MSNBC - How a 'safe haven' could help save Hubble

"Explorer" wrote in news:1102520786.542893.191960
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

This is a dumb idea. One of the chief purposes of the robotic servicing
mission for Hubble is to develop the technologies to allow automated
rendezvous and docking. If NASA cancels the robotic mission in favor of
this new idea, astronauts will be able to service the telescope, but we
will once again lose the opportunity to develop robotic technologies
critical for exploring the Moon and Mars.



Amen Brother.

Everyone is whining about how the robotic servicing mission costs so much.
The point of the robotic servicing mission wasn't to fix the hubble the
cheapest way possible, it was to build up the capability for on orbit
technologies....rendezvous+docking, human level dexterity, on orbit
repairs. All that stuff is worth the $2.2 billion, the fact that it's
saving the hubble instead of letting it fall to the ocean is a side
benefit.

I don't understand why the hubble is so high on some people's priority
lists. There are new telescopes in the pipeline that are going to be way
better. The only reason I want to save hubble is to see if we can get a
robot that will work.

Tom Kent

The reason why saving Hubble is such a big deal is that NASA rarely
ever carries out most new programs through flight status. So, if HST is
not saved, its possible that replacement would be cancelled, leaving
the science community with nothing.

Your comment is indicative of precisely why new projects are often
cancelled before flight - let's say that someone proposes the New Great
Telescope, and NASA funds the program. After a couple of years,
technology advances and the New Great Telescope is now just the Just OK
Telescope, albeit at the same price as before, if not higher. So, the
Better becomes the Enemy of the Good Enough, the new telescope is
cancelled in favor of the Next Really Great Telescope, and so on.

Better to hold onto existing hardware until the replacement is on
orbit. So, we really need that robot to save Hubble!

On 8 Dec 2004 11:20:06 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Explorer"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:

Better to hold onto existing hardware until the replacement is on
orbit. So, we really need that robot to save Hubble!

No, we don't. It can be done with a Shuttle flight much more cost
effectively.

"Explorer" wrote in
oups.com:

The reason why saving Hubble is such a big deal is that NASA rarely
ever carries out most new programs through flight status. So, if HST is
not saved, its possible that replacement would be cancelled, leaving
the science community with nothing.

Your comment is indicative of precisely why new projects are often
cancelled before flight - let's say that someone proposes the New Great
Telescope, and NASA funds the program. After a couple of years,
technology advances and the New Great Telescope is now just the Just OK
Telescope, albeit at the same price as before, if not higher. So, the
Better becomes the Enemy of the Good Enough, the new telescope is
cancelled in favor of the Next Really Great Telescope, and so on.

Better to hold onto existing hardware until the replacement is on
orbit. So, we really need that robot to save Hubble!


I don't know of a lot of science missions that are cancelled. Hubble
made it, Gravity Probe B made it, even though the basic reason it was
developed was obsolete thirty years ago. We have all sorts of satellites
and telescopes orbiting the earth, most of which never had to seriously
fight for funding. If NASA has plans to build a new telescope, they'll
get there . Which is disappointing. Why is NASA in the telescope
building buisness? Or the monitoring of greenhouse gases buisness for
that matter?
It seems that its becoming more and more that just because the platform
is based in space, it is NASA's juristiction. Why don't we leave it up
to the EPA to put satellites in space to monitor greenhouse gases?
Telescopes are a bit of a different monster. They're still about space
exploration, just from a distance. If you include that mission in NASA's
goals, then NASA should be maintaing ground based telescopes too.

My view is NASA should step away from its emphasis on science. NASA
should be developing technology to move out into our universe. It
bothers me when people make the statement that we could get more science
done on mars by sending probes then sending people. That's
debatable...however, I don't think the reason that we should send people
to mars is to get science out of them. I think a goal of seeing if
people can establish a permenant base on mars is a far greater goal than
seeing if life once existed on mars.

If you share my view that its not all about acquiring knowledge, then
you'd understand why it's no big deal if the Hubble happens to fall.
However, if your view is that we need to understand as much as possible
as quickly as possible about our universe then you'd want to say screw
the danger of not having a safe haven and get a shuttle up to the Hubble
ASAP, and I respect that.

Tom Kent

On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 19:49:31 GMT, Tom Kent
wrote:

Why is NASA in the telescope
building buisness?

Because they are satellites and NASA has been tasked with overseeing
the construction and launch of all US civil satellites. Other entities
do tend to run the satellites once they're operational... such as
weather satellites under the control of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and Hubble under the Space Telescope
Science Institute (part NASA, part NSF).

Or the monitoring of greenhouse gases buisness for
that matter?
It seems that its becoming more and more that just because the platform
is based in space, it is NASA's juristiction.

Why don't we leave it up
to the EPA to put satellites in space to monitor greenhouse gases?

The EPA is not the correct organization, you're probably thinking of
NOAA. And NOAA is involved with NASA in the Earth Science Enterprise.

Telescopes are a bit of a different monster. They're still about space
exploration, just from a distance. If you include that mission in NASA's
goals, then NASA should be maintaing ground based telescopes too.

No, operating ground-based telescopes is a vastly different
undertaking than operating unmanned orbital telescopes.

Brian

In article ,
Tom Kent wrote:
I don't know of a lot of science missions that are cancelled.

That says more about your limited knowledge than about the state of NASA
science missions, I'm afraid. The canceled ones don't generally issue
salvos of press releases and get major media coverage.

Hubble made it...

Only after quite a struggle, though -- Hubble was originally supposed to
be a mid-1970s project, and it ended up launching at the end of the 1980s.
Moreover, that was a "flagship" project -- NASA could and did sacrifice
other missions to protect Hubble's funding.

...We have all sorts of satellites
and telescopes orbiting the earth, most of which never had to seriously
fight for funding...

You clearly have never participated in trying to get such a mission funded.
*All* of them have to seriously fight for funding.

As a case in point, Hubble originally had an X-ray counterpart, AXAF. It
was repeatedly delayed by funding shortages -- it was supposed to be a
1980s project. A design shakeup in 1992 split it into two spacecraft.
One of them became Chandra, finally launched in 1999... but the other is
dead and forgotten.

...Why is NASA in the telescope
building buisness? Or the monitoring of greenhouse gases buisness for
that matter?
It seems that its becoming more and more that just because the platform
is based in space, it is NASA's juristiction.

This isn't something that's "becoming" -- it's always been this way.
Now mind you, it probably shouldn't be, but it is.

Telescopes are a bit of a different monster. They're still about space
exploration, just from a distance.

Uh, no, they're about astronomy, which only rarely has much to to with
space exploration, despite some superficial similarity.

My view is NASA should step away from its emphasis on science. NASA
should be developing technology to move out into our universe.

There's a lot to be said for that. Trouble is, when NASA proposes to
spend money developing such technology, the response tends to be "and just
which *science missions* require this technology?"
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |

(Henry Spencer) wrote:

Hubble made it...

Only after quite a struggle, though -- Hubble was originally supposed to
be a mid-1970s project, and it ended up launching at the end of the 1980s.
Moreover, that was a "flagship" project -- NASA could and did sacrifice
other missions to protect Hubble's funding.

To be fair; a good chunk of Hubble's delay wasn't strictly the
programs fault, but that of the Shuttle.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

In article ,
Derek Lyons wrote:
Only after quite a struggle, though -- Hubble was originally supposed to
be a mid-1970s project, and it ended up launching at the end of the 1980s.

To be fair; a good chunk of Hubble's delay wasn't strictly the
programs fault, but that of the Shuttle.

And to be fair: the shuttle got *blamed* for most of the delays, but in
fact the development of Hubble itself hit all sorts of snags (many of them
caused or aggravated by tight budgets), and it was really convenient to be
able to point the finger at the shuttle. Hubble spent very little of that
time, only a year or so if I recall correctly, just sitting around waiting
for transportation. Most of the rest of the time, the Hubble engineering
team was busy solving problems and hoping their ride wouldn't be ready to
leave before they were.
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |

Henry Spencer ) wrote:
: In article ,
: Derek Lyons wrote:
: Only after quite a struggle, though -- Hubble was originally supposed to
: be a mid-1970s project, and it ended up launching at the end of the 1980s.
:
: To be fair; a good chunk of Hubble's delay wasn't strictly the
: programs fault, but that of the Shuttle.

: And to be fair: the shuttle got *blamed* for most of the delays, but in
: fact the development of Hubble itself hit all sorts of snags (many of them
: caused or aggravated by tight budgets), and it was really convenient to be
: able to point the finger at the shuttle. Hubble spent very little of that
: time, only a year or so if I recall correctly, just sitting around waiting
: for transportation. Most of the rest of the time, the Hubble engineering
: team was busy solving problems and hoping their ride wouldn't be ready to
: leave before they were.

Didn't the 1986 Challenger disaster have and effect of the HST launch?
Even with all that extra time the mirror had a flaw.

Eric

: --
: "Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
: -- George Herbert |

"Explorer" wrote in message
oups.com...

Better to hold onto existing hardware until the replacement is on
orbit.

I tend to agree.

So, we really need that robot to save Hubble!'

No, we can use the shuttle. We have astronauts who have said they'd be
willing to risk the dangers to fix Hubble (but not for a retrival mission,
which I can understand.)

Keep in mind, while a safe haven is nice, it doesn't completely solve all
the issues. A mission to Hubble has many of the same risks of an ISS
mission. An ATO, an RTLS, TOA, etc all risk the shuttle, regardless of
where you're flying it to.