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."
More likely it's cheaper, as they've already invested the time in developing Hubble and learning what worked and didn't work, they can simply replicate that. Prototypes and one-offs are always more expensive do to the research and design work that goes into them. Theoretically, there are plans sitting somewhere that they could simply follow, and save a pretty penny.
Just because I doubt myself does not mean I find your position compelling.
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"
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