Slashdot Mirror
Astronauts Should Fix Hubble
Re-Pawn writes "NASA urged to send shuttle to Hubble - Astronauts, not robots, should fix the Hubble Space Telescope, says a new report by the US National Research Council (NRC). That conclusion is directly at odds with NASA, which is opposed to a human mission on safety grounds, following the Columbia disaster."
Let's never speak of this again.
-- NASA
Yeah, right.
Furthermore, as the National Academy of Sciences panel, and other panels before it, have said, the difference in safety (or chance of disaster, which ever way you want to look at it) of a single shuttle mission to Hubble is essentially the same as that of a single mission to the space station. The astronauts, when asked, all were in favor of going to fix Hubble. And they're much more likely to get the job done than the robotic mission, which is rather unlikely to work (read the NAS press release)
Of course, the plan is for 25-30 missions to the ISS, so the chances of horrendous disaster doing that is far higher cumulatively.
Aw hell, just launch a cargo hold of Robosapiens and let them fix it... hell'va lot cheaper
I'm pretty sure the original description of the Shuttle was to be a kind of "space truck", for both transport and servicing missions. To say it is too unsafe to use for its intended purpose just underscores the incompetence of whatever committee it was that bollixed the design. Get rid of them, and post a big sign in EVERY meeting room that (A) describes the debacle, and (B) recommend that it never, ever happen again. (Now, if only somebody in those meeting rooms actually paid attention to the sign....)
We as a civilisation have even more of an issue to deal with, what will replace petrolium once peak oil has happened? The growth rate will continue to increase, yet actual supply will forever diminish. How are we as a globe supposed to combat the "War On Poverty" if there is not enough cheap energy available for even the current base of first world nations? Follow link in my sig for further details.
Get your free Dropbox account with 2 GB Free storage!
The Shuttle program, and NASA in general, is dead in the water, with O'Keefe at the helm. So of course he'll be promoted by Bush, along with his buddies running Iraq, the economy, the North Korea watch, education, the environment, energy supplies...
--
make install -not war
It'll CREATE JOBS!
Possibly as many as 50, and only at a price of around 200000000 McDonald's value meals. Think about it...
Besides, what were they supposed to do? Congress told them to build a reusable shuttle, but didn't want to spend enough money to do it properly. So they kludged up a design that pretended to fit their budget constraints and still work. In the end it did neither, of course.
Perhaps the designers should have refused to go ahead without a proper budget. But that's a career ending move. No doubt there were individuals who did just that -- quit NASA rather than go through the motions. But can you really blame those who stayed? They just wanted to keep the project alive.
The right direction to look at this point is forward, not backward. If the current shuttle doesn't work, time to design one that does. I doubt if its politically feasible, but it's still a more worthy goal than finding scapegoats for decisions made a quarter-century ago.
How a 'safe haven' could help save Hubble: Study suggests launching module to shelter astronauts in emergency
... ... ...
...
Some snippings:
An "out-of-the-box" plan to put a new space habitat in orbit could be a leading contender for saving the Hubble Space Telescope, private-sector analysts say in a proposal being prepared for NASA. The habitat could be used as an emergency safe haven during the Hubble servicing mission, and then could serve as a base for wider commercial and exploratory space travel.
The full proposal is being handed over to the space agency this week, sources told MSNBC.com on condition of anonymity. Independently, the National Academy of Sciences is due on Wednesday to release its own recommendations for repairing Hubble.
In its study, the Aerospace Corp. developed a proposal aimed at keeping astronauts involved in the mission while addressing the space agency's post-Columbia concerns about safety, by adding the provision for the safe-haven module.
The Aerospace Corp. study doesn't confine itself to criticizing NASA's robotic plan, however. It suggest that the shuttle repair option could be restarted with one modification: To accommodate the safety concerns caused by lack of a "safe haven" at the telescope, a special supply module should be launched into space near the telescope "just in case."
