Scientists Debate Robotic Hubble Mission

An anonymous reader writes "Some scientists are questioning whether the robotic mission to repair the Hubble Space Telescope is worth the risk and cost. After the Columbia disaster, NASA cancelled its shuttle mission to Hubble, and replaced it with a robotic mission. However, the price tag of the robotic mission is between $1 billion and $2 billion, almost the cost of a new space telescope. Optics expert Duncan Moore is unsure whether the mission will bring the most scientific return per dollar spent. Hubble director Steven Beckwith says the mission will lead to breakthroughs in space robotics."

Comments

All science is good science

[Amsterdam Vallon]

I worked for NASA for 8 years straight out of MIT undergrad.

Though I left the rocket science "business", I have no regrets. It was a great company to work for and we did some amazing things.

That said, all science is good science, even this robotic HUBBLE mission. I helped with deployment of spacecraft and nothing was more satisfying.

This mission MUST go on else we will fail as scientists.

Re:All science is good science

[InfiniteWisdom]

That said, all science is good science
While true, the real question if whether that $1-2b could be spent on doing better science. Of course, merely because $2b can purchase a new telescope doesn't mean it isn't worthwhile to do a robotic mission if the science and engineering aspects involved are new and exciting enough, or if the robotic equipment could be used for future time/money saving work.

If its going to be a relatively routine job, then maybe its better to say a fond farewell to Hubble and build a new space telescope drawing on all the lessons learnt from Hubble's shortcomings.

Re:All science is good science

[hfis]

That said, all science is good science

Well, if we disregard the whole "chemical weapons research" thing, then yeah, I guess so. Oh, and that little hiccup with the Auschwitz 'improvement' doctors.

Re:All science is good science

[Pxtl]

Idunno, to me Hubble is more of just an excuse than a goal - NASA wants to develop robotics as an alternative to EVA. I remember designs in the 90s for a "Canad-Hand" to go on the arm. I think NASA just wants an opportunity to develop this technology so they don't have to risk more astronauts, and Hubble is a popular plaform to build support for it.

Re:All science is good science

[EvilTwinSkippy]

I dare say that while robotics research is a lofty goal, this is the wrong mission for it. We can study telerobotics just fine on Earth, and there are a pile of undersea applications that are far more technicalogically challenging, with more direct applications to everyday problems.

When we say that 1 or 2 billion is going to research, that is the opening bid. Spending 1 or 2 billion to keep an obsolete telescope aloft is a bad use of R&D. Bad with a capital B. Especially since there is no advantage to keeping the old station aloft, nor is there any danger (more than any other satellite at least) in bringing it down.

If the thing had a radioactive power source, or there was a super-expensive rare metal apparatus that we can't manufacture anymore I'd say sure. Otherwise, drop the thing and spend your budget on a new telescope using the lessons learned from the old, and technology that did not exist in the 30 years since the unit left the drawing board.

Re:All science is good science

[EvilTwinSkippy]

I'd be willing to wager that if NASA came out and asked for money to research orbital robotic technology they would have gotten it. One of the early designs for the Shuttle was a low Earth orbit system, similar to the shuttle of today, coupled with a permanently orbiting robotic booster. The booster would carry payloads into higher orbits.

That project was canned because it more or less put human pilots in the back seat. I don't blame NASA. Once you take humans out of the loop, you kinda remove 90% of the expense of space travel. And 90% of NASA's reason for being.

Re:All science is good science

[sjames]

or if the robotic equipment could be used for future time/money saving work.

It seems nearly inevitable that we would learn things from the robotic mission that will apply in the future.

Consider that once you have a telepresence system in space, it becomes fairly simple to accomplish in-orbit refueling (including the telepresence system itself if it's durable enough for that). If such a system can be established as a long term space presence, it would tend to greatly reduce the consequences of failure for any future mission.

I don't have any figures on it, but shuttle missions have saved a few expensive systems including Hubble a few times. I wonder how many missions of various sattelites have been written off due to the cost of replacement vs. a shuttle rescue flight rather than impossability of in-orbit repair where repairs by an already in orbit telepresence would have been even cheaper.

Re:All science is good science

[EABird]

This mission MUST go on else we will fail as scientists.

The mission should be reviewed, or we fail as economists.

Marginally speaking, if we are able to get better results per dollar spent from other projects, then we should abandon the sunk costs of this project. The opportunity costs of doing this mission over another particular mission must be studied. Too often, we become attached to an idea and we sink good money after bad, when a more effective and responsible solution stares us in the face.

Of course, one could argue that the benefit in robotics would justify the costs. I just don't see how you can justify repairing 20-something year old technology, when you could replace it with newer tech, at almost the same price.

Re:All science is good science

[grozzie2]

The Nasa beurocracy has found a 'perfect' happy equlibrium. Outsource actual launches so there is no real risk. Continue to draw the huge budget on the grounds of 'return to flight'. Billion dollar budgets to do nothing but write reports, a beaurocrats dream come true.

The shuttle will never fly again. There will always be 'one more report showing yet another problem' to prevent that. In the meantime, the budget that used to get spent funding actual launches, is now burned up doing reports justifying why they dont actually launch anything.

Flight risk is an engineering problem, something the management is scared of, and powerless to actually manage. The risk of losing budget because all they do is write reports these days, is manageable beurocratic problem. It's a beaurocrats dream come true, billions of dollars, and only reports required, actual launch hardware can remain mothballed, and all they really need, is more reports to justify keeping it mothballed, yet maintain a 'hope' of return to flight eventually.

Cheaper to replace?

[tonsofpcs]

With all the money that goes into sending the spacecraft up, getting the robot out, having him do whatever, then having him either blow up or come down burning, wouldn't it just be easier to make a new one, add in a robotic arm or two so it can do self-repairs, and send that up?

Re:Cheaper to replace?

[nacturation]

... add in a robotic arm or two so it can do self-repairs

And of course, if it's the arms that need repairing...

Re:Cheaper to replace?

[tonsofpcs]

Thats why it has 2, one to repair the other if it dies.

Re:Cheaper to replace?

[piquadratCH]

Any idea how long it takes to develop a new telescope? The JWST is in development since a few years and still it can't be launched before 2011.

Re:Cheaper to replace?

[tonsofpcs]

I didn't say develop a new one. They can use the plans they have for the existing one (with minor modifications to allow for the advances in digital imaging technology). Also, the JWST is not a traditional optical reflecting/refracting telescope, but an infrared reflecting telescope with a very specific purpose, with custom sensors, requiring custom cooling methods (as your wikipedia link states).

Re:Cheaper to replace?

[Gentlewhisper]

and a third to replace the second...

Just do it

[Profane MuthaFucka]

There's nothing to lose.

1) The Shuttle is a waste of time and money. It should be grounded, and the remaining shuttles given to the Smithsonian.
2) The Space Station is useless too. Time to just declare victory in the War against low Earth orbit, and bring it down.
3) The replacement vehicles suggested for the Space Shuttle are scaled-up and enhanced Apollo capsules. We should just be buying Soyuz from the Russians. It works, it's safe. We'll never use it because it was Not Invented Here. Stupid. In case you missed it, I said not using Soyuz is stupid.
4) Going to Mars in the short term is dumb. GW Bush likes the idea, and that's a bad sign, because he's a fuck stick. But besides that, it's just too soon to go. There's a tremendous amount to learn by robot right now, and that's what we are doing.
5) So, we may as well save Hubble. It's not like we have anything else that is better to spend the money on.

