NASA Preparing Manned Hubble Service Mission

danimrich writes "According to an article at Space.com, 'NASA's new Administrator Mike Griffin told reporters today [April 29] that he informed key members of Congress Thursday evening that he would direct engineers at Goddard Spaceflight center to start preparing for a space shuttle servicing mission to the Hubble Space Telescope on the assumption that one ultimately will go forward.'"

Comments

Safety Concerns

[bigtallmofo]

Griffin's predecessor, Sean O'Keefe, cancelled a planned Hubble mission in January 2004. O'Keefe cited safety concerns in the wake of the shuttle Columbia disaster.

There have been several successful shuttle missions that have serviced the Hubble in the past so there's no reason to think that this particular type of mission is more dangerous than any other.

I think anyone stating that a shuttle mission to service the Hubble is not safe has an agenda beyond safety.

Re:Safety Concerns

[Gallech]

I think a bigger issue is our society's overwhelming and ultimately hypocritical concern with "safety". We send men and women off to die in war ever year. Yet the expansion of human horizons through the exploration of space by willing people is "too dangerous". The men and women of the space program know the risks, and for the most part they embrace them. Yes, its sad when lives are lost. But human kind needs risk takers. And I'd rather see people "spending" their lives willingly on something the truly believe in for the betterment of all mankind, than for any squabble over territory or natural resources.

Re:Safety Concerns

[Overzeetop]

Thank god we didn't attempt any shuttle missions before there was an ISS. That would have been waaaaaaay to dangerous.

I think they know what to expect

[Tekime]

I have the distinct feeling most of these astronauts have a clue about the possible dangers. If any of them are that worried, maybe they should have gone to law school instead. Not to diminish the importance of their safety, I just don't see any clear reason why this would be more dangerous than any another manned mission??

Re:I think they know what to expect

[kfg]

The whole issue brings to mind Alan Shepard's famous joke when asked what he was thinking while waiting for the Redstone to fire off:

"I was up there looking around, and suddenly I realized I was sitting on top of a rocket built by the lowest bidder."

They are certainly aware of the dangers and if they didn't accept them they wouldn't be astronauts.

On the other hand, before they climb to the top of the rocket they strap themselves into a car carrying a hundred pounds or so of highly explosive fuel and take it out on the road with thousands of complete idiots doing likewise, who are not concious of the dangers inherent in doing so. Familiarity breeds contempt, even though, on a passenger mile basis, an astronaut is far more likely to die accidentally in his/her car on his/her way to the space center than in the rocket.

And sitting on a rocket beats the hell out of coal mining, but you don't see many people running around shutting down the mines, because their houses would get cold and their TVs wouldn't work.

If it took manned space missions to keep TVs working people would be willing to "off" a few dozen astronauts a week without giving it half a thought.

So there's Hubble's problem right there. It isn't part of the vital "communications infrastructure." It merely informs us of what's going on in the universe, not what's going on in the trailer parks as does Jerry Springer.

If it were pointing into Cameron Daiz's bedroom window people would save the sucker right quick, no matter how many lives of other people it took to accomplish it. It has the misfortune of pointing at the wrong sort of star.

KFG

Re:I think they know what to expect

[pnewhook]

Sitting down in a tin can, with several gallons of highliy flammable liquid, hurtling down a concrete strip, in close proximity with other, similarly configured tin cans is supposed to be dangerous, too. Yet, we do it every day - it's called commute on a motorway...

Yes and in the US (this data is from 2001) there were 37,795 fatalities on the roads due to crashes. There were 16.35 million crashes that year, which gives and average of 2.6 crashes per Km of roadway in the US, and one fatality for every 168Km of roadway.

Driving a car is dangerous, and if these statistics were posted for any other type of transportation (trains, airplanes, space shuttles) they would be immediatly banned from use.

Re:I think they know what to expect

[Anonymous Coward]

A war on tailgating would save far more lives than the war on terror, but it wont get you elected president.

Re:I think they know what to expect

[Lally Singh]

Are dead tailgaters really counted as a loss?

Good

[Nicky G]

It's funny just how much of an issue safety has been made in many discussions of a manned service mission. The USA doesn't even give its troops armored vehicles in its war, and that doesn't seem to really rile people up (discussion of the ridiculousness of the war aside). You'd think a little risk to save what has IMO been one of the most profound scientific tools in all of human civilization would be deemed an acceptable risk.

Re:Good

[Detritus]

The USA doesn't even give its troops armored vehicles in its war, and that doesn't seem to really rile people up (discussion of the ridiculousness of the war aside).

Every vehicle design is a compromise among cost, weight, armor, speed, fuel economy, maintenance requirements, power, cargo capacity, size, etc. The HMMWV replaced a group of unarmored vehicles, including the JEEP. There are lightly armored vehicles for mechanized infantry, like the APC and the Bradley. Their armor will stop small-arms fire and shell fragments, but not projectiles from heavier weapons or anti-tank mines. A modern RPG can penetrate over 500mm of steel. How do you protect a vehicle against that? With dismounted infantry, who are vulnerable to small-arms fire, to provide a protective screen for the vehicle. There are no easy solutions to the problem.

