|
Your comments thus far:
It'd be crazy to let Hubble die and spend a fortune on sending a Man to Mars instead. Hubble fulfills NASA's prime mission, while Mars fulfills Bush's primary mission, i.e. getting reelected. And if we can't afford to get a couple mechanics up in orbit, which is something we've been doing for 40 years, how (or why) do we get the same guys to Mars? Given recent developments, NASA should (absolutely) consider bidding out Hubble service needs to other govts. and/or the private sector or any combination of same. This is especially stupid as we're just beginning to 'see the light' at the absolute beginning (or end) of the tunnel, or donut, or ellipse or, heck we won't know.....
As an outsider I can only think that NASA is an organization in the same basic condition it always was. There is one re-occurring theme and that is top down management that stifles input from the rest of the organization. The Challanger blew up despite warnings because management did not want to blemish a launch schedule. The Columbia also came down because good engineering questions again fell prey to internal political pressure. It wasn't a lack of concern for safety that brought down these two Shuttles. The fix is not to go to extremes for safety (while really just focusing on the schedule for the ISS and Mars.) Another top down decree of safety procedures will leave the underlying cause which is a lack of listening to worthwhile communication.
Folks: Keith Cowling at his "NASA Watch" web page is firing away at Walt Cunningham (Apollo-7 Astronaut and his bio is here: http://www.waltercunningham.com/ ) about Cunningham's editorial in today's Houston Chronicle on NASA's Sean O'Keefe's decision not to fly the last repair mission to the Hubble Telescope. See below. I normally leave this kind of debate to the direct participants, but this whole business of America becoming so risk-adverse that any risk of injury or death sends people into a tall-spin is really getting to me. From Mr. Cunningham's web page, he appears to be the classical overachiever that NASA used to be proud of, but now apparently considers too Rambo-esque. And yes Mr. Cunningham, apparently Mr. Cowling does seem to think that the "Right Stuff" has gone out of style in America and that you are an anachronism. This attitude is implicit in the over-the-top safety culture that is now taking hold at all the NASA field centers and at NASA's contractors as well. But thank God we aren't doing that YET in the US military, where some people are going to die in any mission by definition, be it a large training mission or in real combat, because folks, fighting ones enemies is a TOUGH and DIRTY business as our fighting men and woman of any generation will attest to. If you are to succeed in any venture, one has to make the best preparations one can to minimize risks WITH the available resources, but then you have to push the go button and get the mission done, and if you get a few cuts and abrasions, or even deaths along the way, so be it. That's what I believe Mr. Cunningham is using as a touch-stone in his Hubble repair mission judgment call, and it's something that seems to be lost on some in Washington. Yet even in the military we are fast going to the risk-adverse approach to management by going to remote fighting vehicles where there is little or no chance of our soldiers getting in harms way. But what happens when the machines are broke, the will to use them is gone, and the barbarians are at our gates? I suggest that you look at the fate of the Roman Empire or Europe in 1938 to get your answer. Sadly, with our ever increasing Politically Correct and Risk Adverse society, brought to you by the 1960s Hippy Flower power movement, trial lawyers, and the ruling wieners in our society that's what we have to expect from now on in American and our Federal Space Program. It's enough to make one want to puke, but it also points out that Sean O'Keefe is just making sure another accident doesn't happen on his watch with his Hubble decision, which is just another demonstration of the CYA bureaucratic-shuffle.. Any bets on whether the Space Shuttle will ever fly again, or this new Presidential "space vision" is just an election year con-job? Any bets that the American Space program is already dead and its various parts just haven't figured it out yet? If we aren't willing to take some well thought out and well defined risks in any of our space endeavors as noted by Mr. Cunningham, we sure aren't going to send anyone back to the Moon or go on to Mars where there is a non-zero probability of loss of some crew members or even the entire mission, especially with the low-rent approach that the current President is taking with it. But that very fact is probably how we as a society currently rate the importance of our space exploration program. It's nice to have, but it's not important enough to our collective selves to spill blood over it at ANY level. So how far do we take this new safety culture of ours? How much responsibility does the individual have for keeping their fingers out of the fires of life and how much should his or her keepers have? I vote that it has already gone way too far to the keepers, AKA the NANNY STATE Government. I don't understand your antagonistic attitude towards Walt Cunnigham's opinion in the Houston Chronicle - nor your bias against Hubble and for the ISS. Mr. Cunningham's thoughts seem perfectly reasonable to me - fix the insulation and fly. It seems crazy to be afraid to perform missions we already have performed before. Now we need safe havens and backup missions just to enter LEO? I'm afraid we have lost our nerve. I am sure every astronaut would volunteer for the Hubble servicing mission. They know the risks of spaceflight and accept them. By the way, I did read the CAIB report and understood it. I happen to be an aerospace engineer. Admiral Gehman's report does not preclude Hubble Servicing missions - only risk averse and timid mentality does. A Hubble mission is arguably no more risky than an ISS mission. And it's a risk any astronaut would be willing to take. Especially to prolong the life of probably the most successful and meaningful payload the Shuttle has ever launched. Hubble is bigger than NASA and Mr. O'Keefe. Hubble is a national asset; the decision does not lie with NASA. The move in Congress to direct NASA to fly SM4 is the right approach. The Hubble decision brings to light NASA's continuing inability to "think outside the box". The development of an Orbital Maneuvering Vehicle (manned or unmanned) would provide the ability to save Hubble and at the same time provide a valuable capability to supply Station (no need for every payload to be able to auto-dock), not to mention satellite orbital insertion/recovery. At the same time providing experience in operation and design of space craft for our mission to the Moon and beyond. Keith, You have developed a huge following by providing critical analysis and informed opinions about NASA and its comings and goings. I personally check your website many times a day to keep up with OUR agency. I have become increasing disturbed by the mean-spirited attitude you have displayed since the Bush Administration announcement of the exploration policy and the cancellation of the HST servicing mission. Your comments about Walt Cunningham's opinion piece were uncalled for, but are consistent with your responses to many who have questioned or criticized the Administration in recent months. His editorial was thoughtful and accurate. You offered no information contradicting anything he said; you just criticized him for opening his mouth. After having spent 20 years at KSC working for NASA on the Shuttle and ISS Programs, I feel like I have some expertise that can be used to take a critical view of Agency activities and policies. The fact of the matter on HST is that Sean is dead wrong about canceling the HST mission. If its not safe to fly to HST, it isn't safe to fly at all. I reread the white paper on the rationale for the cancellation that is linked to NASA Watch and the rationale is wrong regarding the potential problems with having a rescue shuttle on the pad. How much of the rest of the rationale is flawed? About the only thing that the Exploration policy does is guarantee that HST and Shuttle are doomed and that our involvement in and use of ISS will be downsized to a trivial level long before its useful life is over. It also guarantees that there will be a long gap in having a US capability to send people into space. How in the world can one justify a gap of 6 or 7 years between first flight of manned spacecraft and its first occupied flight? I would love for my former USNTPS classmate Craig Steidle to explain that one. I cant believe that you think it to be reasonable. As I recall, the roadmap called for a first flight in 2008 and a manned flight in 2014. I hope they made a typo. I think that you need to look in the mirror and ask yourself why you have become so defensive and mean-spirited. It seems that you have lost your objectivity to take a critical look at the Agency and provide the community with other opinions. I too want to see us return to the moon and mars, and we do need desperately to develop a new method to travel to LEO and beyond ... way beyond. The Bush plan might be a good place to start the policy discussion that needs to take place, but it isn't necessarily THE way to go. I know that many of you who read this are NASA employees heading for retirement this year. I don't work for NASA, at least not officially, but someday they're going to figure out that I'm their biggest cheerleader. Minus the skirt and pom-poms, of