Re:Just do it

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod that parent up! (even though I only partly agree)

1) Yep.
2) Not quite, but we should finish the ISS using no more than 8 more shuttle flights, then all soyuz and USA/ESA expendable rockets. Hey, invite the Chinese to the party, too. Is it the INTERNATIONAL space station, or not? Snubbing the Chinese is a profoundly stupid thing to do; we'd be well served to have parts of the ISS coming up from China, Europe, Japan, Brazil, Russia, Canada, the USA, and anyone else with the mettle to fly vehicles there.
3) We should seriously consider buying soyuz from the russians even as we develop further launchers. Apollo had a -LOT- of things right, shame we scrapped it.
4) Going to Mars is only dumb if we don't plant roots there and establish a manned presence.
5) I wholeheartedly agree that hubble should be extened robotically. Worst case, we fund R&D for some kickass robotic technology that we can use elsewhere in space or even down here. The problem is that the max price for the robotic mission is projected at $2 BILLION (2,000 x 1,000,000). Sending a shuttle to fix it with carbon based units is a $900 Million proposition. I say take volunteers for a risky shuttle flight and fix it with humans, then spend a smaller budget on a robotic grand finale that would enhance hubble one last time followed by a remote controled electrodynamic tether that would bring hubble in to its inceneration.

Re:Just do it

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Partly agree is OK. Now, your points that I have questions about:

2) Your information is good, but I ask what purpose will the ISS serve? Without the space shuttle, we can't keep it fully manned, which is essential to science. You solution of inviting the Chinese is interesting, but still a long ways off.
3) Apollo also had a lot of things wrong, and it doesn't have the flight testing that Soyuz has. Shame we scrapped it, but we shouldn't develop a new one. The Russians already have a scale-up of Soyuz ready to build. We probably agree mostly on this point.

Re:Just do it

[RWerp]

You didn't read the guy's argument, did you?

Re:Just do it

[dapyx]

Actually, no. :-)

Re:Just do it

[Anonymous Coward]

ISS gives us the oppertunity to study how long duration space flight affects the human body, we don't know much about that currently and if we ever want to go anywhere far away we'd better figgure out a way to stop the wasting away of our bones etc. So, reason 1 to keep the ISS - medical research.

Reason 2: Nanoscience research: in microgravity you can do and build all sorts of thing that you wouldn't be able to on Earth due to the gravity, you can build all sorts of crasy structures which help our fundemental science knoweledge and can be used for new technology on Earth.

3. Pharamcuticle manufacture, long ago when the first studies were being on on joining the three space stations (MIR2 (RUSSIA), freedom (USA) and collumbus (EUROPE)), Europe were primised by USA that NASA would fly their suppiles to collumbus if they joined ISS and would fly back down the phams ESA wanted to demonstrate-manufacture for things like AIDS, Altshimers, Parkinsons etc big diseases. In microgravity you can mess with chemical structures and build drugs that otherwise would be impossible on Earth and hence improve life for those who suffer from such afflictions.

How is the chinese solution a long way off? they have newer & more working manned space vehicles than the USA right now. China asked to join the ISS and were vetoed by the USA despite the other countries being in favour of cooperation.

can't dispute comment 3, although i would add that the problem with a capsule is that you can't bring heavy stuff back down safely with you. remember, if we are ever to have mass space flight it's going to be private industry that does it, but private industry is rubbish at taking risks, they need to know that they can bring back their recently manufactured phams/nanoscience CPUs/hot grits/etc cheaply, safely and to a predetermined location, this is what the shuttle and space transport system should have done but didn't. if we want private industry to do that, then I think it'd probably help for them to see something similar working first. I advocate using both spaceplanes AND capsules as neihter can do everything the other can.

Re:Just do it

[ckaminski]

The shuttle staffing issues would be a non issue if we:

A) Finished the X38 to a full-size CRV.
B) Built a manrated booster ala Titan or Atlas to loft the CRV.

I blame Shrub for killing the most promising spacecraft project of the past half decade.

Re:Just do it

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Beautiful. Ignorant AND honest; a charming combination.

Actually, I'm arguing the opposite. I'm moaning and crying about the lack of direction that NASA has. They've got a big budget, which by all rights should be much much larger. But the things they spend it on make my eyes roll and my head hurt. This is from poor leadership, and from too much politically driven leadership. The ISS and the Space Shuttle are chewing up the budget that could be more wisely used.

So, I'm guessing that we will probably both agree on this point: NASA has been poorly led, and lacking any other really useful thing to do, it might as well save Hubble. As they point out, they will at least learn and practice a new function for space robots, and it's a step forward. Humans in space will be using robots a lot, so it's worthwhile.

Re:Just do it

[sjames]

The problem is that the max price for the robotic mission is projected at $2 BILLION (2,000 x 1,000,000).

Consider it either as a 2 billion dollar robotics/telepresence in space project and we get Hubble for free, or a 1.1 billion dollar robotics project and a 900 million dollar fix to Hubble and we test the robotics for free.

It's easier to justify as a robotics mission where Hubble represents a real world test and cost offset than it is to justify 900 million and the human and shuttle risks just for Hubble.

Webb/NGST is NOT a radio telescope!

[Anonymous Coward]

Its a visual/IR telescope. Hubble is for shorter frequencies (visual to UV), but both are definitely optical devices.

Re:Webb/NGST is NOT a radio telescope!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hubble is for shorter frequencies (visual to UV)

that's higher frequencies.

Re:Critical problem with this argument

[Zeebs]

or it goes where all the rest of the money goes

Well thats great, I'm all for throwing more money into blackhole research.

What do you mean there was a typo on that line of the budget?

Our eye in the Sky ...

[Gopal.V]

Stupid question, If it costs as much as another hubble up there , why are we not building another one and send it up again ?.

Secondly, why isn't ISS going anywhere in comparison ?. Also that's a more international project for space. I hated the canadian reference ... Also sadly the guy in charge wants to last out till Sept 2005 (you know nothing good or bad happens in the last months of retirement).

Last century, most of the world (with notable exceptions), expected america to do the Right Thing. That's past now (see the Thermonuclear reactor project) and in 4 short YEARS.

Re:Our eye in the Sky ...

[bitingduck]

If it costs as much as another hubble up there , why are we not building another one and send it up again ?

Politics.

It's probably less expensive to replace than to repair, but replacement seems to have been pretty low on the radar. Part of that is because repair money could come out of the manned/exploration program, while a replacement would probably come out of the space science budget.

Re:Our eye in the Sky ...

[apanap]

There's also the fact that a robotic repair mission would serve as an excellent opportunity to learn a lot more about robotics in space, something that is very valuable in it self. Both NASA and ESA have sent up missions that do basically nothing but test new technology. This would be new technology that does something very useful other than "being new".

Re:Our eye in the Sky ...

[tommy_teardrop]

Stupid question, If it costs as much as another hubble up there , why are we not building another one and send it up again ?

So - what happens if the next one breaks after a year as well. Or, say, the mirror is badly fitted, and you have to fly an alteration up to correct for it. It happened with Hubble. And what if you want to upgrade the telescope, rather than rebuild it?

Hubble has been corrected, refitted and repaired by astronauts at least three times. If you had to build a new telescope every time you make a repair, you'll simply not get the money to repair. Much better to have a working solution - say astronauts, or if you're bored with a highly successful method, magical-robots-from-the-future.

Re:Our eye in the Sky ...

[bitingduck]

Usually you can't get a couple billion dollars for the technology missions though. Even a few hundred million for those can be stretching it.

But think of how cool it would be...

[f4llenang3l]

... to have robots with hands in orbit! I mean, we could make giant shadow puppets on the Great Wall of China!

Re:But think of how cool it would be...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just imagine the possibilities, it could...

- Knock on the door of Space Station Mir, then fly off.
- Play Rock'em Sock'em robot with the satellites.
- Give the finger to Canada when orbiting overhead (I kid, I kid...)
- Play air guitar...in space!
- Combine with other robots to make one gigantic super robot.

etc.

Re:But think of how cool it would be...

[databyss]

silly silly AC, you can't play air guitar in space!

Why not build a new Space Telescope?

[WarPresident]

However, the price tag of the robotic mission is between $1 billion and $2 billion, almost the cost of a new space telescope.

Heck, you could shave a few hundred thousand off that pricetag if you built a new HST around the "backup" primary mirror made by Kodak (which was figured and tested correctly). NASA would just have to get it from The National Air and Space Museum.

Re:Why not build a new Space Telescope?

[flowerp]

Just tell me, how would you launch the backup HST without using the shuttle. ;)

Re:Why not build a new Space Telescope?

