posted 08-03-2003 11:15 PM               

"Until recently, the agency had planned to have the space shuttle return Hubble to Earth for museum display. "No one wants to do that anymore," says Anne Kinney, head of NASA's astronomy and physics division."
http://www.nature.com/nsu/030728/030728-13.html

I'm curious if Kinney is speaking on behalf of all of NASA or just Code S?

Not to be insensitive to the risks associated with human space flight, but the risk of a service mission is at its most basic equivalent to the risk of a return mission, and I think both have merits.

HST deserves better than a fiery exit -- its as important to our space exploration history as Apollo 11's Columbia or Friendship 7. What other space project has captured as many front page mentions in the New York Times, sometimes even above the fold...

Also, is there any interest from the micro-impact scientists regarding the long term effects of space flight on an orbiting body? Wasn't their last data point LDEF?

(I realize this is probably the wrong board for this posting, but the more I think about it, the more I think HST deserves better...)

posted 08-04-2003 01:06 AM            

If we don't get enough names on the petition, it'll probably land in your back yard.

There is a certain feeling that you get when you are in the presence of an actual piece of hardware that has gone into space and returned safely home.

The Apollo capsules come to mind.

Unfortunately most people could probably care less if the Hubble display was a replica of plastic and wood.

..and further more, all eyes are going to be on NASA. Are they going to put themselves in a position to set themselves up for a mission that will certainly cost alot more, and perhaps possibly 'fail'.

I don't think so. I don't think it would fail, but you are going to have alot of gun shy managers having to make some bold choices, and stand behind them.

I hope they bring her home!

posted 08-04-2003 01:13 AM            

Robert, I know you ply your trade in the space industry and (rightly) need to be more sensitive to risk to humans. I don't:

If the mission makes sense because the public demands it, the astronauts should fly the mission. If someone doesn't want to fly the mission, I'm sure there are a bunch of other astronauts who do.

I'm guessing, though, that there's something else at work here. With three orbiters (and no prospect at all for a replacement of any kind by 2010), and the extra time and expense it will take to modify an orbiter from space station construction/service to Hubble retrevial, NASA knows well it simply can't fit it into the schedule. And they're loathe to admit that, so instead its written off as a "safety" concern.

posted 08-04-2003 03:26 AM               

To me, that sounds like
- "Servicing Hubble, anytime",
- but "just returning it, forget it".

posted 08-04-2003 03:52 AM               

I reckon that if you're going to litter our Australian outback again, this time with bits 'n pieces of Hubble, the least you could do is send us a telescope to see it coming !!

posted 08-04-2003 03:58 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by eurospace:
John Grunsfeld made a statement on behalf of the Astronaut Office on this issue

---

I attended this presentation, as well as heard Bruce McCandless' remarks before the same panel.

The context for both astronauts remarks were in relation to how to phase out HST and introduce JWST. Grunsfeld stated that "enabling great science" is worth the risk (of astronauts' lives) while "disabling great science" was not.

Without the benefit of speaking with him, what I think Grunsfeld and his fellow astronauts may not be focusing on are the scientific and educational benefits, not to mention the inspirational and historical importance of not letting the public watch HST burn a fiery trail back to Earth.

To be sure, rigging HST to return to Earth in the orbiter will not be a simple matter of grab, dock and stow. Many of the modifications made to the scope while in orbit will either need to be reversed or altered to allow HST to fit in the payload bay. There is also the issue that without Columbia, the only orbiter to have still been flying with an internal airlock, to accomplish a return would possibly mean having to remove the external airlock from Discovery, Atlantis or Endeavour and reinstalling the internal airlock (fortunately, all three airlocks were saved at Palmdale for later museum display) to insure enough room in the bay for HST.

McCandless, during his remarks, stated that HST is well within the limits for weight for return in the orbiter. He also suggested as Rodina has, that there are no shortage of astronauts vying for a flight; that HST missions are particularly prized; and that he felt that there would be no shortage of volunteers for a mission.

I was disappointed not to see a representative from NASA's History Office at this meeting, nor did the agenda call for remarks from any representative of the Smithsonian. Indeed, there appeared to be not one presentation on the merits of returning the HST.

As mentioned, this conference focused on the larger issue of a transition to JWST -- including astronomers' reactions to losing space based capabilities for optical and UV astronomy until SUVO is built and deployed (which is not any time soon). That said, I think such a discussion on the fate of HST, if not appropriate for this particular meeting, is needed before any final decision is made.

posted 08-04-2003 04:21 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike Dixon:
Hey Rizz,

I reckon that if you're going to litter our Australian outback again, this time with bits 'n pieces of Hubble, the least you could do is send us a telescope to see it coming !!

Mike

---

Mike-

You won't need a telescope, you'll need a hard hat!

Then you guys can sell 'Hubble-Rubble' on astro auction.

Rizz

posted 08-04-2003 02:17 PM               

All the Space Shuttle orbiters are currently limited to a total vehicle landing weight of 240,000 pounds for abort landings and 230,000 pounds for nominal end-of-mission landings.

It is noted that each additional crew person beyond the five-person standard is chargeable to the cargo weight allocation and reduces the payload capability by approximately 500 pounds. (This is an increase of 450 pounds to account for the crew escape equipment.)