course. Have you ever seen this movie, featuring Kevin Costner as an aging pitcher, contemplating retirement, who throws a perfect game in his final appearance? Sean O'Keefe blew a perfect chance to engage all of you when he arbitrarily cancelled SM-4 and cited the CAIB's recommendations about having in-orbit TPS repair capability in place. If he had stated that you have two years to get this done, and thrown down the gauntlet, it would've signified a "can-do" attitude "out here", instead of being paralyzed with fear. I'm sure that you folks get inundated with your share of paradigms and mission statements on a daily basis. But you've never heard them from me, one of the folks in the crowd at KSC and the Smithsonian. Now, you will. But remember that I'm 48, with a 11 year old son who wants to go to Mars. I've read that the RTF suggestions mailbox received 286 suggestions, out of 286 million people. I had one of them, with two suggestions. Since the mailbox was open to the world, what does that tell me? That no one really cares? I hope not. Before you clock out for the last time this year, look at yourself in the mirror, and ask yourself why you joined NASA in the first place. We all know that it wasn't for the money. It was to make a difference, to contribute, to be part of the continuance of Kennedy's dream. Use all of the information you have available to you and solve these problems. Keeping the Hubble online is just the tip of the iceberg, because what you accomplish, or fail to accomplish, will affect spaceflight for many years to come. Don't say "It's not my job" or "No one cares" because we out in the bleachers are watching. Do whatever it takes to solve these RTF issues. Throw YOUR perfect game. Then you can retire. Mr Cowing: Thanks for offering outside observers of the space program, such as myself, so many chances to speak out. NASA's recent decision to cancel all shuttle flights to Hubble really brings us back to the good old 20/20 Hindsight! Think of how many times that NASA has send shuttles into space with no 'safe haven' in place, such as Mir and the ISS. The first 25 flights between STS-1 and the Challenger accident. And then they got Discovery ready to go in 1988, still with no 'safe haven'. They then flew alot more flights before they started docking shuttle missions to Mir. When we think back about the foam falling off the external tanks and impacting the shuttle's tiles all these years, compounded with the fact that lots of these flights were sent up with no 'safe haven such as the Mir or ISS, and also not even any rescue plan in place on those docking missions, it really gives me the chills to think about all the risks they took with all those flights. Terrible that we had to lose another 7 astronauts to realize all this. Why not send Robonaut to HST for simple repair and replacement of Gyros to allow the telescope to go as long as possible? It would make a great use of telerobotics techniques already used in labs and would be a great dry run for any future EVA required activity with the James Webb Telescope. Dust off the Interim Control Module mate Robonaut and the spares on it and put this existing technology on an Atlas 5 and go for it in a few years. We keep forgetting that we have the technology. According to space.com, the DART (Demonstration of Autonomous Rendezvous Technology) project will "provide expertise in de-orbiting the Hubble Space Telescope. " The plan is to send up a "booster rocket" to de-orbit the observatory and drop in the ocean. From what I understand, the longevity of HST depends on its gyroscopes. If they can attach a rocket motor, they can attach a rocket motor that just happens to contain a new attitude control system for HST including gyros. When the new attitude control system fails, then they can fire that rocket. Also, I think NASA needs to understand that they are managing a national asset (and to some degree an international asset). There may be quite a few institutions interested in financing the HST service mission or the mission I described above. And, some of them might even have better ideas than that. Perhaps NASA simply give HST to some research consortium who would then have to come up with the funds and technology to keep it working or to bring it down. NASA would have to have veto power for safety reasons, though. Thanks for the opportunity to speak! How about Hubble2? Instead of paying $500M to $1B to train for and launch a servicing mission, we could pull the backup mirror out of the museum, hook the replacement gyros up to it, replace the optics on the new instruments and launch an all new Hubble2 (complete with deorbit motor) on an EELV. Even if it cost $300+M to complete design and assembly of Hubble2, and another $100+M to launch it, the cost would still probably be less than a servicing mission, and the new hubble could be designed to last longer between visits. (Or we could just replace them every 8 years.) I do think that Hubble has made and can and will continue to make important contributions to Astronomy, however, it, like the shuttle itself, is one of the most expensive solutions to the problem of getting better data. If we had a more responsive and less expensive RLV, then servicing might be a great thing. But since the only likely craft available to service Hubble is Shuttle, I think Hubble2 is a good alternative. Keith I both agree and disagree with NASA decision cancel the Hubble service mission. With the changes NASA are putting in the chances of anything happening are very slim. Infact it shows that NASA are to scared now because of Columbia when the attitude shoud be "We can and will do this". But I can understand the decision for the simple reason even before the Columbia accident the remaining shuttles were booked to fly ISS missions and it was Columbia to fly Hubble service missions and trying to fit in Hubble into the launch schedule now will be hard. But I really hope that they can do it as Hubble has been an extremely important and it will useful to keep Hubble going for as long as they can From your SpaceRef.com article "Astronomy Community Disputes NASA s Hubble Plans" of Tuesday, February 10, 2004: "In the post-Columbia way of doing business NASA had decided that in order to assure the safety of a crew flying to service Hubble that another shuttle would need to be fueled and ready to go in case the first shuttle was damaged and unable to return to Earth. "This would be required since the Hubble and the space station are in different orbits. This would prevent a crippled orbiter from reaching the space station as a 'safe haven' if problems arose. Of course this would add considerable complexity to the standard way of doing things. 'This means two countdowns, two control centers, two of everything' NASA's Associate Administrator for Spaceflight William Readdy said in a teleconference with reporters on Monday." From your SpaceRef.com article "NASA Planning to Move Next Shuttle Mission to 2005" of Tuesday, February 17, 2004: "Meanwhile, STS-300 was baselined last week for a November 15, 2004 launch date - the same as the current planned STS-121 launch date. STS-300 is a pre-staged rescue mission to be in place to recover the STS-114 crew from the ISS in the event of non-repairable damage to the shuttle orbiter Atlantis used to fly STS-114." They can't fly SM4 because they would have to have a rescue mission ready to go, but they're going to fly STS-114 with a rescue misssion ready to go? What am I missing here? Keith: Hope you're still accepting comments on SM4, and keep up the good work dealing with Pike, Roland, etc.: "After the Apollo 1 accident, you couldn't start a fire in the Command Module if you wanted to. After the Challenger accident, you couldn't get an SRB field joint to leak even with an intentional O-ring defect. When the shuttle returns the flight with all the new damage prevention measures implemented, the chances of a Columbia-type incident will be vanishingly small (and it only happened once in over a hundred prior flights with none of the new measures in place). With all due respect to the CAIB and the Administrator, I begin to wonder if everyone is overreacting to the RCC/tile damage risk after Return To Flight. The SM4 decision could have at least waited until the first several missions were completed and thermal protection results analyzed." HST has had a significant impact on astronomy and is definitely worth another servicing mission. The Shuttle is not unsafe, it is NASA management that is unsafe. Both Shuttle accidents were due to known problems which could have been corrected but were ignored in spite of their catastrophic potential. If not for poor management, the Shuttle would have an unprecedented 100% flight success rate. Therefore, I believe it is safe to perform SM-4 as long as NASA management makes the right decisions for Return To Flight. The Shuttle is at it's safest after RTF because the workforce, and more importantly management, has their eye on the ball in regards to safety. Only after long periods of success does management become lax and allow serious issues to be declared non-problems at the highest of levels while stifling the concerns of the workforce. O'Keefe needs to quit managing out of fear of screwing up again. And boy did he screw up with Columbia by putting the pressure on the workforce to meet ISS Core Complete by 2/19/04, at Bush's command of course. If O'Keefe wants to save money, maybe he ought to do SM-4 and cancel all flights to ISS as an unnecessary risk. After all, HST has returned more science than ISS ever could, especially with a minimal crew who can barely do maintenance (and I'm talking the 3 person crew it had, not