Bush kills Hubble rescue mission

[astrolabe]

Read it and weep:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6853009/

WASHINGTON - The White House has eliminated funding for a mission to service the Hubble Space Telescope from its 2006 budget request and directed NASA to focus solely on deorbiting the popular spacecraft at the end of its life, according to government and industry sources.

[Doodler]

The shuttle's too much a wild card and robotics are horrendously expensive and not likely to work anyway. It was inevitable.

[um3k]

Is there any way we can change this?

[kucharek]

Is there any way we can change this?

Not with the current price tag.

[um3k]

Is there any way we can change this?

Not with the current price tag.

Well that really f'ing sucks.

[Jigsaw]

Find some way to tie it in with Homeland Security, and you'll be amazed at how fast they'll find some money for it.

I'm such a cynic.

[Evan]

Give them time on it pointed at Earth.

[Nicolas]

1 billion dollars (Dr Evil..) is a lot of money IMO. The telescope won't need a deorbit module fixed (what is the cost of that BTW?) until the end of the decade. Does it mean that it will work untill then? If it continues to work anyway, I haven't got really big problems with not spending 1 billion dollars on it. The new generation of Great Observatories is coming along anyway. But I thought it could stop working as soon as 2006...

Just attach the thing to the ISS and play with it from that position

[pumpkinpie]

Wow. I'm floored.

Is this really the end, or could it just be the inspiration for a bigger, stronger, campaign from all of us and everyone else we know to get it BACK in the budget? Let's get to work!

[The Bad Astronomer]

Well that really f'ing sucks.

While I agree with the sentiment, this language is against the FAQ. Consider yourself warned.

[ngc3314]

1 billion dollars (Dr Evil..) is a lot of money IMO. The telescope won't need a deorbit module fixed (what is the cost of that BTW?) until the end of the decade. Does it mean that it will work untill then? If it continues to work anyway, I haven't got really big problems with not spending 1 billion dollars on it. The new generation of Great Observatories is coming along anyway. But I thought it could stop working as soon as 2006...

Just attach the thing to the ISS and play with it from that position

People already hashed over the impossibility of co-orbiting HST with ISS last year, so I'll leave that off.

Current estimates for the 50%-probability time to failure of the HST gyros would make it inoperable maybe 18 months from now. There are plans, now almost sure to be implemented quickly, to go to a mode with 2 gyros plus the star trackers to continue operations with reduced pointing stability and tighter scheduling constraints. This stretches operations by leaving one byro "spare" for the next actual failure. The telescope will almost surely be dead by 2010, from decline in battery efficiency if nothing else. And I'll be the umpteenth to say that JWST is a followon but not replacement - it addresses a few key questions well, but has no ultraviolet capability and only a smidgen at the red end of the optical band. It's a different discussion as to how much these capabilities are worth, but in current plans they are being lost for at least a decade, and maybe more.

Alright, everybody, 3.5 hours until the deadline for proposals in what might really be the final year of Hubble operations...

[John M. Dollan]

I'm not certain that such a mission would be economically feasible in any case. Why spend the money to maintain an instrument when it has already been matched, and in some cases exceeded by ground-based systems, while more advanced orbital designs are being planned?

I'll miss Hubble, there is no doubt about it. And it's a shame that it couldn't be brought down safely (IIRC, the shuttle returning with that in its hold would be so much more of a flying brick than it already is). But to be realistic, maintaining Hubble would be like spending $3,000 to fix and maintain a 386 computer, while Pentium Iv's and V's are available and cheaper.

Yeah, I'm sure I'll catch hoolies for this opinion...!

...John...

[John Kierein]

If these solar flares keep coming and get bigger, maybe the atmosphere will swell up so much that Hubble and the Space station will re-enter sooner than predicted.

[George]

...money for a mission to attach a propulsion module to Hubble needed to deorbit the spacecraft safely with a controlled re-entry into the Pacific Ocean.

As a wise man once said....related thread

I feel that if we are going to go to the trouble of sending a booster to Hubble, we should boost it into a higher orbit, so that when we come to our senses, we can repair it and get more use from it!

What if Bill Gates decides to conduct one-up-manship?

[Andromeda321]

Oh man...
Not like I expected many people to ok the $1 billion price tag but I was hoping for a miracle I guess... Hubble was what, $1.5 billion at launch?

