[Coco] Re: off-topic, space program

[Gene Heskett]

On Sunday 18 January 2004 00:42, Lawrence Weeks wrote:
>Once upon a time (Sat Jan 17), Neil Morrison wrote:
>> I just heard on the news part of the reason for the announcement.
>> Apparently the idea is to abandon the Hubble telescope now before
>> it's time runs out, but why Bush and his friends want to do this
>> still escapes me.
>
>Once upon a time (Sat Jan 17), Roger Taylor wrote:
>> I wasn't aware that the Hubble had an expiration date on it...
>> makes no sense at all.

Nor to Me Roger.  To throw that away seems criminal.

>Hubble has no expiration date. Hubble does, however, have gyroscopes
>which are known to fail. Two of six are now dead, and it must have
>three in order to maintain orientation and operate properly. Odds
> are, two more will die before Hubble's replacement is launched,
> leaving a gap where there will be no operational space-based
> telescope. However, as the new Webb telescope is scheduled to go up
> around 2010, the gap shouldn't be much.

Certainly the Hubbel won't live till then, due to gyro failures, 
although I'm still rather puzzled that the gyro's haven't long since 
been replaced with the laser interferometers that are probably 100x 
more accurate and no moving parts to wear out, only the laser diodes, 
or whatever is used to "pump" the real laser.  Maybe they take more 
power, and thats not in the power budget?

However, this is 2004, and the Webb launch was set assuming a working 
shuttle.  I submit that the 2010 launch date for the Webb will be 
shoved back, just like the Hubble was after Challenger, for another 
decade past 2010 and probably beyond my remaining lifetime.

>Now, despite those who would simplistically blame Bush the Evil(tm)
>for this (and much else), the writing has been on the wall, even
>before the Columbia disaster. NASA had committed to this fourth
> Hubble Service Mission (SM4), but resisted pleas from the science
> community to schedule a fifth mission to extend Hubble out beyond
> 2010. Rather, they planned to let it die naturally after SM4. NASA
> didn't want to spend the money (Shuttle launches are rather
> expensive) to extend Hubble's life, when that would likely overlap
> Webb.

All of which assumes Webb goes up on schedule.  I wouldn't put my IRA 
on that bet.

>After Columbia, the Accident Investigation Board (CAIB) strongly
>recommended that for safety reasons, NASA only send the shuttle into
>orbit when the orbit is compatible with docking at the ISS. The
> Hubble is not in such an orbit. Therefore, going to Hubble would
> require, in order to meet CAIB recommendations which are basically
> requirements politically, the means to do extravehicular damage
> analysis and repair.

First, its my understanding that the Hubble is at an altitude thats 
nearly beyond the shuttles reach in the first place, placed there so 
that its orbit would not decay as quickly as the ISS is doing.  Did 
they not burn everything they had the last time and still have enough 
for the retro-burn, raising its orbit another few miles at both SM2 
and SM3?  Another few miles that may have taken it somewhat beyond 
the operating envelope of the only shuttle equipt with an arm without 
stripping it to the bone and beyond.

>Since Bush has actually given NASA a mission again beyond being a
> low orbit trucking company servicing the ISS, and has directed that
> the Shuttle be used to complete the ISS and then be retired, the
> new NASA director made the decision that we could not justify the
> possibility of losing another shuttle and crew in order to wring
> some more life out of Hubble, when a replacement is scheduled for
> launch rather soon. My understanding is that the director made this
> decision on his own, and considering Bush the Evil(tm)'s hands-off
> style, I strongly doubt he did more than agree with the decision,
> if he even got involved at all.

While I deplore the loss of life possibilities, they, the flight crew, 
did know there was a risk, thats its not exactly a sunday drive you 
know.

I don't see as there is any "proportionately greater" risk to doing 
SM4.  The risk seems to be entirely during the launch and re-entry 
phases, with a possible colision with an orbiting 3/8" nut while in 
orbit being possible, but rather vanishingly small in the overall 
scheme of things.

I'd a lot more believe that its purely the money involved, with the 
decision being made by someone who has no concept of the value of the 
research the Hubble is doing.  Yes, we are doing some nice things 
from the Kecks, but when it comes to stareing at the same spot for 
almost 100 hours to get an image thats usable, and that image reaches 
95+% of the way back to the big bang, there is no way (so far 
developed anyway) that would allow the Kecks to duplicate that.  Too 
much air between them and the target even if they are above half of 
it.

I'm using that image as a backdrop to one of my windows here, it is to 
me the single most beautiful space image ever shot, (Chesley 
Bonesteels work with a paintbrush notwithstanding) showing literally 
thousands of galaxies where a normal shot shows empty black space, 
between stars we can see with the Kecks.  That single image will keep 
researchers busy till a better one is taken, possibly another 2 
decades down the log.  Every time I go by that screen, I'm reminded 
of just how piddly and inconsequential any of mankinds actions are in 
the grand scheme of things.

>Hopefully the two science instruments scheduled for installation
>during SM4 will be able to fitted to Webb or another orbital
> platform.

What were/are those Larry?

Refresh my failing memory please as I haven't followed this as avidly 
as I should have been.  And how difficult would it be to fit them 
into the Webb scopes framework?

>Larry
>--
>Lawrence Weeks                                   
> lweeks at anabasis.net Anabasis Consulting Ltd

-- 
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap,
ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
99.22% setiathome rank, not too shabby for a WV hillbilly
Yahoo.com attornies please note, additions to this message
by Gene Heskett are:
Copyright 2004 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.