the current 2 person crew, again thanks to Bush). Besides, there's no science freezers to do human biology experiments and return samples. MELFI has never flown powered and the MPLM has never been flown in an active configuration (and won't for years to come). I just wish NASA had more intelligent management. They are either technical-oriented but fiscally retarded so they ruin the budget with enormous cost overruns (thanks JSC) or they are money-smart but dumb as a bag of hammers on technical issues (ala O'Keefe). We need someone with both the fiscal aptitude and technical background to do the right things technically within the budget we are allotted. Unfortunately, there are no more Von Braun's in the world. p.s. Whatever the decision, I have complete faith in our management to make the wrong one. Keith, Thanks for offering these forums. Those suggesting the ISS orbit as an intermediary enabler for HST servicing need to understand just how difficult the orbital mechanics makes it. The shuttle carries about 1000 ft/sec velocity-change capability of OMS propellant into space, including what it has to use for initial orbit insertion (OMS-2) and deorbit. Those two burns collectively use up roundabout half. So, a shuttle may have (optimistically) about 500 ft/sec available to use for any orbit-changing maneuvers. Plane changes (altering the orbital inclination included) are VERY expensive Delta-V-wise; they require in the ballpark of 700-900 ft/sec per ONE degree at shuttle altitudes (dV = 2*base orbital velocity*sine(angle/2); in other words, if the shuttle launches to the Station, it would only be able to lower itself inclination-wise to 51 or so degrees, and that's being generous. Hubble is at 28.5 degrees. 1000 ft/sec of OMS prop capability weighs in at around 24,000 pounds. THEORETICALLY (VERY theoretically!), the shuttle might carry 40,000 extra pounds of OMS prop in the payload bay, assuming the tankage was available AND nothing else was there. Go ahead and do the math and you'll see that the shuttle at its theoretical best (using lots of previously unflown OMS tankage) could lower its inclination from ISS (51.6 degrees) to only 49ish degrees. To sum up, that means a shuttle would NOT be able to get from the ISS orbit to the HST orbit. [Bonus reality: ISS is in that orbit because we're partnering with Russia; Freedom was going to be at 28.5. Compromises, compromises . . .] So, you ask, how about sending HST back to ISS-land with an automatic booster? This of course presupposes a delicate autonomous rendezvous could be achieved and that HST could handle the contamination of both the booster (including the shaking thrust environment) and ISS region--all big assumptions. 51.6 - 28.5 = 23.1 degrees makes for a required planar velocity change of roughly 10,000 feet/sec. Think about that; that's a sizable percentage of the base orbital velocity (~25,000 ft/sec), which means a whopper of a booster stage. (HST weighs ~24,500 pounds; I'll let someone more qualified work out the rocket equation to come up with precise booster size.) Realistically, then, this leaves us three options: a) Don't do SM4; b) Do SM4 as planned, after we perfect an autonomous shuttle TPS inspect (AERcam-Sprint?) & repair (Plume Boom?) capability and have a 2nd shuttle (the following ISS mission in the queue) [or three-four Soyuzes (would this be possible?)] standing by on the ground; c) Do SM4 (or some portion thereof--an attitude control supplemental system seems most viable) using a ground-launched autonomous system. Before I had been leaning toward giving (c) a shot, but, y'know, (b) makes a lot of sense--the Apollo 18 20 deju-vu-regrets possibility is smelling stronger and stronger. HOWEVER, one risk of (b) I haven't seen discussed is the risk that a third shuttle loss would pose to ISS Assembly Complete--don't forget that the Columbia scenario isn't the only way of losing a shuttle & crew. Since finishing ISS is to be the shuttle's primary duty per the proposed new space strategy, perhaps the challenge of finishing ISS with only two orbiters (assuming an HST mission catastrophe, on a mission NOT dedicated to ISS completion) was part of the decision equation. Hardware-centered heartlessness, but an issue nonetheless. So I offer these thoughts for Mr. O'Keefe's (re)consideration. If it is to dangerous to send the Shuttle to maintain the Hubble, how about Soyuz? This might take both a Progress, automatic cargo version of Soyuz, to carry parts, etc, and a manned Soyuz to bring astronauts to do the work. I have so many feelings about this issue that it's hard to have a single, coherent position on it. 1. HST and the ST Science Institute have done a fantastic job in involving the public in the excitement and awe of astronomical imagery. 2. The prospect of several years of coordinated observations by HST, Chandra, and SIRTF was one that excited much of the astronomical community. The possibility of overlap with JWST was of sufficient importance that the Bahcall committee was willing to recommend considering stifling other possible new missions to enable it. 3. There are lots of other space science missions that do great science, too, often at far lower cost per number of refereed papers in professional journals. 4. SM4 slippage, and possible future servicing missions recommended by the Bahcall committee, would have had to be funded by gutting the Discovery and Explorer programs --- from which, it could easily be argued, a lot more "science per buck" is derived than from larger programs such as HST. Even assuming HST were doing the fraction or quality of all NASA space science some of its warmest admirers have stated here, would it be right to continue HST at the cost of new technology and new science? It could be argued that the longevity of HST and the enormous cost of manned servicing missions has kept the "cork in the bottle" by stifling lower-cost, new technology missions. Arguably, without an STScI to help with public outreach, the scientific achievements of these smaller missions are less familiar to the public. 5. HST's capabilities, though, are unique, as has been mentioned here several times --- adaptive optics (AO) on the ground is limited in field of view and wavelength --- and optical/UV astronomers won't see another large "light bucket" in space for another ~ 20 years or more. The observatory on the moon business, much as we might want it, has to be seen as ripe with opportunities for Lucy yanking the football away, and it would be decades before such an observatory could be built and productive. 6. HST is unlikely to die tomorrow; its gyros and batteries still have some life left in them, and some science could still be done with reduced numbers of gyros. 7. The gyros to be installed during SM4 are refurbished (I believe) and unlikely to have the lifetime or perform to the same specification, as long, as did the earlier gyros. 8. For the coming last six years of the Shuttle's lifetime, it has to be viewed as fundamentally unsafe --- that is the real message of the CAIB report. 8. We have to ask ourselves seriously if the new science that could be achieved by extending HST operations yet again warrants risking human life. 9. As an astrophysicist, I believe it does --- but if and only if the only lives put at risk are those of astronomers, those who have a burning desire to do the science that would be allowed by a mission extension. The Shuttle astronauts will always jump at the chance to do something as interesting as an HST servicing mission: not only is it not as boring as hauling cargo up to and trash down from the ISS, it's challenging in and of itself --- and they want to fly. As long as we need skilled pilots and flight engineers onboard to get Shuttles up and down, it's plain wrong to ask them to do what robots can do. 10. There will never be an end to the argument over whether it's better to launch new missions with more advanced technologies but ever higher development costs, or try to put missions in low earth orbit and service them with replacement hardware with the enormous expense and significant risk of manned missions. Fortunate are they whose missions got to places where it's hard (today) for astronauts to follow (L1, L2, comets, asteroids, Mars) --- they have to build things right the first time, or they lose. If the exploration initiative succeeds, we'll be able to have the same discussion over servicing missions much farther away from home --- but probably no more conclusively. If a Shuttle can carry the required fuel, I'm sure that Astronauts can go from Hubble back to the Space Station to carry out inspections before returning to earth. We all love Musgrove's account of "the dance" to repair HST !!................A WONDERFUL ACHIEVEMENT !! Hi Keith, Short of a sophisticated automated robotic service vehicle, I can't see how to maintain the Hubble without a shuttle though I am an avid supporter of its scientific research. Would it be possible to remotely attach a delicate booster to the scope and modify the orbit to match the ISS? If so, would it be practical to attach it to the ISS as part of it's scientific mission despite subtle station vibrations and periodic attitude changes? The station gives us the ability to monitor and repair things things so much better than isolated orbits and obsolete vehicles. It would also save on remote maintenance costs. Dear Keith, Can I weigh in to your page of responses on Hubble? Firstly, I don't think this is an easy judgement either way and I think Mr O'Keefe took a responsible decision, even if I do disagree with it. Secondly, an exaggerated reaction to safety concerns - which I don't think is the case here - is not