HST repair mission "What if" poll

[Leovinus]

Assume you are on an HST repair mission and the unthinkable happens -- you have a Columbia-type heat shield problem that rules out re-entry. Assume that they can't launch a rescue mission in time before you run out of air even at maximum conservation. Do you go ahead and repair the HST even though you know this will cut your life by a day or two? The benefit will be that you have given a gift to all mankind. In addition, it might make you feel better about your fate and being busy is better than sitting around waiting to die.<br /><br /><span method="POST" action="/dopoll.php"></span> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[kane007]

Yes.<br /><br />In some quarters this may appear a bit unfeeling, but the astronauts are so professional that I believe they wouldn't want there mission to be totally in vain.

 

[dogfish6sp]

Sure.. Wouldn't want to have died for nothing.

 

[erioladastra]

You can debate but in reality this would never happen. Everything would be so focused on whatever could be do that there is no way the repair portion could continue. They would not be able to proceed without the ground and the ground would be 110% working recovery options.

 

[llivinglarge]

S_G... I'm surprised at you.<br /><br />That's false!<br /><br />Why have I heard comm guys saying "SSME at 105%" during a few Endeavour launches?

 

[erioladastra]

Come on S_G, you know what I meant about 110%. Yes, I understood the premise. But I think especially in light of Columbia there would be no "giving up". Like I said, have fun, take the poll but it is way beyond realistic. Besides, the crew would be in continuous comm with family etc. They may be willing to take one for the team but their family would be in pure anguish. Aint gonna happen.

 

[Leovinus]

So you think they would just sit quietly in the corner breathing as slowly as they could till they ran out of air? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[superluminal]

I think the excellent NASA ground team would unite together and save them first and the Hubble if possible.<br /><br />They proved this during Apollo 13.<br /> They certainly are capable of doing it again. <br /><br />However, <br /> If the synopsis was as you say and no rescue was possible in time to save their life,<br /> I think they'd save the Hubble.<br /> <br />So that our eyes could see the future. <br /><br />It's a good question though.<br /><br />If they or any (deceased astronauts) could speak to us.<br /><br /> I don't think that there's one single astronaut that would want humankind to ever give up human space exploration. <br /><br />I do know one thing.<br /> <br />They're all my heroes.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><br /><strong><font size="3" color="#3366ff">Columbia and Challenger </font></strong></p><p><strong><font size="3" color="#3366ff">Starships of Heroes</font></strong></p> </div>

 

[askold]

They might as well fix Hubble because the failure you describe would doom the manned program for a generation or two.<br /><br />

 

[halman]

Of course I would carry on with the repair! How else would I be able to find the instrument case which would fit perfectly in the hole in the TPS? The number of options in a given situation is directly proportionate to how active you are in the situation. Sit on your butts and boohoo? No options. Go out and lose yourself in a challenge, and all kinds of things will come up. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[erioladastra]

Read my post, they will be busy talking with family, and doing other preps.

 

[oscar1]

This may sound a bit dumb, at least to those of you who know exactly how it works, but why isn't Hubble just attached to the ISS? It can then be repaired time and again like 'grandfather's spade'!

 

[MeteorWayne]

The area around the space station is a very dirty environment.<br />Thruster firings, spacecraft coming and going, waste dumps, spatulas, bolts, etc.<br />Not a great place for a space telescope <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[bdewoody]

Question for Shuttle-Guy. Aren't they taking some form of patch material with them nowadays? I think that they would repair the HST. Sitting there talking to family would be sooooo depressing. Like was said they are professionals. It's similar to the B-52 crews who flew in the SAC, they knew that if they ever had to go it was a one way mission.<br /><br />I think that after they repaired the HST they would take their best shot at a repair to the shuttle and then attempt a re-entry or a gamble to get close enough to the ISS for a transfer.<br /><br />That brings up another idea. How hard would it be to design a "lifeboat" that instead of having to withstand a re--entry would only have to have the means to get to the ISS? Or on a HST mission find the room to carry enough fuel to get to the ISS in a worst case situation. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em><font size="2">Bob DeWoody</font></em> </div>

 

[Leovinus]

I know the Apollo CSM and LEM would easily fit in the cargo bay. Maybe the thing to do is carry up an Apollo-type command module capsule that would be that non-reuseable lifeboat. Use the orbiter to do the deorbit burn, then separate from it and reenter in the capsule. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[oscar1]

That is a drawback indeed, but if there is no repair and maintenance done, and/or no new telescope is put in place, we'd have far less I would think.

 

[barrykirk]

The problem is that the shuttle is just barely capable of<br />reaching hubble... At least from my understanding.<br /><br />The extra mass of a "lifeboat" and it wouldn't be able to<br />accomplish it's primary mission.

 

[Leovinus]

If that's true, how did they get the Hubble to its orbit in the first place -- they were carrying Hubble. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[barrykirk]

Well, then I'm probably wrong.<br /><br />Now how do we design a re-entry lifeboat in the little time between now and the servicing mission.

 

[Leovinus]

Take a command module or two out of the museums and slap another coat of paint on them. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[henryhallam]

I'd prefer MOOSE. What a ride.

 

[j05h]

MOOSE is cool. I floored some skydivers at the X Prize Cup with a description of MOOSE. A bunch of people were talking about 62-mile sky dives and I piped up with a description of MOOSE. Dropped jaws all around. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[halman]

BarryKirk,<br /><br />There is no need to spend millions trying to design a 'lifeboat' to be carried on the Hubble servicing mission, for the pure and simple fact that the cause of the foam strikes that damaged at least one other orbiter besides Columbia has been remedied. Oh, certainty is impossible, I realize, but no significant damage to the Thermal Protection System has occured except from foam shed by the External Tank.<br /><br />It is a terrible commentary on the former management of NASA that it took the loss of seven lives and an orbiter to force this issue to be addressed, but it was a correctable problem, which should have been dealt with immediately. To assume that every future flight will suffer the same damage is a groundless premise. Yes, there is always a danger that the TPS will be compromised, but in over 100 flights, the only cause of such damage at a level that threatened the vehicle was a result of impacts from debris from the ET.<br /><br />The procedures that have been implemented for examining the TPS while on orbit are exhuastive, and repair techniques are now available. With several Extra Vehicular Activities already planned for the mission, any additional time needed for repairs to the orbiter are not an issue. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[llivinglarge]

It's not cost effective to shove a few crew capsules or modules in the cargo bay...

 

[Leovinus]

I won't argue with you there.<br /><br />I think that if NASA ever plans to go to Mars, they have to admit that such a mission has very limited rescue possibilities if any. If they can stomach such a mission, then they should man up and risk an HST repair. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>