Hubble II instead of repair mission 4

[wtrix]

Hi!

Maybe it's posted here (i didn't find), but has NASA made calculations on how costly it'd be to replace the Hubble withe the copycat instead of fixing it. Arguments:
1. Fixing it has risks on human lives
2. Hubble itself is old and after the crew leaves the telescope behind, some untouched hardware may broke down
3. Full system is not tested in itself (only land-based mock-up) so we'll never know if it'd really actually work after fixing the way it should
4. We already have the ground back-up mirror that only needs to be coated
5. Making the copy is usually fa cheaper than making the original
6. Delta IV heavy shall be able to lift it even with moderately eased launch profile
7. Hubble's orbit is in high debris area and the telescope is thus in danger of getting hit

In conclusion - my senses say that with the current mission's cost ($1.2 bil - think of it. It's a hefty price tag) we would have a brand new telescope instead.

 

[RS_Russell]

Re: Hubble II

##

 

[wtrix]

Re: Hubble II

As long as we are talking the visible spectrum I would think that given advances in adaptive optics and the ability to build bigger (>10m) ground based telescopes it would be better to spend money on something like the ELT (Extremely Large Telescope). That would eleiminate the need for a costly mission (in possible lives and dollars) into space.

For anything in the IR it might be better to have an orbital facility. JWST is an IR instrument. You could conceivably call it Hubble 2, although Spitzer 2 might be more appropriate.

RSR

You possibly didn't quite get the question.

To put it simply - why fix a thing when you can buy the new one for the same price? Has there been any calculation of replacing Hubble with the copy of itself with unmanned launch?

 

[MeteorWayne]

Re: Hubble II

I don't think it would be as cheap as you think, in any case it's amoot point since the Hubble repair is well under way at the moment.

 

[RS_Russell]

Re: Hubble II

##

 

[CalliArcale]

Re: Hubble II

Hi!

Maybe it's posted here (i didn't find), but has NASA made calculations on how costly it'd be to replace the Hubble withe the copycat instead of fixing it. Arguments:
1. Fixing it has risks on human lives
2. Hubble itself is old and after the crew leaves the telescope behind, some untouched hardware may broke down
3. Full system is not tested in itself (only land-based mock-up) so we'll never know if it'd really actually work after fixing the way it should
4. We already have the ground back-up mirror that only needs to be coated
5. Making the copy is usually fa cheaper than making the original
6. Delta IV heavy shall be able to lift it even with moderately eased launch profile
7. Hubble's orbit is in high debris area and the telescope is thus in danger of getting hit

In conclusion - my senses say that with the current mission's cost ($1.2 bil - think of it. It's a hefty price tag) we would have a brand new telescope instead.

One important consideration is that Hubble II, built with Hubble designs, would have to be launched by Shuttle. Delta IV Heavy has the "horsepower", but it does not have the right vibrational environment. Only Shuttle can launch it.

In essence, instead of getting a new telescope for a billion (which is what the servicing mission amounts to), you'd be getting a new telescope for five or six billion. It would cost more to build a new Hubble than to upgrade the existing one. It would also take longer, which means you'd risk a significant gap in astronomical capabilities between the demise of Hubble and the launch of Hubble II.

So while it is unlikely there will be another spacecraft like Hubble, designed for on-orbit servicing, while we *do* have Hubble, it makes good sense to service it.

 

[Zipi]

Re: Hubble II

I have wondered why NASA didn't build two Hubbles... One which is at orbit and other one which is being serviced. Then just switch those, launch the spare one to the orbit and in the same flight bring other one back to servicing. In this way there would not be need for EVA's and there is a possibility to do much more complicated servicing.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Re: Hubble II

The answer as always is $$$$$$$$$

What other missions would you have given up in order to be able to do that. The MER Rovers? Phoenix? Cassini? New Horizons?

 

[wtrix]

Re: Hubble II

The answer as always is $$$$$$$$$

What other missions would you have given up in order to be able to do that. The MER Rovers? Phoenix? Cassini? New Horizons?

How can You state that? Have You seen any calculations at all? Has anyone made any?
Get that: ESA just launched 2 (read TWO) new telescopes for € 1.9 bil combined! One of them has the largest mirror ever deployed in space at 3.5m diameter (twice the area of Hubble's mirror).