necessarily irrational. This decision may have a salutary effect on engineers elsewhere in the Shuttle programme, reminding all that NASA cares enough about safety to make painful sacrifices for it. If Mr O'Keefe may not be saving these lives, but he may be saving others, by making the point that a 2% risk of crew loss is different from a 1% risk. Thirdly, I accept that the loss of lives in a NASA accident has a greater significance than a similar industrial accident elsewhere, because astronauts in some sense represent us. They carry the flags of our nations, and they also embody our feelings about exploration. In that same sense, the Station may be "worth" more than Hubble, because it is a vocation rather than an experimental laboratory. So I think cheap ripostes about whether the S2 starboard truss section is "worth more" than Hubble are shallow arguments. However, and with the deepest respect for those who died and those who are still agreeing to go up there, we accept that a new bridge, a new dam, a new tunnel, etc., will cost lives. Architects of dams in Africa or Asia routinely include chapels of remembrance in their blueprints, for they will be needed. We send our people out to dozens of war zones around the world, to keep the peace. Many are killed. What we should not do is to raise bogus arguments to say that visiting Hubble is as safe as visiting ISS. I know it is easy to be brave with other people's lives, but we should be saying something braver: that this would be a (moderately) more dangerous flight than usual, but in a great and good cause. Human exploration is a great cause, but so is science. If building ISS ennobles us, so does building Hubble. We should not flinch. A few things to point out, in repsonse to what's been said in other comments: 1. One respondant suggested that there was a logical flaw in assuming that HST missions are just as safe as ISS mission. In fact that person made an elementary error in probability. If there is 1/10 chance that an ISS mission will get into orbit, but not make port (such as would occur with a SSME failure, then Abort to Orbit), then with 30 missions to complete the ISS, this would happen 3 times. If there is any significant chance that at even one ISS mission cannot make port as the ISS is completed, then one is accepting at least the SM-4 risk, and perhaps more, based on the anonymous documents. 2. There as been completely reckless talk of what adaptive optics from the ground can do in the near future, let alone what it is doing now. There is zero capabality now or even planned to do wide-field diffraction limited imaging in the visible wavelengths from the ground. Adaptive optics are great for bright compact targets in the near-IR, but they cannot replace what Hubble can do. 3. The JWST will be wonderful when it flies, but it is not an HST replacement. The Bahcall committee recently outlined a sensible approach to the HST/JWST transition period. One can argue about supporting SM-5. new instruments, etc. versus spending the money elsewhere in space-science (as we were doing just a few weeks ago). An abrupt cancilation of SM-4 with $200M+ spent on new instruments is not the way to effect an orderly transition. If this is how we do things, JWST, and manyy other missions will be next.... As a student who has dreamed of spaceflight for years, I'm in tears over the decision to abandon the Hubble to a slow death before its time. Astronauts and manned missions are flashy and exciting, but it's the beauty of the images that Hubble returns that ignites a true and long-lasting love affair with the stars. Without the Hubble images of M16 and M27 to remind me why I'm putting myself through the difficulty of studying astrophysics, I would not have made it to graduation. - A heartbroken dreamer Keith, I read your piece about the anonymous engineers on HST. One other option that may not have been mentioned is one that refutes Ed Weiler's position on co-orbiting HST with ISS to mitigate concerns about doing the servicing mission without a safe-haven for the crew. Simple orbital mechanics dictates that a plane change from 28.5 to 56 deg is not feasible at LEO, it is quite doable at GEO or higher. GEO comm birds that don't launch on SeaLaunch, do this all the time. It's basically a perigee burn for altitude (about 3 km/s) then apogee plane change at GEO (neglible delta-V). Only difference here is instead of 28.5 to 0 deg, it's 28.5 to 56 deg. Also, we would just need another 3 km/s retrograde to bring the HST into an appropriate altitude for the servicing mission. Orbit angle can be 180 from ISS to assure of no collision. Shuttle can first launch to ISS, be inspected, then phasing burns to HST, servicing, then go home. This is an idea, I have not seen anywhere, and while it IS rocket science, it's not that difficult to conceive, especially if NASA is planning to develop this "debooster" with autonomous rendezvous and docking for $300 million. I think they could add the additional propulsion and Guidance and Control logic for about the same overall cost.Keith, In a classic case of not seeing the forest for the trees, the scientific community is so obsessed with saving Hubble that they cannot see that they have the potential to have an even better observatory on the Moon. I think the scientific community would find a NASA willing to reach a mutually beneficial agreement were the scientific community to approach NASA and indicate that they would stop the fight for Hubble in exchange for a promise for first access for a lunar telescope. Instead, they are calling all the chits in to get Hubble serviced and building even greater acrimony with NASA. I believe that the Hubble supporters who are fighting tooth and nail to have the servicing mission forced through NASA may end up with a pyric victory. Not something that one would associate with such an intelligent group of people who are supposed to have the capacity for abstract thinking. Keith, There has been a lot of interest in the anonymous documents describing the risks of a Hubble servicing mission, but I haven't seen much discussion of their content. Consider this portion: "The existence of or lack of a RCC repair capability will be a problem that is common to HST and ISS missions. While an HST mission will not have a safe haven capability, the risk associated with the absence of a safe haven is the same as ISS missions that fail to dock with the ISS." Fine as far as it goes, but there is a logical flaw here - the Hubble mission would deliberately launch into a non-ISS orbit, but an ISS mission would not. The chance of reaching orbit but being unable to dock with the ISS is fairly small - certainly no more than 1 in 10. So, as far as this part of the argument goes, an ISS mission would be at least 10 times safer. Is it just me, or do both of these documents seem to be a little ... selective? ... in the arguments they present? Not exactly a balanced engineering argument. To NASA Watch: I strongly oppose Administrator O'Keefe's decision to abandon the Hubble Telescope. His decision-making style resembles that displayed by Dan Golden. I had hoped that abrupt announcements made in isolation had disappered with the departure of the last administrator. Apparently, Mr. O'Keefe blind-sided those professionals on the Hubble team who had been led to believe that the SM4 mission would proceed. In addition, this brings back memories of one of NASA's darkest chapters, namely the sickening cancellation of the Apollo 18 and 19 lunar landing missions. They were sacrificed on the altar of the Space Shuttle. Does Mr. O'Keefe really want to be remembered for making a decision equally as misguided? All of the boosters and spaccraft that had already been built (and paid for) for those two Apollo missions were scrapped. In much the same way, the new camera and spectrometer that were to be installed in HST during Servicing Mission 4 are essentially built and paid for. Scores of devoted individuals have labored over the last several years to bring this instruments alive. What is their reward from the Adiminstrator? A slap in the face! Is this the new NASA? It seems that Mr. O'Keefe doesn't "get it." Much of the American tax-paying public EQUATES the Hubble Telescope with the space program. It appears to them that it is one of few missions conducted by the space agency that they can identify with, that they can understand. So what does Mr O'Keefe do a couple of days after President Bush's bold announcement resurrecting manned deep space missions? He negates entirely the tide of joy, excitement and focus that the President's speech had generated. Of course, the news was let out late on a Friday afternoon, before a holiday weekend, and as the news media wa switching to coverage of the primaries and caucuses. This is the new NASA? I hope that Admiral Gehman takes into account the many scientific and cultural attributes of HST in his report back to Mr. O'Keefe. The Hubble Space Telescope truly belongs to the American people. I hope that Admiral Gehman charges NASA with using their ingenuity and spirit of innovation to service HST, for it is now NASA's most effective means of inspiring the next generation of scientists and engineers "as only NASA can." Delivering and servicing Hubble was the most meaningful thing done by the shuttle program in its entire history. Yet somehow, a single servicing mission is now deemed too risky while an additional *25* Shuttle flights will be required to complete the ISS. Any assessment of risk should take into account the possibility of failure during launch, as with Challenger. And I believe there's a reasonable chance one of those 25 missions might fail to reach the Station, making