As a space haven, the Aerospace Corp. proposes to use a carbon copy of the space station's first Russian-built module, known as the FGB. The FGB-1 was launched into orbit in November 1998 and is now known as the Zarya cargo module. A backup flightworthy spare, FGB-2, is still in storage. For years, the Russians have tried to market it as a commercial module for the space station, and their current plan is to use it as a future space research lab.
But the Aerospace Corp. study suggests that the FGB-2 could be shipped from Russia for blastoff from a more southerly launch site -- perhaps Cape Canaveral in Florida or the European space base in Kourou, French Guyana.
Once in space, small thrusters could keep the module in a trailing orbit, a few hundred miles behind Hubble. At that range, the shuttle could fly between the Hubble and the space module in about a day, with minimal fuel cost.
In this scenario, the shuttle would head for the Hubble as originally planned, inspecting its heat-shielding tiles and panels on the way. If fatal damage is discovered, it would dock with the safe haven instead, and the crew would use the supplies on board to wait out the time it would take to launch a rescue shuttle.
If the shuttle mission proceeds smoothly, the safe haven would be left in orbit.
The open-ended scenario has sparked speculation about further opportunities for orbital space travel. Even if the FGB-2 turns out to be unavailable, some observers say it might be profitable to build the space haven from scratch, then use it for other purposes if NASA doesn't need it.
In fact, one rumor claimed that Robert Bigelow, the Las Vegas hotel magnate who is developing plans for orbital tourism, would build the haven for free, with the caveat that it would revert to his ownership if not needed. Michael Gold, corporate counsel for Bigelow Aerospace in Washington, told MSNBC.com this was untrue.
European and Russian space concerns are among other parties who might make use of an extra orbital module. France and Russia already have made a deal to build a Soyuz launch pad at Kourou, where the European launch consortium Arianespace puts satellites into orbit. Although the deal does not currently extend to human spaceflight, this remains a possibility, Philippe Berterottière, a senior vice president at Arianespace, recently told a White House space commission.
Commercial space companies could conceivably turn such a module into a destination for high-paying, high-flying orbital tourists.
Looking farth
O'Keefe is following the recommendations of the CAIB. Would you have him ignore those recommendations only to lose another shuttle and crew trying to sustain an instrument that should be replaced, not repaired?
Hubble has been an extraordinary tool, but it was never intended to last forever.
The Shuttle has never had a serious purpose since NASA's preferred design was killed in the 1970's. It exists to sustain ISS, and ISS exists to sustain the Shuttle. Neither project serves the fundamental purpose of space travel, which is to take people from this planet to other places. Shuttle and ISS don't do that. They go in circles a few miles above the atmosphere. It is as if Prince Henry confined his ships to sailing in Portuguese waters within sight of land.
We need to admit that both ISS and Shuttle are bad ideas poorly implemented and move on. When the need for space stations and space trucks arises, organically, from efforts to explore space, then we will have a reason to build them.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
To keep the space scuttle from ever flying again so that it can stop Sucking $$$ from useful space stuff,
OR
Let the space scuttle do one last flight which will be the second flight that a shuttle has made which has actually contributed to science ( the first being the first time it was used to repair hubble, orbiting the Hubble could have been done more cheaply via rocket ). True, it will set a precedent that the space scuttle is flyable and hence may allow the horrible sucking of fund$ to continue into other ( useless ) future flights to the ISS ( a program as useless as the space scuttle )
We do need a manned space program. But manned flights should be done rarely, and only when they are absolutely neccessary. No going on week long trips to study effects of zero g. A modular and maneuverable space capsule with a detachable robot arm seems appropriate. There is never a need to bring something sizeable back from earth orbit so no cargo bay that can handle reentry is needed, but cargo to orbit including rations, air, water and hardware should be in a modular section that can be extended as needed. The ability to use the capsule alone with a small booster to orbit, or with extra cargo using a large booster should be available. A disposable ( or even something that stayed in space and required a rendezvous and hookup ) Extended Living Quarters module should be able to make trips to high orbit or the moon possible. Why not have some fuel up there in LEO for use whenever it might be needed? Need to send out a space probe to Neptune with a narrow launch window? Launch the probe into LEO.