Hubble did cost so much because it was so long in development. Actually every satellite has significant part of it's cost from development. Making a copy must be several times cheaper and faster.

Regarding Delta IV Heavy. Hubble weighs some 11,110 kg. Dealta IV Heavy can lift 25,800 to LEO. AFAIK DIV H has been submitted for human launch as well with softened launch profiles. Those profiles can be used in this case as well. What it means is that during the launch, the motors ar thrusted down and thus there is less acceleration and significantly less vibration. Thrusting down the engines means also that the rocket can lift less mass to orbit, but in that case there's significant reserve.

I know perfectly well that those decisions cannot be turned around and this is barking after the battle. But my intuition says me that NASA management just loves the idea of fixing the "good old" telescope that everybody owes so much to. And when taxpayer money is spent on emotional values (Hubble) and wishful thinking (constellation) only it seems to me that there are some serious problems in the management of the agency.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Re: Hubble II

The answer as always is $$$$$$$$$

What other missions would you have given up in order to be able to do that. The MER Rovers? Phoenix? Cassini? New Horizons?

How can You state that? Have You seen any calculations at all? Has anyone made any?
.

Hey, it's your topic. You do the calculations. Tell us what you think a realistic cost and timeline would be for the Hubble II you propose. We'll work from there.

 

[wtrix]

Re: Hubble II

The answer as always is $$$$$$$$$

What other missions would you have given up in order to be able to do that. The MER Rovers? Phoenix? Cassini? New Horizons?

How can You state that? Have You seen any calculations at all? Has anyone made any?
.

Hey, it's your topic. You do the calculations. Tell us what you think a realistic cost and timeline would be for the Hubble II you propose. We'll work from there.

It's not very difficult although i don't have the precise project numbers. Mission cost is stated to be around $1.2 bil. This far average shuttle launch has cost $1.5 bil. Probably the cost in this case is somewhere around $1 bil including preparing the spare shuttle. That leaves $200 mil for payload and other stuff.

On the other hand we have $ 170 mil average lauch cost of DIV. Probably the DIV H is on the up side which possibly means somewhere around $200mil. Now take the facts - really costly parts of the hubble are made for around $200 mil - what would the rest of it cost? Solar panels are a lot cheaper nowadays. Mirror is already made - only needs some final regrinding, cleaning and coating. So basically one has to make the structure and other smaller optics and that's it - You have Your Hubble II. For somewhere between $500 mil to $ 1 bil. Add the launch costs $200 mil and you're close the current price as of maximum (if not significantly less). Plus:
1. You have your HII properly tested
2. You don't have to risk the human lives
3. You have new telescope instead of repaired one
4. You have properly ground mirror instead of one with "glasses"

But for me it seems that some people prefer repaired car for a new one for the same price.

Nonetheless - all this calc is a big quesstimate. I didn't ask the numbers from You. I asked that does anybody know if the NASA presented this alternative to the congress or they just put the politicians in front of the simplified choice à la "we either repair the Hubble or we lose it". Did THEY make the calculations and if yes the with what results?

Remember - ESA has BETTER telescope in space now (at least in IR area) for the same cost that NASA spent for repairing the old one. Why does NASA need to spend more on rebuilding an old sattelite than ESA spends on making brand new one?

 

[MeteorWayne]

Re: Hubble II

Sure they did, that's why this option was selected.

The best option is to replace the Hubble with the next observatory, the JWST, to go to places and times Hubble couldn't go to.

 

[wtrix]

Re: Hubble II

Sure they did, that's why this option was selected.

The best option is to replace the Hubble with the next observatory, the JWST, to go to places and times Hubble couldn't go to.

Why so sure? JWST requires significant development effort so time and money wise it can't be taken as immediate replacement.

BTW! If Delta IV Heavy can't do the job, Ariane 5 definitely can.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Re: Hubble II

JWST is already being built, that's where the money has gone. Unless you have a few billion that you can come up with out of your own pocket, H2 ain't gonna happen. NASA can't afford it, and Congress isn't going to cough up extra money.

"The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) has been called the successor to the Hubble Space Telescope (HST). But what does this really mean? How will JWST be different than HST? There are some similarities - both telescopes are (or will be) in space. They both seek to improve our understanding of processes like star birth and the evolution of galaxies. However, there are many differences between HST and JWST.

