Senator Calls on NASA to Service Hubble

Avantare writes "Senator Calls on NASA to Service Hubble In a sternly worded letter to acting NASA Administrator Frederick D. Gregory, Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) said she expects the U.S. space agency to heed the will of the Congress and keep preparations for a Hubble Space Telescope servicing mission on track. Congress, in passing an omnibus spending bill late last year, directed NASA to set aside $291 million of its 2005 budget to spend planning and preparing for a servicing mission to Hubble by 2008. When NASA informed Congress just weeks later that it intended to spend only $175 million of that amount on the Hubble repair effort, some saw the move as an indication that the agency was preparing to abandon plans to service Hubble robotically and rely instead on a space shuttle crew to fix the telescope."

Comments

There is a better option

[waynegoode]

The cost of a mission to repair and service Hubble is estimated at $2 billion. And for that money, it may or may not work. However a new Hubble, Hubble Origins Probe, can be built and launched for $1 billion using the original Hubble designs and new instruments already built as replacements for the current Hubble. It's cheaper, more reliable and less risky.

From an article in Discover Magazine

Colin Norman, an astronomer at the Space Telescope Science Institute, notes that NASA has already built two expensive new instruments, the Cosmic Origins Spectrograph and the Wide Field Camera 3, for the cancelled Hubble upgrade. Instead of salvaging the current Hubble, he proposes using the parts to create a replacement, the Hubble Origins Probe.

Also see the John Hopkins Newsletter.

Worth Remembering Mikulski's Motives

[reallocate]

It's worth remembering the Mikulski's motives aren't driven by pure science. Goddard and other Hubble-related facilities are in Maryland. This is a pork barrel and jobs issue for her.

And for those who argue that repairing Hubble now is no riskier than in the past, you're missing the point. Every Shuttle flight is risky and Hubble repair missions are even riskier because rendevousing with Hubble means no chance of taking reguge at the ISS and slim to zero chance of rescue by a second Shuttle.

Loss of a Shuttle during a Hubble repair mission would have political repercussions that woujld likely kill the Shuttle program and, possibly, kill any further crewed spaceflight of any kind. The Hubble is a nice tool, but the purpose of space travel is to put people there, not to do science. Fixing it isn't worth the risk.

Re:Worth Remembering Mikulski's Motives

[AKAImBatman]

It's worth remembering the Mikulski's motives aren't driven by pure science. Goddard and other Hubble-related facilities are in Maryland. This is a pork barrel and jobs issue for her.

Another poster addressed that point here.

And for those who argue that repairing Hubble now is no riskier than in the past, you're missing the point. Every Shuttle flight is risky and Hubble repair missions are even riskier because rendevousing with Hubble means no chance of taking reguge at the ISS and slim to zero chance of rescue by a second Shuttle.

The Shuttles were designed with hot-standby in mind. If the powers that be are THAT worried (which I'm not, we've done this several times before without incident) then get a second, unfueled shuttle on the pad. If something goes wrong, you have a day or two of turnaround. If everything goes fine, then the second shuttle will complete the next mission (probably IIS work). If possible, use the Endevour for servicing the Hubble. Not only is it newer and a bit sturdier, but it carries the extended mission, life support equipment just in case the astronauts have to cool their heels for a week or two while waiting for a rescue.

Loss of a Shuttle during a Hubble repair mission would have political repercussions that woujld likely kill the Shuttle program and, possibly, kill any further crewed spaceflight of any kind.

As sad as I am about it, the shuttle is dead. I see little chance that it will be flying for much longer. My only hope is that it hangs on long enough to push for the new launch technologies.