A UPI article published late Thursday argued that the growing costs of returning the shuttle to flight will make it difficult, it not impossible, for NASA to afford any kind of shuttle or robotic Hubble servicing mission without, perhaps, sacrificing money from the exploration plan:
…if NASA does decide to send a shuttle to the Hubble, it most likely will do so only if it has a second spacecraft standing by with a separate crew ready to jump into action if the first shuttle runs into trouble.
Such an approach figures to stretch NASA’s budget even thinner — unless Congress acquiesces on the extra money to refly the shuttle fleet, and coughs up the start-up money for the space exploration plan. Then, there should be enough to fund the Hubble repair mission if O’Keefe gives his approval.
Otherwise, NASA cannot attempt such a complex mission. Without the extra money, a backup shuttle and crew probably would be out of the question. That would leave only a robotic mission, something even Hubble’s staunchest supporters have admitted remains highly speculative within the timeframe available.
The article appears primarily to be speculation, rather than new information. It is based upon what we already know–that NASA is short on money.
But it does raise a very interesting point, which is that even if you consider only the barest minimum Hubble requirement, de-orbiting, the money for that has to come from somewhere. Is it even in NASA’s budget?
Hubble will not be saved by a shuttle flight. My bet is the Shuttles will never fly again.
This is Skylab all over again. NASA never had any real intention of trying to save Skylab because they wanted a new station.
They have no real intention of trying to save Hubble because they dont want to spend the money on Hubble ops. Hubble’s gone a big pile of money is free.
Really what we need to do is take the Group Dennis Wingo represents up on trying to move Hubble to ISS.
He (Wingo) claims it can be done for under .5 billion dollars. Less than a shuttle flight.
Robert G. Oler
Unless Hubble could be attached to the Station they will never movie it to the same orbit.
I agree it sounds like Skylab all over again but I do think O’Keefe is serious about a robotic mission. They built the two rovers fairly quickly so I think they could build the remote robotic mission. The technology for a robotic mission would have lots of other NASA applications.
Guys, this story has it exactly right.
First, some facts:
1) A pure robotic deorbit mission is estimated to cost only about $300 million, and had been budgeted by the Office of Space Science for the timeframe of 2008-10, to be carried out in 2011, which was the estimated end-of-life for HST after
Servicing Mission 4.
2) The cancellation of SM4 required that, at a minimum, the money be moved somewhat forward, altho Hubble has excellent post-freezup safe modes (i.e. even after power and gyros die, it still stays pretty stable for a robotic deorbit).
3) The magical robotic servicing mission will cost $1 billion or more, according to NASA’s estimates.
4) The driving requirement for servicing is the gyros, which could run out any time between now and 2007, and the batteries, which when they go, the electronics dies.
Now, some commentary:
1) Note that every NASA statement about the robotic mission is careful to say that all they promise is deorbit. Nobody is promising life extension, let alone full SM-4 class science upgrades.
2) But the National Academy panel says you must do SM-4 class science. Since the robot may not be able to do that in time — NASA has never even carried out an automated rendezvous and docking, let alone a complicated, instrument-replacing servicing mission.
3) The real question is: if NASA is worried about flying the Shuttle to Hubble because there is no “safe haven” there… why not create a temporary “safe haven” at Hubble? That is a LOT cheaper than anything else…
How is creating a “temporary safe haven” cheap? Please, go into more detail, I would love to see what your plan for this is.
This might be the cheapest but I expect not the easiest. Prepare a second shuttle to lunch within a week. Both shuttles would have some kind of docking port. The “rescue” shuttle could have a docking extender (maybe space station Node-3 and docking port) which could be attached by the robotic arm on orbit. It wouldn’t require new technology but maybe some tricky piloting. They could boost the shuttle to a higher orbit for later retrieval by a two person crew.
All the controversy over Hubble is a good indication nothing has change with congress’ ability to manage NASA. If congress had clear goals for NASA than the money would be there for whatever was needed to save the telescope. Instead you have people putting demands on NASA without any financial backing. Another case in point is the TRMM satellite, NASA has agreed to keep it going for NOAA but does NOAA contribute additional money for its operation? The Japanese have already said they won’t give more money to keep TRMM operational. It’s this kind of thing that causes NASA to rob Peter to pay Paul. I think that the institutes using the hardware should pay for usage beyond original mission. Let the Space Telescope Science Institute beg congress for money instead of writing letters to O’Keefe to have him beg congress and take all the heat. One thing you can say is O’Keefe has more back bone than Beckwith.
