How many proponents of a robotic repair mission to the Hubble Space Telescope remain in Congress in the wake of yesterday’s report by a National Academies panel that came out strongly (surprisingly so, to many) in favor of restoring a shuttle servicing mission? In a statement, House Science Committee chairman Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) promised to hold hearings early next year on the report, while the committee’s ranking minority member, Rep. Bart Gordon (D-TN), called on NASA to “heed the Academies’ assessment and move forward to implement its recommendations”. Florida Today reported Rep. Dave Weldon (R-FL) supports a shuttle mission, saying that he “wasn’t sure that our level of sophistication in robotics was sufficient” to support a robotic servicing mission.
In the Senate, Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) said that “NASA has the experience, the technology and now it has the money” to fix Hubble, but said that she and Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO), who chairs the VA-HUD subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee, will also hold a hearing about Hubble repair options early next year. The Houston Chronicle quoted Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), widely expected to succeed Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) as chair of the Senate Commerce Committee’s space subcommittee, as saying that a shuttle Hubble repair is “the right thing to do.” Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) told Florida Today that he would also push for a shuttle repair mission, and also called for Congressional hearings on the subject.
All this new-found enthusiasm about astronauts by some scientists and science journalists sounds contrived.
So now the party line is: Astronauts are evil, but they’re heroes when they’re working on _our_ projects. Everybody got that? Good!
I think Congress and NASA has to define what they want are looking to accomplish.
If you just want to save the science that the Hubble gives us it is far more economical to just build a new one around the replacement parts.
If you want to save the science AND expand our understanding of remote robotic operations than the robotic repair mission is the way to go.
If you want to save that piece of hardware then the shuttle servicing mission is the one that gives the best chance of success in the shortest time.
Personally I would pick the robotic repair mission. Even thou it’s the most expensive it provides the biggest potential “bang for the buck”.
Next would be the new telescope around the replacement parts. This would allow us to use the knowledge we gained through over ten years of experience to design a better platform.
The interesting thing is that many of these proponents bash human spaceflight and push robotics as a do anything solution. Many of them want to spend more money on ground base telescopes saying they can do a better job than space optical once you compensate for the atmosphere. Yet they cry about Hubble. I don’t blame them they are protecting their interest which is their American right. I don’t think NASA should pay for it, it should come from NSF.
I’m in favor of the robotic mission because it would set a new standard for remote repair and this could help other remote telescopes which would be out of reach of near future human spacecraft. I think NASA should look at using the technology for servicing the James Webb Space Telescope which will be at L2, 1 million miles from earth. The system could also service solar observing satellites, the Mars communications network, power satellites and variety of other uses.
If they restore the shuttle servicing mission, they should plan on doing at least two of them even if it goes beyond 2010 or not. I assume that proponents would want NASA to develop all the required safety equipment and procedures so Astronauts will be as safe as going to ISS. Hubble is twice as far from Earth than ISS and in a different orbit. If we loose a robot no big deal but if we loose an Astronaut for just a telescope, that’s not worth it. Either way I hope Congress will fully fund any plan.
I am opposed to the robot mission, and to a lessor extent to the repair itself.
First, we are supposed to be preparing to send people out into the Solar System, no? If so, we’d damn well better get as much experience as we possibly can doing tasks in LEO with people. Sure, repairing Hubble has been done before, but practice makes perfect and experience is everything, and no repair is going to go the same way the last one went. The lower cost of a human mission is both ironic — there is a lesson there, if anyone cares to look for it — and icing on the cake.
Also, I personally give the robotic mission a very low chance of success. Given the amount of money at risk, this is too high a risk to be prudent. We have astronauts willing to take the physical risk, let’s let them do their jobs.
Secondly, as I argue in an article I am currently writing, we’ve done enough remote observation already. We’re ready to go there and look. If money is tight, then physical exploration should have priority over remote observation — if nothing else, it is better science.
— Donald
I would also add that I agree with those of you who have implied that it is just as ironic that the space scientists have suddenly got religion. From the New York Times article: Dr. John Bahcall, a physicist at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, N.J., . . . said of the robotic mission, “Finally, somebody told the king he didn’t have any clothes.”
If that is so, than those who are proposing that we explore Mars with robots also have no clothes.
— Donald
Thank god all Mars nuts are confined to blogs and don’t actually work in the space business. Then we’d really be in trouble. Logic is not the strong suit here.
Secondly, as I argue in an article I am currently writing, we’ve done enough remote observation already. We’re ready to go there and look.
So you’re advocating a manned mission to the Crab Nebula?
“So you’re advocating a manned mission to the Crab Nebula?”
Not at all (at least not yet!). I am arguing that, given that resources are limited, if we have to choose between more knowledge of the Crab Nebula, and more knowledge of Mars, a place we might actually go to in the foreseeable future, the latter should have priority. If we can do both, then, yes, we should.
Technical question: How do you do the itallic quote? Thanks!
— Donald
>>I am arguing that, given that resources are limited, if we have to choose between more knowledge of the Crab Nebula, and more knowledge of Mars, a place we might actually go to in the foreseeable future, the latter should have priority. If we can do both, then, yes, we should.
Agreed, 100%!
I want $50/lb into orbit. Everything else can follow. Take operations away from NASA.
You can’t get that until there is a market. With the possible exception of tourism, the most likely markets that are large enough are provided by the government. Mr. Bush’s Moon / Mars will provide a market — the lunar base.
— Donald
> I want $50/lb into orbit.
So, how can it be done?
The way it’s been done in the past.
http://www.speakeasy.org/~donaldfr/sfmodel.pdf
— Donald