[Abcd1234]

With one of the many other booster options out there, like the Arianne? Or am I missing something?

Why not contract it out?

[Bill_Royle]

I'd suggest that the folks at SpaceShipOne could do it for a lot less money. Heck, set up a contest for it - then you're encouraging innovation in the field. With the savings you could garner you could probably divert that to other projects... or buy more $10k toilet seats.

Re:Why not contract it out?

[khallow]

No one else has the capability right now except perhaps the Russians. Scaled Composites isn't an option at this time. They don't have the skill set or the technology. From what I hear, this thing needs to get done by 2007.

Re:Why not contract it out?

[bhima]

In order to reach the Hubble a Soyuz would have to be launched from the equator rather than Kazakhstan (where they are now currently launched). As it so happens, the Russians have signed a deal with the European Space Agency to allow them to launch Soyuzes from French Guiana starting in 2006. Additionally the costs of launch are so low, that 3 missions to Hubble could be planned for less than the one mentioned here, or two shuttle missions.

Still I'd like to see James Webb Telescope in place...

Re:Why not contract it out?

[Bill_Royle]

I'm not saying Scaled Composites specifically, but they're a good example of a company that achieved a goal that would have cost a lot more if it had been done through NASA.

Technology? No, they (being the contract-winner) probably wouldn't. But I'll bet Boeing, Lockheed or others would be happy to subcontract.

Skillset? Pay more than NASA. Noone gets hurt but the dead weight, and the intelligent engineers that get it done get rewarded much better than they would at NASA.

Yes, NASA would have a jump-start in terms of infrastructure. However, they still would have to start the project and make the product, just like a private company would. In terms of a 2007 deadline, I don't know how realistic that is timewise, even for NASA.

By encouraging competition, you get better design, better ideas and better execution. NASA hasn't seemed to have been incredibly enthused on this project to be begin with, so why not give it a try with a company that was?

Re:Why not contract it out?

[Bill_Royle]

Another good point.

Since when is it an acceptable project or endeavor only if a US space agency takes part? If it can be done by the Russians, good for them.

The sentence "It's good for science" isn't exclusively a US phrase.

Re:Why not contract it out?

[dasunt]

...or buy more $10k toilet seats

Googling, I find that you are off by about two orders of magnitude on the price.

I'm seeing a range of $150-$650 for the seats.

Still spendy, but if you consider the costs of an engineer for a few hours, the requirements of said seat, and the small volume manufactured, it make a lot of sense, and seems reasonable.

Consider, you need an engineer.

You need to do a bit of research (a toilet designed for one G doesn't work the same in zero G).

You need to figure out what materials will work (NASA probably has strict tolerances for flammability, weight, and strength, for obvious reasons.)

You need to figure out how it will interface with the rest of the system (attachments, clearences, etc).

You need to build a prototype or mockup and test.

In the end, you have a very small production run and sell a small quantity to NASA.

Now do you understand the cost?

Re:Why not contract it out?

[jjn1056]

What do you think NASA does? They do outsource HUGE amounts of work to various companies to build stuff, they don't build it all themselves.

Gosh, everytime we have some sort of problem in goverment, why do so many people think that simply shutting down the goverment agency and handing out huge wads of cash to companies will solve it?

Look at what Haliburton did in Iraq. Arguable the Army Corp of Engineers could have done a lot of that work for less.

It will be years still before commerical interest and technology improvements will allow a non government sponsered agency to pull something like this off. I'm not discounting the amazing achievement of the SpaceShipOne people, but a short, suborbital flight was something NASA was doing back in the 1960's.

Someday technology improvements will push costs down to the point that something like this will be some kid's high school science experiment. But that is not today.

Re:Why not contract it out?

[ckaminski]

Um, yeah, next time he has to buy a toilet that sucks his ass into it to prevent his shit from staining the insides of the shuttle windows, as well as trapping and disposing of waste methane so as not to suffocate his fellow astronuts with his horrible anal stench, let's see him come up with something cheaper...

Re:Why not contract it out?

[robbo]

Actually, it *has* been contracted out. This MSNBC article talks about the robot, developed by MD Robotics, the company that brought you Canadarm 1 and 2 (aka the dextrous manipulator).

The problem with Hubble is that it's designed to be serviced by humans- there are very few targets for vison-based positioning, and just undoing the bolts requires a lot of dexterity. Imagine building a robot that could open up your machine and replace a pci card. (Watch out for those IDE and power supply cables!) Successfully deploying a robot to perform all the servicing tasks on the Hubble will be a major engineering triumph.

Re:Why not contract it out?

[1600 penn ave]

may not work due to "patent issues".....the trial lawyers would have a field day if "private industry" were to use technology the NASA has copyrighted........ but you never know!

Re:Why not contract it out?

[khallow]

Technology? No, they (being the contract-winner) probably wouldn't. But I'll bet Boeing, Lockheed or others would be happy to subcontract.

Actually, that's probably who will build the equipment, if it happens. My beef here is that NASA will provide, as usual, a cost-plus contract and it won't matter financially to the contractor (though the contractor might take a reputation hit if they don't work it right) whether Hubble gets repaired or not. In any case, it's going to require a lot of infrastructure that only two space agencies currently have.

$2 billion??

[Joel from Sydney]

I have difficulty comprehending how something can cost that much.

How urgent are these repairs to Hubble? Realistically speaking, if NASA is only debating to whether to spend $2,000,000,000 now, it's going to be several years before anything gets off the ground. So clearly the repairs aren't that urgent. Wouldn't it then make more sense to spend the cash and resources on improving/fixing/replacing the shuttles, so that we can safely send humans to do the job?

Re:$2 billion??

[Aquillion]

You have to understand that virtually every part of every item you're sending into space has to be custom-designed and custom-built; and they all have to work perfectly the first time or the entire mission could be at risk. 2 billion is a lot, sure, but it's not that much when you realize that they're going to have to basically build entire new industries from scratch just to get some of the parts they'll need.

Re:$2 billion??

[eclectro]

Wouldn't it then make more sense to spend the cash and resources on improving/fixing/replacing the shuttles, so that we can safely send humans to do the job?

I really think that NASA has a lot of dirty little secrets that no one on the outside knows about, and after this last accident they probably looked close and hard and realized that the number of places the shuttle could catastrophically fail is more than they originally thought.

If there was another shuttle failure (even if it did not result in the loss of life) I suspect that there would be a noticeable chorus to dismantle the agency, that cannot produce very much more than kitsch science and photo ops with school children on the ground.

Though unspoken, I think the three strikes and you're out rule may be in place here. NASA since apollo has always been an agency with self-survival first in mind, so I would not be surprised if they find a way to retire the shuttles to museums.

So much as replacing the shuttles - I do not think that this will even be considered for the next decade as the cost is too steep. It was hard to justify the shuttles when they were first built (and the reason that the space station was built) in the seventies.

But as can be seen, the space station can work with cheap Russian rockets that are more reliable than the shuttle.

The Hubble was designed so it could be serviced by the shuttle (the other justification for the shuttle). But if the Hubble was designed so that parts could be replaced by dockable unmanned rockets, we would not be in this position we are today with it. For an instant, if the power supply and gyros were on a small module that could dock using conventional rockets. But it is not.

When O'Keefe said that a repair mission to Hubble was "too dangerous," people should have recognized that that was code words for "we need to ground the shuttle permanently now."

The fact is that there are earth based telescopes that are catching up in performance to the Hubble. Add to that the fact that the Hubble is old technology, it's pretty obvious that it's time to move on.

It truly would be a better decision to take the many lessons learned from Hubble design and repair and put those in a new telescope, and send it to orbit on a unmanned rocket.

Engineers, not scientists

[fuzzy12345]

I'd say that the people doing cost/benefit analyses and robotic repair feasibility studies are engineers, not scientists. The guys that got hung out to dry by the early mirror troubles, the ongoing gyroscope troubles and the recent "drop everything: We're going to Mars" troubles, they're scientists.

