Don't Desert Hubble

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040...3526-3983r.htm

Don't desert Hubble
By Robert Zubrin
February 12, 2004

On Jan. 16, NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe announced his decision
to cancel all future space shuttle missions to the Hubble Space
Telescope, including SM4, the nearly ready-to-go flight that would have
installed the new Cosmic Origins Spectrograph and Wide Field Camera 3
instruments. This decision came atop an overall policy shift by the Bush
administration to phase out the Shuttle and International Space Station
(ISS) commitments by 2010, thereby clearing the way to redeploy their
budgets toward supporting human exploration of the moon and Mars. While
the redirection of NASA's human spaceflight program from Earth orbital
activities toward planetary exploration was a valuable step, canceling
the Hubble upgrade mission was a huge mistake.
The Hubble Space Telescope has been the most scientifically
productive spacecraft in history. Through Hubble, we have observed
directlytheplanetary cometary impacts that drive the evolution of life,
witnessed the birth of stars that make all life possible and measured
the size and age of the universe itself. The astronaut missions that
have made this possible stand as epic achievements in the chronicles of
humanity's search for truth. How can the decision to abort such a
program be justified?
Certainly not on the basis of cost. Given the commitment to continue
flying the shuttle program through 2010, adding the two shuttle flights
required to upgrade Hubble and then reboost it to make it operational
through 2015 would only add about $200 million to the shuttle program's
$24 billion cost, while increasing its science return by several orders
of magnitude.
Safety arguments won't wash either. It is true that when flying to
the ISS, the crew has a safe-haven on orbit, which is not available to
Hubble flights. However, Hubble missions leave the Cape flying
east-southeast, while launches to ISS go northeast. Thus, in the event
of a launch abort, Hubble missions can ditch in warm tropical waters,
while ISS flights must come down in the frigid North Atlantic, where the
crew's chances for survival would be much less.
Furthermore, because ISS flights take off with much heavier payloads
than Hubble flights, they require full functionality of all three
engines for nearly 100 seconds longer than Hubble missions if they are
to perform an abort-to-orbit. This makes landing in the drink on ISS
missions considerably more likely. In addition, NASA calculations show
that the danger of fatal impacts by micrometeors and orbital debris
(MMOD) to be over 60 percent greater on ISS missions than Hubble
missions. For example, on STS 113, the last shuttle station flight, the
calculated probability of loss of vehicle and crew by MMOD was 1/250. In
contrast, the last Hubble servicing mission (STS-109) had a much lower
calculated MMOD probability of 1/414. If we put this information
together with the fact that only two shuttle missions are needed to make
Hubble operational for another decade, while more than 20 are needed to
complete the ISS, it is apparent that Mr. O'Keefe's assessment that the
Hubbleprogramposes greater risk than the ISS program is nonsense.
The decision to flee the Hubble program will cause harm far beyond
the damage it does to astronomy. In fact, it completely undermines
thepresident'scallfor human planetary exploration. Unless we are willing
to accept risks equal to, and in fact significantly greater than, those
required to upgrade the space telescope, human explorers are not going
to the moon, Mars, or anywhere else. And if we are not going to engage
in humaninterplanetary travel, then the primary rationale for the Space
Station program — learning about the effects of long-duration
spaceflight on human physiology — falls apart as well.
The point is not that we should be blase about risk. The point is
that there are certain things that require accepting risk to achieve and
are worth the price that such a course will entail. The search for
truth, carried forward by necessarily perilous human activities in space
— whether at Hubble or on Mars — is one of them.
In the face of massive public outrage about his decision, Mr.
O'Keefe has agreed to allow it to be reviewed by Columbia Accident
Investigation Board ChairmanAdm.Hal Gehman. Hopefully, Mr. Gehman will
rectify the situation. But if he does not, then Congress will have to
act. Lawmakers will have to take action, because ultimately the question
of whether we do what it takes to keep our eyes open upon the heavens is
not one of the technicalities of shuttle flight safety, but of societal
values.
The desertion of Hubble is an offense against science and
civilization. It represents a departure from the pioneer spirit, and its
ratification as policy would preclude any possibility of a human future
in space. It is an inexcusable decision, and it needs to be reversed.

Robert Zubrin is president of the Mars Society and author of the
books "The Case for Mars," "Entering Space" and "Mars on Earth."

[end of article]

--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com

Hmm, I have not seen anywhere any detailed, data supported reasons for the
cancellations yet. Lots of words, but no arguable reason for it.

so, what is the reason?

I imagine that if, and I hope when you get a new President, things will be
sorted out.

I also think that Nasa will be ill advised to spend too much money on the
Shrubs plans, as if a new broom gets in, things may change.... yet again...
sigh....

Brian

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





---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free, so there!
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.580 / Virus Database: 367 - Release Date: 06/02/04

"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...

I also think that Nasa will be ill advised to spend too much money on the
Shrubs plans, as if a new broom gets in, things may change.... yet
again...
sigh....


Brian, thanks for characterizing yourself so clearly by your contemptuous
language.

Brian Gaff wrote:
Hmm, I have not seen anywhere any detailed, data supported reasons for the
cancellations yet. Lots of words, but no arguable reason for it.

so, what is the reason?

Seems perfectly simple and well-defined to me. No on-orbit repair
capability because it's too expensive, no ready rescue flight because
it's too expensive, so all shuttle flight go to ISS as a safe haven.

What's so hard to understand about that?

Brett

"Brett Buck" wrote in message
...


Brian Gaff wrote:
Hmm, I have not seen anywhere any detailed, data supported reasons for
the
cancellations yet. Lots of words, but no arguable reason for it.

so, what is the reason?

