NASA Urged to Reconsider Shuttle Mission to HST

LMCBoy writes "Space.com reports today that the National Academies of Science has released its recommendation to NASA on the future of the Hubble Space Telescope. They conclude that 'NASA should take no actions that would preclude a space shuttle servicing mission to the Hubble Space Telescope.' They also say that none of the safety requirements of the CAIB report preclude a manned servicing mission to HST." Read on for more.

"The NAS recommendation would reverse NASA's previous position that a shuttle repair mission is ruled out for safety reasons. In the wake of strong criticisms of this decision, NASA has also been considering a robotic repair mission. The robotic mission would not risk human lives, but it relies on a number of bleeding-edge technologies that would have to be deployed on a very short timescale. HST's remaining gyroscopes are not expected to last beyond 2007."

Comments

Show me the money...

[LostCluster]

Safety concerns was the offical reason why they didn't want to service the Hubble, but this report most clearly is saying that's bunk.

But what about the finacial concerns? I don't think NASA has the funding to allocate to a Hubble Repair mission... could the safety claims just have been a smokescreen to cover when the real reason was because they can't get the funding to do this?

Re:Show me the money...

[wass]

I don't think NASA has the funding to allocate to a Hubble Repair mission

Not really. NASA does have the money (assuming it's funding isn't further cut). But NASA administrator O'Keefe re-arranged the NASA priorities after Bush's claim for a Mars mission. The safety issue further added into this, but wasn't entirely a smokescreen.

This is troubling because Bush appointed O'Keefe directly, and O'Keefe reports (or is supposed to, at least) back to Bush. More annoyingly is that O'Keefe single-handedly made the decision to cut the funding for Hubble Servicing Mission 4. He probably had advice from some panel or other, but in his email he stated the decision to cut or not to cut would be his alone.

Luckily enough scientists and politicians acted out to fight O'Keefe's initial decision. Personally, I don't know if he decided to cut it just because of the Mars announcement or not, I think he just doesn't want any more astronaut deaths or serious accidents to occur under his watch. However, I think it's a shame to let NASA's scientific progress stagnate strictly due to safety issues.

On the side note, the whole Mars thing seems bunk, when was the last time anybody even heard any other information about it? Maybe there'll be some more talk about Mars (talk is cheap) until November elections.

Some actual costs from NASA ...

[xmas2003]

To be more exact, according to the NASA Hubble site, it cost $1.5 Billion to build and put it up into orbit, and has an annual operating budget (including data analysis, etc.) of $230-250 million.

And Hubble's second servicing mission cost $347 million plus another $448 million for the Shuttle flight - I believe that is in 1996 dollars.

So as a taxpayer, for all that dough, how 'bout some new satellite pictures of my house! ;-)

Re:Some actual costs from NASA ...

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

Of course, the cost of space missions hasn't gone down like computer hardware did, but still one wonders if a better and more advanced space telescope couldn't be built at the same price a maintenance mission to Hubble would cost.

Since most of the expense is in the launch -- and that would be comparable for a new satellite -- the answer is No. But more importantly, there is a replacement for the Hubble in the pipeline (the James Webb Telescope) but it is not scheduled for launch until 2011. Given the precariousness of NASA's launch capability, politicals will, and funding, one has to regard that as a soft date.

Meanwhile, if they don't service Hubble, it will have to be de-orbited. (Note that even just deorbiting the thing will cost about $300 million, which is around 60% of the cost of the proposed service mission -- not counting any hypothetical replacement.) Unserviced, Hubble will fail in 2007 or 2008. That leaves at least 3 years where there will not be an orbiting telescope with the breadth and coverage afforded by Hubble.

(What's three years? Well, for one thing, we might miss a supernova in the Milky Way. They should happen around once a century but none have been seen in the Milky Way since 1600 or so. It would be almost criminal to have such an event happen during a window when we couldn't observe it from orbit. We could have to wait another few centuries for the next chance.)

Re:Why NASA bugs me

[el-spectre]

Whoa... since when are most scientists convinced that life likely came from Mars?

It's possible, sure. Even proven that the planets have swapped rocks many times, but "most scientists" ?

Personally, I'd find it quite spiffy if it turns out that life came from space originally... makes the mystery much more interesting.

Re:uh....

[mbrother]

No, StealthX20, we DON'T have ground-based telescopes that can do the things that Hubble can do. The no brainer is the ultraviolet, which cannot pass through Earth's atmosphere. There are more tasks, that depend on high-spatial resolution, that some ground-based telescopes can approach, but not match, at least not in all respects. The astronomical community would like to keep Hubble operating until its replacement is launched, but without a servicing mission that is unlikely, and hundreds of millions of dollars have already been spent on new instruments to increase Hubble's capacity. That money will be wasted.

Re:Shame

[hcdejong]

I suspect Hubble's CCD's can't really be compared to the ones in a digital camera.
From that same page: "They can see objects that are 1,000 million times fainter than the naked eye can see. "
For one thing, Hubble's cameras are cooled (can't find their temperature, but IIRC it's far below zero) to reduce noise. Also, the CCD design is bound to be different. This gives an idea of what's involved.

Re:I hope they go ahead with this mission

[amightywind]

What a shame it would be to spend all that money putting Hubble up there and then not servicing it because of budget cuts. That would be like spending $20,000 on a new car and then deciding a few years later that you can't afford to take it in for an oil change. It's already up there, they might as well service it.

Hubble is in the 14th year of a 10 year mission. The decision to service hubble is no different than deciding to put a new engine in an old car with 200,000 miles, with the added twist that there is a 1 in 50 chance that a 7 person crew would die doing it. The reason NASA O'Keefe has decided not to service Hubble with the shuttle is that it is judged to be unsafe given the Columbia review board's recommendations. Namely, the shuttle should have access to the safe haven of the ISS if it is to keep flying. This story adds nothing new to the debate. Hubble's replacement is on the way. Perhaps its leisurely schedule of the James Webb Telescope can be accelerated.