I can see de-orbiting an old, useless analog comsat as being sensible. But for stuff which would otherwise continue to usefully function for years or decades, write-off due to non catastrophic failure ought not to be the natural option. The US space program suffers from an attention deficit disorder.

Re:Engineers, not scientists

[johansalk]

Here's my conspiracy theory of the day; "drop everything: We're going to Mars" is just a distraction to screw those atheist astrophycists who are dabbling in things they shouldn't (origin of universe etc).

Shut them up, those big bangers.

Re:Engineers, not scientists

[eclectro]

Here's my conspiracy theory of the day; "drop everything: We're going to Mars" is just a distraction to screw those atheist astrophycists...

The problem with that is that it implies intelligence. I think that pure stupidity is to blame here.

Get Dick Cheney to cover it.

[pair-a-noyd]

He's got plenty of money, what with all the billions Halliburton has bilked the American public out of. What is the tab now? About 200 BILLION?? So what's a billion??

Re:Critical problem with this argument

[Waffle Iron]

The current state of the scope is that there is NO money for new telescopes other then the Webb telescope

I don't see why we can't just dust off the original Hubble blueprints and make an exact copy (but this time check the focus). There would be next to zero development costs. It would be just parts and labor.

If artificial barriers like budget classifications for "new telescope" vs "repair mission" is a problem, just say that this is a field service mission that happens to be replacing 100% of the Hubble's parts.

Re:Critical problem with this argument

[metlin]

Well said.

And besides, it's science. Who cares whether or not the money gets spent on some piece of lens up in the sky.

If the Hubble gets repaired, the money spent on the robotics can be reused and the development will not go waste. But if we were to rebuild the Hubble, there is no real progress - we're just reinventing the wheel.

And another idea is the idea of organizing a contest on the redesign of Hubble -- cheapest guys get X% of the amount as the prize money. Or something.

Money Pits in Space?

[MrNybbles]

"If the cost hits $2 billion, that's three to four times what it would cost to send astronauts to do the job as they have four times before and as NASA planned before the Columbia disaster."

Although we have got a lot of good from NASA and the technology they developed, the shuttle seems to be a giant money pit sucking up money that could be spent on maybe a replacement for the current shuttles. Sure the current shuttles are reusable, but after the Colombia disaster they were used a lot less than what they were going to be.

NASA does seem to like hanging on to everything and I just hope the Hubble Space Telescope doesn't become a moneypit like the shuttles or an excuse to keep the shuttles in service.

(Yes, there was that event where some private people went into space, but currently that's not even close to replacing the shuttle.)

Oh well, that's just my opinion and like Dennis Miller I could be wrong.

Re:Money Pits in Space?

[bjomo]

"I just hope the Hubble Space Telescope doesn't become a moneypit like the shuttles or an excuse to keep the shuttles in service."

Part of the Hubble robotics mission is leaving a deorbit module on Hubble so it can be disposed of once it degrades beyond use. Hence, the shuttle program will not be used for Hubble anymore.

Re:Critical problem with this argument

[Bootsy Collins]

The current state of the scope is that there is NO money for new telescopes other then the Webb telescope, but it's a radio scope and not an optical one (even though it's being sold as a Hubble replacement).

This was modded insightful? The Webb/NGST will be a near-IR telescope, not a radio telescope. As such, it is a partial replacement for the Hubble, as there is significant overlap in the wavelengths for which each were/will be used. If you consider perhaps the main purpose of the Webb/NGST to be high-z observations, then it's even more clearly a replacement for the Hubble.

A funny parallel

[LucidBeast]

I have an old Toyota thats about 16 years old and I kind of have the same dilema...

Though, on the second thought, this problem doesn't involve robots.

Re:A funny parallel

[cablepokerface]

Though, on the second thought, this problem doesn't involve robots.

Yeah? You'd be surprised how hard-headed those car mechanics can be.

You gotta hand it to Toyota though, they sure build cars to last.

Re:Critical problem with this argument

[Anonymous Coward]

Even with the original blueprints, some of the original parts, manufacturing processes, and even suppliers DO NOT EXIST ANY MORE.

We should outsource...

[Anonymous Coward]

the mission to India, it would be way cheaper.

send the shuttle up there

[khallow]

If there's anything currently in orbit worth the risk of a space shuttle mission, it would be the servicing of the Hubble Space Telescope. NASA's administration hasn't put forth a compelling reason why they should be much more risk adverse than they were before. Frankly, it appears to me that the Hubble Telescope is just a pawn in some political game.

Re:send the shuttle up there

[Jerf]

NASA's administration hasn't put forth a compelling reason why they should be much more risk adverse than they were before.

It's not really the administration. I'm sure they care about the astronaut's, but if the money, the approval, and the astronauts informed consent are there I'm sure most of them would happily send them up.

It's the American People, and our reaction to losing people (no matter whether they wanted to be there or not) that is the source of the fear. If NASA screws up again soon and anybody dies, they probably fear they will be dissolved. Don't know if that's a real problem... I consider it more likely they would simple be emasculated such that they were still a huge money sink, but too underfunded to actually do anything, a sort of "worst of both worlds" scenario.

The perceived value of a single human famous enough to show up on television continues to rise. This has obvious implications in other domains I won't spell out. It is also instructive to compare how our rapidly our society is increasing the valuation of people who can get on the evening news, vs. those who can not. Food for thought; I wish I could just feed you unquestionable conclusions on these subjects but I'm no more capable than anyone else.

(Sarcasm: The solution is obvious. Astronauts who die show up on TV and cause too much negative publicity. Therefore, staff the space shuttle with, oh, say battered husbands or some other group of people that just gets largely ignored. Then, even if the Space Shuttle kills everyone aboard, it'll be just a blip on the CNN scroll bar, if that...)

Re:send the shuttle up there

[khallow]

It's the American People, and our reaction to losing people (no matter whether they wanted to be there or not) that is the source of the fear. If NASA screws up again soon and anybody dies, they probably fear they will be dissolved. Don't know if that's a real problem... I consider it more likely they would simple be emasculated such that they were still a huge money sink, but too underfunded to actually do anything, a sort of "worst of both worlds" scenario.

I don't see a massive reaction of the American People here. Something similar was said about how US citizens would react to war. For example, more than a thousand people have died in Iraq and President Bush was reelected. My bet is that a solid, active space program would be forgiven for the occasional fatality just as it was when astronauts died in Apollo I and in the Challenger accident.

Re:send the shuttle up there

[grozzie2]

It's the American People, and our reaction to losing people

That's completely wrong in reality it's all about the spin they fabricate. If losing people was really the issue, then look at the cost benefit equation. A defined risk, 2% probablity of losing the staff, with a 1% probability of not achieving mission (1 launch, one re-entry failure, on just over 100 missions). 4 people required for an hst service mission. 0.02*4 = 0.08 lives the real cost of a hubble service mission in lives.

The american people have demonstrated in Iraq, they are quite happy to kill 3 americans, and an untold number of non americans daily. The HST service mission has a real cost of 0.08 lives, and a potential cost of 4 lives. Americans have no problem watching 4 'heros' get killed, they do it every day, and the majority want to see more of it.

This is all about managing the spin in the press. If they can keep the 'astronaut lives' in the spin, then the real reasons for not going to hubble can be quietly swept under the rug, and the public never knows the real reasons.

Why crash it into the ocean?

[mykepredko]

If they're not going to fix it, I'd like to understand why they must crash it down into the ocean? If they're going to send a propulsion module up there, why don't they move the Hubble to a Lagrange point between the Earth and moon?

I realize that it will probably take years to get there but I've seen a few proposals for future space stations being placed at the Lagrange points - wouldn't it be nice if they had a high-quality (maybe not as good as when launched) set of optics waiting to be used in a station observatory? I realize that there is a (very) good chance of this never happening, but it seems a damn sight better than crashing Hubble into the Pacific.

myke

Re:Why crash it into the ocean?

[Alien Being]

Sorry baby but I had to crash that Hubble.

-Butch

Re:Why crash it into the ocean?

[bitingduck]

I'd like to understand why they must crash it down into the ocean?

