As Orion progresses, it’s absolutely vital for the nation to move forward on a NASA-developed heavy lift vehicle as a goal for 2016, called for in the NASA Authorization Act of 2010.

I would respectfully suggest the onus is on you to explain exactly why the HLV is necessary, let alone vital.

The HLV is critical to supporting space exploration missions beyond LEO and is key to maintaining U.S. leadership in space if we are to advance technology and explore destinations beyond LEO, such as Earth-Moon Lagrange points, asteroids, and Mars.

If this is true, then much that has been written by space visionaries going back as far as von Braun and Tsiolkovsky is wrong. The Decadal Planning Team must have been wrong, the OASIS team must have been wrong, the IAA report by Huntress et al must have been wrong and ULA’s exploration architecture must have been wrong. A simple rocket equation level analysis suggests that propellant transfer combined with existing EELVs is more than enough to do extensive exploration inside the Earth moon system, including the lunar surface. If there are subtle snags that have escaped the notice of many eminent aerospace professionals then it seems prudent to investigate the matter closely before rushing headlong into a very expensive launch vehicle development program.

John Karas
VP & GM for Human Space Flight
Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company

“Now, with that said, it should be understood that human space flight has, thus far, offered no credible capabilities for servicing telescopes outside of LEO.”

I would agree that we’re still a ways away from doing that, but there are alternatives to consider – there are a number of capabilities being debated that could provide a solution.

For the JWST, if it were serviceable (too late now), then a future tug could be sent out to grab it and return it to LEO for servicing. That servicing could take place at the ISS (attached or floating nearby), or at a “construction shack” type facility in LEO. LEO servicing would be doable using the ISS commercial crew capability, and only a work platform (like Mellberg’s suggested Work Module) would need to be built for the task.

So the capabilities for servicing just about any satellite would entail:

– ISS LEO commercial crew transport
– Satellite Tug (based on existing technologies)
– Repair Work Module (based on existing technologies)

In fact, I would think that the Soyuz might even be a better crew transport for such a mission, because it has it’s own airlock. However, if a Repair Work Module was to include some sort of airlock off the docking port, then CST-100 or Dragon would be just fine.

Although there is no need for this type of servicing yet, it is the type of work that the commercial crew industry will count on to help expand the market for their services, and the overall demand for more and more people in space.

Let’s just keep our fingers and toes crossed that all goes well with Webb’s launch, insertion and deployment. If it all works as planned, JWST will obviously be the world’s greatest observatory. Your point about its resolving power is quite exciting — especially when I think about the difference between my old 3-inch Newtonian (that I used as a kid) and my 8-inch Meade SCT (which is vastly superior to that first telescope). Yes, the Webb Telescope will give us an extraordinary new view of the Universe — looking deeper into Time and Space than we have ever seen before. I can appreciate your enthusiasm!

Your point about JWST failing is an excellent one, though the answer may be to invest in ambitious new telescopes that will see new things, rather than prop up old ones. Hubble isn’t exactly an antique, but given the advancements in our technology, we can do a lot better. Spending hundreds of missions of dollars per year to “run it into the ground” is laughable. As to running Hubble until 2020, sure. That would be great. Except it’s a zero sum game. What you spend to make that happen, you don’t spend on doing new things that offer more scientific return.

JWST is hugely expensive, and very complicated. Has JWST crossed a line of complexity for telescopes that offer no recourse in case of failure? Many think so. You’d think the astronomy community would have learned it’s less with Hubble. But equally ambitious telescopes have been proposed, and almost none have considered human servicing.

Now, with that said, it should be understood that human space flight has, thus far, offered no credible capabilities for servicing telescopes outside of LEO. Grand plans do not equal credible capability. When the human space flight community gets its act together the astronomy community will probably take notice. When JWST was going to cost $1B, human servicing would have looked expensive. When it’s a $10B project that fails, it might not look that way anymore.

“Your comparison with the Hooker telescope is amusing. That telescope HAS been shut down for most scientific purposes. The list of telescopes that used to be among the worlds largest and most productive, but are now obsolete, is a long one. The astronomical world wants to spend money on new, better, telescopes that we’re now spending on Hubble.”

I figured someone would nail me on that one. But I like to mention the Hooker telescope since its objective (100-inch) is similar in size to the Hubble Space Telescope, and since Hubble (Edwin) did so much important work with it. Of course, one of the reasons the Hooker is no longer useful is its location overlooking Los Angeles. There wasn’t quite as much light pollution (putting it mildly) when George Ellery Hale first climbed the trails to the top of Mount Wilson a century ago.

As for the Hubble Space Telescope’s usefulness, I cannot deny that the JWST will be a superior instrument — even if it cannot be serviced should it fail. But what if it does fail? Wouldn’t it be nice to still have Hubble working? And my proposal was meant partly as a test mission for either Orion or a commercial spacecraft. There will be orbital test flights in any case. Why not send one of them a little higher to extend the life of Hubble?

If, on the other hand, extending Hubble’s life would eat up operational funds for newer and better telescopes … well, I guess that’s a call for the scientific community to make. But I know at least one professional astronomer (from UC-Berkeley) who would like to see Hubble’s life extended through 2020 — which my proposed servicing mission could do. That said, I do not deny that operating Hubble would be costly. And, as I mentioned previously, the funding isn’t there for extended HST operations or another servicing mission.

Yet, I’m reminded that the decision to retire the Space Shuttle in 2010 was made, in part, by the decision to have Orion and Ares I operational by 2014. The Space Shuttle was being sent to pasture to free up funds for Constellation. After this coming year, we’ll have neither.

The James Webb Space Telescope cannot be serviced. If it fails — and if Hubble isn’t serviced one more time — we’ll have neither.

Of course, I’m keeping my fingers crossed that JWST is a great success and that the treasure trove of discoveries it returns will be even grander than the ones we’ve had from Hubble.

Finally, as for my comments about Hubble’s visible light images, the public is largely unfamiliar with Chandra and Spitzer. It’s the Hubble images that have grabbed their attention and wound up in coffee table books. But your point about the superior resolution of Webb images is a good one, and I’m looking forward to seeing its view(s) of the Universe!

“It is, as I said, the world’s greatest astronomical observatory — in part because it HAS been ungraded with each of the servicing missions.”

Oops! ‘Ungraded’ should have read ‘upgraded’ … an obvious typo, although ‘n’ isn’t near ‘p’ on my keyboard. Butterfingers, I guess.

“A commercial servicing of Hubble might make sense, but Orion? How much did the full bill on the last Shuttle servicing run? $500 million?
Taken together these servicing missions have cost far more than simply building and launching another Hubble-sized telescope. When do we draw the line?”

Alex, I appreciate your point. But the mission I suggest (via Orion, Dragon or whatever) would be (should be) less expensive than a Shuttle flight, and it is the sort of thing that ‘commercial’ space is supposed to do anyhow. What better way to prove their capabilities than to have a minimum cost Hubble servicing mission? I say “minimum cost” as only the batteries and gyros (and maybe the solar arrays) would need to be replaced. And the Work Module that I’ve suggested would be an open-frame truss affair (unpressurized) — the most expensive parts being the docking equipment at either end. If Orion and/or some commercial spacecraft can’t pull off that mission, then we might as well give up on human spaceflight.

As for Hubble itself, as I said previously, would we shut down the Keck Observatory atop Maune Kea for the lack of a battery? Yes, Hubble has gobbled up lots of money. But with all of that money sunk into the telescope, why not sink a little more to get five more years of use out of it? Hubble is the world’s greatest astronomical observatory and worth saving if the mission can be done at a reasonable cost. What a way to demonstrate the value of “commercial” space.

As for the cost of building and launching another Hubble telescope …

May I point out that the current Hubble Space Telescope is not the same HST that was launched 20 years ago. Each of those servicing missions has upgraded the instruments and cameras so that the current Hubble Space Telescope is essentially “new” in that the technology is new. Only the tube and mirror remain the same. Servicing the HST was always a part of the program for the very reason that it would be cheaper in the long run than building and launching a new telescope every five years. Hubble is being abandoned not because it’s outlibed its uselfulness, but because the Space Shuttle is being retired.

Other than the Apollo Program and some of the unmanned planetary missions, it is difficult to imagine any NASA program that has produced more genuine science than the Hubble Space Telescope. It is, as I said, the world’s greatest astronomical observatory — in part because it HAS been ungraded with each of the servicing missions.

How much is pure science worth to society? That’s for the taxpayers to decide. But they’ve gotten a lot more bang out of their buck with the Hubble Space Telescope than they have with the International Space Station (in terms of scientific return).

Personally, I think Hubble is worth saving. But that’s just my opinion.

For the record, I’m a lifetime amateur astronomer. So I guess I’m biased.