flight, with Eileen Collins as the commander, had primary main-engine controller failures, multiple short circuits in other critical systems and made it to orbit only by the grace of God (it's interesting that she'll be the commander of Discovery on the "return to flight" mission).

The shuttle should not be used for another Hubble service mission for these reasons:

The shuttle, as a launch system, is too unreliable for manned crews - we now know that. While the shuttle is required to complete the construction of the space station, and each launch on those missions will be as risky as the previous ones, the station provides a safe haven if problems occur and the shuttle can make it to orbit.

It's likely that another shuttle will be lost during the remaining shuttle construction missions - 1 in 57 again - so why waste a flight going to the Hubble telescope when the life of the telescope can be extended by one or more robotic missions? The telescope's shuttle mating adapter provides a place for a robotic craft to attach itself and boost the telescope's orbit, provide electrical power to augment the solar panels, and provide gyroscopic pointing control.

The telescope's orbital inclination means that it cannot rendezvous with the space station if a problem occurs during a servicing mission. The difference between the two orbital inclinations is more than 10 degrees - there is no way a shuttle can make the plane change.

Ground based telescopes are now taking photos that are almost, but not quite, as good as Hubble. The advances in adaptive optics for telescopes have produced dramatic results. NASA's Webb telescope is scheduled to replace Hubble during the next decade and provide the next quantum leaps - no reason to push things.

NASA management, since the 1960s, has consistently failed to provide a corporate climate that promotes life safety as a first-line goal. In 144 manned space flights, we have lost 20 astronauts in spacecraft accidents. Do the math.

Let's use the shuttle to finish the station (while holding our breath and keeping our fingers crossed), support Hubble robotically, and hope that a safer vehicle is developed for manned flight.

[WillyT]

3. What You Say May All Be True, But...

It just galls me to think that NASA\Pentagon\CIA will probably have no trouble sending up the Shuttle for another spy satellite. And the astronauts will bravely go, volunteer even.

But for science, for this marvelous workhorse of astronomy, the astronauts will still volunteer to go, but will be vetoed and told it's not worth the risk.

Spy\War\Defense = Worth their lives.

Science and Discovery = Not worth their lives.

Oh, how we have evolved so...

:puke:

[LastDemocratInSC]

4. I understand your point but ...

The military stopped flying military satellites to orbit on the space shuttle after the Challenger explosion in 1986. They realized that the shuttle wasn't reliable enough to risk an expensive military spacecraft. Military payloads since then have been launched on expendable vehicles such as the Delta 4. The same is true for commercial payloads such as communications satellites. They abandoned the shuttle for reliability reasons.

I think it's commendable that some astronauts may be willing to volunteer for a Hubble servicing mission but that doesn't mean that our nation should risk one of our three remaining shuttles to their bravery. If they and their followers want to buy a $3 billion shuttle for the attempt, they should step up and say so. It won't happen otherwise - and shouldn't, given the facts at hand.

[WillyT]

5. Thanks For The Info !!!

Do you think the robotics can be developed, and successful, before Hubble... what... dims out\burns up???

:shrug:

[truthisfreedom]

6. excellent question. maybe the intense competition in robotics in Japan

has led to something that would be useful.

[LastDemocratInSC]

8. Here's a link for you about the Hubble robotic missions

Several companies are working on the issue and yes, I think it is doable.

Hubble is still in a safely high orbit and will be for some time even if a servicing mission, manned or otherwise, doesn't happen. The three main problems are, in order of importance:

1) Gyroscope failures. Hubble has lost several of the gyroscopes that point the telescope and keep it stable during observations. The loss of another gyroscope could jeopardize any useful scientific work. This problem must be fixed. A robotic craft could provide the gyroscopes and pointing control.

2) Electrical power: The telescope's wings of solar cells decay every day and become less efficient. The new wings are more efficient than the old ones but must still be replaced due to aging. A robotic craft could provide new wings and attach them to the telescopes power supply throught the shuttle mating adapter.

3) New camera: There is a new camera built and ready to go that could extend Hubble's vision by a huge amount. The installation of these cameras require a human servicing mission. There is no way this can be done otherwise.

If problems 1 and 2 can be solved robotically, then Hubble can continue providing its current level of science into the forseeable future. Obviously, if the new camera could be installed Hubble could do better work, but I think that given the circumstances involved, keeping Hubble running at its current level is the best compromise.

That is the value judgement I have reached. I wish things were different, but we must play the hand we have been dealt.

Oh, yeah, the link:

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/world/9145601.htm?1c

[AndyTiedye]

10. Maybe Rutan Can Do It

http://www.scaled.com

[wuushew]

7. That is not true

cross check the first link with the second




http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/launch/sts_list.htm
http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/missions.html

[LastDemocratInSC]

9. The last military launch was 14 years ago ...

They stopped designing EVERYTHING for shuttle delivery after the Challenger explosion. This is ironic because the design of the shuttle was based on the military's need for a 1,200 mile cross-range landing ability with a large payload. In other words, NASA never wanted the big beast but the military did, but it failed, and the military turned their back on it.

[One_Life_To_Give]

11. China Mission?

Maybe we should ask the Chinese to do it for us then.