Safe Haven is a myth that only will last for the duration of the supplies available for the crew to use. Now if the safe Haven has a spare return capsule then we have something to work from.
Yes, give the shuttle crew the needed time to repair if possible but always give second and third options for getting back safely.
Whats the point of having a second shuttle on standby?
Lets say return to flight launches a shuttle which has a piece of foam come off (we are fixing that right?) and punch a hole in the leading edge (just like Columbia).
Who here thinks that the courage will exist to try it a second time?
Robert G. Oler
You would need a hanger like area for some repairs due to glue, adhesives not to mentions welding of metal and for storing of replacement tiles peices that could need cutting to shape.
I think they would find the courage if people were stranded in orbit. Going to Hubble comes down to cost vs. risk, the risk isn’t high but the cost is very high in order to meet CAIB recommendations. The second shuttle provides a way out if the crew is unable to repair on orbit. (It’s all hypothetical but NASA must plan for the worse and hope for the best)
This program is pretty funny in general and the last show had something on American courage or lack of it. It’s near the end of the program.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/comedy.shtml?nowshow
Alternate safe have?
Carry a Soyuz Descent module in the payload bay and fly with a crew of three.
The problem is that if we lose an orbiter (even if we save the crew) the ISS cannpt be completed without another launch system, like shuttle C. Refusing to go get Hubble with STS tells me the orbiter is less safe even after return to flight than we are being told.
The docking port for a Soyuz is different than the standard US port but we did build an adapter.
The shuttle will be safer when it returns to flight but any hydrogen rocket is dangerous. A less powerful rocket without cargo would be much safer for humans. The question is how long NASA can remain focus on safety and not cut corners. However outside pressure directly affects this culture and people should be mindful.
Here is another article that details the cost of the Robotic mission.
http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/politics/9358626.htm
“The agency chief said the mission would cost roughly about $1 billion to $1.6 billion. But he warned that it was almost impossible to estimate the cost until a plan was developed.”
Not only would it be difficult to complete the ISS in the time frame in the Vision but would require a recertification or go ahead from the CAIB to continue using the Shuttle beyound the 2010.
Yes a soyuz would fit into the cargo bay but since we can not purchase or pay for anything of the kind from Russia. How would we get one?
Is there one per chance on EBAY or something?
Keeping Hubble alive is a worthy objective, but at what cost? One to 1.6 billion dollars over a period of 3 years spent on this one, admittedly very important, project when it remains to be seen if NASA will get the 1 billion increase it has asked for that is to be spread over a period of 5 years.
I think our priorities are a bit askew.
$1.6 billion? How much would a Hubble II cost?
James Webb Space Telescope is to replace Hubble around August 2011. I have seen cost estimates for JWST about $1 billion. I’m sure that will go up.
http://jwstsite.stsci.edu/
Another problem is the ISS is in a lower orbit and has more atmospheric drag and would make it difficult to point Hubble. Not to mention it would need more power than both shuttle OME’s.
So does anyone know why the Hubble’s replacement, the James Webb Space Telescope, scheduled to be launched sometime in 2011 is taking some many years to develope?
I know that there is talk of Hubble 2 also in the works using existing upgrade resources intended for the Hubble but what would that time line for launch be?
I believe cost estimate were wll below the 1Billion mark.
“So does anyone know why the Hubble’s replacement, the James Webb Space Telescope, scheduled to be launched sometime in 2011 is taking some many years to develop?”
I suggest you do some reading about JWST. It is a very complex device, with unfolding mirrors and severe thermal constraints (it has to be kept really cold). This is a challenging design project. I personally expect that it will not happen–costs will balloon and NASA will kill it and the astronomy community will scream.
The current status web page does not mention any thing to indicate the long time other than critical design reviews. http://www.stsci.edu/jwst/overview/status.html
Just does not seem to be any real hold ups to explain the long lead time to launch to the L2 location.
Here is another though due to the most recent device failure.
Well depending on If it is feasable to do, Bring up Hubble 2 and a deorbit booster stage in a shuttle and be done with the whole issue of repair. Send Hubble to it’s demise or leave it for spare parts once the bosster is attached.
I know this still leaves safe haven and or rescue mission open but just another thought.
James Webb is going to L2 and is too sensitive for Hubble orbit.