Robotically connect with orbiting Fuel. Wait for launch window and shoot for Neptune when it's time. No need to worry about the weather at Cape Canaveral. And if the robotic hookup goes wrong, send up the Capsule loaded with people to fix it. ( or just send up the duplicate probe that they always make for the smithsonian, whichever is cheaper )
I know it's pretty far-fetched, but can anyone tell me why the possibility of moving the telescope close to the ISS hasn't been brought up? If you're going to intercept the craft anyway (by man or machine), why not vector it so future ISS astonauts can get the job done now? For that matter, future repairs would be greatly simplified.
Now, we shouldn't be too hard on this guy. Someone needs to be outsourced, just so I can keep my job and then "get fries with that" at lunch, and who better than the sad sack product of Red schools?
O'Keefe is indeed reluctant to veer from the Columbia Accident Review Board recommendations. The fact is the orbiter is just as vulnerable to debris strikes as it was 2 years ago. It is hoped that debris shed from the tank is reduced but it cannot be eliminated. Vulnerability to debris strikes is yet another flaw in the design of the shuttle that cannot be undone. Since the shuttle has no on orbit thermal protection repair capability or safe abort option, using the ISS is the only (and tenuous at that) option for a shuttle disabled on ascent. I think Mr. O'Keefe is doing the prudent thing. If I were NASA administrator and an exact repeat of the Columbia disaster was still a possibility, I would be cautious too. Do you think any NASA administrator would relish 2 shuttle disasters on his watch? If there is another shuttle disaster, that is the end of US manned spaceflight until the CEV era sets in. Milking the shuttle for 30 flights to finish ISS is ambitious enough. Risky billion dollar manned missions to an observatory already scheduled to be replaced is foolhardy.
an ill wind that blows no good
The Hubble was only designed to last 10 years. By the time of it's projected failure given no more servicing missions - it will have accomplished 90% of it's mission.
Given the phenomonal cost of fixing the hubble - when it is past it's end-of-life design date - it is my opinion that the effort (and money) is better spent on a new, much improved, replacement.
Look at the cost of fixing Hubble (and extend it's life for maybe another 2 years) vs. cost of a new one (which will last at least 10 years). In the past 10 years, design and manufacturing costs of spacecraft have dropped - you'd get much better value with new modern technology rather than keeping the ancient tech. up and running.
Using such necrotic deathtraps as the Shuttle to fix the Hubble is an unnecessary, extremely dangerous idea - not to mention foolish.
it's projected failure
it's mission
it's end-of-life design date
extend it's life
"its".
I doubt that they even have all of the correct engineering drawings for the Hubble
The technology for space telescopes has changed quite a bit since HST was built-- you wouldn't want to build an exact copy.
It's not like other agencies hadn't built similar things before Hubble, and those agencies haven't been sitting on their butts for 20 years. Even NASA has flown and is developing new telescopes based on much newer technology. The basic geometry would probably be the same, but the primary mirror (and whole telescope) would be lower mass, the avionics would probably be a lot newer, you might launch to an L2 orbit instead.
A shuttle mission would ensure the least downtime for visible astronomy (assuming they can get back flying in a couple years), but it's probably cheaper to build a new one from scratch, even with all the new design that would have to be done.
Somebody, remind me why we need a space-based scope. With adaptive optics and ground-based scopes being soooo much cheaper to build, shouldn't we be spending our money other places? Like, say the 30-meter project?
There's no time to stop for gas, we're already late.
We wouldn't be having this conversation at all.
Hubble would have been fixed by now and food would have been delivered to the ISS. I read a while back, and agree with it wholeheartedly, that just as populating the wild west a coulpe hundred years ago, space is dangerous too. Did people still go? Of course they did. It's the pioneer spirit that keeps us speading our wings. Does anyone believe that the astronauts going up think that the current methods of entering space are infallable? I'm sure they're well aware that they're basically sitting on a giant "controlled" bomb.
There are risks inherent with everything and they're all relative. If i stuff envelopes all day, there's a chance i'll get a nasty papercut, if i'm an astronaut, there's a chance i could lose my life in an accident.
IANALOOA