an independent, Shuttle-based inspection/repair/rescue capability a good thing (and not merely a capability developed at considerable expense for one-time use). The station may in fact be the colossus of engineering that it's reputed to be, but it's scientific and cultural value is puny compared to HST. The decision to cancel SM4 is naturally viewed with great skepticism and distrust by scientists and average citizens alike. It's obvious, even to the non-technical, that servicing Hubble is a worthy endeavor, even profound. It's also obvious that assembling the ISS is neither. Keith, There has been a lot of interest in the anonymous documents describing the risks of a Hubble servicing mission, but I haven't seen much discussion of their content. Consider this portion: "The existence of or lack of a RCC repair capability will be a problem that is common to HST and ISS missions. While an HST mission will not have a safe haven capability, the risk associated with the absence of a safe haven is the same as ISS missions that fail to dock with the ISS." Fine as far as it goes, but there is a logical flaw here - the Hubble mission would deliberately launch into a non-ISS orbit, but an ISS mission would not. The chance of reaching orbit but being unable to dock with the ISS is fairly small - certainly no more than 1 in 10. So, as far as this part of the argument goes, an ISS mission would be at least 10 times safer. Is it just me, or do both of these documents seem to be a little ... selective? ... in the arguments they present? Not exactly a balanced engineering argument. With all the whining I am hearing about NASA's discontinuing the upgrades to Hubble (HST), I feel obligated to write this note to support NASA's position on this. I am a university astrophysicist who admittedly does not do Hubble science. I question the wisdom of the communities call for continuing to upgrade HST, which will certainly come at the expense of other science endeavors regardless of the new Mars initiative. The HST has produced much wonderful data with spectacular scientific results. However, one must ask, what will the continuation of HST bring in comparison to what new space experiments might bring? We obviously cannot continue HST, bring on the James Webb Telescope, and support other important areas of research. One must also consider the risk, and ask if the continuation of HST is worth the human and financial risk. Are astronomers willing to give up the Webb telescope to continue HST? A balance must be struck, which NASA management seems to be trying to achieve. Scientists in general are a very conservative lot. We like things to be ordered and we do not generally like change. I think this may be partially what NASA management is up against. I think Dan Goldin said it right (and I don't mean by this to generally support his policies) a few years ago at an AAS meeting when he said something to the effect that Hubble Huggers will have to let go some day and move on to other things. It seems that that day is near and we will need to move on to other things. It is this moving on that usually leads to the real breakthrough science. I vote for servicing the Hubble through a robotic mission. The Hubble is designed to be serviced by astronauts in full pressure suits. It is designed to be caught by the shuttle's arm. So it would seem like a "doable" problem to design a robotic S/C to lock on to one or two of the shuttle-arm attachment points and then service the shuttle as required. Can a hand inside a pressure glove be better than a mechanical hand/arm? Since the Hubble is in a low orbit, using TV cameras and live control of the robot could be done (possibly multiple control centers would be necessary so that a controller would be near the S/C at all times). We could launch this on expendable vehicle such as an Atlas or similar. This would seem a lot easier than what is currently being done on Mars. Another thought: If we can send up a robot to de-orbit the Hubble, could we not send up a robot to re-orient its orbit to be closer to the space station? Then maybe the shuttle could service it while remaining within the rules of being close enough to the space station to have a "Safe Haven". A similar robot could then boost the Hubble back to its original orbit. In NASA de-orbiting the Hubble just to preserve the notion that human servicing of it was ever needed? In a time when those who are against space, believe that we can not afford a space program that costs less then 1% of the national budget, we must show a willingness to forgo more esoteric pursuits. But with all things that we try to get the American public to swallow, things are not what they seem. Early next decade, Hubble's replacement is slated to go up. Hubble currently has a lifetime of about 6 more years, barring any accidents. That gives us no UV data for at most 6 years. And no pretty pictures for that time. What, in a best case scenario, do we get in return? Next generation fleet of shuttles that will deliver on the promise that this fleet of shuttles failed. No more one size fits all. This will help deliver a permanent base on the moon, which will bring a Far-side Observatory that much quicker. How likely this outcome happens depends if we can properly educate the mass of non space enthusiasts that make up the voting super majority. Does it truly matter if its safety or the new policy that made the decision? When in reality it most likely a bit of both that truly did it. This would have been the finial supply mission anyways. The shuttle needs to be retired. Its more expensive then it needs to be. If it wasn't for two things, I would say ground the fleet now. The quicker we can ground them the better, for a manned spaced program. We have global obligations to finish the ISS, and the building of it gives us experience of micro-g construction. The ISS was designed around the cargo bay of the shuttle. This frees up the design constraints of the cargo shuttle replacement. The second reason why we can't ground it is the most important for a manned space program. Nothing to replace it as a crewed vehicle. Now this is what gives us a ray of hope in keeping the Hubble alive until its replacement. With all the various x-initiatives canceled in recent years, who is to say the shuttles replacement isn't delayed and they can put SM4 back in the rotation sometime in the next 6 years. But if not, it is better to have a sacrifice of waiting four years, or even ten years, for Hubble like data in exchange for a jump start of a manned program that will yield even more scientific data even faster then the status quo allows. I am finding it interesting that those political figures that have lambasted NASA and its sub-contractors, sometimes appropriately, for failing to take adequate safety measures during Space Shuttle missions, will now be willing to deviate from the CAIB's report in order to perform a servicing mission on the aging Hubble Telescope, could bring unwarranted detrimental factors into a mission that at this point, are not operational, but experimental. Political maneuvering at its worst at the expense of human lives. I do hope that NASA reverses its decision to discontinue servicing the Hubble. Obviously this is one of the greatest scientific tools ever created and its work will never be done. President Bush's grand plans for moon colonization and Mars manned exploration will be a waste of money. Unmanned tools are where we should be devoting our investment and research since we will get much more bang-for-the-bucks. The Hubble and the Mars rovers are just an example of what can be accomplished. This idea of putting man far out in space is pointless. Can I do anything to help save the Hubble? Mr O'Keefe, Adm. Gehman, I'm a homebuilt flyer/builder along the Sierra Nevada foothills of Northern California. Managing risk comes at many levels for my passion. Judgement, planning, execution encompass every flight in my experimental aircraft. I understand Mr. O'Keefe you are following Admiral Gehman's report guidelines for Shuttle return to flight. But Hubble's last upgrade mission is worth any percieved risk based on CAIB findings. I understand choices based on financial budget constrains. President Bush's Moon-Mars initiative will force delays, cancellation, and reorganization of NASA to meet the Presidents goals. But the final last mission is worth BOTH CAIB's risk assessment exception AND financially, a bargain for the science returned to humanity. Why does O'Keefe have the authority to make this decision? Hubble belongs to all of us. It is not just another piece of NASA hardware. President Bush's directive should not mean abandoning all that has come before. What a dumb and thoughtless decision. Here are just two of the many ways that the Hubble can be saved. what would be needed is a slightly modified version of the shuttle C. Meaning with an update cargo module; one that has a return safety capsule (CEV), a grapping section to latch onto the Hubble from the cargo container bay. Which would then have a follow up mission from the space shuttle with necessary hardware with a minimal staff to accomplish the task of retro fitting it with all the upgrades. Since the earlier shuttle C module is in place you now have a safe haven retreat should anything go wrong as well as a return module in the CEV capsule. I assume that it needs to remain in it's current orbital alignment and altitude. Other wise use the shuttle C module once docked to tow it to the space stations orbital alignment and altitude for a later repair by the usual missions to supply the station. If it is possible to stow a Soyuz capsule less launch and orbital stuff inside