Hubble Saved!

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Awesome news.

Hubble Saved: NASA Approves Shuttle Flight to Service Space Telescope
By Tariq Malik
Staff Writer
posted: 31 October 2006
10:09 a.m ET

The decision is in and the Hubble Space Telescope is saved.

NASA announced Tuesday that it will go ahead with one final space shuttle mission to repair and upgrade Hubble after months of debate over the risks of such an endeavor.

In the end, the decision came down to NASA chief Michael Griffin, who has long said that he would support a proposed Hubble servicing mission provided its risk did not exceed that already accepted for other shuttle flights. The mission will add years onto the Hubble’s lifetime and could help NASA prepare the space telescope for its ultimate, but controlled, plunge through the Earth’s atmosphere.

NASA TV is broadcast today's Hubble decision live. A press conference is set for 12:45 p.m. EST followed by an astronaut crew conference at 2:30 p.m EST.

“Hubble is one of the great observatories,” Griffin has said. “It has revealed fundamental things about the universe of which we had no idea.”

Griffin said the upcoming servicing mission will launch in 2008 between construction flights to complete the International Space Station (ISS), and is expected to feature no less than five spacewalks to upgrade Hubble’s optics and make other repairs.

“I think it is important to at least make the decision, because that will then tell us [what’s happening],” University of Texas astronomer J. Craig Wheeler, president of the American Astronomical Society, told SPACE.com. “It’s terribly important to make a decision.”

Astronomers hope the decision means Hubble could still be in operation by 2013 when NASA’s next great observatory—the James Webb Space Telescope—is slated to fly. Hubble’s visible and ultraviolet observations will not be duplicated by JWST, which will scan primarily in the infrared wavelengths, researchers said.

The astronauts set to perform the tricky Hubble refurbishment work—which includes repairing at least one instrument that was not designed to be modified in orbit—will discuss their duties in press conference scheduled for at 2:30 p.m. EST (1930 GMT) today.

Hubble's Legacy and the Future of Telescopes.
Hubble-bound shuttle astronauts have a daunting task ahead of them. Their tasks include:

* The installation of Wide Field Camera-3, a new camera to amplify Hubble’s vision.

* The replacement of Hubble’s batteries, some thermal insulation and a broken guidance sensor.

* Refurbishment of the Hubble’s vital attitude controlling gyroscopes used to orient the space telescope. Only two of the six are in operation. Two are held as spares while two others are broken.

* The installation of the Cosmic Origins Spectrograph and unprecedented repair of Hubble’s Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph (STIS), which was never designed to be worked on in space.

* Using the shuttle’s engines to boost Hubble into a slightly higher orbit.

Long road to Hubble

NASA initially cancelled the upcoming Hubble servicing flight in 2004, citing the proposed mission as unsafe following the 2003 Columbia accident that killed seven astronauts. But the agency eventually backpedaled after outspoken disapproval from the science community and public, and support by the then-newly installed Griffin.

“I don’t think that there is actually another scientific instrument that people on the street recognize other than Hubble,” said Mario Livio, a senior astronomer at the Space Telescope Science Institute (STScI) that oversees Hubble. “It has inspired generations of people from children to senior citizens.”

After first studying the potential to service Hubble robotically, NASA ultimately returned to an astronaut-based servicing mission.

Astronaut safety in orbit topped NASA’s list for a potential Hubble servicing mission.

The tragic 2003 loss of Columbia and its crew stemmed from heat shield damage that went undetected during the orbiter’s 16-day mission. NASA now trains more than 100 cameras on orbiters during liftoff, record the flight with onboard cameras, followed by a series of in-orbit heat shield inspections with a robotic arm-mounted boom.

Should serious damage prevent an orbiter’s return, most of NASA’s remaining astronaut crews can simply take refuge aboard the International Space Station, where they will already be docked there to complete the outpost’s construction by NASA’s September 2010 shuttle retirement date.

But the Hubble-bound mission will not carry that ISS safe haven plan, prompting NASA to commit to having a second shuttle nearly ready to fly before staging the servicing flight in the first place.

Griffin has conceded that devoting a NASA shuttle mission to service Hubble does interfere slightly with the ISS construction flow, but it does not disregard the obligations of NASA to its international ISS partners.

“Obviously, that’s a flight that we’re doing that’s not an assembly mission,” Griffin said, adding that Hubble has always been a joint mission between NASA and the European Space Agency. “Hubble itself has had international participation and its contributions to the advancement of knowledge have been international in nature.”

But science aside, it has always been the pictures of the universe that have been Hubble’s strength, a forte that will apparently continue for quite some time.

“Hubble has probably been the most incredible instrument ever,” Livio said. “Not just in doing the science, but bringing that science to the awareness of people all over the globe.”

This news just about made my day.

[Wyrm]

Goodie! We just have to get up there before the thing konks out completely. Hang in there, Hubble!

Now if we can get that space station boondoggle canceled...

[Gustav32Vasa]

Great news. Hubble made the poblic interested in space with its pictures.

[kheegster]

A bit of shamless self promotion...a couple of years ago I interviewed Steven Beckwith, at the time the Director of the Space Telescope Science Institute when I was doing a summer internship there. He talked about the achievements that the HST had already made, and the discoveries that they are anticipating after the servicing mission to replace some of its instruments.

That was a tense time at the institute because NASA had effectively canned the servicing mission, and one of the instruments on the Hubble (the Space Telescope Infrared Spectrograph) had just failed as well.

I submitted the article to the Royal Astronomical Society, and won their Science Writing Competition for 2005. My article was published in Astronomy and Geophysics, issue 46 (2005).

[Shroom Man 777]

Awesomeness. What? Another decade of awesome space pictures? Will anything they put up there be able to replace Hubble's awesomeness?