The procedures for fixing the shuttle on orbit take advantage of the space station otherwise a NET March launch date would be impossible. Hubble would require new procedures for fixing the shuttle that is one thing O’Keefe doesn’t want to spend money on since it would be a one time mission.
“Hubble would require new procedures for fixing the shuttle that is one thing O’Keefe doesn’t want to spend money on since it would be a one time mission.”
Not totally accurate. The CAIB report requires NASA to develop inspection and repair capability for missions that cannot reach the ISS. Those capabilities would be useful either for an HST mission or an ISS mission. There is some question as to _when_ they are necessary, but NASA has not indicated that it intends to simply ignore the requirement.
NASA has gone beyond the CAIB recommendations and decided that some kind of rescue option is necessary for all shuttle missions, even if the possibility of using it is remote. NASA has also decided that it is simply too difficult to do this for an HST mission.
Posted by John Malkin at August 9, 2004 04:22 PM
Hello John. I am NOT a big Okeefe fan. I think that he has squandered every oppurtunity he has been presented with and is not a big out of the box thinker.
I dont think he has a clue about the return to flight.
It doesnt matter if the shuttle goes to the station. There is no repairing columbia like problems. Those extra mouths at the station would be a problem quickly.
Launch another one? Well yeah/no but say you did launch another one and whew it worked. Do you still keep launching shuttles.
The bottom line is that the shuttle is either safe to fly or its not. The tank shedding is either “in family” and safe or it is not.
Okeefe doesnt want to save Hubble. He wants the ops and other money for probably ISS.
He should just come out and say this.
Robert G. Oler
depressing
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=971
On any rescue mission to save the crew and or a badly damaged shuttle that the current crew could not. The rescue team needs to have someone from Macco to teach them how to do hole repair.
A use cutting tools to remove tiles from around damaged area, lay in and weld new sheet metal to cover hole, cut tile peices to shape, apply adhesive, place tile into location, grind and smoothen tile to flush finish for under body repairs.
Yes, the RCC leading edge panels would be harder since each panel is not assimetrical from right wing location to left at the same point on the wing. Maybe half RCC panels or some other wrap over technique can be applied.
The whole problem of severe damage to the TPS system is not a small hole to be filled with a sealing patch but is one of space required for replacement pieces of tiles and of tools.
FYI for those that have not found it yet.
Android top pick to aid Hubble; Dubbed “Dextre,” the Canadian robot would blast off on an Atlas 5 or Delta 4 rocket in late 2007 and then outfit the $3 billion observatory with fresh batteries and gyroscopes as well as two new $100 million science instruments.
http://www.flatoday.com/news/space/stories/2004b/spacestoryN0811HUBBLEFIX.htm
Lots of details in the article.
Happy reading all.
The point of going to the station is it provides a safe haven that can be re-supplied indefinitely and use the stations robotic arm to assist in repairs. Currently NASA had no repair option for the RCC panels; however they continue to work on it. NASA should be able to lunch a second shuttle to rescue another team of astronauts but I would expect it would be the last shuttle lunched if there was Columbia like damage. I think the damage shuttle would be left in space or maybe de-orbited to land in the ocean.
I think O’Keefe has done the best job of any NASA administrator. What opportunities has he squandered?
“I think the damage shuttle would be left in space or maybe de-orbited to land in the ocean.”
How about attempting a remote landing at White Sands etc.? Nothing to loose in trying.
“I think O’Keefe has done the best job of any NASA administrator.”
I agree!
Nasa is giving up on another technique of Shuttle RCC panel repair. Seems like Nasa needs to go to Macco for repair options.
http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_aerospacedaily_story.jsp?id=news/aba08114.xml
“After encountering “significant technical challenges,” NASA is abandoning attempts to develop a rigid overwrap to patch large holes in the space shuttle’s reinforced carbon-carbon (RCC) panels in the event of damage during flight, and instead is pursuing other methods that probably won’t be ready in time for the shuttle’s return to flight, according to agency officials.”
I sincerely doubt Macco could help, the issue being a bit more technically challenging than you seem to realize.
Macco was all in jest but on the issue of Nasa backing away from the CAIB recommendations it sure does seem that way to IMO. At least on the repair and on how many standyby shuttle mission will happen before going back to there old habits.
NASA isn’t backing away from the recommendations. They just need to find another technology for fixing in space. It like doing body work on the expressway, imagine if you had to carry a spare quarter panel.
