posted 04-18-2005 02:03 PM            

In particular:

"Above all else, Griffin should ask this simple question: If NASA cannot service the greatest telescope of all time, as it has done four times before, how can the agency truly get back on its feet, inspire the nation, and carry out the vision of returning to the Moon and then sending humans to Mars?"

posted 04-18-2005 03:47 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by FFrench:

I thought that this was an excellent op-ed piece:
http://www.space.com/news/050418_hubble_op-ed.html

In particular:

"Above all else, Griffin should ask this simple question: If NASA cannot service the greatest telescope of all time, as it has done four times before, how can the agency truly get back on its feet, inspire the nation, and carry out the vision of returning to the Moon and then sending humans to Mars?"

FF

---

posted 04-18-2005 04:14 PM            

I'd hate to see us lose another crew -- but the marginal (very marginal) safety benefit of going to the ISS versus going to Hubble -- is pointless. I doubt there is a single astronaut not willing to take that risk for a chance at a flight, and if they are, they can stand aside and wait for someone else. Hubble and the Hubble servicing missions have been the crown jewel of the space shuttle program, for my money, and to not risk a vehicle (at say, 1:50) is desparately short-sided.

posted 04-18-2005 05:47 PM               

everybody would be paralyzed by fear in this case...so no better thing could happen as changing the people.

and i believe griffin hiself wants to bring a shuttle to Hubble....but what´s about the other (paralyzed) people behind him in the agancy ????...

if NASA would not be able to safe Hubble because a shuttle repais mission is to risky...nobody could be sure that the shuttle is safe enough for one single more flight...

i can´t believe that....how could NASA be selfconfidend enough in designing and flying a replacment vehicle like CEV(to moon and mars) if they are not sure by themself to fly their current vehicle in safe conditions to any reachable point in an low earth orbit....

posted 04-18-2005 06:57 PM               

"He who hesitates is lost!" Just how long does it take to REPAIR/REINFORCE the Shuttle wings to prevent FOAM insulation from damaging them? Isn't 2 1/2 years too long to make such a repair? That's what happens when you set up a committee to tell you how to do your job - NASA's JOB. The Shuttle flew successfully over 100 times, showing that the USA is the leader in space technology. Are we now going to relinquish that title to the Russians, who have NEVER ventured beyond Earth orbit? Put a net over the external tank or use duck tape. What happened to the good old American "CAN DO" attitude. NASA - Stop whining! Get to it!

If the risk is not worth it, if the paranoia over two lost shuttles and 14 lives is too much for NASA to overcome, then WHY PROCEED WITH ANY SPACE MISSIONS? Isn's a Return to the Moon mission much rickier than a Hubble repair mission? Isn't a manned Mars mission much more dangerous than repairing a telescope in Earth orbit? I am not a rocket scientist or engineer, but I think that they are both more dangerous. I can expect some of the following postings on this thread to say: "Yes, repairing the Hubble is riskier than either the Moon mission or the Mars mission for the following twenty reasons..." NASA should get off the "pity pot" and get on with their assigned duties in space. If the Hubble is left to fall into the ocean before its planned retirement, then who will believe that they have the nerve, vision and determination for a Moon or Mars mission?

Did the Apollo 1 tragedy or the Apollo 13 explosion stop the Apollo program? No, we went on to LAND on the Moon FOUR more times after rescuing Apollo 13. But perhaps that was another generation which wanted to reach as far as they could with technology? "Your goals should always be farther than your reach." Did the accidents in the X-15 program stop the experimental flights. No, there were 199 X-15 flights.

NASA now has a new Director. I wish him success, but without vision AND the determination to realize its goals, NASA may be left to orbit the Earth with Russia and the ISS until NASA finds leadership with the "Right Stuff." []

posted 04-18-2005 11:10 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
As the person (at the time) tasked with converting the President's Vision to a reality on a limited budget, O'Keefe made the decision he did. And by that line of reasoning, I agree with him: Hubble is worth the sacrifice if it means putting humans back on the Moon.

---

That's a fair enough point. Right now, NASA needs to the manned program to limp through the construction of ISS so it can prove itself worthy of funding for CEV and the President's vision and all that. There are politics involved. I know that. My objection is that, independently, the risk of a vehicle and a crew to fix Hubble is manifestly worth the risk, given current STS performance history.

posted 04-18-2005 11:40 PM               

RESPONDING TO QUESTIONS ON HUBBLE, Mike Griffin's words partly reflected what Mr Pearlman said above. And Griffin raised the point that tile repair is a problem we simply may not have the ability to solve at this point. Knowing what extremes the repairs must endure, the repairs themselves could well end up putting further risk to the orbiter.

BUT AFTER STS 114 A HUBBLE RESCUE will "immeadiately" be reviewed at NASA, Griffin said. His sentiments seem to favor the science community's hope for Hubble.

posted 04-19-2005 09:39 AM               

quote:

---

That said, should O'Keefe have objected to the CAIB recommendations, citing it as too risk adverse? My opinion, for what its worth, would be yes...

---

Perhaps. At the time O'Keefe pledged to honor the CAIB recommendations, he was working to show that NASA was fixing the problems that led to the Columbia tragedy on its own, and did not need additional outside involvement.

Given the criticism that had already been levied against the agency, the administrator complaining that the CAIB report would have made the agency "too safe" probably would not have played well in Washington.

Agree with the decision or not, there is a certain level of logic to sacrificing Hubble two or three years early in exchange for expediting Return to Flight.

posted 04-22-2005 09:56 AM               

If it were boosted to a higher orbit may be possible to recover the HST if the gyros fail. It would lose value as a scientific instrument until it were repaired, but it may could be fixed.

However:

quote:

---

Battery failure is a more serious problem. The current batteries could expire as early as 2008. When this happens the telescope will cool off and freeze, warping its structure beyond repair.

---

By the time a CEV mission could be sent, there'd likely be no point in going.

------------------
http://allthese worlds.hatbag.net/space.php
"America's challenge of today has forged man's destiny of tomorrow." - Commander Eugene Cernan, Apollo 17 Mission, 11 December 1972