the cargo bay of the shuttle. This would satisfy the safe haven requirement for return from orbit if the shuttle were damaged and not repairable at that time. If is not needed then you have it for the next time that one is required. Of course there must be also room left over for all the upgrades that would be made on such a mission. Hello, I apologize if I am sending this to the wrong place, but I couldn't find Sean O'Keefe's email address or phone number. Please forward this to the person in charge of the Hubble maintenance team if possible. I have never sent a message to NASA and if I have a complaint about government I call my senator or representative, so this is a first. I do not know anyone personally working in the space or defense industries. I am a 40 year old woman, a molecular biologist at a private biotech company. When I was a child, I spent hours glued to the black and white TV watching the astronauts landing on the moon. Gene Kranz and the gang are some of my heroes. My husband and I have no children. Like the rest of America, I cried for Columbia and Challenger and cheered for Spirit. Unlike many in America, I initially welcomed President Bush's new commitment to space colonization, though like everyone else wondered where the money would come from. PLEASE rethink the plan to not maintain the Hubble telescope. I can't believe that with all the maintenance equipment already built and ready to fly, and with all that the Hubble has already contributed, that there is not another way. I understand the shuttle safety concerns and do not want to see the astronauts take on any more risk than they already do, but the Hubble is working so well and showing us such wonders that it seems an incredible waste to not take the opportunity to extend the telescope's wonderful life and let it continue to make contributions. As someone whose tax dollars help to pay for NASA, it seems to me reasonable to continue with a jewel of a program and put off the moon base for a few years. A bird in the hand is worth two on the moon? I'll not take up your time or mailbox any longer. But I would love to see the Hubble keep flying into the next decade, with the famous NASA know-how. Why not send Robonaut to HST for simple repair and replacement of Gyros to allow the telescope to go as long as possible? It would make a great use of telerobotics techniques already used in labs and would be a great dry run for any future EVA required activity with the James Webb Telescope. Dust off the Interim Control Module mate Robonaut and the spares on it and put this existing technology on an Atlas 5 and go for it in a few years. We keep forgetting that we have the technology. Dear Mr. Cowing, The decision to cancel the next Hubble service mission was a judgement call on O'Keefe's part, and even though I don't agree with it personally I can see why he made the choice he did. NASA needs all the budget authority it can to start on the new manned vehicle, and SM-4 was the mission least related to its current duties of returning Shuttle to flight and finishing Station, which duties are currently crowding that budget authority. So he decided to cut SM-4. I doubt it was an easy choice, and I think some of the flack he's taking is a bit unfair, but making difficult choices and taking flak for them are what executives are supposed to do. At least O'Keefe is doing these things, which far too many career NASA managers seem unwilling or unable to do. For this, I think, his decision deserves at least some approval. However, I can hardly disapprove of the current uproar over SM-4 cancellation, as it may prompt Congress to find some extra budget authority for NASA to bring back SM-4. I can't imagine O'Keefe being averse to carrying out the mission under those circumstances, nor can I imagine him having been blind to this possible outcome when he made his decision. But I will not predict any particular outcome, as the auguries have failed us rather notoriously of late. Instead I will say that, if we get additional money for SM-4, that would be great; but if we don't, that is acceptable--provided this sacrifice does indeed produce a reinvigorated manned American space program. Hi Keith To save the Hubble Telescope all that is needed would be a slightly modified shuttle C with an update cargo module; one that has a return safety capsule (CEV), a grapping section to latch onto the Hubble and a follow up mission from the space shuttle with necessary hardware with a minimal staff to accomplish the task of retro fitting it with all the upgrades. I assume that it needs to remain in it's current orbital alignment and altitude. Other wise use the shuttle C module once docked to tow it to the space stations orbital alignment and altitude for a later repair by the usual missions to supply the station. Don't waste what has already been paid for. Since the Hubble will require the development of a robotic mission to deorbit it safely that same mission could be altered to boost the Hubble into a long term storage orbit where it could await the development of a mission that would restore it to operation. It would in fact be safer to keep Hubble in orbit that to try to guide it to a splashdown. The proposed CEV will make it possible to service the Hubble again though the parts for servicing might have to be launched separately from the manned CEV itself, we only need to be able to save the Hubble long enough to make such a mission possible. People seem to be taking great pains to be defensive about how this decision is not related to the new space policy. But in fact, it is. Here's how it's linked. By not flying SM-4, it will take one fewer Shuttle flights to complete ISS, meaning that more $$ will be available to support the "new vision." If I were in Code T, I'd want as much budget available as soon as possible to make progress towards the Administration's new milestones. This is pressure on the Administrator from Codes T, not S. In making this decision, the Administrator is freeing up more $$ for the president's "new vision". If the "new vision" didn't exist, then it's not clear at all that the same pressure would exist. Make sense? So this is the kind of decision that gets made in this kind of environment. Hi Keith, If the Shuttle is so unsafe that it can't visit HST, it's never going to be able to visit Station safely, either. In fact, the whole story about "safe haven" requirements appears to admit just that...and fix it with a band-aid that doesn't address many of the risks. Let's either accept the risks and use the Shuttle to do some good work to accompany the "man in a can" stunts (which is what the Station has degraded to with such limited capability...almost no science, no satellite servicing, no assembly base...I could go on and on) or dump the thing altogether, ride on Russian rockets for the foreseeable future, and use the money saved to develop a system that provides assured, affordable access to low earth orbit. If we are not willing to "risk" the Shuttle flight to repair HST what makes us think we can risk going to the Moon or Mars? Despite my previous messages urging O'Keef to reconsider the SM4 servicing mission, I think the idea of using a space tug to reposition the Hubble and park it near the ISS is medium cool. In fact, it's got legs. As previously mentioned, it furthers the cause of space development as well as serves science. What a concept! No only that, it fits within the president's plan of using robots and manned missions to achieve a single goal. As far as I am concerned, we all need to back to the president's plan and include Hubble within that plan. It can be done with the right creative thinking. The rationale for cancelling the last Hubble servicing mission seems flawed. Safety?!! Is it safer to land a man on the moon or Mars than to perform the next Hubble mission? I don't see the logic. We're willing to risk human life to send a man to Mars but not to repair Hubble. We're willing to risk human life to finish a scientifically questionable space station but not to repair Hubble. This is a brilliant political move however. No one seems to be comparing the two risks. O'Keefe can cling to the CAIB report because there is no CAIB report-equivalent for a lunar/Mars mission. What a colossal blunder... Posted to sci.astro.hubble
From: HANLEY, JEFFREY M. (JEFF) (JSC-DA8) (NASA) (jeffrey.m.hanley@nasa.gov)
Newsgroups: sci.astro.hubble On behalf of the MOD team members here at JSC that have had the privilege of working with you on past missions, I'd like to express our regrets that the agency will apparently not be pursuing the planned SM4. The Hubble Space Telescope represents a cornerstone of achievement on so many levels within this agency. It is truly a "gem" for us all to celebrate. One could successfully argue that our success in building ISS in orbit began with the groundbreaking work in methods, techniques and tools that flowed from Servicing Mission 1 in 1993... which demonstrated that ambitious orbital assembly and maintenance by EVA was possible. I have been fortunate enough to be part of every HST mission the Space Shuttle Program has flown, from deployment in 1990 through four very successful servicing missions. I've carried away from that experience personal and professional relationships with many of you that I will always treasure, and I count the time spent working on HST as some of the most personally satisfying of my career. The HST team has much to contribute to the future of this agency - not the least of which is keeping HST productive through the next several years. We are all proud of your team's accomplishments... and look forward to yet more discoveries in the years to come.
