STS-125 - Hubble repair decision very soon - update

[kane007]

Yahoo News 2006/10/23 <br /><br />CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. - The fate of what some scientists dub "the people's telescope" is again up in the air as<br />NASA decides soon whether to squeeze in a last astronaut repair mission to extend the life of the<br />Hubble Space Telescope.<br /><br />On Friday, NASA engineers will debate the safety of sending a fifth and final manned space shuttle flight to the 16-year-old telescope, probably in 2008. Soon afterward, NASA Administrator Michael Griffin will make the final call.<br /><br />His decision could prolong Hubble's ability to capture some the most spectacular images of the universe well into the next decade or allow the telescope to deteriorate into oblivion by 2009 or 2010.<br /><br />Griffin worked on Hubble earlier in his career and recently described it as "one of the great scientific instruments of all time." Unlike his predecessor, he has expressed a willingness to repair it.<br /><br />"If we can do it safely, we want to do it," Griffin said. "But we have new constraints on ... the space shuttle system. We have a new understanding of its fragility and vulnerability."<br /><br />The final Hubble repair mission was canceled by former NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe 2 1/2 years ago after the space shuttle Columbia disaster which killed seven astronauts in 2003. The decision was roundly criticized by scientists and politicians, but the ex-administrator cited the risk to astronauts and the need to use the remaining shuttle flights to finish building the international space station.<br /><br />O'Keefe had proposed using a robot to service Hubble, but a scientific advisory panel said the chance of completing such a mission on time was remote and that a manned mission had better odds of succeeding. The committee also said the risks of flying to Hubble weren't much greater than going to the space station.<br /><br />The primary concern lies with astronau

 

[llivinglarge]

Wait a second... I thought pad 39B was not going to be available for a rescue launch.

 

[kane007]

Would Shuttleguy please advise.

 

[kdavis007]

Time to let the Hubble go..

 

[jamie_young]

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=4870 from last week, explains it all very well.<br /><br />Right now Pad 39B is handed over to Constellation on April 1, 2007. AP fail to mention this, although the caveats are explains in the article I've linked.

 

[bpcooper]

Technically, the article doesn't say the other pad. Could be the same pad immediately after launch. But I'm sure they just aren't aware. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-Ben</p> </div>

 

[docm]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>kdavis007 said;<br /><br />Time to let the Hubble go.. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />AMEN!! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[scottb50]

Structurally Hubble could last a long time, what I understand the deterioration to the mirrors are far less than anticipated. With the plug and play design the basic Hubble could last a long time. <br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[llivinglarge]

The Hubble servicing mission will be one of the Apollo 13 scenarios where if you **** things up, you're on your own.

 

[bpcooper]

So, are you saying potentially keeping B open just in case but without the plan to launch from it unless of emergency? Do I understand you right? I know it is all TBD. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-Ben</p> </div>

 

[Leovinus]

If the HST mission has these folks "on their own" in case of a tile problem, do we really need to send 7? Maybe send 5 instead to reduce the human risk. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Leovinus]

I can't remember the last time they sent less than 7. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Leovinus]

Didn't I just say that? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Leovinus]

Aha. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[bpcooper]

Actually the last Hubble flight was STS-109, before that STS-103, STS-82 and STS-61.<br /><br />Every one of them had seven crew members.<br /><br />(And FYI, STS-96 was ISS flight and it had seven crewmembers as well).<br /><br />If they are doing four EVAs that means a crew of seven. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-Ben</p> </div>

 

[llivinglarge]

In all honesty, I really wanted Atlantis to fly this one as her final mission...

 

[kane007]

<br />NASA NEWS<br />2006/10/26<br />MEDIA ADVISORY: M06-170<br /><br />NASA Sets Hubble Servicing Mission Decision Announcement<br /><br />NASA Administrator Michael Griffin will announce on <b>Tuesday, Oct. 31</b>, a decision on a space shuttle mission to service the Hubble Space Telescope. The announcement is scheduled for 10 a.m. EST during an agency-wide employee meeting from NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. The event will be live on NASA TV and www.nasa.gov.<br /><br />Full release here<br />

 

[brellis]

