http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/08/15/hubble.reut/index.html
Why is that? Why did the Columbia burning up on re-entry now rule out a mission to pick up the Hubble and put it in the Smithsonian as they’ve been planning for years? Have they discovered something since Feburary that makes it a more dangerous mission than originally thought? Or, is it just considered “an unnecessary” act so why bother?
Why specifically?
Because people in general, and politicians in particular, are gibbering ninnies who believe that the entire space program is worth not one human life lost?
I am sort of flummoxed on this one.
Hubble was supposed to be finished with its mission in 2005, so it look like it’s going to exceed its originally projected lifespan. My concern, and the concern of a good many people who testified at an open hearing on this matter, is that Hubble might be taken down before the James Webb Space Telescope gets up and running. Given the glitches with Hubble’s initial deployment I’d say that was a risky position to be putting ourselves in.
For the cost of an additional Shuttle mission Hubble’s lifespan could be extended to overlap the JWST’s deployment. But there’s the rub: Shuttle missions are expensive and money’s too tight to mention.
Personally, I want to see the Hubble at the Smithsonian. They do, after all, have to run a mission to attach a thruster package in order to achieve a predictable re-entry. Why not just pick that fabulous thing up and bring it home?
I’m off to read the minutes of that hearing mentioned so’s I can give you a better answer…
OK, this being GQ, I should probably elaborate.
I suspect that NASA administrators are either politically savvy enough to realize that the public’s perception of the space program is that it’s another accident waiting to happen, and thus have judiciously decided that going up to get what is essentially a souvenir is probably not a good idea.
Also possible is that NASA has been told not to get it for the above reasons by someone else in power.
Also possible is that NASA, always strapped for funds, decided that using their limited budget retrieving the Hubble wasn’t a good use of resources, and that th money could be better spent on other things.
I suspect that if we sent a shuttle up to get Hubble, and it blew up, that would be the end of the space program as we know it, due to the public outrage.
I think that the space program in general is a difficult sell to many people, who feel the billions spent could do more here on Earth, helping people, building affordable housing, whatever. Having to pay a lot of money AND having people die in the process probably exceeds many people’s cost benefit analysis, since they don’t reall see the importance of going into space in the first place.
To sum up: Politicians and administrators most likely fear a public backlash if something goes wrong again, and will probably lie low for a while until the emotional feelings riles by the last accident calm down.
Why take the Hubble down at all? I know the Webb Space Telescope will be much better, but surely that doesn’t make the Hubble obsolete. It will still be capable of what it does now, won’t it? Or is it slowly falling apart due to wear & tear?
Becauss the Hubble is in a different orbit than the Space Station. In the event of an emergency, crews would be unable to get to the ISS if they couldn’t return on the shuttle. That is why they are hesitant to commit to service calls on the Hubble.
In the medium term, because it’s still expected to be useful. From spaceflightnow.com’s coverage:
I was reading John Bahcall’s report while bonzer was posting. It’s a good read. It’s surprising how short component lifetime is up in orbit. Low-end life-span of gyros is about five years.
And re my previous post the de-orbit module could be attached in the first maintenance visit.
But God help NASA if the JWST doesn’t make orbit…
A quick hijack- (Arr, matey!)
Would a Russian “Buran” shuttle be capable of picking up the Hubble, if there were any up and running?
hahah the last of them was rusting away in some Russian military barrack, in vain trying to be sold off by the government.
Does this signal the end of the US’ reign in space science? Who will pick up the torch? The EU, China, India?
I only hope somebody does.
I hadn’t know the new telescope was named Webb. That is too funny.
Bzzzt! Thank you for playing! Bob, who’s our next contestant on “Your Life as a Loser”?
There’s one in an Aussie amusement park. And the Russians are talking about bringing Buran back and making it fully operational.
Cool, Tuckerfan! I hadn’t heard about that.
Nitpick: I believe the thruster package is not planned for SM4 (the next service mission). My interpretation of the report is that the deorbit module will either be installed on the second service mission (SM5) after which the science mission can continue, or done remotely using an unmanned rocket.
Space science is too expensive to treat as a competition. All major space projects are international collaborations. Different projects are usually designed to complement each other instead of competing directly.
scr4 it sounds like point #2 in Bahcall’s report portrays the de-orbit as an option for SM4.
Hmm, you’re right. But sections 7 and 10 only talk about attaching the propulsion package during SM5 or an unmanned (“robotic”) mission. The report also says the “conceptual plans for implementing either [deorbit] method are preliminary.” Unless SM4 is delayed by many years, it seems unlikely that they can get a propulsion module ready in that time.
In any case, getting back to the OP, in order to avoid an uncontrolled reentry we have three options:
[ul]
[li]Send a Shuttle to do a full maintenance and attach a propulsion module. Observation continues for several more years before the propulsion module is used to bring it down.[/li][li]Send a Shuttle to bring it back.[/li][li]Send an unmanned rocket to knock it out of orbit.[/ul][/li]The cost of the first two options (including risk for the astronauts) aren’t very different. The second option gives up many years of observation in return for a museum piece. Definitely not an attractive option.
As for using the Buran, I wouldn’t hold my breath. IIRC the only spaceworthy orbiter (or the only one that had once been spaceworthy) was damaged in a building collapse last year, which should tell you a lot about how their effort is going. And their initial annoucement about reviving the Buran talked about financing it through tourist trips like Dennis Tito’s. That hasn’t happened either.
With the realization that the shuttle fleet has some age related issues, anything that adds to the stresses encountered during reentry are considered too risky. Since the HST weighs about 24,000 lbs (on earth), or 11,000 kg that would add significantly to the mass of the shuttle during reentry and landing.
I also heard that some astronauts considered the risk of preparing the HST for storage in the shuttle bay too dangerous.
Of course it all makes sense when you know that the NASA top brass are all Reptilioids in disguise - and that their task is to prevent mankind ever getting into space. (Why else would you spend 100billion$ on a space station that doesn’t do a damn thing or put endless delays on every project, or stymie attempts by private companies to develop cheap, modern launchers?).
The whole Hubble thing was an [Booming voice] Eeevil Plot [/Booming voice]. Why was the Hubble all squinty when it first put up? - to buy time for the Reptilioids to rig it.
If the Hubble was brought back we’d see that that the Reptos had been holding up the pictures they wanted us to see in front of it’s lens all along.