Jeff Hanley When the initial Bush space initiative was announced I thought to myself - FINALLY, something to shoot for. I have to admit that what worries me now is that this is nothing but a political ploy to end NASA or severely curtail the agency. Part of the plan is to retire shuttle in 2010. What happens if we get that far, retire shuttle then the administration of the day decides for budget reasons to cancel work on the new Crewed vehicle? The manned space program ends. Nice clean and simple. Now we have Hubble being cancelled with a stroke of the pen. The timing is absolutely suspect coming so shortly after this announcement. Using the CAIB report and the difficulty in developing an on orbit repair capability to me is a cowardly way out. NASA has flown 112 missions successfully with no need of in flight repair. The odds to me seem in favour of going as is to do the Hubble mission. If necessary, have a second shuttle in the process queue ready to fly if needed, and if not needed it is ready for a station mission soon after. I would bet my mortgage that you would have a lineup of volunteers willing and able to fly in order to do the Hubble mission as is with no worry about the current state of shuttle operations. To throw away such an asset to the world in astronomy to me is a cowardly crime. Especially since the follow on observatory is not scheduled until the next decade. My fears are slowly being realized I am afraid. That the pioneering spirit of the once proud and strong USA has withered away into a nation of risk adverse spectators. So sad for the world in general and so deeply sad for your nation. Hubble is a great instrument and a fantastic concept. When it was conceived and built, it was a marvel. There is only a single flaw within the Hubble program;that it was built with a reliance on the Space Shuttle. That reliance assumed cheap, reliable, and safeSpace Shuttle flights. The Shuttle, it turns out, is none of these. Yes, science loses out. That is a shame. However, the time has come for tough choices. To service Hubble further would be penny-wise and pound-foolish. By saving the money and by lowering the risk we advance the cause, and possibly the timing, of a manned lunar base. Perhaps the effort should be focused on making certain that any early lunar base include a telescope of this magnitude. Regarding the cancellation of Hubble Servicing Mission 4, a previous posted comment made the following observation:
It used to be that the Hubble's best feature was it did not have to look through a light-distorting atmosphere. With modern adaptive optics which remove the effects of atmospheric distortion, ground based telescopes are doing nearly what Hubble does at a fraction of the cost and with much bigger mirrors. As someone who works in the field of adaptive optics, I would have to say that the above statement is only partially correct. Adaptive Optics systems on large telescopes are improving on a daily basis, and some of the best systems, such as on the Palomar Hale 5-m, are indeed achieving excellent image quality in the near-infrared on a regular basis. However, none of these systems can yet achieve the image quality or image stability at visible and ultraviolet wavelengths where the Hubble Space Telescope is optimized. Indeed, much of the ultraviolet region will continue to be impossible to observe from the ground due to atmospheric absorption. One of the requirements for being granted time for observations with Hubble is that those observations cannot be done with any other facility. Each year, nearly 1100 proposals are submitted for time with Hubble, many of which use HST and ground-based observatories working together to further our understanding of the Universe. The demand for Hubble is still great, and it will continue to make astounding discoveries for as long as it is functioning. Hello, I wanted to voice my opinion on the Hubble mission cancellation. I know there are many people who have worked very hard for the Hubble program, and I nothing should diminish their astounding accomplishments. However, I support the cancellation of the servicing mission and the eventual retirement of Hubble. It used to be that the Hubble's best feature was it did not have to look through a light-distorting atmosphere. With modern adaptive optics which remove the effects of atmospheric distortion, ground based telescopes are doing nearly what Hubble does at a fraction of the cost and with much bigger mirrors. Look, Hubble is a great program, but it's not going to last forever. I also think the new space initiative is necessary to save the future of U.S. manned spaceflight. If that initiative is going to succeed, some things have to go, as painful as it may be. You can't have it both ways. Retiring Hubble is a very tough decision, but it's also the right one. One third of all NASA discoveries? I don't think so. Please try to put any assertions to some common sense. Not to belittle the Hubble team's accomplishments, but I really can't believe that the papers written based on Hubble data during the past 12 years would add up to a third of ALL NASA's research since 1958. And if we're talking volume of telemetry, that seems unlikely (and a pointless comparison) too. Based on the letter just posted from the STScI meeting, it seems to me that O'Keefe made a well-considered and informed decision. Pursuing potential unmanned solutions to keeping Hubble in orbit longer strikes me as a wonderful opportunity for furthering the technology of space exploration (and perhaps even commercial development as well). Part of the money being earmarked for the new exploration initiative is for robotic technologies; can we sell an automated Hubble repair flight as a technology testbed for hardware that might find uses further out? It would be a gamble, but so would SM4 have been. The cancellation of Hubble is a loss not only for the science community and the nation, but the world. Hubble has provided 1/3 of all NASA discoveries, which is considerable when one contemplates Hubble's mere 12 years in orbit. The future discoveries lost are incalculable. What is particularly disturbing is the decision was made in autonomy by the NASA Administrator, who may have been unduly influenced by Presidential politics and budget constraints. Hubble deserves input from NASA engineers and scientist versed in over coming difficult problems. And, who knows, there may have been a viable solution to Mr. O'Keefe's obstacles, if he had only asked!!! To someone@nasa.gov; The timing of this cancellation is suspect. It's as if to say "We are going to have to slash-and-burn everything else to do what the President wants." IMHO, this is bogus. Why? Missions are planned and paid for years in advance. The replacement parts have been bought. The crew is being trained. Hopefully, Grunsfeld & Massimino were going up again. So, using the CAIB recommendations as a scapegoat proves to me that there's more going on here than meets the eye. Dear Mr. O'Keefe; Please reconsider canceling the Service Mission for the Hubble. As someone who has absolutely no ties to NASA, and is just an ordinary taxpayer, please give your people a chance to design and implement the on-orbit RCC repair capability. They may not have it today, but they will have it in time for this mission. Canceling it because the capability doesn't exist today sends a poor message about your belief in your scientists' and engineers' abilities. I believe. Keith, An observation... Today's (1/20) RTF Task Group Interim Report reiterated CAIB Recommendation 6.4-1 (TPS Inspection and Repair) and the issue of repair of TPS for orbiters not being able to reach ISS (even for missions to ISS). CAIB said: The ultimate objective should be a fully autonomous (inspection and repair) capability for all missions to address the possibility that an International Space Station mission fails to achieve the correct orbit, fails to dock successfully, or is damaged during or after undocking. The rationalization for the cancellation of SM4 for safety in part because it could not reach ISS for crew safety or orbiter repair doesn't seem to hold a lot of water. Every orbiter, regardless of its destination, will need to have autonomous repair capability (as well as self inspection capabilities and NIMA imaging inspection). Orbiters post-ISS undocking or in a low abort-to-orbit are in no better or worse shape than an SM4 orbiter and CAIB seems to be pretty clear that camping out on ISS is a resort (last or otherwise), not a solution. This isn't my area but I'm not clear where the additional safety issues arise. Certainly the science yet to be done by HST can be measured realistically against the science on ISS so the value of SM4 as worthwhile (versus the risk of any flight) can be objectively assessed. The Aerospace Corp. studies show that the improved statistical reliability of HST as a result of SM4 is crystal clear. For a program that has turned an entire field of science on its ear, I believe that safety and risk should be measured by the meterstick of why we do these kinds of missions in the first place. I think the Astronaut Office would agree. Too bad that everyone seems to have rolled over on this one. Any debate was ended before it ever got started. John Grunsfeld seems surprised and saddened, not shocked and incensed. I think people have gotten too used to shrugging and saying, 'what's the use in making a fuss; the decision has been made and my job is to sit and be told what it is.' I certainly respect Grunsfeld and Anne Kinney so I guess I'd like to know why the SM4 cancellation was such a good decision. Regards, Someone at nasa.gov Keith, et. al.: I commented briefly earlier about Bush's new "plan", but the recent cancellation of the Hubble servicing mission, and your recent postings make me feel that I must follow up: While I applaud any new attention and focus in the cause of space exploration, I have to question your seemingly uncritical eye for this proposal, and your constant heaping of scorn against all who would point out its flaws. Yes, the new "plan" is better than the directionless morass we have been in for the past several years, but any truly critical eye would note that this is yet one more example of sweeping half-done projects into the garbage bin. I don't have enough fingers and toes to count the X-projects, launcher plans and exploration initiatives left on the table. Now in addition to all of the ones from the past we add OSP, ISS (now a dead end) and the Hubble space telescope (to be abandoned in its prime). Further, this