Other

Hubble vs. Webb

In a column published earlier this week by the Naples (Fla.) Daily News, Ben Bova suggests that extending the life of the Hubble Space Telescope could pose a political threat to its successor, the James Webb Space Telescope:

NASA’s plans call for a bigger and better space telescope to be sent into orbit before this decade is over, or soon after 2010. If the Hubble is still performing well at that time, might not some politicians try to kill the new telescope, or at least delay it for another decade or so? Politics is not restricted to the politicians, and the politics inside the space agency can be just as tricky and fierce as those in the Senate.

While Bova goes on to call NASA “a collection of fiefdoms”, a description that many people would agree with, he forgets that both Hubble and Webb fall in the domain of the same fiefdom, namely, NASA Goddard. I don’t think that Goddard, or its backers in Congress, notably Sen. Barbara Mikulski, are willing to sacrifice Webb to keep Hubble alive.

14 comments to Hubble vs. Webb

  • Harold LaValley

    This would not be in the best interest for delaying or sacrificing the Webb telescope even if Hubble is still around. Having twice as many eyes in the sky has the ability to do twice the research and to verify from orbit each others findings.

  • Harold LaValley

    Robots for Hubble? Sound the bugle call. It could be robots to the rescue.
    http://www.floridatoday.com/news/space/stories/2004a/spacestory0514WHUBBLE.htm

    “Senior agency managers — citing post-Columbia safety concerns — have cancelled a shuttle fix-it mission to Hubble in 2006 because they say the work would be too dangerous for space-walking astronauts. Never mind that astronauts have successfully tuned up Hubble on four previous flights in orbital ballets of skill that captured the world’s attention. ”

    Here we go with the next telescope if Hubble is not rescued being the Webb shortly around 2011,

    But what would happen if it should fail, will the same excuse be used for not going to repair it.
    IMO send up a small orbiting can for safe Haven and keep flying instead of wining about safety.
    Place robotic arm on it for in orbit inspection and be done with it.

  • Dwayne A. Day

    Bova’s article is somewhat lacking in focus and dramatically oversimplifies the issues. Although this is inevitable in an opinion column, here it is a real problem.

    For starters, NASA and Congress have tried to look at astronomy in a comprehensive manner and Bova doesn’t seem to recognize that. Hubble and JWST were viewed as complimentary, in part because they look at different parts of the spectrum. Now it is true that budget politics enter into the situation and might force politicians to say “Well, you already have one telescope up there, so you don’t need another,” but how important is this really? Hubble is going to have some fixed costs no matter what happens to it (NASA will have to spend at least a few hundred million dollars for deorbiting HST). Beyond that, the only other costs are operations costs on the ground. Those are not huge costs. Would they really bust JWST? Is the existence of a dying HST that looks at the visual spectrum really that big of a threat to the highest priority next program that Congress has already approved? Doubtful.

    JWST faces bigger problems than a threat from HST. The biggest challenge is going to be delivering it on time and without huge cost overruns. In other words, the biggest threat to JWST comes not from politicians, but from itself. In fact, I think that one of the reasons that astronomers are so interested in keeping HST alive is that nobody believes that JWST will be ready by 2010. Their biggest fear is that HST will die and JWST will overrun so much that it will be canceled and the astronomy community will be left without any big telescope in orbit.

    Furthermore, one could take Bova’s argument to the extreme–should we cancel all operational programs so that they post no political threat to future programs?

    I note that later in the column one of his readers designs a space mission for him. Such back of the envelope solutions are often unrealistic, if not downright silly, and this one is no exception. Did the reader really mean to propose flying a Soyuz spacecraft on a Proton rocket? Is he aware that the Soyuz was not designed to fly aboard the Proton? And none of those techniques has ever been performed. Non-shuttle HST servicing options are simply not viable.

  • Mike Puckett

    Actually, a stripped down version of Soyuz was designed to fly on the Proton, it was called the “Zond” and came close to beating Apollo 8 to the moon. It was designed for a circumlunar free return trajectory.

    I see no reason why soyuz capsule could not be fitted to a Proton but if you simply wanted to send a manned Soyuz to HST, a launch from The ESA complex aboard a Soyuz booster could proabally reach it. It would take several years to achieve but I do not see why it could not be done before Hubble is toast.