[Mange]

Absolutely fantastic news! I'm so glad!

[kheegster]

Awesomeness. What? Another decade of awesome space pictures? Will anything they put up there be able to replace Hubble's awesomeness?

There's nothing particularly special about the HST although it has demonstrated a unique capability of having its cameras constantly upgraded. It's certainly possible to build a far superior telescope with a larger mirror, but with typically ~20 year incubation times for major space missions and the lack of suitable launch vehicles for such a large telescope (although it's probably feasible to develop a foldable mirror a la JWST), we're unlikely to see a direct replacement for a few decades.

[Zor]

Breaks out the Celibritory Australian Wine and some glasses

A toast to good news!

Zor

[RedImperator]

So how many Hubbles could we build for the cost of the International Space Boondoggle?

[MKSheppard]

No, the question is, how many ISSes could we put up if the B-70 hadn't been cancelled?

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

So how many Hubbles could we build for the cost of the International Space Boondoggle?

The HST cost something like $1.5 billion at launch and has been projected to cost as much as $6 billion over its lifespan. The International Space Boondoggle will cost a total of $96 billion, not including lifetime costs. So . . . about sixteen HSTs could be had for one ISS. Certainly enough of them to build a spacegoing interferometer capable of directly imaging Earth-sized planets around distant star-systems.

[phongn]

No, the question is, how many ISSes could we put up if the B-70 hadn't been cancelled?

That's a non-sequitor. If you're referring to TBO's SSTO development, you might note that the space stations used Saturn rockets for launch.

So how many Hubbles could we build for the cost of the International Space Boondoggle?

A lot. We could have completed Space Station Freedom for a lot less, for that matter.

[Ace Pace]

No, the question is, how many ISSes could we put up if the B-70 hadn't been cancelled?

That's a non-sequitor. If you're referring to TBO's SSTO development, you might note that the space stations used Saturn rockets for launch.

He's referring to a plan during the B-70 development to use it as a replaceable first stage for launching missles.

[MKSheppard]

The B-70 suggests itself as a basic vehicle which can give the United States an unquestioned space lead. It is not a space ship but a space truck. It can deliver hefty amounts of orbital tonnage into space at amazingly low cost. It is a recoverable booster, a first stage of a satellite system that will carry a payload to the rim of space, beyond the earth's retarding atmosphere, and then, imparting to it the running head start of its own Mach Three speed, launch it into orbit. With this technique the B-70 has the capability of pushing 15,000 pounds of payload into a low earth orbit of 300 miles, lesser but substantial amounts farther out. The Atlas, which weighs less than half the B-70, can put only 2,000 pounds into a 300-mile orbit. It has been estimated that m the 1965-80 period the United States will fire 1,312 space shots to put 13,500 tons into the heavens. Three B-70's could perform the entire program for $2.63 billion less than it will cost with ICBM boosters doing the job.

[Chris OFarrell]

Funny thing, I recall several similar sounding glowing predictions about how the STS ships would put craploads of material into orbit at a fraction of the cost of the Saturn rockets...

[MKSheppard]

Funny thing, I recall several similar sounding glowing predictions about how the STS ships would put craploads of material into orbit at a fraction of the cost of the Saturn rockets...

Except the B-70 is a true reusable first stage; unlike the STS

[Uraniun235]

Funny thing, I recall several similar sounding glowing predictions about how the STS ships would put craploads of material into orbit at a fraction of the cost of the Saturn rockets...

The B-70 isn't a space vehicle going into orbit and having to endure the rigors of re-entry; it's just a big airplane flying up really high and fast, launching a missile, and then flying back down and landing.

In any event, it's godawfully depressing that we managed to get Skylab launched in one shot and activated with two crew rotations, and yet ISS will likely never be really completed.

[Pelranius]

I was always partial to the idea of Projects HAARP/Babylon literally shooting payloads into space. (Are there any specifications for the maximum payload of a Babylon projectile?)

Replacing the barrel after a few dozen shots would be a bitch, though.

[phongn]

I was always partial to the idea of Projects HAARP/Babylon literally shooting payloads into space. (Are there any specifications for the maximum payload of a Babylon projectile?)

HAARP shot tiny little things, though - not really useful for much other than microsatellite launch. Babylon was interesting, but as a fixed gun it is unlikely to have been able to alter orbital inclination.

The B-70 isn't a space vehicle going into orbit and having to endure the rigors of re-entry; it's just a big airplane flying up really high and fast, launching a missile, and then flying back down and landing.

There's also the weight and drag penalty involved by lifting a big payload on your back. I'm not sure if the B-70 would have realistically been able to act as a first-stage.

In any event, it's godawfully depressing that we managed to get Skylab launched in one shot and activated with two crew rotations, and yet ISS will likely never be really completed.

Ain't it? We could have had a space station completed in the early 1990s if not for Congress canning Freedom and demanding size scaledowns and whatnot. Or Skylab could have been rescued if NASA had the foresight to build a reboost module in case of the Shuttle's demise.

[MKSheppard]

There's also the weight and drag penalty involved by lifting a big payload on your back. I'm not sure if the B-70 would have realistically been able to act as a first-stage.

Who said anything about it being on the back? Simply reuse the Skybolt ALBM launch system; only instead of putting a nuke into a ballistic trajectory, we put something into orbit.

[phongn]

Who said anything about it being on the back? Simply reuse the Skybolt ALBM launch system; only instead of putting a nuke into a ballistic trajectory, we put something into orbit.

Does the B-70 have the hardpoints for something like that? I don't think it could do Skybolt or any other large external stores .Also, the Minuteman diameter isn't really all that big - maybe for satellite launch but AFAIK insufficient for station construction launch.