It Begins...
Jan. 21st, 2004 07:53 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
willow_redPresident Bush's speech last week on the future of the space program is already having effects at NASA. The first on the chopping block: the Hubble Space Telescope.
Much of my information comes from this article on Space.com.
In all fairness, Hubble Service Mission 4 (SM4) was hotly debated even before this happened. In the aftermath of the Columbia tragedy, a decision was made to use the ISS as a lifeboat in case the shuttle was too damaged to reenter the atmosphere. This wasn't a big deal, as all but one planned shuttle mission was already going to ISS. That one mission was SM4. Hubble is in a very different orbit from ISS, and it would be impossible for the shuttle to go from one to the other. This is because ISS is at an orbital inclination of 51.6 deg so the Russians can reach it easily, and Hubble is at an inclination of 28.5 deg and a higher altitude, I think. Altitude changes in orbit are relatively easy, but inclination changes cost a lot of fuel. I won't go into more detail on that unless someone asks.
So, to go to Hubble, or not? NASA had already decided not to bring it back, but find another way to deorbit it in a controlled manner, sending it into the ocean rather than taking the chance it could hit someone on land. Yes, pieces of Hubble are big enough to survive reentry and do some damage on the ground.
Hubble was designed to be maintained by astronauts. It comes from a time when the shuttle was going to do everything, and satellite repair by astronauts was projected to be the next big thing. Hubble, in spite of its difficulties early on, has been wildly successful. Ball Aerospace has been building instruments for Hubble all this time, and has already delivered the instruments that were supposed to go up on SM4. Everything is bought, paid for, and ready to go. The debate before was whether you risk a single crew not being able to escape to ISS if something goes wrong.
Now, the question has been resolved by money. Sean O'Keefe (NASA account^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Administrator) proclaims, "safety first." What this really means is that the money that would have gone toward SM4 (you know, the part that hasn't already been spent on equipment and training) is going toward the fund for the Moon and Mars. I'd be reluctantly cool with this, except, well, see my previous rant.
If you read the article I linked to above, you'll see that the people who work with Hubble are considering contracting the Russians to do the work, and maybe even taking private donations to save the space telescope. This is because Hubble might have as little as three years left without this servicing mission. (In addition to the new instruments, maintenence is also done on the existing systems.) Note that the James Webb Space Telescope (Hubble's replacement, more or less) is not slated to launch until 2011 at the earliest.
At the same time, there is a rumor of an increase in personnel at the Astronaut Office.
I got this off the Astronaut Hopeful e-mail list. Someone e-mailed the list saying that they heard from someone in the Astronaut Office at JSC that they would be looking to increase the number of astronauts from the current ~110 (that's not the number, but it's close) to ~200, presumably to support Moon- and Mars-shots. I am somewhat skeptical of this for a couple of reasons: a) assuming the President's plan happens as he described, it will be many years before any of these astronauts would have much of that kind of work to do (finishing the ISS would keep things at status quo); and b) even before Columbia, it was projected that new astronauts would expect to wait 5-7 years before their first flight.
They might very well fill out the Astronaut Offices more, but I'm curious what they will be doing. NASA has been criticized in the past for having astronauts do engineers' jobs at the astronaut pay rate.
Much of my information comes from this article on Space.com.
In all fairness, Hubble Service Mission 4 (SM4) was hotly debated even before this happened. In the aftermath of the Columbia tragedy, a decision was made to use the ISS as a lifeboat in case the shuttle was too damaged to reenter the atmosphere. This wasn't a big deal, as all but one planned shuttle mission was already going to ISS. That one mission was SM4. Hubble is in a very different orbit from ISS, and it would be impossible for the shuttle to go from one to the other. This is because ISS is at an orbital inclination of 51.6 deg so the Russians can reach it easily, and Hubble is at an inclination of 28.5 deg and a higher altitude, I think. Altitude changes in orbit are relatively easy, but inclination changes cost a lot of fuel. I won't go into more detail on that unless someone asks.
So, to go to Hubble, or not? NASA had already decided not to bring it back, but find another way to deorbit it in a controlled manner, sending it into the ocean rather than taking the chance it could hit someone on land. Yes, pieces of Hubble are big enough to survive reentry and do some damage on the ground.
Hubble was designed to be maintained by astronauts. It comes from a time when the shuttle was going to do everything, and satellite repair by astronauts was projected to be the next big thing. Hubble, in spite of its difficulties early on, has been wildly successful. Ball Aerospace has been building instruments for Hubble all this time, and has already delivered the instruments that were supposed to go up on SM4. Everything is bought, paid for, and ready to go. The debate before was whether you risk a single crew not being able to escape to ISS if something goes wrong.
Now, the question has been resolved by money. Sean O'Keefe (NASA account^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Administrator) proclaims, "safety first." What this really means is that the money that would have gone toward SM4 (you know, the part that hasn't already been spent on equipment and training) is going toward the fund for the Moon and Mars. I'd be reluctantly cool with this, except, well, see my previous rant.
If you read the article I linked to above, you'll see that the people who work with Hubble are considering contracting the Russians to do the work, and maybe even taking private donations to save the space telescope. This is because Hubble might have as little as three years left without this servicing mission. (In addition to the new instruments, maintenence is also done on the existing systems.) Note that the James Webb Space Telescope (Hubble's replacement, more or less) is not slated to launch until 2011 at the earliest.
At the same time, there is a rumor of an increase in personnel at the Astronaut Office.
I got this off the Astronaut Hopeful e-mail list. Someone e-mailed the list saying that they heard from someone in the Astronaut Office at JSC that they would be looking to increase the number of astronauts from the current ~110 (that's not the number, but it's close) to ~200, presumably to support Moon- and Mars-shots. I am somewhat skeptical of this for a couple of reasons: a) assuming the President's plan happens as he described, it will be many years before any of these astronauts would have much of that kind of work to do (finishing the ISS would keep things at status quo); and b) even before Columbia, it was projected that new astronauts would expect to wait 5-7 years before their first flight.
They might very well fill out the Astronaut Offices more, but I'm curious what they will be doing. NASA has been criticized in the past for having astronauts do engineers' jobs at the astronaut pay rate.