For starters, JWST will primarily look at the Universe in the infrared, while HST studies it at optical and ultra-violet wavelengths. JWST also has a much bigger mirror than HST. This larger light collecting area means that JWST can peer farther back into time than HST is capable of doing. HST is in a very close orbit around the earth, while JWST will be 1.5 million kilometers (km) away at the second Lagrange (L2) point. "

 

[wtrix]

Re: Hubble II

JWST is already being built, that's where the money has gone. Unless you have a few billion that you can come up with out of your own pocket, H2 ain't gonna happen. NASA can't afford it, and Congress isn't going to cough up extra money.

I know pretty well what the JWST is all about. And You don't have to tell me multiple times that H2 won't gonna happen. I just want to know why such a stupid decision (from my point of view) of repairing the ailing Hubble was made in first place. One more prove of the stupidity of such an undertaking is this news: http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/09 ... -bolt.html

ONE BOLT!!! The risks of failing the current mission are unbearably high.

When ESA can make a brand new and BETTER telescope in a few years, why can't NASA do a copy of the current telescope in three years for the same money that ESA spent on a brand new one?

If You state that replacing Hubble with copy was analysed, then I haven't seen a bit of an information about that. There have to have been some discussion about it because it is a difficult matter.

Who makes those decisions? For me it seems that the organization needs a serious restructuring and rebuild from ground up.

I found the following text about NASA-s options:

What Were NASA's Options?

NASA's first option was to not do anything at all. The Hubble maintains its orientation using a complex navigational system. This system in turn relies on six gyroscopes, which help the Hubble maintain its orientation in relation to the Earth. Without proper maintenance, the gyroscopes could fail. After such a failure, NASA would be unable to direct Hubble in the right direction to gather data and images.

The Hubble's batteries are also starting to die. If they aren't replaced, the Hubble will lose power and stop functioning. If NASA chose not to act, the Hubble would likely fail before 2009. NASA would be unable to gather the kind of information and images the Hubble was designed to collect until a replacement telescope could launch -- something that isn't scheduled to happen until 2013.

Eventually, the dead telescope would suffer orbit decay. That means the Earth's gravity would gradually pull the telescope closer to the planet. Left alone, the telescope would reenter the Earth's atmosphere and crash to Earth. NASA probably wouldn't let that happen on its own -- it would be too dangerous without knowing where the telescope would land. Instead, NASA would likely send up a mission, either manned or unmanned, to retrieve the telescope safely or crash it into an unpopulated area, such as an ocean. NASA considered just letting the Hubble die, but an enthusiastic outcry from the scientific community caused NASA officials to reconsider.

The next option was to send up a manned space mission and use astronauts to manually replace, upgrade and repair the Hubble's systems. After the Columbia disaster, NASA was reluctant to risk the lives of astronauts on Hubble repair jobs. Even when the space shuttle program started up again in 2005, astronauts were sent only to the International Space Station. That's because the astronauts could take shelter in the station if something went wrong with the shuttle. There they could await rescue.

The Hubble telescope doesn't have the facilities or equipment required to keep a shuttle crew alive and safe. The telescope is also too far away from the space station for a shuttle to travel to the telescope, then maneuver to the space station. If something went wrong, the astronauts on the mission would be placed in severe danger. For a few years, NASA was unwilling to support a manned mission to repair the telescope.

The third option was to send up a robot to the Hubble telescope to make repairs. NASA began to look into this option in 2004. A robot would allow NASA to make repairs and upgrades without placing human life in danger. But there was also a downside to using a robot. Robots are extremely expensive to design, develop and produce. NASA had to weigh the costs of developing a robot with the benefits of having the Hubble back online.

NASA had a tough decision to make. The scientific community pleaded on the telescope's behalf. But the risk to human life would always be a factor. With that in mind, NASA set out on a specific course of action. Where they ended up was a completely different story.

What did NASA decide to do, and how did the organization's plans change over time? Find out in the next section.

NOBODY in NASA considered replacing it. I know why. the early estimates of the repair mission costs were around $500-600 mil that is utter nonsense. It was quickly realized that $900 mil would be minimum and possible cost is around $1 mil, but the decision was made by then already. Now the cost is estimated to be around $1.2 bil. Typical NASA pattern.