Seems perfectly simple and well-defined to me. No on-orbit repair
capability because it's too expensive, no ready rescue flight because
it's too expensive, so all shuttle flight go to ISS as a safe haven.

What's so hard to understand about that?

A whole lot - because it is false.

The CAIB report REQUIRES on-orbit repair capability even on trips
to the ISS (because of the possibility of abort-to-orbit scenarios
which cannot reach the ISS. Therefore it is NOT too expensive -
because they are doing it anyway.

It has not been demonstrated that the ISS is any real "safe haven".
There are questions about the Russians ability to make Soyuz capsules
fast enough to offload enough stranded astronauts if something goes
wrong with the ISS. Problems with the systems aboard the ISS (in its
current configuration) will greatly increase as they are overdriven by
having nine astronauts aboard. If an approaching Progress supply craft
goes bump in the night - there is no place left to go.

Flights to the ISS are more stressful to the Shuttle than would be a
flight to Hubble. The payloads are heavier; the inclination requires
more fuel and a longer burn time - all of which add more risk
to such a mission than to a mission to Hubble.

Before the Shuttle launches again it will have a boom extension for
its arm (which was already being developed by Canadarm for
the ISS to enable it to reach all the expected additional components);
some form of repair capability and the means to reach anywhere
on the Shuttle. This will be the case whether it goes to the ISS or
not.

Chosp wrote:

"Brett Buck" wrote in message
...


Brian Gaff wrote:

Hmm, I have not seen anywhere any detailed, data supported reasons for

the

cancellations yet. Lots of words, but no arguable reason for it.

so, what is the reason?

Seems perfectly simple and well-defined to me. No on-orbit repair
capability because it's too expensive, no ready rescue flight because
it's too expensive, so all shuttle flight go to ISS as a safe haven.

What's so hard to understand about that?


A whole lot - because it is false.

The CAIB report REQUIRES on-orbit repair capability even on trips
to the ISS (because of the possibility of abort-to-orbit scenarios
which cannot reach the ISS. Therefore it is NOT too expensive -
because they are doing it anyway.


The CAIB does state that the repair kit can be positioned at
ISS..

Big difference there..

It has not been demonstrated that the ISS is any real "safe haven".
There are questions about the Russians ability to make Soyuz capsules
fast enough to offload enough stranded astronauts if something goes
wrong with the ISS. Problems with the systems aboard the ISS (in its
current configuration) will greatly increase as they are overdriven by
having nine astronauts aboard. If an approaching Progress supply craft
goes bump in the night - there is no place left to go.

Flights to the ISS are more stressful to the Shuttle than would be a
flight to Hubble. The payloads are heavier; the inclination requires
more fuel and a longer burn time - all of which add more risk
to such a mission than to a mission to Hubble.

Before the Shuttle launches again it will have a boom extension for
its arm (which was already being developed by Canadarm for
the ISS to enable it to reach all the expected additional components);
some form of repair capability and the means to reach anywhere
on the Shuttle. This will be the case whether it goes to the ISS or
not.

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 10:08:58 -0800, Brett Buck
wrote:

Seems perfectly simple and well-defined to me. No on-orbit repair
capability because it's too expensive, no ready rescue flight because
it's too expensive, so all shuttle flight go to ISS as a safe haven.

What's so hard to understand about that?

The "no ready rescue flight because it's too expensive" part. It would
be inconvenient (to ISS) but not particularly expensive.

Brian

Brian Thorn wrote:
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 10:08:58 -0800, Brett Buck
wrote:


Seems perfectly simple and well-defined to me. No on-orbit repair
capability because it's too expensive, no ready rescue flight because
it's too expensive, so all shuttle flight go to ISS as a safe haven.

What's so hard to understand about that?


The "no ready rescue flight because it's too expensive" part. It would
be inconvenient (to ISS) but not particularly expensive.

Pretty expensive for a mission that was going to end relatively soon
in any case.

Brett

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 23:28:10 GMT, Brett Buck
wrote:

What's so hard to understand about that?

The "no ready rescue flight because it's too expensive" part. It would
be inconvenient (to ISS) but not particularly expensive.

Pretty expensive for a mission that was going to end relatively soon
in any case.

I don't follow... we've already spent a small fortune on SM-4, and the
replacement equipment already exists. So SM-4 by itself doesn't
present a particularly great cost to NASA. The big costs will be the
RCC repair technology, and NASA has essentially said SM-4 isn't worth
that cost. That puts the ball in Congress' court: they either have to
tell NASA to waive the CAIB recommendation or cough up the funding for
the repairs.

The rescue Shuttle would simply be the next scheduled Shuttle launch,
with some preparation to allow quick offloading of the ISS hardware
and loading of Shuttle/Shuttle rendezvous software. NASA holds the
SM-4 Shuttle until the ISS Shuttle is on the other pad a week or two
away from launch.

This is a scheduling inconvenience to be sure, but the history of the
Shuttle is replete with scheduling problems. What's one more?

Brian

I have to say that I am surprised how lightly everyone is taking the
ISS safe haven concept for Shuttle. What if a Shuttle is stranded at
ISS, and something goes wrong with the next Progress that is required
to keep the 10 person crew going? Is the ISS safe haven truly 2 fault
tolerant?



Brett Buck wrote in message ...
Brian Gaff wrote:
Hmm, I have not seen anywhere any detailed, data supported reasons for the
cancellations yet. Lots of words, but no arguable reason for it.

so, what is the reason?

Seems perfectly simple and well-defined to me. No on-orbit repair
capability because it's too expensive, no ready rescue flight because
it's too expensive, so all shuttle flight go to ISS as a safe haven.

What's so hard to understand about that?

Brett