[FPSPACE] Bye bye Hubble

[David M Harland]

NASA is evidently considering spending $2B on attempting a robotic 
mission that has only a modest chance of being able to do what a 
couple of astronauts would assuredly be able to do during a shuttle 
mission at a fraction of the cost.  And  all because NASA is scared 
of taking the risk of sending a shuttle up that isn't in the orbital 
plane of the ISS.... Now I ask you, are these people in the right 
frame of mind to set off to explore the solar system!??

dmh



At 11:41 pm -0500 28/11/04, DwayneDay wrote:
>http://www.floridatoday.com/!NEWSROOM/spacestoryN1128HUBBLE0.htm
>
>After reading the FlaToday article, you might want to take a look at 
>Dr. Foust's excellent discussion of the risks of a repair mission:
>
>http://www.thespacereview.com/article/257/1
>
>
>Nov 27, 7:24 PM
>Expense may sink Hubble mission
>NASA weighs benefits of trip
>BY JOHN KELLY
>FLORIDA TODAY
>
>CAPE CANAVERAL -- NASA's plan to launch a remote-controlled, 
>two-armed android to repair the Hubble Space Telescope may cost 
>almost as much as taxpayers paid to build the vaunted observatory in 
>the first place.
>
>Consider:
>-	If the cost hits $2 billion, that's three to four times what 
>it would cost to send astronauts to do the job as they have four 
>times before and as NASA planned before the Columbia disaster.
>-	That's almost the whole budget for the follow-on James Webb 
>Space Telescope, which some fear will be launched later than planned 
>now, in 2011, to defray Hubble servicing bills.
>-	Hundreds of millions, or billions, could be spent developing 
>robotic technology to pull off the complex mission only to have 
>Hubble's dying batteries, failing steering gyroscopes or glitchy 
>sensors make the telescope useless before the rescue mission gets 
>off the ground.
>
>Those points are starting to get made quietly as people watch the 
>continuing turns in the Hubble debate, which began when NASA 
>Administrator Sean O'Keefe said it was too dangerous to send shuttle 
>astronauts back to do the repairs. Calling off the mission prompted 
>a public and political outcry and made the agency rethink its 
>position and investigate robotic options.
>
>Now, NASA is racing forward with an inspiring but expensive robotic 
>mission in a race to beat Hubble's technical demise, which could 
>come as early as 2007 without more repairs.
>
>
>Estimating value
>"There is only a certain number of dollars here," said Duncan Moore, 
>an optics expert at the University of Rochester who worked on Hubble 
>and is helping develop the Webb telescope.
>
>"It's not only the repair costs of going up there and servicing it," 
>he said. "It's operating costs after that. If they do it 
>robotically, that's going to cost an awful lot of pocket change."
>
>On the other hand, Moore and others note it's hard to place a price 
>tag on the inspirational value of the images Hubble has beamed back 
>to Earth or its incredible resume of science findings. Nor can one 
>overstate the value of having a ship already in orbit that works -- 
>and well.
>
>
>Robotic impact
>"From my point of view, it's a good investment," said Steven 
>Beckwith, the director of the Space Telescope Science Institute in 
>Baltimore, which operates the telescope for NASA.
>
>"The agency has expressed a desire to move into an era where they 
>use robots extensively in space," said Beckwith, who plans to leave 
>his job in September 2005. "They want to develop this technology 
>anyway."
>
>Agency officials speculate that if they can pull off the unmanned 
>repair mission, using a Canadian-built "robot hand" that otherwise 
>would be used on the International Space Station, they will have 
>moved ahead a decade or more in their robot capabilities in space.
>
>"If they want to advance this technology anyway, why not use 
>Hubble?" Beckwith asked.
>
>
>Deadlines near
>Nicknamed "Dextre," the robot would blast off from Cape Canaveral -- 
>hopefully by 2007 -- and install fresh batteries and gyroscopes as 
>well as a pair of $100 million science instruments.
>
>NASA needs to decide by next year whether the robot, controlled from 
>the ground by an astronaut as if he were playing a video game, will 
>work. If not, NASA will have to launch a propulsion module that 
>would hook itself to Hubble and drive it to a watery end in a remote 
>stretch of the Pacific Ocean.
>
>NASA does not pretend the technology is foolproof.
>
>If it works, it provides the agency another inspirational victory -- 
>perhaps as amazing as the astronauts' first flight to repair 
>Hubble's flawed mirror in the early 1990s, opening the way to an 
>endless stream of science breakthroughs.
>
>It could mean Hubble gets to fly through at least 2013, another 
>decade or so of discovery.
>
>If it doesn't work, Beckwith argues, NASA will not have wasted money 
>because the trials and testing will have advanced the agency's 
>capabilities for robots that will go ahead of astronauts to scout 
>the moon and Mars or even work side by side with human explorers on 
>the surface.
>
>
>History of achievements
>None of that takes into account the emotional attachment to Hubble 
>that has developed as the craft beamed back fabulous pictures that 
>helped, among other things, tell how old the universe is. Some argue 
>it is NASA's biggest achievement besides the moon landings.
>
>That sentimental attachment, and the jobs it supports in districts 
>of powerful members of Congress, led to the political firestorm that 
>so far has kept the mission alive.
>
>Indeed, Congress provided NASA an extra $290 million for a Hubble 
>mission in the budget deal reached last weekend. And, Congressional 
>leaders noted in supporting documents, NASA ought to consider Hubble 
>one of its highest priorities after returning the shuttles to flight.
>
>Beckwith said he would hope some funding for the robotic rescue 
>mission -- because of its application to exploration capabilities -- 
>might come from those accounts instead of money that may otherwise 
>be spent on science missions.
>
>That might quell concerns among some worried that big spending to 
>add some years to Hubble's life could spell doom for other planned 
>projects.
>
>
>Weighing expenses
>Regardless, some like Moore, just wonder about the value in return.
>
>"I'm of two minds because Hubble has contributed so much to the 
>understanding of our universe, but are we at a point of diminishing 
>returns?" he asked. "It's clear from a science standpoint, it could 
>continue to contribute, but the question is at what rate.
>
>"By the time we ditch, it's 16 years old, so now we've got a 16-year 
>old instrument -- and really it's older than that because we built 
>it almost 10 years before it launched.
>
>"We have to ask: How much are we going to get out of this baby?"
>
>**************
>
>(Way back around April or so, when NASA first started discussing a 
>robotic mission to rescue Hubble, a journalist I know who writes for 
>a prominent foreign science magazine, suggested that the mission 
>would never happen.  The costs would escalate, the timeframe would 
>become too big, and eventually NASA would announce that they could 
>not conduct the mission before Hubble died.  He also suggested that 
>NASA officials actually hoped that Congress would refuse to give 
>them the money in the first place.)
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>FPSPACE mailing list
>FPSPACE at friends-partners.org
>http://www.friends-partners.org/mailman/listinfo/fpspace