O'Keefe hangs tough on Hubble

[PfcHammer]

http://interestalert.com/brand/siteia.shtml?Story=st/sn/06230002aaa04f00.upi&Sys=siteia&Fid=LATEBRKN&Type=News&Filter=Late%20Breaking

O'Keefe hangs tough on Hubble
By PHIL BERARDELLI, United Press International

WASHINGTON, June 23 (UPI) -- If there were any lingering doubts NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe meant what he said last January about vetoing a space shuttle repair mission for the Hubble Space Telescope, those doubts were eliminated Tuesday.

O'Keefe appeared before the Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board's special committee on assessing options to extend the life of the aging and ailing Hubble. His appearance, at the committee's request, was intended to explain the rationale for his Jan. 16 decision to cancel a scheduled Hubble repair mission sometime after the shuttle fleet -- which was grounded Feb. 1, 2003, following the Columbia disaster -- returns to flight.

O'Keefe said the decision was "among the toughest I've had to make," effectively condemning the Hubble, "an extraordinary instrument that has captured the imagination of the public around the world." Still, he told committee members in a passionate presentation, sending up a new shuttle mission under circumstances that create avoidable dangers to the crew is no longer an option.

"I've done that once," he said, "and it was emblazoned in my memory like it was yesterday." He added he is unwilling to live with "the consequences of getting this wrong."

[daleo]

1. I would make an exception for the Hubble

They should get together a volunteer team of astronauts. I am sure plenty of people would take a reasonable risk for the sake of the Hubble Telescope. It is hard to see the point of space flight, if a repair trip to the Hubble isn't included.

[LastDemocratInSC]

8. You might be able to get the volunteers, but not a shuttle

The remaining space shuttles are valuable national assets. With a track record of 2 catastrophic failures in 113 flights, there's no way a shuttle will be used in a Hubble servicing mission.

At least 3 of the telescope's significant problems can be addressed by designing a craft to rendezvous with the telescope and mate to the docking adapter that is used to secure the telescope in the shuttle payload bay. These problems are:

1) Electrical power - Solar arrays on the robotic craft could feed power to the telescope through the docking adapter, supplementing the telescope's aging arrays.

2) Gyroscopes - The robotic craft could take over the work of the telescope's aging and failed gyroscopes. These are needed to point the instrument.

3) Altitude boost / orbital plane change - The robotic craft could give the telescope an altitude boost. This would give it a longer orbital lifetime and if boosted high enough it could be preserved for a future servicing mission or retrieval. It's possible that the plane of the telescope's orbit could be changed to match that of the space station. This would make future servicing much more feasible but because the plane difference is something like 15 degrees the energy required to do this would be huge.

There are other issues a robotic mission could not address such as the new cameras that have been constructed and are ready to be installed. If the 3 items above could be addressed robotically the telescope should be able perform as well as it does now long into the future.

[DrWeird]

2. The Hubble is more important than a manned mission to mars.

It is the most important single piece of scientific apparatus in human history. Not only should we be repairing it, we should be building a fleet of space based telescopes.

[struggle4progress]

5. Absolutely right!

[LastDemocratInSC]

9. We are, and have been, building a fleet of space based telescopes

The new Spitzer infrared telescope has just entered service. It was formerly known as SIRTF. Information on the current fleet is available here:

http://www.spacetoday.org/DeepSpace/Telescopes/GreatObservatories/GreatObservatories.html

The James Webb telescope, considered the logical successor to Hubble, is under construction now. It will have a 21 foot mirror optimized for infrared observations and will be stationed at the L2 lagrange point beyond Earth's orbit. More here:

http://ngst.gsfc.nasa.gov/

[Dogmudgeon]

3. I think O'Keefe knows how dangerous the Shuttle has become

Granted, he's a political appointee of Bush's, but O'Keefe might be spooked that the remaining shuttles are way past their safe operational lifetimes.

You would think that as a Bushevik, he would try to wring every last dime out of the program, astronauts' lives be damned. But he's doing the exact opposite thing.

NASA is a political football, but it seems like most of the kicking is being done outside of NASA these days.

If the Hubble absolutely must be saved, then NASA should buy a berth in a Russian launch vehicle to send a crew, perhaps in a modified Apollo capsule. If the Shuttle really is a dangerous bird, it should be grounded and the program funds shifted to a new generation of technology.

--bkl

[TruthIsAll]

4. The fundies don't want to see the Big Bang.

The fundies tell Bush what to do. You won't get to see the scientific origin of the universe as long as * is in office.

The Hubble can almost see as far back in time as the Creation. Maybe 14-15 billion light years.

We are so close to the proof we can taste it. But no, we can't view the Big Bang. The fundies won't allow it. They believe the bible when it comes to the creation of the universe. God rested on Sunday.

Science is dying under Bush. He only cares about big bucks for his cronys.

[Trillo]

6. Find a way to repair it. That's my 2 cents. nt

[truthisfreedom]

7. robots. ask for the private sector to volunteer technology.

we can rise to the occasion, rather than just letting it become more space junk.

[Baclava]

10. If it's feasible - they should try to save the Hubble

It's replacement isn't due to go up till 2010.

Until then, we'll be relying on the Spitzer infared telescope...
which is pretty cool too......

[Bo]

11. I love Hubble!!!!

Why are they doing this? To risky?