Because the stuff on it that's not expected to totally disintegrate has too large of a footprint and is statistically dangerous. The primary is going to come down as a big hunk of hot glass, propellant tanks will probably survive, as well as some other bits.

It's also cheaper to build a new telescope than it is to try to figure out a way to get the existing HST into a station in some other orbit.

Re:Why crash it into the ocean?

[evanbd]

1) It's unsafe to all the other things (including people) to leave unneeded space junk up there.

2) The propulsion module needed to deorbit is much smaller and therefore cheaper to build and launch than one to move it.

3) Moving it then requires keeping it in place and also repairing it, if it's to be useful.

4) After moving it, it would still be nice to be able to dispose of it once it's no longer worth maintaining.

5) You do realize there's a plan to put the replacement at the (Earth-Sun) L2 point, right?

Re:Why crash it into the ocean?

[LMCBoy]

just to be pedantic, there are no propellant tanks on HST. Propellants leave icky residue on optics.

Re:Why crash it into the ocean?

[Jeff DeMaagd]

The replacement is a very specialized infrared telescope that won't be able to make the same kinds of observations that the Hubble has been making.

Re:Why crash it into the ocean?

[Clith]

1) It's unsafe to all the other things (including people) to leave unneeded space junk up there.

[..]

3) Moving it then requires keeping it in place and also repairing it, if it's to be useful.

I thought a LaGrange point was gravitationally stable, requiring no "keeping it in place" whatsoever. If that's so, it would certainly not be "unsafe to all the other things".

Re:Why crash it into the ocean?

[bitingduck]

you're right about HST-- I just did a double check and couldn't find any propellant tanks. I had guessed they would be there for maintaining orbit, but shuttle probably does that during servicing.

Propellants (esp hydrazine) does leave icky stuff on optics, but they get put on board some telescopes anyway and managed very carefully on some missions. If you're out at L2 you need them to maintain the orbit, and probably to desaturate reaction wheels.

Re:Why crash it into the ocean?

[evanbd]

L1, L2, and L3 are semi-stable -- they're stable perpendicular to the axis of the two massive bodies, and unstable along that axis. That makes station-keeping pretty easy, but it still needs to be done. L4 and L5 are fully stable. As for it being unsafe to leave things, I had actually meant that you can't just leave Hubble where it is until it completely fails and then forget about it. But, even at one of the Lagrange points, it poses a hazard to other things you might like to put at that point later.

What's the debate?

[dshaw858]

I don't quite understand what the debate is. Even if the mission fails and billions of dollars are "wasted", it will not all be in vain. Using robotics like this are exploring a new frontier of space exploration. The first few manned shuttle orbits weren't risky? Of course they are! The Columbia accident proves that they still are today. Money is valuable, but exploring new scientific frontiers is much more valuable.

- dshaw

Re:What's the debate?

[m50d]

NASA is always short of cash, and I think we could probably learn a lot more by sending up 4 replacement hubbles and using them than trying a robotic repair mission that leaves us without any telescope at all.

Put on the space elevator...

[jim_v2000]

What they ought to do is put the money towards designing a space elevator. They could stick a telescope...or somehow get the hubble...onto the mass that would hold the carbon fiber ribbon taunt. Then they could just climb up and down the elevator to make repairs. This would be cheaper (per trip...not as a whole project), and a heck of a lot more innovative than making robots to fix Hubble.

Re:Put on the space elevator...

[Fiveeight]

I suspect a space elevator would vibrate too much for Hubble to work with. The reason it's out by itself in the high orbit and not attached to a manned station is to avoid dust, gas, heat and vibration. Even a really well damped elevator would probably blur Hubble images horribly.

An elevator would be a better way to lift parts or a replacement though.

*chuckle* astronaut's [OT]

[Jerf]

A swing and a miss. During preview I noticed the phrase "astronaut's consent" needed an apostrophe, but I hit the wrong instance of "astronauts". Oops. I should know better than to post at 2:30am local time.

Re:Critical problem with this argument

[WindBourne]

Well, it is most likely that the robots will be pretty single minded about this mission. But, unlike the early apollo missions, NASA does a better paper trial and documents much better. In addition, this mission will enable us to test al sorts of new control systems for doing robotics. Some will be total manula, some semi-autonomous, and others full-autonomous. If we can get to the point where we can give instructions to robots to preform a task and not worry about how it does the task, than it allows us to send robots to future remote mission. Such as building a base on Mars. Or exploring Pluto. Or walking on a comet, mining it, and sending back chunks of it. etc.

Re:Critical problem with this argument

[Waffle Iron]

Even with the original blueprints, some of the original parts, manufacturing processes, and even suppliers DO NOT EXIST ANY MORE.

Then FIND THOSE BLUEPRINTS TOO.

I cant help but think that...

[deft]

This money might be better spent on terrestrial research right now.

Look a story down at the hydrogen development... this could change the world on a much bigger scale than anything...effecting us right here ont eh ground right away. 2 billion can do so much good right here.

Yeah, I sort of hate the idea of not looking toward the stars even for a moment, but look around here, things are pretty messed up, and I dont like the dependence on gas and oil. 2 billion could go towards alot of infrastructure for hydrogen cars.

Re:I cant help but think that...

[Graymalkin]

What is not needed is hydrogen powered cars but a viable means to generate the power to make hydrogen (energy) readily available for everyone. Molecular hydrogen as demanded by the "hydrogen economy" is very simply a medium with which energy is physically transfered. Gasoline is as much of an energy transport medium as hydrogen.

Both hydrogen and gasoline can be used to generate electrical energy, gasoline and its hydrocarbon cousins however release the carbon part of their hydrocarbons. Hydrocarbons can be an excellent source of hydrogen and can be manufactured and transported relatively cheaply. If they're originally generated via a renewable process you can get a carbon-neutral system. The carbon pumped into the air will be used in photosynthesis by plants used to make more hydrocarbon fuels.

Two billion dollars is a lot of money but it would get used in a lot of inappropriate ways if it went towards deconstructing our oil economy. There is enormous vested interest in the status quo of the oil industry. Those interests far exceed a relatively paltry two billion. Any research funded by said two billion would be met with ten times that amount in sabotage (FUD, physical sabotage, political chicanery) by groups threatened by such research. The money being spent to further the sum of human knowlege would end up in the long run being more effectively used. The research in robotics and telepresense could be used immediately on the ground to help normal every day people.

Weening our society and economy off oil is going to take a lot more than two billion dollars. It will require not only research dollars but also a great deal of social and cultural change. Meaningful conservation efforts would go a long way to make our current energy generation and transport system more effective and longer lasting without needing fancy new technologies. Fancy new technologies would then serve to make those meaningful conservation efforts even more meaningful and effective.

Re:I cant help but think that...

[wass]

This money might be better spent on terrestrial research right now.

Yeah, and all the research money Faraday, Maxwell, Marconi, Rutherford, Bohr, Watson+Crick, etc wasted on mere 'science' would have better been spent perfecting metal bearings for carriage cartwheels, right?

Look a story down at the hydrogen development... this could change the world on a much bigger scale than anything...effecting us right here ont eh ground right away. 2 billion can do so much good right here.

Umm, you might want to take a look at the projects funded by DOE. Many of them are in the realm of better energy resources, including hydrogen power, as well as fusion.

I dont like the dependence on gas and oil. 2 billion could go towards alot of infrastructure for hydrogen cars.

Apples and oranges, 2 billion for funding 'hydrogen car infrastructure' doesn't necessarily have to come from Hubble. Besides, if Hubble were cut, chances are that the money 'saved' would just be diverted to Iraq or otherwise be lost in a myriad of other government pork.

Anyway, you're pretty short-sighted. Like I said before, if the world were populated with people like you, than today we'd have highly-optimized horse-drawn carriages and cobbled roads, without the money-wasting inconveniences of digital electronics, for example.

Re:I cant help but think that...

[Jeff DeMaagd]

I don't think there will ever be a time when earthlings don't consider their planet messed up.