[Nicolas]

What I did not adress in my first post is that I too will miss Hubble.
But I don't want Hubble to stand in the path of other major missions. 1 billion (it never occured to me that Bill gates and Billion share there first name ) dollars is such an enormous amount of money to patch up the old observatory. I mean, that would jeopardise the equivalent of about 2 (not extended) MER missions...

I am in doubt if Hubble still is worth that, if you had to choose. I mean, if there was extra budget, no problem. But NASA is low on money anyway, and I'm not sure if I'd put reparing Hubble on top then. And even with a larger budget, I would consider giving up Hubble and spending money on a new hightech observatory to replace it.

I am not outspoken choosing one option, each option has its pros and cons for me. Really hard decision.

[John M. Dollan]

Hubble's price tag was, I believe, 3 billion at launch....

...John...

[ToSeek]

Hubble's price tag was, I believe, 3 billion at launch....

...John...

$1.5 billion at launch, though that doesn't include the launch/deployment costs or the cost of operations.

I would like to see someone do a study on which of these options makes the most sense in terms of doing actual astronomy:

• - Hubble servicing mission
  - Remounting the replacement instruments on a new spacecraft
  - Doing some other astronomy research altogether

[joema]

The planned 100 meter Overwhelmingly Large Telescope (OWL) is projected to cost about $1.5 billion.

http://www.eso.org/projects/owl/index.html

[Swift]

Even if it is the logical thing to do, it's sad, and I've had a bad day in my real life (work ) - I needed some happy news .

Ok, so if a billion dollars is too much to spend on Hubble, someone explain to me how much we are spending on the ISS and the Shuttle missions to service/finish it and what is the payback/benefits from that :-? .

[John M. Dollan]

$1.5 billion at launch, though that doesn't include the launch/deployment costs or the cost of operations.

Ah, I sit corrected. I found my figure on a Discovery Channel site, via Google....

...John...

[Doodler]

The payback on the ISS is demonstrating we didn't blow 30+ billion out the airlock by putting it up there to begin with. :roll:

I'm biting my tongue about the ISS because something like it was eventually going to have to happen, even as a proof of concept. What has happened to it has not been entirely centered on the project itself, but its reliance on one nation barely able to afford it, and another nation with the only vehicle capable of doing the construction job that isn't truly a reliable piece of equipment. The ISS isn't a bad idea, its one suffering from poorly conceived execution.

[Swift]

The payback on the ISS is demonstrating we didn't blow 30+ billion out the airlock by putting it up there to begin with. :roll:

I'm biting my tongue about the ISS because something like it was eventually going to have to happen, even as a proof of concept. What has happened to it has not been entirely centered on the project itself, but its reliance on one nation barely able to afford it, and another nation with the only vehicle capable of doing the construction job that isn't truly a reliable piece of equipment. The ISS isn't a bad idea, its one suffering from poorly conceived execution.

I absolutely agree. The idea that humans have an orbiting spacestation makes me excited. But if we have to prioritize a limited NASA budget, then why isn't it on the table too? If I have to pick between the ISS and a couple of new orbiting observatories and another Mars lander, I say toss the ISS in the Pacific.

[George]

But why can't they just boost it out further? It will spare it's destruction and accomplish their goal - safety.

[Doodler]

I absolutely agree. The idea that humans have an orbiting spacestation makes me excited. But if we have to prioritize a limited NASA budget, then why isn't it on the table too? If I have to pick between the ISS and a couple of new orbiting observatories and another Mars lander, I say toss the ISS in the Pacific.

There's the rub, the ISS isn't just a US project. With Russia, Japan, Italy and a a few other ESA members throwing duckets in the bin, we're stuck with it. We chuck it in the Pacific and we've stomped on toes all over the globe.

That's probably the one logical point President Bush has that he can stand on with his policy of going quick and dirty to get the station "core complete". So long as theres work to be done on it, a substantial portion of NASA's budget is held hostage by international agreements. Now, on the one hand, you can say "If Dubya doesn't care about stepping on the international community's toes everywhere else, why not here?", on the other hand, he is towing a hard line internationally where he feels he has to, if he were to kill the ISS (and essentially, pulling NASA off the station is the equivalent of killing it), then he'd be doing even more damage. President Bush isn't afraid to make hard choices, but that doesn't mean he's going to do damage just for the sake of doing damage. Like I said, the ISS isn't an evil thing, its just overtaken by circumstances. Once complete, the shuttle really isn't necessary (ok, there are cases where it would be NICE to have it, but there are workarounds) and he can honestly, if regretfully, look at the ISS partners and say they did the job called for while also respecting the safety of the people who have to use the shuttles. At the same time, he's also freeing up NASA's budget to work on other projects.

