Space Shuttle, Not Robot, Should Be Used to Service Telescope

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Dec8.html

"Panel Questions Hubble Mission - Space Shuttle, Not Robot, Should Be
Used to Service Telescope"
_Washington Post_ - December 8, 2004

A leading panel of experts handed NASA's leadership a sharp reproof
today, concluding that the space shuttle should be used to service the
Hubble Space Telescope and can do the job without posing unacceptable
risks to shuttle astronauts.

The experts also said in a long-awaited report that NASA's plan to
service the telescope with a robot working from an unmanned spacecraft
was unrealistic, posing technical challenges so complex that they will
be "unlikely" to be resolved in time to prevent Hubble from shutting
down.

The report, prepared for NASA by the independent National Research
Council, a division of the National Academies of Science, was certain to
reopen debate over NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe's January decision to
cancel a scheduled shuttle servicing mission because of the risks to
astronauts.

O'Keefe's announcement, essentially condemning the popular telescope to
death sometime around 2008, provoked national outrage, and NASA
subsequently decided to mount a robotic mission by the end of 2007 to
replace batteries and gyroscopes, add two new instruments and possibly
replace a third.

Engineers at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., have
acknowledged that the mission is one of the most complex space endeavors
ever attempted, but have grown increasingly optimistic about their
ability to accomplish the task, largely because of the skills of a
Canadian-built robot nicknamed "Dextre."

The council's panel, however, reviewed all the tasks associated with the
mission, and concluded that "the likelihood of successful development of
the [Hubble] robotic servicing mission within the baseline 39-month . .
.. schedule is remote."

Instead, today's report said, the panel agreed with a private Aerospace
Corporation analysis prepared for NASA that suggested "that a successful
mission of this level of complexity would require a nominal development
time of the order of 65 months" -- in 2010.

The panel's report also sharply disagreed with O'Keefe's assessment that
the space shuttle could not fly to Hubble and still be in compliance
with the risk reduction recommendations of the Columbia Accident
Investigation Board, the independent panel convened after the space
shuttle Columbia disintegrated on reentry last year.

In order to fulfill the accident board's recommendation that shuttle
crews be able to perform on-board damage inspections and repairs if
needed, NASA has decided that the orbiter will travel only to the
International Space Station, where astronauts can assist with
inspections, provide tools and offer a "safe haven" for shuttle
astronauts if they had to abandon the spacecraft.

The panel's report, however, said that astronauts on a shuttle mission
to Hubble in 2006 or 2007 would have their ability to inspect and repair
the orbiter with the aid of sensors and spacewalks, and could "power
down" the shuttle in a cocoon-like safe haven mode for up to 30 days,
and could get an additional 15 days with modifications that would take
two years to install.

Shuttle astronauts have serviced the 14-year-old orbiting Hubble
telescope before, including a mission in 1993 that repaired a critical
flaw in its main mirror, rescuing the program from an embarrassing
manufacturing defect.

NASA asked the National Research Council, which convenes panels of
nationally known experts to study scientific questions posed by
government agencies, to examine the space agency's plans for Hubble in
March.

[end of article]

Here's the actual NAS press release:
http://www4.nationalacademies.org/ne...1?OpenDocument

Well, we surely all realise that using Astronauts is the most reliable way
to service the telescope, and we also know there would be no shortage of
volunteers to go.

The committee seems to have been commissioned to look at this by Nasa
itself, so one wonders is JW would allow it.

I'd suggest there are several reasons why not. First, if something serious
did go wrong so soon after the advice of the Columbia enquiry, then
questions would be asked, such as, why did you do it? Then there would be
the embarrassing problem of extending the building of the station to allow
only two Shuttles to do it.

I'd say, it is worth the risk, as surely the work of men in space, doing
real things has got to be worth the risk as it is going to be something
that humans in space will get asked to do more and more, in unknown
situations. It would, as has been said, be better if some kind of repair
technology for rcc panels had been possible, as at least then, any Shuttle
damage could be built in to a reasonable risk assessment.

It needs someone with nerve and authority to grasp this one and run with it.

Brian

--

Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________

On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 11:20:53 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Brian
Gaff" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:


Well, we surely all realise that using Astronauts is the most reliable way
to service the telescope, and we also know there would be no shortage of
volunteers to go.

Also (ironically, given how the robot folks are always telling us much
more cost effective they are) the cheapest.

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 11:20:53 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Brian
: Gaff" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
: in such a way as to indicate that:

:
: Well, we surely all realise that using Astronauts is the most reliable way
: to service the telescope, and we also know there would be no shortage of
: volunteers to go.

: Also (ironically, given how the robot folks are always telling us much
: more cost effective they are) the cheapest.

Well since we have been on Mars with only robots, I think that they may
have a point.

I don't know about you, but I find it much easier to mourn the loss of a
robot than I do people.

Eric

Are not people able to make their own life choices then? One assumes that
the eventuality of not coming back alive is in the minds of anyone who goes
there, and their families and friends.

In the end, you can die crossing the road, and people still cross roads.

Brian

--

Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


"Eric Chomko" wrote in message
...
Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 11:20:53 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Brian
: Gaff" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
: in such a way as to indicate that:

:
: Well, we surely all realise that using Astronauts is the most reliable
way
: to service the telescope, and we also know there would be no shortage
of
: volunteers to go.

: Also (ironically, given how the robot folks are always telling us much
: more cost effective they are) the cheapest.

Well since we have been on Mars with only robots, I think that they may
have a point.

I don't know about you, but I find it much easier to mourn the loss of a
robot than I do people.

Eric

The unknown here is that if a manned flight were ok'ed but by the time
that flight could be taken out of mothballs and scheduled it might be
2007 , by that time Hubble may be a 'dead duck'.
One would think that a relacement 'Hubble' would be the most cost
effective way to go.

wrote in message
oups.com...
The unknown here is that if a manned flight were ok'ed but by the time
that flight could be taken out of mothballs and scheduled it might be
2007 , by that time Hubble may be a 'dead duck'.
One would think that a relacement 'Hubble' would be the most cost
effective way to go.

There is an argument for that. The Kodak blank is still out there
someplace.

In any case, keep in mind a Hubble mission was in the works and well along
before Columbia changed everything.

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


wrote in message
oups.com...
The unknown here is that if a manned flight were ok'ed but by the
time that flight could be taken out of mothballs and scheduled it
might be 2007 , by that time Hubble may be a 'dead duck'.
One would think that a relacement 'Hubble' would be the most cost
effective way to go.

There is an argument for that. The Kodak blank is still out there
someplace.

As are WFPC-3 and the other replacement instruments, plus new gyros and
batteries - all built for the HST SM-04 mission.

About all that's left to build would be a new hull and new solar arrays.

On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 18:28:31 +0000 (UTC),
(Eric Chomko) wrote:


: Also (ironically, given how the robot folks are always telling us much
: more cost effective they are) the cheapest.

Well since we have been on Mars with only robots, I think that they may
have a point.

Not really. We went to the moon with robots first, too. But the
astronauts who followed did several orders of magnitude more surface
exploration than the robots, while their cost was not several orders
of magnitude more than the robots.

I don't know about you, but I find it much easier to mourn the loss of a
robot than I do people.

Of course we all do. But humans themselves travelling the cosmos have
an infinitely greater ability to inspire. Witness the millions in the
free world who stopped what they were doing to watch John Glenn's
first launch, or Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon. Viking and the
MERs simply can't compare.

"The meek shall inherit the Earth. The rest of us will go to the
stars."

Brian