NASA Urged to Reconsider Hubble Decision

I would *much* rather see a final upgrading mission that allowed the
Hubble to operate indefinitely unattended - but with reduced
capabilities in some areas to make that possible - and boosted it into
a higher orbit.

Ahh they should service it once more while keeping a backup shuttle on the pad
prepped for launch. Then send the backup to ISS after the hubble service
mission is back safe and sound.

attach a dock point to hubble for later operations too. Boost its orbit to the
max our shuttle can.

That should keep iit operational till the new launch system is working and the
decision can be made then wether to destroy it.

heck a final shuttle flight might be retrieving hubble. it could take something
else up, send it on its way then go pick up hubble and bring it home.

A mission like this would be a BIG PR splash. Better than destroying hubble.

"Mark Lopa" wrote in message
...
Plus, it would be a real shame not to get this into the Smithsonian. I
think everyone just
assumed this would happen. But would that have to be an entire mission
itself...just to bring
it back?

I agree with another post...I astronauts would jump at the opportuity to
not only fly a
mission to service the HST, but to also bring it home. If I wold hate to
see it just die and
burn up, I can't image how folks in the organization feel.

Mark


The astronauts (via Grunsfeld) I believe said they would service the HST but
did not want to bring it back. They told this to the Bahcall committee last
year that was exploring the future of HST.

Jason

"Brian Thorn" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 11:53:32 -0500, Mark Lopa wrote:

I agree with another post...I astronauts would jump at the opportuity to
not only fly a
mission to service the HST, but to also bring it home.

The astronaut corps evidently has already weighed-in against a Hubble
Retrieval Mission. I'm sure they'd agree to fly SM-4, but they clearly
are against risking their lives just to bring home a trophy for the
Smithsonian.

If I wold hate to see it just die and
burn up, I can't image how folks in the organization feel.

Hubble is a great instrument, but what makes the Hubble team special
compared to, say, the IRAS, COBE, or Compton folks?

Brian


What makes Hubble different is that it is the most successful scientific
instrument in the history of the world.


Jason

Bruce Sterling Woodcock wrote:

Unless we lose another orbiter and 7 astronauts because
we couldn't inspect and repair tile damage on-orbit
without an ISS visit.

Or unless we spend potentially $1B dollars to specifically
design and implement a non-ISS on-orbit inspection,
repair, and potential rescue scheme, which would only
be used ONCE. To keep the HST operating for 4-10
more years at a cost of $250M/year.

What is your proposed inspection/repair system in case of an ATO abort on a
station mission? You can't make it to the station, and you may have
catastrophic TPS damage. What do you do?

ISTM that a standalone tile-repair solution is required *even for station
missions*.

--Chris

Hallerb wrote:

Ahh they should service it once more while keeping a backup shuttle on the
pad prepped for launch. Then send the backup to ISS after the hubble
service mission is back safe and sound.

Well, that would eliminate the perceived "schedule pressure" on NASA to
finish the station that seems to be felt around these parts.

Heck, why bother finishing the station if it's going to be ditched in the
Pacific a few years after completion? What's the point?

attach a dock point to hubble for later operations too. Boost its orbit to
the max our shuttle can.

Very good idea. HST has attachment hardware for shuttle repair missions, but
it would appear to be sorely inadequate for an unmanned deorbit mission.
Why not attach some guidance/capture hardware - suitable for use by an
unmanned tug - during SM4? It would make things much easier.

That should keep iit operational till the new launch system is working and
the decision can be made then wether to destroy it.

HST should continue flying until a suitable UV astronomy replacement is
planned and funded.

heck a final shuttle flight might be retrieving hubble. it could take
something else up, send it on its way then go pick up hubble and bring it
home.

They did that for the LDEF retrieval. The only issue is that there's nothing
suitable to be launched. A couple of Starshines in gascans?

A mission like this would be a BIG PR splash. Better than destroying
hubble.

Definitely. It would be great publicity, and would make a fitting final
shuttle mission.

--Chris

In article , Rand Simberg
wrote:

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 17:05:58 -0600, in a place far, far away, Brian
Thorn made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 11:53:32 -0500, Mark Lopa wrote:

I agree with another post...I astronauts would jump at the opportuity to
not only fly a
mission to service the HST, but to also bring it home.

The astronaut corps evidently has already weighed-in against a Hubble
Retrieval Mission. I'm sure they'd agree to fly SM-4, but they clearly
are against risking their lives just to bring home a trophy for the
Smithsonian.

Then I'd say we need some new astronauts. They've certainly risked
their lives for lesser causes, and I'd risk my life just to go into
space.

So I'm glad you're willing to risk theirs When the new Smithsonian
museum opened it was mentioned that Hubble wouldn't be brought back
down, as iirc the shuttle has never landed with that much weight in it
and it just wasn't worth the risk. I'd like to bring it down, but I
have an image of it not tied down enough in the cargo bay and shifting
at the wrong time...

--
Chris Mack "Refugee, total ****. That's how I've always seen us.
'Invid Fan' Not a help, you'll admit, to agreement between us."
-'Deal/No Deal', CHESS

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 18:23:27 GMT, "Jason Rhodes"
wrote:


What makes Hubble different is that it is the most successful scientific
instrument in the history of the world.

That is very much debatable. In astronomy alone, Hale and Mt. Wilson
give it a run for its money.

Brian

On 30 Jan 2004 13:41:23 GMT, (Hallerb) wrote:


Ahh they should service it once more while keeping a backup shuttle on the pad
prepped for launch. Then send the backup to ISS after the hubble service
mission is back safe and sound.

This would be in violation of CAIB recommendations, which say they
must have stand-alone repair capability.

Are you now urging NASA to ignore outside safety advice. Quite a
departure for you, Bob.

Brian

The decision to ditch Hubble was explained by O'Keefe as being one of safety for the servicing
crew. I agree that needless risks should be avoided. Yet it strikes me that servicing
scientific devices like Hubble is exactly one of the reasons we employ astronauts. The
telescope has been a goldmine of scientific discovery, opening the unseeable and untouchable
to a world that will likely never get to visit those places. Space is a dangerous
environment, but it can be sensibly approached and entered. Dumping HST just to get rid of it
seems to bele the whole reason for haviing a space program to begin with.
Putting a shuttle into orbit merely to catch it for mounting at the Smithsonian is a waste,
and dragging it into the payload bay would be a pretty hairy operation. Keeping the telescope
in service seems more sensible with a pretty good payback.

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 17:04:02 -0600, Brian Thorn
wrote:

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 18:23:27 GMT, "Jason Rhodes"
wrote:

What makes Hubble different is that it is the most successful scientific
instrument in the history of the world.

That is very much debatable. In astronomy alone, Hale and Mt. Wilson
give it a run for its money.

I doubt that the Hubble can even compare to the simple Telescope,
which has for a very long time offered scientific insight into this
part of the Universe that we can see.

The Hubble is just the latest brief item of wonderment in the much
larger history of the Telescope, where you can rest assured the much
better telescopes are to follow.

Cardman
http://www.cardman.com
http://www.cardman.co.uk