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

Excellent News!

[AKAImBatman]

Good for Senator Mikulski! As far as I'm concerned, NASA has been putzing around on this issue for no reason WHAT-SO-EVER. The shuttles are no more dangerous now then they were for the earlier two decades they've been in service. If people were allowed to do their jobs, then NASA would have known about the shuttle damage *before* Columbia's reentry.

These mumblings about robotic repair sound like a whiny way of getting out of doing the job. If you'll pardon my French, "Just launch the damn space shuttle and fix the bloody thing!" It's not that hard, and I'm sure there's no shortage of qualified volunteers. Do I hear an Amen?!?

Re:Excellent News!

[LMCBoy]

The main problem with repairing hubble is the fact that ther is no longer any shuttle capable of containing it in it's hold

This is only a problem if you want to return HST safely to the ground in a Shuttle cargo hold. As you say, there is no longer a shuttle in which it will fit, because the external airlock for ISS makes the bay too short.

However, for a repair mission, HST does not have to fit in the cargo bay; it is mounted inside the bay sticking straight up out of it.

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.

Re:There is a better option

[ThomasFlip]

yeah but what you're talking about is fiscal sensibility. I don't think that the United States government (Congress, Senate, Whatever) in all of it's infinite wisdom is prepared to partake in such a common sense approach.

Re:There is a better option

[bechthros]

So these two instuments alone can replace all of the existing functionality of Hubble I's instruments? If that is the case then bravo, go for it. But if it means losing the ability to do deep UV astronomy or anything else that Hubble I has proven to be very adept at, I don't think we should skimp out. Hubble has shown itself to have exceeded expectations time and time again, and I think it's well worth the investment. Not to say we should throw money at the problem, but if we can find untold billions for the sake of running to stand still in Iraq then surely there's gotta be a spare 1 billion somewhere we could use to fix something that's been more useful than we expected.

Re:There is a better option

[kebes]

I think the "better option" that most astrophysicists are looking forward to is the James Webb Telescope. It's a primarily IR-telescope, but in terms of its mission statement it will largely replace what Hubble is doing now. Hubble has already survived longer than originally intended (due to many well-executed repair missions). More years could be squeezed out of Hubble with more repair missions, but if what you want is a brand-new telescope, the James Webb Telescope will keep astronomers busy for many years.

Understanding risk

[waynegoode]

The shuttles are no more dangerous now then they were for the earlier two decades they've been in service

The problems is not that they are more dangrerous now. They have always been this dangerous. It is just that now the danger is better understood. Ignoring risk does not make it go away.

That said, I am not against using a manned (sorry, crewed) mission to repair the Hubble if that is the best option. In any case, the risks needed to be understood, reduced as much as possible and accepted or rejected; not just ignored.

Re:Understanding risk

[AKAImBatman]

Space travel has always been dangerous, PERIOD. Astronauts have always known that everytime they strap themselves in, there's a reasonable chance that they won't be coming back. Apollo 1 made that point real clear, and the Challenger incident further punctuated the point. The only comfort the astronauts have is that we will do everything in our power to get them home if something goes wrong. (e.g. Apollo 13)

As I said, there's no shortage of volunteers who fully understand the risks they are taking. So fly the damn space shuttle for something USEFUL, and keep our bird in the air.

You can't take the sky from me...

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.

Re:Worth Remembering Mikulski's Motives

[bechthros]

"This is a pork barrel and jobs issue for her."

Can you please explain to me why a Senator representing her constituants who, like most of us, want jobs, is a BAD thing? Isn't that why they're elected, to represent their constituants?

"Every Shuttle flight is risky"

Sure, just like every airplane landing is risky, just like crossing the street is risky. Most of them are former test pilots, so you'll have a hard time convincing me that the astronauts aren't willing to accept those risks. The fact that it's risky doesn't mean it istn't worth it.

Not to mention that the safety record of shuttle flights far exceeds what was expected. I remember NASA saying when Challenger blew up that we were very overdue for just such an incident, and it was a fluke that one hadn't happened sooner. Not to say that more shuttles should blow up, but the safety record of shuttle flights is exemplary.

"but the purpose of space travel is to put people there, not to do science."

Why must there be only one purpose for space travel? And what exactly do you think these "people" we "put there" are going to do, sit around and play pinochle? No, the people that went to the moon did science once they got there. So will the people we eventually send to Mars. Scientific research is a very valid purpose for space flight.

it's not about that

[Yonkeltron]

i might get modded down for this but it needs to be said.

it's not about whether robots or humans are used. it's about the hubble being a piece of crap that needs to be replaced in order for us to move forward. the hubble is obsolete because of the fact that there are cheaper and better telescope projects out there that should be initiated. some of those programs are mentioned here on /. all the time!

it's a wonder that we haven't listened to the independant experts and just thrownit out to lagrange point to work as long as it can.

i really feel like NASA needs to let this one die so we can move forward.

I see your bullshit and raise you a horseshit

[Ohreally_factor]

Good argument!! Unfortunately for your argument, most scientists involved are in favor of repairing the Hubble, and it was a political decision by a non-scientist political appointee to NOT repair it.

Dumbshit.

(No, I don't think you're a dumbshit. It just fit the fecal theme of this post.)

Re:I want to know why...

[bechthros]

In other words, a Senator is representing the interests of her constituants. Horror of horrors. Perish the thought.

Wait a minute

[washley]

Wasn't there a Slashdot story a while back saying that we could send up a NEW space telescope for less? What's the sense in fixing Hubble if we can get a better, brand new, space telescope for less money.

Wrong

[MattHaffner]

...but in terms of its mission statement it will largely replace what Hubble is doing now.

First of all, NASA almost never builds straight replacement instruments. They are always focused on something new. JWST will not replace Hubble by any means. In fact, if both were up at the same time (sustained, not about-to-be-junk), the amount of additional science able to come from their complementary instrumentation should be reason alone to keep Hubble strong until it launches.

Astronomy in the ultraviolet is all but mothballed for a decade if one of the instruments (Cosmic Origins Spectrograph, COS) slated for installation in Hubble does not make it to orbit somehow. The only functioning instrument right now is GALEX, an imaging experiment.

However, when we obtain spectra, the ultraviolet, more than any other waveband, gives us tremendous direct information about the atomic composition of many astronomical objects. (Molecules are best studied in the radio part of the spectrum. Solid particles [e.g. dust] in the infrared).

JWST will not fill this gap. It will be a great loss and put a halt to a wealth of knowledge gained from ultraviolet spectroscopy that began about three decades ago.