Posted on 02/07/2007 7:14:40 PM PST by KevinDavis
NASA is not planning changes to its September 2008 Space Shuttle mission to service the Hubble Space Telescope despite the unexpected failure of the orbiting observatory's main camera on 27 January.
The Advanced Camera for Surveys (ACS), used for about 70% of the telescope's observations, stopped functioning when the power feed to its electronics package failed, NASA believes. The ACS had been operating on its back-up power distribution system since an electrical failure in June 2006.
"We do not see a desire or need for any change to the plans for [servicing mission] SM-4," says Hubble programme manager Preston Burch. The inaccessible location of the ACS main electronics box, and the full schedule of spacewalks planned for the mission, makes it unlikely NASA will change its plans, he says, adding: "There is not much opportunity to accelerate SM-4."
(Excerpt) Read more at flightglobal.com ...
I agree. Don't fix it.
I think we should fix the Hubble. Also, I think we should launch an orbiting bay which could be used to "drydock" the Hubble and any other space telescopes should they need work in the future. The capability of the Shuttle's large payload reentry is going to be lost in just a few years, and probably not rebuilt for at least a generation. With a for-the-future workshop, these telescopes could be serviced in a shirtsleeve environment, in microgravity, and the workshop itself reached by the variety of different boosters now in the works.
I agree on fixing Hubble. However, a "dry-dock" would cost more than a new scope.
The reason I am so vocal in fixing Hubble is that there is no planned replacement. I doubt I will see another "Hubble" in my lifetime. This is not unlike the SSC. Once it is gone, it is gone for a very long time.
Why?
Because the failed box is inaccessible to the astronauts, it sounds like they'll never regain that capacity. So is the remaining 30% worth the billion or so dollars that will be spent to fly this mission?
If it were up to me, I'd shift the focus of this mission to retrieve and return the Hubble, repair and upgrade it, and then re-launch on an expendable booster.
Hubble is a marvel of optical engineering.
But today's telescopes can use digital technology to electronically cobble together a lot of small telescopes to make them act like one big one at a much cheaper cost.
Hubble is obsolete.
a "dry-dock" would cost more than a new scope.You're probably right, but it could be so bare-bones and sturdy that it could be used for a variety of other things when needed, a sort of temporary habitat with low maintenence and long service life (iow, longer than the ISS).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.