Finally, some common sense

[localroger]

You know, we used to understand that space travel was dangerous and that astronauts are not just special because of their training, but because any time you sit atop a thirty meter tall bomb and light it there is a chance you're not gonna make it back in one piece. Props to the guys and gals who are willing to take that chance and all.

One of the many things I have always disliked about the Shuttle space-car fantasy is the illusion that this risk has somehow gone away and "shuttling off" to space is now no different than catching the subway to work in the morning. It's not that way, and it's never going to be that way with the technology at hand. It takes a massive amount of energy to get into space, and controlling large amounts of energy is always risky whether it's getting into orbit or an ordinary domestic chemical plant.

Let us understand that space travel is risky as well as expensive. Let us do what we can to minimize those risks. And then give the men and women who are willing to take those risks the tools they need and the opportunity do their damn jobs. Let us mourn when they pay the ultimate price, and let us celebrate when they give us things we never could have had without their sacrifice.

Astronauts vs. Marines

[Anonymous Coward]

The sum-bitch govt sends out Marines to be killed in Iraq with inadequate armor and worries that the *Shuttle* isn't safe???

WTF? Oh yeah, killing a dozen astronauts is a national PR disaster while hundreds of Marines deaths are just... grunticide.

Easily explainable

[Raul654]

You have to remember that Sean O'Keefe was a bean counter, who gave top priority to saving his own skin. His statement makes perfect sense when you bear that in mind.

This argument sucks

[bechthros]

I've had it before. It's boring and the two sides really should just agree to disagree. That said here's my $.02:

a) manned space missions have a higher risk. they also have a higher reward.

b) every shuttle pilot/astronaut ever (except for Krista McAuliffe) were trained test pilots. They had taken risks much greater than this in the course of being test pilots.

c) Every person ever lost in a space accident was well aware of the risks and chose to accept them. To say that they are not capable of making that decision, and that we should just terminate any and all manned spaceflight based on what YOU consider an unacceptable level of risk, not only disgracefully dishonors their service and sacrifice, but also their decision making ability. And for anybody to question the decision making ability of test pilots and astronauts from their slashdot armchair makes me physically nauseous.

d) when we've made anywhere near the quantity of manned spaceflights as we have commercial airline flights, you'll have a right to bitch about shuttles not being as safe as airplanes. Practice makes perfect, and we haven't had anywhere near as much practice at manned spaceflight as we have commercial air travel.

e) unmanned spaceflight, whenever it would serve the needs of the mission and the needs of science just as well as a manned mission, is an alternative that should be pursued. This alternative should be immediately abandoned if it ever impacts mission viability.

f) should we likewise abolish all fire departments and tell firemen they don't have the right to take a dangerous job that they believe needs to be done just because that job is risky? Fighting fires is a job that needs doing. So is scientific research and superatmospheric astronomy.

g) We're very overdue for a major impact disaster from an asteroid or comet. When, not if, this occurs, the only warning we'll have to all move to Kansas won't come from ground-based telescopes - it will come from space-based ones, which need to be serviced by manned spaceflight.

h) america, from the cotton gin to the internal combustion engine to the atomic bomb to the polio vaccine to the microchip, has been ever based on scientific evidence and rational thought. Our superiority in the marketplace of world governments has not been maintained by our security staff alone, but mainly by our incredibly effective R&D department. This is one of many things that make me fiercely proud to be American. And for self-proclaimed "conservatives" to toe this knee-jerk anti-science line is about as clear a declaration of intent to sacrifice everything that's ever made America great as one could ever hope to see (or dread seeing, in my case). Next you'll be trying to dismantle checks and balances... oh wait...

Perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

Getting man on the moon was NASA's greatest mission. Getting into space was one of NASA's greatest mission. Getting Voyagers into true outer space (30 year life cycles) is certainly a great mission. putting sats at all the planets that we have is part of the great missions.

The Hubble is simply a tool. WRT to telescopes, I would rate the invention of first couple of telescopes as being great. But Hubble is simply the next step in telescope history. But it is one of our best tools at this point in time.

The hubble has generated more science than the....

[voss]

$100 billion dollar space station.

While Infrared light may generate alternate avenues of science, humans dont see in infrared. Hubble produces space results that Joe Sixpack can actually see or have his kids download for their school projects. Thats how NASA can get funding, produce results people can see and can benefit from.

The hubble telescope fires the imagination and inspires future generations of scientists. Hubble cost $2 billion to put up and only cost $500 million to service. Why not make the most of your investment.

Someone has sold us a myth that average people dont care about space exploration. This is bullcrap. They care when they feel like they are a part
of it. When they feel like NASA is just another government agency squandering money on stuff they dont understand, thats when NASA gets hacked.