I can understand such mismatches in cost estimates when the mission is something that is never done before. However failing so miserably in predicting Shuttle repair mission costs is plain wrong and that shall not happen in normal organization.

Moreover, I was not alone in my thoughts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Origins_Probe

 

[pathfinder_01]

Re: Hubble II

Hi!

Maybe it's posted here (i didn't find), but has NASA made calculations on how costly it'd be to replace the Hubble withe the copycat instead of fixing it. Arguments:
1. Fixing it has risks on human lives
2. Hubble itself is old and after the crew leaves the telescope behind, some untouched hardware may broke down
3. Full system is not tested in itself (only land-based mock-up) so we'll never know if it'd really actually work after fixing the way it should
4. We already have the ground back-up mirror that only needs to be coated
5. Making the copy is usually fa cheaper than making the original
6. Delta IV heavy shall be able to lift it even with moderately eased launch profile
7. Hubble's orbit is in high debris area and the telescope is thus in danger of getting hit

In conclusion - my senses say that with the current mission's cost ($1.2 bil - think of it. It's a hefty price tag) we would have a brand new telescope instead.

The trouble is you can’t make a copy of hubble and put it into another rocket. You would have to develop another telescope which will likely cost more than the mission to fix it. If hubble had not been built for the shuttle then it would probably be cheaper to replace than repair.


Hubble was built to be launched/serviced by the shuttle. Even if the rocket has the horsepower there are other considerations like can it fit (the shuttle’s cargo bay can handle larger cargo than most other launchers). How will it attach to a different rocket? The shuttle’s attachments are to the side most rockets attach on the base.

Also when cali said vibration, it is more complex than amount of vibration. The frequency of vibration is different. The big fear is that the launcher generates resonance in the cargo. In which case it will not take a large force to break something.

Every launcher puts vibrational and other stresses on it’s cargo. Engineers, build satellites to withstand those stresses. Hubble was built to withstand the stresses the shuttle would put on it, not another launcher. To replace Hubble you would need to develop one that is built to be launched by that other launcher.

 

[wtrix]

Re: Hubble II

The trouble is you can’t make a copy of hubble and put it into another rocket. You would have to develop another telescope which will likely cost more than the mission to fix it. If hubble had not been built for the shuttle then it would probably be cheaper to replace than repair.


Hubble was built to be launched/serviced by the shuttle. Even if the rocket has the horsepower there are other considerations like can it fit (the shuttle’s cargo bay can handle larger cargo than most other launchers). How will it attach to a different rocket? The shuttle’s attachments are to the side most rockets attach on the base.

Also when cali said vibration, it is more complex than amount of vibration. The frequency of vibration is different. The big fear is that the launcher generates resonance in the cargo. In which case it will not take a large force to break something.

Every launcher puts vibrational and other stresses on it’s cargo. Engineers, build satellites to withstand those stresses. Hubble was built to withstand the stresses the shuttle would put on it, not another launcher. To replace Hubble you would need to develop one that is built to be launched by that other launcher.

It is not true that Hubble is so big that it won't fit on to the other rockets. It isn't. Hubble's diameter is not much bigger than it's main mirror's one which is around 2,5 meters. ESA just launched the telescope with 3,5 meter mirror without problems (and the other one beneath it). In fact, Delta IV has a diameter of 5 meters which means that you can almost launch TWO Hubbles side-by-side. In fact, Hubble didn't even fill the shuttle's payload bay, which is 4,6m wide.

Remember, Hubble weighs 11 tons. Delta IV Heavy, Atlas V HLV DEC and Ariane 5 can all lift more than 20 tons. There's plenty of space to add supportive frames and readjust launch profiles. You can even add some vibration damping equipment if needed. Moreover - when the new mirror is to be made from silicon carbide, the mass would go down considerably, making things even cheaper (smaller rocket can be used) and easier.

You don't have to redesign the telescope. You just have to reinforce it here and there. And you can ground test it for the specific rocket. And the rocket's launch profile can be adjusted. So, this argument will not hold water for a minute.