Hi folks, it's the guy with all Q's and no A's <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />What are the upsides and downsides of a Hubble Repair Mission? If we let it expire, how long would we go without an eye like Hubble's? Do any current or planned missions include co-observation with Hubble? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="2" color="#ff0000"><em><strong>I'm a recovering optimist - things could be better.</strong></em></font> </p> </div>

 

[subzero788]

According to nasaspaceflight.com, HST SM-04 has been (unofficially) approved. Article here

 

[erioladastra]

Well I don't want to reiterate the multitiude of threads on this topic (check them out for good summaries) but the bottom line is that no replacement is on the horizon. While JWST is a cool telescope it is a different beats and very unlikely to fly before HST demise even with another servicing mission. The upside I think is obvious. The big downside is the resource hit to the shuttle program from an ISS point of view (note I am not saying one or the other is better just noting...). Since you don't have the ISS as a safe haven (see the multititude of threads, no, you can't move to that orbit) you have to have a second shuttle ready. While there are repair options they are limited. Anyway, this basically stops ISS assembly for a time being. The ISS assembly is already very strained with little margin. It puts pressure to do more faster with less. Another example, the EVA training in the NBL - it is over subscribed right now. But with everything being ISS related you can use efficiencies by concentrating on that. With HST, you know lose a significant amount of time while you do HST EVA runs. Again, not saying which is better just noting the facts.

 

[askold]

Why don't we get the Russians to do the repairs?<br /><br />Their equipment is, apparently, safe enough to launch toursts, while ours is too dangerous to do important science.

 

[docm]

Because Soyuz doesn't have a bay to carry the parts, which on this mission will be numerous. They also don't have a robot arm to fix the Hubble in place so as to make the repairs manageable. They're also lacking in training and experience with the systems.<br /><br />The Shuttle is "it" if Hubble is to be repaired at all.<br /><br />IMO it's not warranted. Land based telescopes in South America and elsewhere have more resolving power now plus adaptive optics to take care of the atmospherics. <br /><br />Not to mention that IR observations are where it's at for cutting edge science now, and the Hubbles IR capabilities are limited. What's really needed is an array Spitzer type instruments so they can do interferometry, which by the way only cost $720 million vs. the $1.5-2.0B a repair mission will cost.<br /><br />There are far better places to spend that money, especially if a rescue mission has to be launched. Then you lose the shuttle (no possible repair at ISS), the cost of the STS-300 mission (another $1B or so) and potentially the loss of the STS-300 shuttle and 1.2 crews if <b>it</b> runs into trouble.<br /><br />The military has a term for such an eventuality. It starts with "cluster" ends with a four letter word and would likely be the end the manned space program. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[erioladastra]

"Land based telescopes in South America and elsewhere have more resolving power now plus adaptive optics to take care of the atmospherics. "<br /><br />Very true...BUT they still do not have the ability to observe an object continuously (i.e., 24 hours non stop) and of course most of the UV and soft X-ray spectrum (that Hubble can do) is inaccessible.<br /><br />"Not to mention that IR observations are where it's at for cutting edge science now..."<br /><br />To the people in IR astronomy that is...a great many astronomers would strongly disagree with you. IR, just like any other wavelength has its place. IR appears this way only because we are starting to get some instrument break throughs. One could argue IR is where other fields were years ago.<br /><br />

 

[docm]

Galaxy Evolution Explorer is the latest/greatest UV orbiting telescope and the Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer goes up in 2009. <br /><br />With Spitzer handling the narrow field IR observations why bother with Hubble other than to alive observation scheduling conflicts? <br /><br />Are the lives of astronauts and potential loss of material assets worth it?<br /><br />IMO if NASA can build/orbit advanced missions like WISE. GEE and Spitzer economically why not a new optical 'scope (or two or three, making an orbiting interferometer) instead of continually patching an old tire? Oops; sounds like SIM PlanetQuest (2009) on steroids <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />My point is that for the cost of a service mission we could orbit a 'scope covering the gaps between these new instruments , and perhaps more, with no risk to shuttles & personnel and potentially cheaper. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[llivinglarge]

I have a theoretical question...<br /><br />Suppose Hubble exceeds all expectations and lasts until 2015. Would any Project Constellation vehicle allow for Hubble repairs?