The shuttles weren't going to last forever, and the idea that we had them and they were what we were stuck with was hamstringing development of alternatives. We were resting on our laurels and praying they didn't rot out from under us and they did anyway. Like it or not, even though I've said it here they'd have no trouble finding volunteers to fly it, the shuttle is NOT the long term solution. The design is fundamentally flawed and will likely never be considered "operational". Yes, spaceflight entails risk, but that risk has to be managed and mitigated where possible. Its acceptable that there are environmental issues that might conceivably threaten a mission, but at no time should those threats be from the vehicle you're flying in.

A truly effective Hubble repair mission was, by the accepted opinion of all parties involved, going to be dependent on the space shuttle, and that option just wasn't acceptable to the powers that be. (Please note the lower case usage, no conspiracy implied) Robotic missions could not claim any reliable chance of success, nor was there any real cost effective reason to consider them. The idea that a mission could be sent that would most likely not do the job at all was just as unacceptable as the idea of completing the mission and killing the crew on return.

[mike alexander]

Reminds me of the coda on the tombstone:

I expected this, but not so soon

[junkyardfrog]

Read it and weep:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6853009/

WASHINGTON - The White House has eliminated funding for a mission to service the Hubble Space Telescope from its 2006 budget request and directed NASA to focus solely on deorbiting the popular spacecraft at the end of its life, according to government and industry sources.

Grrr.



I don't like this decision, but I suppose it's the only one they could make.

And I REALLY don't like that blackhole for dollar$, otherwise known as the ISS.

[BigJim]

Ok, so if a billion dollars is too much to spend on Hubble, someone explain to me how much we are spending on the ISS and the Shuttle missions to service/finish it and what is the payback/benefits from that :-? .

I absolutely, completely agree with this. We've put an obscene amount of money into ISS and what science have we gotten? The rhetoric about how it's going to discover some new drug to cure cancer or some ultrafast computer chip frankly makes me sick. I think we need a permanent human presence in space. But not on the ISS.

In addition, I am wholly unconvinced of the necessity of spending hundreds of millions of dollars to send Hubble- or other large spacecraft such as CGRO or TRMM - into the Pacific. When you do the math, the probability that some piece of the spacecraft comes down and hits someone is akin to the probability of being struck by lightning. I agree; if you're going to boost it somewhere, boost it up.

Third, I now wonder how committed the President really is to his space agenda. Until now I thought that this might actually be the time that we get back to the Moon. Now I'm not so sure. If this is the support they show for Hubble then who knows what they're really thinking? Personally, I think that the space vision, while a greand concept, has been severely wounded, perhaps fatally so, because it came hand-in-hand with the decision not to service Hubble.

And just a thought - say O'Keefe hadn't cancelled the mission in the first place and Hubble had been serviced in 2007 by the Shuttle. I honestly wonder whether anyone would have cared. Space reporters for the general media (wince) only report on failures, for the most part. Cassini-Huygens? Works fine. We haven't heard it about it since the 10 seconds it got at SOI and the 8 seconds it got on January 14. Mars rovers? Haven't heard about them since landing (except for Spirit's overreported flash memory problem). Those missions work fine, so no one cares about them. If O'Keefe hadn't cancelled the servicing mission, he wouldn't have given the new space vision and the Bush administration such a bad rap in the space community.

[pghnative]

if you're going to boost it somewhere, boost it up.

Just out of curiosity, would this work? I thought that once the gyro's were gone, you couldn't prevent the Hubble from pointing in the wrong direction (e.g. the Sun), and frying it's optics and/or instruments.

Or is there a "safe" mode it could be parked in.

[joema]

During the post-Columbia accident hearings, lawmakers asked NASA administrator O'Keefe many times what justification is there for manned space operations, given the risk.

Over and over he pointed to the ONGOING Hubble servicing capability as proof of that justification. He mentioned it MANY times.

If it turns out manned operations are not capable of performing that function for an acceptable price, it appears one of the primary justifications for ongoing manned operations has evaporated.