1.5B $ will build an ITER fusion research plant, but now it is held up in international politics.

Re:I cant help but think that...

[amper]

Anyway, you're pretty short-sighted. Like I said before, if the world were populated with people like you, than today we'd have highly-optimized horse-drawn carriages and cobbled roads, without the money-wasting inconveniences of digital electronics, for example.

You're assuming that we are better off *with* the "inconveniences"...perhaps highly-optimized horse-drawn carriages and cobbled roads aren't such a bad idea, after all...

If the robots are ocean-bound anyway...

[laughingcoyote]

If, as I understand it, the robots would be brought down and destroyed after the mission anyway, why couldn't NASA get some more use out of them?

Put cameras on them with a feed to Earth, this is not that hard to do. Have the two robots slug it out in orbit over the Pacific, maybe with the moon as a backdrop, and drop 'em into the Pacific after that.

It probably strikes as a bit off-the-wall, but could have several benefits...the sale of advertising during the program could pay a decent bit of the bill, and hey, we need to do SOMETHING to get people aware that yes, there actually is something out there past the atmosphere. Might raise support for funding in several ways...for one, not needing so much of it (the advertisers), and for another, raising public awareness.

Yes, I'm advocating a publicity stunt. That's what seems to get people's attention.

Re:If the robots are ocean-bound anyway...

[laughingcoyote]

That works too, wonder if they'd let me run the controls?

Re:If the robots are ocean-bound anyway...

[anum]

Now that's a fund raiser.

Re:Critical problem with this argument

[bitingduck]

If there's a real desire to have a Hubble class visible-wavelength telescope in space, it's probably cheaper and lower risk to build a new one. As it is, the Hubble repair is going to eat into the budgets of other missions that are already well into development, delaying them and increasing their costs. The money to fix Hubble is going to come out of other astronomy missions (at least in part).

Repairing Hubble is fairly high risk-- not all the technology is in hand, there are unknowns on Hubble (will the robot arm have to have a hand free to bang on the door?) and there is a very real possibility that Hubble will suffer a fatal failure (battery or gyro) before the mission is launched, but after a great deal of money is sunk.

If you were to build a replacemant today, it would probably have a much lower mass mirror, possibly with a better surface quality, and there would likely be some kind of deformable mirror downstream to improve the image even more. It could also be at L2, where it would have much higher throughput than HST, and very likely could cost quite a bit less than servicing, depending on the set of instruments on board.

(and as mentioned elsewhere, JWST is infrared, not radio)

About time...

[ca1v1n]

It's about time we had robots that could fix orbiting devices. Two billion is a bargain. Oh, yeah, and it might just save one of the most scientifically energizing pieces of space hardware ever flown.

Large Binocular Telescope

[flyingsquid]

The University of Arizona is currently working on the Large Binocular Telescope (LBT)- see: http://www.nd.edu/~science/core/binocular/index.sh tml. The thing has twin 8.4 meter mirrors- their light gathering power is equivalent to a single 11.8 meter telescope, and their resolving power is equivalent to a 22.8 meter telescope. It is supposed to have more light gathering power and much sharper images than Hubble http://www.nd.edu/~science/core/binocular/lbt_othe rtelescopes.shtml. Supposedly the LBT is be able to get around the blurring from the atmosphere by using adaptive optics- deforming the secondary mirrors to correct for distortions. They claim that the construction costs are $80 million. So, an order of magnitude more resolution for an order of magnitude less money. If it performs even close to specifications, it sounds like a good deal. The dedication ceremony has already taken place and the thing is supposed to be operational in 2006.

Re:Large Binocular Telescope

[Shag]

80 million seems a little low, perhaps, since I think I've seen single 8-meter-class telescopes up on Mauna Kea cost more than that. But then, there's the cost of getting stuff up Mauna Kea, too. :)

Anyway, yes, there are certain advantages to terrestrial facilities - being far cheaper is one of them. That derives largely from the absence of the cost of getting them into orbit, of course. You can also make things so big they won't fit on a rocket, etc.

Of course, there are limitations, as well. Want to observe ultraviolet-wavelength energy? Head for space - the atmosphere absorbs most of it. Things past UV on the spectrum might also be easier to observe there.

Oh, and Hubble doesn't care about terrestrial weather. I can assure you the LBT is going to get a lot more grief from high thin cirrus clouds than Hubble does. :)

Re:Large Binocular Telescope

[wass]

Supposedly the LBT is be able to get around the blurring from the atmosphere by using adaptive optics- deforming the secondary mirrors to correct for distortions.

Hmmm, yet another post that assumes telescope resolution is the one parameter that determines which telescope is best. A quick analogy would be to claim which is better - a monitor resolution with 1024x768 at 24 bit color, or 3200x2400 resolution with 1 bit color. The answer, of course, is that it depends on your application.

Questions about this project:

1. Adaptive Optics (AO) usually need a reference star nearby, or an artificial star produced w/ laser. What limitations will this produce in the images?
2. How does this limit the area of the sky they can look at?
3. What is the wavelength 'bandwidth' of the telescope, accounting for atmospheric absorption as well as sensor design?
4. A good deal of astronomical science is done with spectra. What artifacts are introduced into the spectra through absorption and emission lines of the atmosphere?
5. What artifacts are introduced to the spectra through artificial star for the AO?
6. How long are the integrations that this telescope observe for? Hubble Deep Field was integrated for 150 orbits (10 days). Can this project integrate for a similar time, observing similar magnitude faint galaxies (sometimes individual photons), while maintaining a similar SNR?
7. What is the limit for observing faint objects with this groundbased scope? Ie, the noise floor of a ground-based scope is much higher due to scattered 'light pollution', and it would be harder to see fainter objects.

So basically, image resolution is only one of several important factors and limitations in doing astronomical science.

Re:Large Binocular Telescope

[astrobabe]

As I used to be out in AZ and am and astronomer I'll take a quick hack: 2. Large telescope = small field. The f/15 field of view is 8 x 4 arcminutes 3. 0.3-400 microns. Accounting for atmospheric seeing. . well that's questionable, but close to that big of a span (I'm not ready to fight atmospheric windows over collecting area today) 4. The same absorption lines we see in all spectra. That's why we takes standards and off source spectra as well with any telescope. 6.Using the 90 inch I've done hour integrations. And I'd like to correct your coment about the Ultra Deep Field- it was not 150 straight orbits of time, but images coadded to reproduce a total exposure time of 150 orbits. 7. Depends on the wavelength. In the blue the moon is also a real bitch.

I work at NASA (but do not speak for NASA)

[Audacious]

The problem is which way will people whine about the most. When astronauts are lost NASA is bombarded with "Save the Astronauts!" slogans. Lots of BS about why we should send robots instead of people.

Then when the price tag for sending robots into space is talked about people start screaming "Why are we doing that? Send astronauts instead! It's cheaper."

It is decisions by committee and it works in the same way as if you were driving a bus down a multilane freeway at the beginning of rush hour with a cloth tied over your eyes. Your only method of knowing what to do is what everyone on the bus is trying to tell you. So everyone gets to scream out what they want the bus driver to do and then he tries to react to the orders. And just like the bus - NASA is going willy-nilly down the freeway trying not to hit anyone, trying to apease each and every person on the bus, and to reach the destination each and every one on the bus is screaming at them to go to. It is a thankless, almost impossible task to perform.

The people of America need to realize just how stupid their over-the-top reactions to problems with space travel are. This isn't Star Trek, BattleStar Galactica, Star Wars, or any of the other truly great (IMHO) space shows. The physics alone are no where near the same. Yet these TV/Movie shows are what are held up as being totally correct and truthful. Further, when someone dies (as in Star Wars when trying to take out the Death Star) no one goes "Wait! Oh my GOD! Think about the insurance! Oi-vey! What about the children? His/Her wife/husband? Friends, relatives, and countrymen? Who's going to pay for all of this?" Everyone goes "Oh Wow! Did you see that? His head flew off into the window next to where Luke was trying to save Obiwan!"