is yet another course change for an obviously rudderless agency. Constantly changing course and starting over from scratch wastes billions of dollars, and squanders positive public opinion. Keith, we look to you for the critical eye. We trust you to point out when the emperor is wearing no clothes. I can't believe that you feel that this plan is perfect. I would appreciate greatly an editorial, critical review of the president's "plan". Please tell us what you really think about the specifics. Good Morning - After 35 years working for Aerospace Contractors (RCA,GE, CSC) at NOAA, NASA/Goddard, and NASA HQ I can only say; "What else is new?" The typical pennywise and pound foolish fiscal policies of each administration continue to confound me. The pathetic funding committment and outrageous expectations of Congress and NASA Managers still remains the same. Some things will never change. Fortunate to have met Neil Armstrong after his return from the Apollo-11 mission it always reminds me of nobler and certainly more effective times. The taxpayer got plenty of bang for his buck. Even the stingiest legislator would have to conclude that the value of the Apollo Program went far beyond what was spent for it. 15 years on the various Hubble Programs leaves me truly disgusted that simple small-minded "politics" would propose to discard such a useful, scientific national asset for planning expediency and still allow billions to be wasted on Iraqi Arabs. The on-going international scientific, political and social return from Hubble is every bit as important as Apollo was in its day. To let Hubble waste away and de-orbit is a criminal act; considering the investment of our money, brains and time that made it all happen. Maybe we should step back and try to get a grip on where we are and where we really want to go - as a Nation and not an empty, election year, gambit. I think the decision is outrageous, and it casts a very negative shadow over Bush's overall Moon/Mars proposal right at the outset, regardless of whether the two are really connected or (as has been claimed) merely very coincidental in timing. The following may be a non-starter idea technically, since I don't have the competence to judge, but has anyone looked at the concept of using vehicles other than a Shuttle to perform this mission? Obviously nothing else in today's world could launch new HST instruments and EVA astronauts together, but could the new instruments be launched via an unmanned rocket, a crew (admittedly much less than 7) launched via Soyuz, Shen Zhou, or an advanced version of one of the private-entrepreneurial vehicles now under development, the manned and unmanned elements joined in LEO, and then transferred to HST rendezvous orbit? There would probably only be one EVA crew shift (e.g. a crew of two EVAers plus a pilot), launch might be a little later than the original NASA plans, and the old instruments couldn't be returned to ground, but some reasonable subset of the mission goals might be feasible. If a foreign government or space agency, or a private American or international consortium, came along with a believable proposal (and believable financial backing), and merely asked NASA to provide the new instruments, technical support on HST's design and ops for the mission, and a hefty chunk of the post-mission observation time, and/or possibly the right to slap a Pizza Hut logo on the side of the telescope, would NASA refuse? And I'm sure the proposing organization could find an ex-NASA-astronaut (or two) with HST EVA experience who would readily sign up as part of the EVA crew. And if successful (a big if, I know), it might help generate the kind of public mind-set, and public-private or international cooperative thinking, needed to make the Moon/Mars goals achievable. Servicing Mission 4 Cancelled Colleagues and Friends of Hubble, We heard on Friday, January 16, 2004, that NASA has decided to cancel the fifth servicing mission, SM4. News of this saddened everyone in the Institute and our community of users. We have had an outpouring of sympathy from friends around the world, including many in the general public. I want to thank all of you for your support during this difficult time and tell you that I appreciate your ideas to preserve the great science we plan for the future. We are setting up several tiger teams that will include Institute and NASA members to look at the different options for Hubble's future. I will create a web link from our main page allowing you to submit your own ideas and follow our progress as we grapple with the challenges posed by the SM4 cancellation. Although I believe we have the best minds in the world right here to address these challenges, we will all profit by getting the widest suite of ideas from people in academia, industry, and the public at large. Many of you may be interested in what happened at the meeting with O'Keefe on Friday. The link below contains a brief description of what transpired that I wrote the following day and circulated to some of our supporters. It is my view and necessarily only a subset of the actual speeches and answers to questions. By reading this message, you express your interest in Hubble. On behalf of the entire staff at the Institute, I thank you for your interest in what we do.
Steven Beckwith Servicing Mission 4 Cancelled Friday, January 16, 2004: O'Keefe called a meeting of the "Hubble Team" on Friday, January 16. We got the word 24 hours in advance. The meeting started at 11:30 am at Goddard Space Flight Center in the Hubble conference room above the main bay (Building 7, Room 200 B/C) and ended at 1:00 pm. There were approximately 100 people in attendance, mostly from Goddard. Notable representatives included: Sean O'Keefe, John Grunsfeld, Ed Weiler, Anne Kinney, Eric Smith, Jennifer Wiseman (HQ) Steve Beckwith, Mike Hauser, Rodger Doxsey, Antonella Nota, Ian Griffin (STScI) Preston Burch, Dave Scheve, Dave Leckrone, Frank Ceppolina, Mal Niedner (GSFC) + a mix of around 100 people from Goddard and the contractors (I presume) NASA Administrator, Sean O'Keefe, delivered the news that he had decided to drop any shuttle servicing missions to Hubble in the return to flight, including SM4, and he wanted to tell us all in person about the decision. He said the decision was his alone. It was not the recommendation of the Associate Administrator for Space Science, Ed Weiler, or the astronaut office, and he said it was not a decision based on one factor or a single, compelling argument. His decision was a very close call (he said "razor thin" or something similar) and based on the weight of the arguments for and against Hubble servicing. He spoke for about 45 minutes without any obvious notes, and he touched a large number of detailed decision factors, not all of which I will reproduce here. It was my impression from his presentation that he had, indeed, thought deeply about the reasons, giving him the ability to speak impromptu for so long and retain so many details. He said several times that money was not a factor in the decision, and it was not about safety alone. Clearly, both money and safety were considerations. My distillation of the reasoning boils down to the following logic:
He made a number of other useful statements, some in response to questions. I note a few here:
That gives you a synopsis of the meeting sans anecdotes. The mood in the room was decidedly somber.
Both Anne Kinney, Director of Physics and Astronomy, and Ed Weiler took pains to assure us that they had found money to cover SM4 with slips and it was not their recommendation to cancel SM4. On Monday, I am going to assemble a team at STScI to look at a wide-suite of options to extend Hubble's life. I think we should think positively about ways to use or even service Hubble without the shuttle and see if we cannot find something that would be attractive to NASA and preserve our observatory. This is an internal STScI memo from Steve Beckwith: Colleagues, A few minutes ago, we concluded a meeting at which Sean O'Keefe, the NASA Administrator, announced his decision to cancel SM4, the next servicing mission to Hubble. It was his decision alone, and I will discuss the details with your personally. I will be holding a town-hall meeting in the auditorium at 3:00 pm today for everyone who is interested to answer your questions about the decision and talk about the future. Steve From: rwo@gemini.astro.Virginia.EDU Subject: Cancellation of SM4 Dear SOC: You've just heard from Randy, and I just finished a long conversation with Dave Leckrone. O'Keefe decided, apparently almost purely for reasons of Shuttle safety, to cancel SM4. Budget was not a driving concern, nor was the new Bush space initiative. (Only the timing was related to the President's announcement.) Code S opposed the decision and had identified sufficient funding to cover the SM4 slippage. Basically, the problem was that a Hubble Shuttle mission would require special safety procedures to be developed (inspection, etc) that would not be necessary for an ISS mission. (This point seems to be disputed by people in Houston, who were eager to do SM4.) Only ISS missions will be carried out in the future. John Grunsfeld, the Chief Scientist, was apparently as surprised as most everybody else at the decision. Dave's first inkling was the email sent out by Rogier yesterday. This has been held very close to the vest. The decision is such that it looks like there is no recourse. We have been encouraged to think of other productive ways to use WFC3 and COS---maybe on MIDEX's, etc. Looking for bright ideas to salvage something from these excellent instruments. If the President's initiative is approved, even in its first phase, there will be significant science involved, in which GSFC hopes to participate. Despite our own fundamental disappointment, we were on the periphery of the project, and our main concern should be for those who spent the last six years of their careers working on it and doing such a beautiful job. There are plenty of issues to work through, and we should still plan to hold our February SOC meeting. Regretfully --- Bob Dear Bob, Please allow me to correct an incorrect statement in your letter to the SOC. Code S did indeed identify funding to cover the SM4 slippage. But Code S did not oppose the decision of the Administrator. The decision was based, as you described in your letter, on safety. Code S fully supports the decision. Sincerely, Anne Kinney
Anne L. Kinney |
Comments on the cancellation of the SM4 Hubble Servicing Mission? Send them to