The only argument that I can perhaps buy into is that the second version of the same telescope would have been more expencive than $1bil somehow. Which is hard to believe. Very hard. If you don't believe me, look at here: http://www.pha.jhu.edu/hop/

 

[MeteorWayne]

Re: Hubble II

Moreover - when the new mirror is to be made from silicon carbide, the mass would go down considerably, making things even cheaper (smaller rocket can be used) and easier.

http://www.pha.jhu.edu/hop/

Is that the one you were referring to here?:
"4. We already have the ground back-up mirror that only needs to be coated"

 

[wtrix]

Re: Hubble II

Moreover - when the new mirror is to be made from silicon carbide, the mass would go down considerably, making things even cheaper (smaller rocket can be used) and easier.

http://www.pha.jhu.edu/hop/

Is that the one you were referring to here?:
"4. We already have the ground back-up mirror that only needs to be coated"

About the silicon carbide talk: Herschel's mirror is made of it.

Nope, I didn't refer to HOP when talking about back-up mirror. Here: http://www.nytimes.com/1990/07/18/us/hu ... nused.html and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_telescope and elsewhere as well.

NASA has a backup mirror for the Hubble Space Telescope that could have replaced the flawed mirror on the $1.5 billion craft and would even have been optically superior in some respects, astronomers said yesterday.

It's now in permanent display in Smithsonian. This is it:

 

[wtrix]

Does anyone think that I may have a point here?

 

[silylene]

Re: Hubble II

It's now in permanent display in Smithsonian. This is it:

Interestingly, the backup mirror was made by Kodak & ITEK, and probably doesn't have that awful spherical abberation flaw that plagued the mirror made by Perkin Elmer, and launched with Hubble.

Isn't a Hubble 5 mission still required to de-orbit the craft after its mission ends, to prevent it from possibly crashing onto a city? This may not have to be manned; but if it is unmanned, it will required a rather advanced robot to grab and secure Hubble before firing the de-orbit engines.

 

[rubicondsrv]

Re: Hubble II

Isn't a Hubble 5 mission still required to de-orbit the craft after its mission ends, to prevent it from possibly crashing onto a city? This may not have to be manned; but if it is unmanned, it will required a rather advanced robot to grab and secure Hubble before firing the de-orbit engines.

that flight may not happen.

the costs are far too high to justify a de-orbit flight for risk reduction.
500+million buys alot of liability coverage.

however if it can provide other benifits as a technology demonstrator flight it could be justified.

 

[gpurcell]

You're using the wrong cost metric. Average cost is irrelevent since many of the costs are fixed and will be incurred through the flyout of ISS construction regardless of whether the Hubble servicing mission flies or not. What is important is the marginal cost of the servicing flight...and that will be a heck of a lot less that $1 billion. So by tossing a few hundred million extra in the manned spaceflight kitty you get a rejuvenated Hubble.

Oh, BTW, the new ESA telescopes are not really comparable to Hubble. Herschel is IR only and will only last three years. Planck is microwaves. While in their narrow missions they exceed Hubble, Hubble is a far more capable general purpose spacecraft.

 

[silylene]

Re: Hubble II and Hubble III

Isn't a Hubble 5 mission still required to de-orbit the craft after its mission ends, to prevent it from possibly crashing onto a city? This may not have to be manned; but if it is unmanned, it will required a rather advanced robot to grab and secure Hubble before firing the de-orbit engines.

that flight may not happen.

the costs are far too high to justify a de-orbit flight for risk reduction.
500+million buys alot of liability coverage.

however if it can provide other benifits as a technology demonstrator flight it could be justified.

I checked further on this. During repair mission 4, a special connector grip is being installed onto Hubble for a future de-orbit craft to attach to. There are also discussions starting to plan an Orion mission to Hubble, for the purpose of attaching the de-orbiting booster.

On the subject of extra mirrors for "Hubble II", i looked further into the old reports on this subject, and there are two extra mirrors, one built by ITEK and one built by Kodak. The ITEK mirror was subsequently installed into a ground-based telescope, and as mentioned earlier the Kodak mirror is on display in the Smithsonian. Both mirrors probably do not have any flaws. The mirrors were the most delayed and expensive part of the original Hubble build. So conceivably, with the two new mirrors, Hubble II and Hubble III could be built and launched !

 

[RS_Russell]

Re: Hubble II

##