All the more reason to make a repair shop module, to store all the spare quarter panels and equipment for doing a real repair, not a patch job of bondo filler and fiber glass.
I imagine NASA will store parts on the ISS but just because you have parts it’s very different to repairing it in space. It takes them weeks to put those panels on the shuttle, there are several layers at each spot. They would need to do at least 3 to 4 space walks to repair once section.
I think O’Keefe has done the best job of any NASA administrator. What opportunities has he squandered?
Posted by John Malkin at August 11, 2004 11:04 AM
Hello John.
Let me tackle both of your questions.
First the station is only a temporarly, very temporary safe haven. Yes the crew of the orbiter could stay there, but very quickly everone would be on bread and water (or maybe just water).
The shuttle’s fuel cells could be tapped for lots of water as power wained. And the food supplies could really be stretched if everyone went into chimp mode and energy on the shuttle conserved…etc etc.
But before long the shuttle would run out of power for the fuel cells and die. Then there would be loads of problems on the station (control might be one) and there would be the issues of supplies.
Yeah a “rescue” could be launched but what happens if a hole appears in that vehicle?
The stations resupply is not working all tha well with two on it.
Okeefe has missed a zillion oppurtunities. I’ll pass on his part in losing the shuttle…and go to the recovery stage. We will have spent a lot of money and two years on shuttle recovery that should have been spent on alt access.
His Hubble recovery plan is well impossble. We have never done an automated rendezvous much less an automated service. Do you really think that has a chance of coming in on time and on budget?
Robert G. Oler
“Okeefe has missed a zillion oppurtunities.”
Yet you’ve not specifically named and/or detailed even ONE.
I wouldn’t hold O’Keefe responsible for the Columbia accident due to his short tenure; I actually blame Congress or at least the space subcommittee. Congress has always nitpicked at NASA while missing the big problems. I see attorneys do it all the time; I call it “penny wise and dollar stupid”. This usually comes from unclear goals and uncertain support. When you don’t have support from the top, you begin to feel like a victim. Many people feel this way about government, since they don’t have direct control of governmental actions.
The money spent on Return to Flight is not wasted. A new vehicle will take years to develop and we must continue construction of the Space Station or we will loose all respect from our partners. In diplomacy this has been a shinning star and example how something like star fleet could happen someday. So much has happen since Columbia, much larger changes than after Challenger and a real idea of what America should be doing in space but I worry the gestalt of Congress will not see a true vision. The opportunities are ahead and our voices must continue to shout. By design our government moves slowly so people must be diligent.
Both ESA and Japan are building transfer vehicles and a progress vehicle is docking on Saturday. The Russia economy is near or below depression standards and yet the government has continued the relationship with NASA. I’m sure if Congress knew the position now, they would have modified the Act to allow NASA to purchase hardware. NASA can’t build any vehicle without consent of Congress. The concept of creating space systems is to give NASA more flexibility in building vehicles. Hopefully they will build a modular design that is multifunctional and from the concept videos, it appears to be there direction.
It’s not a true “Robot”, it’s more of a remote control extension. The technology is similar to the Canadian “Hand” for the space station which attaches to the space station robotic arm. This is not an autonomous repair robot, it will be control similar to the robotic arm on the shuttle and station with some intelligence like the Mars Exploration Rovers. NASA has many years experience with this technology and experiments in even more autonomous robots. This concept could be used to service James Webb in the future, since it will be at L2.
I would like to see O’Keefe get more private sector and entrepreneurial companies involved in all aspects of NASA but I know this will take time.
“I wouldn’t hold O’Keefe responsible for the Columbia accident due to his short tenure.”
O’Keefe exerted schedule pressure on the STS-107 launch that possibly prevented a more detailed evaluation of the earlier foam shedding incident.
As for O’Keefe missing opportunities, one big one is his refusal to immediately squelch the one trillion dollar cost estimate for the new space plan. His own agency produced a much lower estimate, but O’Keefe did little to publicize it.
We should also keep in mind that the current Hubble robot mission is at best a desperation move; and at worst it is a crass ploy to silence the critics by sending an expensive, risky mission to Congress and asking them to fund it. The position taken by O’Keefe seems to be that the only mistake in the Hubble decision was the timing–and that they blame on a leak from the White House. One wonders how they thought they could keep this decision under wraps. And one also wonders how come they so seriously misunderestimated the public reaction. O’Keefe was at NASA for over two years and yet he did not realize that Hubble is perhaps the most popular thing that NASA does?