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

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

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6671864/



By James Oberg

NBC News space analyst

Special to MSNBC

Updated: 6:59 p.m. ET Dec. 7, 2004An "out-of-the-box" plan to put a new
space

habitat in orbit could be a leading contender for saving the Hubble Space

Telescope, private-sector analysts say in a proposal being prepared for
NASA.

The habitat could be used as an emergency safe haven during the Hubble
servicing

mission, and then could serve as a base for wider commercial and exploratory

space travel.

"Jim Oberg" wrote in message
...

The habitat could be used as an emergency safe haven during the Hubble
servicing

mission, and then could serve as a base for wider commercial and
exploratory

space travel.


Works for me. We have to stop thinking about "THE Space station" and think
about space stations.

Get Bigalow to front the cost of the module, NASA covers launch costs, after
Hubble repair mission, Bigalow assumes ownership and goes his own way.

Greg D. Moore \(Strider\) wrote:
"Jim Oberg" wrote:
The habitat could be used as an emergency safe haven during the Hubble
servicing mission, and then could serve as a base for wider commercial and
exploratory space travel.

Works for me. We have to stop thinking about "THE Space station" and think
about space stations.

Get Bigalow to front the cost of the module, NASA covers launch costs, after
Hubble repair mission, Bigalow assumes ownership and goes his own way.

Someone should forward this idea to NASA and Bigelow.


-george william herbert

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.

"Explorer" wrote in message
oups.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.


That's putting the cart before the horse.

If we want to develop automated R&D we can do it at ISS far cheaper and
easier.


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.


There's nothing about HST that makes it the only choice for this.

Greg D. Moore \(Strider\) ) wrote:

: "Explorer" wrote in message
: oups.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.


: That's putting the cart before the horse.

: If we want to develop automated R&D we can do it at ISS far cheaper and
: easier.

Right, but thre is nothing like an actual practical application like
fixing the Hubble.

: 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.
:

: There's nothing about HST that makes it the only choice for this.

Right, but HST is in need of a fix by 2007. Can you think of anything else
that has a similar need? The point is that robot repair technology hasn't
been tested. Testing it before we go to HST may be the prudent thing to
do. But once tested, I can't think of a better first real application
than HST.

Eric

"There's nothing about HST that makes it the only choice for this."

Yes there is, there is a *budget* for development of robotic servicing
for HST. If this budget is compromised by diverting money towards
Shuttle servicing of HST with this Safe Haven, there won't be enough
money for the robotic technologies - $2.2 billion is what the Aerospace
Corp says is needed.

"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!

In article 4,
Tom Kent wrote:
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...

Unfortunately, there is *nothing* in the pipeline that is a direct and
complete replacement for Hubble. In particular, JWST -- assuming it
actually flies -- completely lacks Hubble's visible and UV capabilities,
and despite what the IR astronomers say, those remain important and
heavily used.

There wouldn't be a tenth so much interest in saving Hubble if it were
about to be obsolete.
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |