Hubble Issues Delay STS-125

Okay, to de-technify that statement, Hubble's control computer is broken and it also seems that they have failed to fix the problem from the ground. The question is: why the delay to the servicing mission? Will this computer fault leave the spacecraft adrift and, therefore, dangerous for the shuttle to approach?

If so, I just want to congratulate NASA for successfully solving the problem of the Hubble servicing mission. They have prevaracated until the situation has become moot: It may no longer be POSSIBLE to carry out the mission. Hey, I know that this will mean a huge spacecraft on an uncontrolled and unpredictable decaying orbit but... well, these things happen, yeah?

Okay, to de-technify that statement, Hubble's control computer is broken and it also seems that they have failed to fix the problem from the ground. The question is: why the delay to the servicing mission? Will this computer fault leave the spacecraft adrift and, therefore, dangerous for the shuttle to approach?

The delay is to assess the health of the B-side system, determine if a replacement to the A-side system will be flown on STS-125, and if so, to develop a payload carrier for the replacement, develop replacement procedures, and train the crew on those procedures.

Idiotic comments about prevarication not appreciated.

I am flabbergasted that you leave such mush as posted by Ben the Space Brit up on your site; I thought this was a reputable location. "uncontolled and unpredictable decaying orbit..." how about an understanding of orbital mechanics to start with, then secondly how about an understanding that failure of side A of the the CU/SDF has no effect whatsoever on the control of the spacecraft. That's like saying a broken arm will keep you from thinking. How's your arm, Ben?

This is a bigger blow to Constellation than either Hubble or Shuttle.

This delays pad modifications until STS-125 flies, which delays the Ares-1X test flight.

At some point, we must let Hubble go...

Actually, the replacement unit contemplated being flown is an upgraded version of what is currently on-orbit and will replace both the malfunctioned Side A and Side B. The two sides come as an integrated pair- you can't replace one with replacing both.

Ben the Space Brit: The SI C&DH has nothing to do with controlling the telescope itself. As a spacecraft, it is functioning normally and is in full control from the ground. The SI C&DH only controls science data coming from the instruments & heading to the ground.

As for delaying the SM, there is little point in flying a multi-hundred million dollar mission to a billion dollar space observatory and leave it with multiple potential points of single-string failure when we can take a few extra months to prep the hardware and the shuttle crew to restore full dual string reliability.

Remember, as of now this will be the last SM, so we will not get another chance to fix anything else or do anything over. HST is too important not to do it right this time.

Just to say a few words to those that live in the "Y" generation state of mind. I patiently use the term "Y" generation simply to let all others know that I know what the generation mind set is. For those that dont quite get it, keep in mind that all generations are different and here is the basics for their mind set. The generation "Y" requires quick decisions and their patience is directly related to the computer age. Which is our slow evolution towards something.

As for the comments about Nasa's rational about delaying anything is due to meeting mission requirements. Hubble "might" get delayed if and only if they need to change the mission. They originally had 5 EVA's planned, and to change out a computer would take more than planned. So for those "Y" generation type people please show some patience for those that have to plan anything reguarding "Human Space Flight". Keep in mind that we have great technology and manpower, but working in outerspace is like giving "Fred Flinstone" the keys to you car, and having him go and buy you a six pack of New Castle. Ok my analogy is weak but you get the point.

"The question is: why the delay to the servicing mission? Will this computer fault leave the spacecraft adrift and, therefore, dangerous for the shuttle to approach?"

It won't leave the spacecraft adrift but it will make its operations single point critical. It wouldn't make much sense to carry out a servicing mission and leave the machine single point critical. Imagine the criticism that would fly if say, two weeks after SM4, Hubble fails due to *known* problem. NASA may well decide not to fly a replacement CU/SDF-A but at least they will have had time to make that assessment.

I disagree on that - as I understand it the problem is that even if the B side works that would leave the Hubble with no redundancy. So if the Service Mission is carried out, the B side could fail the day after the shuttle leaves. That would result in millions of dollars wasted. Best to delay the shuttle launch so that a spare or replacement unit can be sent up to be installed along with all the other replacement parts.

(Ben, this unit was not scheduled for replacement and so if the service mission had occurred as scheduled years or months ago - the Hubble would now be crippled if the B side doesn't work)

In addition, my understanding is that the only replacement unit is a ground-test spare at Goddard, which will have to be checked out and declared okay to turn into a flight article! That takes time, and with the launch window available, there just isn't time before next year!

The fault occurred Saturday evening, and the project worked through Sunday and Monday morning to quickly converge on an intelligent plan. The NSSC has a separate side-B that can be activated and should serve as a complete replacement. That said, it would be sporty to stage the servicing mission as planned. The side-B would have very little burn-in time before the mission, and in any case there would be now be no redundancy to support the tremendous investment of the servicing mission. There is a flight spare on the ground that can be tested and evaluated as an addition to the mission. The main thing is to take the time to do things right and find the best strategy to maximize the mission lifetime.

Regardless, the NSSC only controls the science instruments. There is no issue at all with control of the spacecraft.

Hey, Nemo,

You ignored the caveat in the second paragraph of my post that said 'If so...'. Kindly READ before you criticise. Thank you.

A big question is not the implications for the Shuttle schedule, but the implications for Constellation. Does KSC now delay transition of Pad B? Obviously, the ARES 1-X launch will then be delayed.

In addition, the B side hasn't been checked out since before or right after launch. So they are being careful about switching to the B side. The delay also allows NASA time to flight qualify the replacement hardware.

Check out SpaceflightNow.com for more info.

>The question is: why the delay to the servicing mission?

Since this wasn't the problem that they had originally planned the mission to address, it's unlikely that they have a replacement part ready, much less that they have the astronauts trained to replace it. It makes sense to delay the mission so that they can make and qualify the replacement part, so they can fix the problem, so that if the other unit goes down, they won't have a telescope that they just spent a half billion dollars to service and needs another fix.

Seems reasonable to me. They're going out to service it anyway, so why not fix the broken part while they're there?

"They have prevaracated until the situation has become moot."

I wonder what the "Brit" thinks NASA lied about? I have personally dealt with many of the people working the preparation for this mission and I have seen no evidence of any "prevarication" (a 2 Brit Pound word when a 2 US cent word would suffice) by anyone. The whole Hubble team at GSFC, JSC and KSC have been busting their tails to be successful.

The myriad "connections" and downstream ramifications of this delay may be enough to cause NASA to say enough is enough. 18 years on a 10 year life prediction (15 after corrective optics) may be "enough.".

The uncontrolled entry is predicted to happen sometime after 2020, so the whole "robot grab and dump" mission is still a viable option for that concern.

If the Brit has anything cogent to add -then I think Keith should entertain same.

On the plus, side, if you can imagine it as such, is that it is fortunate this thing broke now, and not a month after the mission or even during (which had no plans nor parts to service it).

I don't know if they can squeeze this additional fix-it into their already tight mission schedule, but at least now they would have the chance (if it turns out to be really necessary) to dig out the spare (I think there's only one) and train for the job. I believe this would be of sufficient importance to cause a reshuffle of work priorities.

I hope they can at least be prepared to try to fix everything on the revised list. But, sadly, if they run out of time up there and can't get an extension, one of the other lesser priority items (& this unit wouldn't be that) may have to be cancelled.

You ignored the caveat in the second paragraph of my post that said 'If so...'. Kindly READ before you criticise. Thank you.

I read it and understood it perfectly well. The second sentence starts, "They have prevaracated[sic]..."; based on verb tense, it is not dependent on the condition in the first sentence and therefore accuses NASA of prevarication regardless of the condition. That is how the Queen's English works. Kindly comprehend before you criticise my criticisms.

Let's all hold off on the "Monday morning quarterbacking" for a few days, OK?

So, an unexpected problem has surfaced. Time is needed to analyze its effects, how to go about repairing it, and what procedures must now be practiced in the NBF to effect repairs.

Now that Mr. Murphy has signed on, NASA should now investigate moving STS-126 back to its original schedule, and moving the 2009 schedule as opportunity presents itself.

So, does the stack get demated after the rollback, or is there enough room in the VAB to store it complete?

By the way, those of you who advocate abandoning HST because of this, your short attention spans are showing. Try reading a book..."Failure Is Not An Option" is a good start.

Hey Geezer Gas. Please tell me again what technical value we will be getting out of Ares 1-X that is so important as to make sacrificing Hubble a good decision.