  • Dwayne A. Day

    “Actually, a stripped down version of Soyuz was designed to fly on the Proton, it was called the “Zond” and came close to beating Apollo 8 to the moon.”

    It came very close to beating Apollo 8 to the moon except for the part where it failed to work.

    This is extreme hand-waiving. The Soyuz was NOT designed to fly on the Proton. So any plan that requires the Soyuz to fly on a Proton will first have to explain how Soyuz will be qualified to fly on the big rocket. You cannot simply say “Abracadabra! It works.”

    “I see no reason why soyuz capsule could not be fitted to a Proton but if you simply wanted to send a manned Soyuz to HST, a launch from The ESA complex aboard a Soyuz booster could proabally reach it. It would take several years to achieve but I do not see why it could not be done before Hubble is toast.”

    Is the ESA complex for launching the Soyuz rocket complete? At what point will it be complete? At what point will ground facilities for supporting the Soyuz _spacecraft_ (which is different from the Soyuz rocket) be complete in Kourou? Do you have dates for any of these?

  • Mike Puckett

    No, I have no dates but it going to be many years before the Hubble is irretrevable. Notice, I said irretrivable and not inoperable. It could survive in a ‘safe mode’ for years after is becomes incapable of productive science.

    They may well have manned Soyuz capability at Kourou before this occurs. Russia is negotiating right now to join ESA as a full partner and it would not suprise me in the least to see some manned capability from Kourou if that union occurs.

    As to Soyuz on Proton, check this out:

    http://www.myspacemuseum.com/zond.htm

    I am sure it could be done again given enough time and I am sure the systems involved are far better understood now than in 1967-68. Hell, if they used the later cryo upper stage, they could proabally leave the orbital module and up the crew to at least two.

    Of course, they would have to man rate all this hardware but the basic mature pieces already exist.

  • Mike Puckett

    [img]http://www.myspacemuseum.com/l1_2.jpg[/img]

    Note the escape tower.

  • Mike Puckett

    Trying again, this should work:

    http://www.myspacemuseum.com/l1_2.jpg

  • Dwayne A. Day

    Mr. Puckett wrote:
    “No, I have no dates but it going to be many years before the Hubble is irretrevable. Notice, I said irretrivable and not inoperable. It could survive in a ‘safe mode’ for years after is becomes incapable of productive science.”

    There is actually a time limit. Once the batteries die, they lose internal heat. This causes part of the mirror system to delaminate. At that point the HST is junk.

    In other words, unless a servicing mission is launched before this happens, there is no reason to do so.

    Mr. Puckett wrote:
    “They may well have manned Soyuz capability at Kourou before this occurs. Russia is negotiating right now to join ESA as a full partner and it would not suprise me in the least to see some manned capability from Kourou if that union occurs.”

    Since you do not have dates, why don’t you go and look up dates?

    Mr. Puckett wrote:
    “I am sure it could be done again given enough time and I am sure the systems involved are far better understood now than in 1967-68.”

    Anything can be done, given enough time and money. The question is why this is a better solution to all of the others.

  • Harold LaValley

    “There is actually a time limit. Once the batteries die, they lose internal heat. This causes part of the mirror system to delaminate. At that point the HST is junk.”
    “In other words, unless a servicing mission is launched before this happens, there is no reason to do so.”

    There is still the deorbit safety concern that still require at least that mission even if it dies. The cost of just that part is more than I would want to put in any budget even if it is done as cheap as possible.

    Since the only reason for no Hubble visit by the Shuttle is lack of safe Haven and inspection platform. Then provide on small module for just that purpose.
    Since most likely the Webb telescope will have the same basic flaws of not being repairable for not being at the ISS and it will most likely be designed with no deorbit booster control to save on cost.

  • Mike Puckett

    Harold,

    Webb is going to be deployed at L-2 so de-orbit is a non-issue.

  • Harold LaValley

    Thanks, then only servicing it will be an issue.

  • Mike Puckett

    Dwayne,

    Please call me Mike. Mr. Puckett is my Dad’s name! ;)

  • Dwayne A. Day

    Mr. Puckett (er, Mike) wrote:
    “Please call me Mike. Mr. Puckett is my Dad’s name!”

    I actually prefer using last names as a sign of respect and formality. Respect and formality are things that are often lacking on the Internet.