So what am I trying to get at? The country needs to decide, once and for all, whether it is worth the lives of our astronauts to send people into space. If it is - stop complaining and start supporting that way of going into space. If it isn't - stop complaining about the cost and lend your support to the cause. The main thing is - you can't have it both ways. Either people are going to die up there or we are going to probably bankrupt the country trying to build a robot capable of doing everything a human can do.

And don't think that just because businesses are starting to get into the space business that things are going to change for the better. The problem isn't going to go away just because you've changed who is going into space. It doesn't work like that. You are still going to have people dying up there if you send them up there. You just will have more of them dying at one time. Just like in an airplane crash.

So come on America! Make up your mind! People or robots?

Re:I work at NASA (but do not speak for NASA)

[runningonair]

I agree with most of what you are saying but unfortunately America is not a person but a mob and what do mobs do? Believe what ever they are told on TV, the popular press etc.

Re:I work at NASA (but do not speak for NASA)

[Cigarra]

Of course!! Being an astronaut is a RISKY profession, and no one is forced into it. They know they could die in a mission.
Come on people, be REALISTIC, life is not a movie. These RIDICULOUSLY EXPENSIVE NO-ASTRONAUTS-WILL-EVER-DIE missions are a chimera.

Re:I work at NASA (but do not speak for NASA)

[0123456]

Like most people, you totally miss the point: astronauts are ten a penny, losing a few is no big deal.

Shuttles, on the other hand, are politically irreplaceable: Endeavour was only built because we had most of the parts already, and the rest could be cobbled together for a couple of billion. Today there's no way to build a replacement shuttle cheaply, and with retirement announced in 2010 there's no point... it would get to fly a couple of times and then retire.

If a shuttle is lost servicing Hubble then you have only two left. One of those will usually be in maintenance, so that cuts your effective shuttle fleet by 50%. There's no way that ISS could be finished in that case.

Not that ISS should be finished, or should even have been started, in my opinion. But even a 1% chance of losing a shuttle and therefore losing a large portion of ISS upgrades is more than NASA want to risk.

Re:I work at NASA (but do not speak for NASA)

[Attitude Adjuster]

Not that ISS should be finished, or should even have been started, in my opinion.

I agree. This is offtopic, but it makes no sense to even continue with the ISS, when its going to be junked as part of the grand Bush "vision" anyway. The rest of the moon mars thing is similarly stupid - go to the moon, build a base, but dont stay there, dont do any real science, and then junk the moon base when you go to mars. Go to Mars, plant a flag, and then dont stay there. Total waste of tax payer money, and it'll ruin the chances of getting a sustainable long term space program.

Back to the topic. Admircal Gehrman's (sp?)panel concluded that the chance of losing a shuttle on a hubble repair mission was only marginally more than the chance of losing one a trip to the ISS. Even with the $2 billion they're spending on the shuttle, they said the "fixed" shuttle would be approximately 99% safe, as opposed to its previous state of 98% safe (2 accidents in ~100+ missions).

There are ~20 ISS shuttle trips required, while only 1 Hubble trip. If in both case the chance of getting back safely is 99%, I leave it to you to work out the cumulative probability of something bad happening in all those ISS missions - its way more dangerous that a single Hubble repair mission.

The real driver for all of this is that the refusal of O'Keefe to consider a shuttle mission to the Hubble is about his longer term political aspirations. His appearance as a tough man making tough, unpopular, decisions who never backs down even when blatantly in the wrong, kind of rings a bell doesn't it? In fact, O'Keefe campaigned for Bush and for other republicans (e.g. Bob Riley (R), governor of Alabama) - its almost unprecedented for NASA administrators (who are political appointees) to involve themselves so heavily in partisan politics. O'Keefe is not a scientist, not a engineer, and his decisions are NOT based on any such considerations. He is a career bureaucrat showing his loyalty to his patron in the hopes of being appointed to greater things. NASA, and the science NASA used to excel at, is getting screwed in the process.

Re:I work at NASA (but do not speak for NASA)

[FleaPlus]

And don't think that just because businesses are starting to get into the space business that things are going to change for the better. The problem isn't going to go away just because you've changed who is going into space. It doesn't work like that. You are still going to have people dying up there if you send them up there. You just will have more of them dying at one time. Just like in an airplane crash.

So every time there's a fatal car accident, we have national days of mourning and convene investigation boards involving hundreds of people?

Re:Critical problem with this argument

[levell]

For non-sciencey types, the light from a long way away (high-z in the jargon) gets "stretched" (red-shifted by the expansion of the universe) as it travels so light that was visible when it set out on its journey has a longer wavelength ("near infra-red") when it arrives here.

Re:NASA could....

[nick-less]

try to launch a new telescope for 2 billion bucks and then watch it asplode because they forgot to do metric/imperial conversion.

Well they could just replace their old crap telescope with a new one they bought from a local wal-mart for 1000 bucks.

oh wait, maybe Moores Law doesn't apply here...

Re:Critical problem with this argument

[Drakin]

In this case, "robot" means a device very similar to the arm on the space shuttle, and identical to the one that is being built for the ISS. Remote controlled, in this case, from earth.

In fact, if they do decide to go ahead with the plan, they need to build a whole new setup, because the one that has been used in testing is the one for the ISS.

Robots do not replace humans

[canuck57]

obotic mission is between $1 billion and $2 billion, If I recall correctly human ingenuity was needed to fix it previously. So what happens if it isn't in the "program" to do something? Even with a shuttle risk of breakup, I doubt there is a shortage of people that would go to do the job for $100M flight and expenses. Reduces risk of mission failure and saves 1.9B. For thouse lucky to go, maybe even get to see a flying saucer or alien cruiser.

Re:Critical problem with this argument

[mforbes]

The problem with putting a telescope (or any other facility, for that matter) at L2, or any of the other Lagrange points, is that their location puts them out of the orbits reachable by the Shuttle for repair purposes. All maintenance would have to be done robotically, and considering the delta-V to return any robotic craft to LEO, it's likely that the service robots would be single-use only.

For those not space-science oriented, the Lagrange points (L1 through L5) are points in space around any two orbiting bodies where their gravity exactly (or nearly so) cancels out; as a result, other objects can be left in stable position at those points. It's even possible to put an object in orbit around a Lagrange point, even though there be no mass there. These are referred to halo orbits. SOHO, the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory is in such an orbit around L1, the postion directly between the Earth and Moon. More information is available online (the last link is a PDF, sorry).

Can't use the shuttles so...

[phoenix.bam!]

Why don't we lease a Russian Spacecraft and blast some fixit guys up to hubble?

Re:Critical problem with this argument

[jridley]

Because we can do a hell of a lot better than that now.

And we'd still have to get up there to put it in place. If we're going to do that, might as well just service what's already up there. There's nothing wrong with the Hubble that isn't module-replacable. Replacing the modules and reboosting it would make it every bit as good as a new replacement based on the same blueprints. Actually using the existing one is better because there's a few tons of stuff that don't need to be boosted to orbit.

One thing that could be gained by a new scope is that we might be able to put it in an orbit that was close enough to the ISS that NASA's goal of not putting up shuttle missions unless they could get to ISS could be met. I don't know; it's possible that those orbits are undesirable for telescope work; there are many constraints on where the Hubble can point and how it can be used.

Arguing the other side, as far as building an exact Hubble replacement, it'd actually be relatively cheap; there still exist a lot of backup components, and also there are new instruments and gyros that were intended to be installed in the Hubble. There's even another mirror (that does NOT have the spherical aberration of the current one) - it was made by Kodak by ion etching and I understand it's an excellent mirror.

Re:Critical problem with this argument

[LWATCDR]

The other problem is that now we have several earth based telescopes that are as good as Hubble in the normal optical range. An exact Hubble replacement would be a huge waste not to mention that the cost of launching it would be high. Right now the ONLY launch vehical you could use is the shuttle. I would guess that it might be possible to modify it to fit on a Titan IV, Ariane V, or maybe Sealaunch "I am not sure if the Sealaunch has the lift". A robotic mission would be good since we would learn something. Frankly there are so many really good projects that NASA could be doing like liquid fueled fly back boosters for the Shuttle, improved shuttle, Heavy Lift vehical, crew return vehical. Too bad they are just sort of waisting away on the vine.

Re:Critical problem with this argument

[EvilTwinSkippy]

I hate to bust your bubble, but most of the pictures you see from the hubble are false-color. The engineers at JPL recieve packets of data that are fed into a pile of transform equations before pictures pop out.

Re:Critical problem with this argument

[EvilTwinSkippy]

Contests like this won't work. There is too specific a goal. You also are running with the implicit assumption that the cheapest is somehow the best. A shoebox with a lense and a CCD would be a pretty cheap space based telescope. But it would not be very useful.

You also run into the problem of launch platforms. Are you going to force the teams to use an existing platform, and which one (Soyuz, Atlas, etc.) If you pick the launch platform, then you have done a good chunk of the R&D, at which you have to ask why bother.

And if not, then you would be better off simply holding a space lift contest. Because you either end up with a shitty launcher, or a shitty telescope. It's hard for a design team to do both well.

Re:Critical problem with this argument

[bitingduck]

The problem with putting a telescope (or any other facility, for that matter) at L2, or any of the other Lagrange points, is that their location puts them out of the orbits reachable by the Shuttle for repair purposes.

I haven't really seen any convincing arguments for repair over replacement of any mission-- the shuttle missions to repair Hubble are not cheap, and the way NASA accounts for cost seems to generally neglect launch cost if it's using the shuttle, but include it if you're using expendables.

The Lagrange points and Earth-trailing orbit are both becoming popular for space telescopes because they provide very good observing environments compared to LEO.

Re:Critical problem with this argument

[mforbes]

The Lagrange points and Earth-trailing orbit are both becoming popular for space telescopes because they provide very good observing environments compared to LEO.

L2 is a particularly good location for radio telescopes, as the moon shields anything in that position from radio-wavelength signals from Earth. The downside of course is that to report the data back, a repeater is needed, either in polar lunar orbit (so that it forms a halo around the moon) or in a halo orbit around L2. The telescope itself, as long as it sits in L2, can't see earth-bound transceivers unless it uses a ridiculously low wave-length (waves long enough to go around the moon, essentially)-- and a wavelength that long means incredibly slow transmissions. Not exactly a great solution.

For the most part I agree with you, I haven't seen any convincing arguments for repair over replacement either, except in extreme cases such as the fix to Hubble's mirror problem soon after it was launched. I have one question (because I'm not informed on NASA's accounting, not because I'm trying to raise any hackles or anything): Does NASA account for single-use expenditures in shuttle launches, such as fuel, labor, etc? Or are all shuttle expenses budgeted separate from the missions they undertake?

NASA should get out of robotics

[Animats]

NASA has a long string of robotics failures. Except the little rovers from JPL, which is really a unit of Caltech, very little good has come out of NASA in robotics. They attract good people and put them into NASA's underperforming organization, wasting America's robotics talent.

NASA tried to develop a robot to do jobs like servicing the Hubble. The Flight Telerobotic Servicer project cost $288 million and produced zilch. Then there was the Robotic Satellite Servicer, NASA's second try at the same idea and another flop. Now they're trying to get their nose in the trough again and go for failure #3.

If we're going to have robotic repair, we should get it working here on Earth first, get it thoroughly debugged, use it for real applications, and then build space-qualified versions of the hardware for the occasional space job. Trying to do robotic repair in space when we can't do it on the ground is guaranteed to fail.

Also annoying to us in robotics is that NASA tries to claim credit for anything in which they had the vaguest involvement. They even have an arrangement with the USPTO so that if you patent something in robotics, the USPTO sends you a form under which you're supposed to declare any NASA involvement, so they can take credit.

I recently had an invitation to speak at NASA Ames. I told them to fuck off.

Re:NASA should get out of robotics

[tbell]

As the other poster has pointed out, the Hubble servicing robot will be built by the Canadian company MD Robotics, which has a long history of successful space robotics in the form of the SRMS on Shuttle and the SSRMS and MBS on ISS.

The Dextrous Robot portion of the Hubble servicing robot (the other portion the Grapple Arm - a mini-SRMS) has already been developed to Class A manned spaceflight standards for the ISS and is most of the way throught it's final integration at the element and end-to-end levels.

A terrestrial development version of the DR has already demonstrated it's ability to perform the mission tasks on the full Hubble mock-up at Goddard. It was these demonstrations that convinced a skeptical NASA community that a robotic mission was not only possible, but actually has a high probability of success.

Re:Critical problem with this argument

[jridley]

That's true, too. There's actually at least one scope that, with the aid of adaptive optics and other tricks, is actually slightly out-performing the Hubble.

Of course, that just makes you yearn for what we could do with a space telescope with CURRENT technology, not the early-80's (at best) stuff in the Hubble.

Re:Critical problem with this argument

[bitingduck]

I think we're talking about different L2 points-- Earth-Sun L2 is popular for missions other than radio (JWST, Herschel/Planck) and doesn't have comm problems-- it's actually ideal for comm, since the earth is more or less always in the same spot (spacecraft actually fly quasi-halo orbits that aren't right on the lagrange point. I think you're referring to Earth-Moon L2.

As far as I can tell, all costs of the shuttle program that aren't payload are "hidden" in the shuttle program costs and don't get bookkept against the total cost of the payload.

Re:Critical problem with this argument

[mforbes]

You're correct, I was referring to Earth-Moon L2, not Sun-Earth L2. Sorry about the confusion.

I can see why Earth-Sun L2, L4, and L5 would be ideal for comm- at any of them not only is the Earth in more-or-less the same spot, but also half the glove is visible at any given time. Not necessarily the same half, but you get the point...

Do the manned mission!

[mhollis]

This is where I strongly resent the way my tax dollars are being used. I have long been a proponent of more manned space missions. I am also a strong oponent of the way the government currently spends a lot of its money. We're in a government-created budget deficit that will make it impossible to support "entitlement" programs of the future. We will wind up with loads of discretionary spending being cut off entirely just because we have to continue to service our national debt.

NASA is the kind of program that spends the kind of big-budget money and supports many of the same industries as the Department of Defense (which seems to be the Department of Attack these days). If we are going to do a "pork" program to support these industries, then NASA is absolutely appropriate because it does not bomb civilians, ruin other countries or make foreign nationals hate us.

Instead, we underfund NASA, we deny CAL Tech (JPL) funding to continue programs and we have become a country that makes "decisions by committee" with respect to this new frontier called Space. We ought to be on the moon with a colony. We ought to have killed the shuttle program in favor of a reusable craft that was not built to the specifications of the Department of Defense. We ought to have a fully functioning low earth orbit space station and shuttles back and forth to and from the moon as well as concrete plans for manned missions to Mars.

But we have given the money that ought to be used for our future to those who want to limit our future.

Re:Critical problem with this argument

[LWATCDR]

Actually it makes me yearn for what we could do with 1960s technology. Imagine the size of mirror you could boost with a Saturn V. There are where improved Saturn Vs on the drawing board that had an even bigger lift :( Just imagine a space telescope the size of Skylab? Yes I know that we could use segmented mirrors now but think if the size of a segmented mirror you could boost with a Saturn V.

Frankly it maybe that space based telescopes from now on will tend to be for the parts of the spectrum that our atmosphere blocks like IR, UV, Xray, and GammaRay.

Hubble repair alternatives

[jfoust]

Those interested in the various alternatives to repairing or replacing the Hubble Space Telescope may be interested in this article from a few weeks ago that reviews an interim "Analyses of Alternatives" report by a third party, the Aerospace Corporation. This report concludes that a robotic repair mission would cost about the same as a shuttle repair mission or building and launching replacement telescope(s), but carries a far lower probability of success. It should be noted that this is an interim report, and according to one source the final report may look more favorably on robotic repair options.

build new...

[torrents]

the old upgrade or build new debate... technology has probably come a long way since hubble was built... and it would be a shame if it were updated only to have a new problem arise shortly after.