Hubble science instruments still out after going down 3 times in a week NASA has confirmed it is working to resume science operations on the Hubble Space Telescope after an ongoing gyroscope issue put it in safe mode. According to NASA, the instruments are stable and telescope is in good health, but a faulty reading from one of its gyros caused it to automatically enter safe mode, suspending …
The cost of maintenance missions exceed the cost of sending up a newer replacement. The best thing Hubble has done for the last 30 years has been to be that BIG sciency thing that the common man has been aware of. The 'not the best' thing that it has done has been to be the best science for the money spent on it (including maintenance missions).
Bang for buck it would have been better to launch Hubble 2, 3, 4 & 5 instead of each of the maintenance missions. At times there would have been 3 or more of the Hubble series in operation, with the newer ones far more capable than the older ones.
The upgrades have replaced vast amounts of the telescope over the years, but I'm not sure you could reasonably have built several new versions and launched those for less than the maintenance costs.
There were five servicing missions (STS-61,82,103,109,125) - the first being to install COSTAR, and you'd *never* have got the budget for an all new system then.
Could we launch something better and cheaper now?
Well - we could launch something new - the F9 fairing is certainly large enough (other rockets exist and have different fairing sizes, I just picked the most common launch vehicle of the moment).
But how much would it cost to build an all new instrument? It would be substantially more than the cost of replacing a few gyros, batteries, and other items with limited life.
If we really wanted to we could even leave a small thruster unit on the base for orbit maintenance.
JWST launch cost ~200 million, but the spacecraft cost multiple billions.
I know - it was more complex, but that's the kind of thing we'd want to to do improve on Hubble. You can launch an awful lot of maintenance missions, upgrading instruments etc, for the cost of a new bird.
>The upgrades have replaced vast amounts of the telescope over the years, but I'm not sure you could reasonably have built several new versions and launched those for less than the maintenance costs.
Hubble cost many times more than it should because of the service missions - they made it a "manned mission" and imposed much more stringent requirements, and launching from the Shuttle into an orbit that allowed servicing also meant that its operation was severely compromised.
The storage cost for the years after the challenger disaster were estimated to be about what a comparable unmanned recon satellite costs.
Some of this was the politics/environment of the day (which ran on into JWST) - starting now you would probably build a family of identical spacecraft busses with upgraded instruments and launch the with the much cheaper commercial options
> The upgrades have replaced vast amounts of the telescope over the years
That was the point of former NASA Administrator Mike Griffin: It's actually not that old, given most parts (at least the important ones) have been all replaced over time.
Also, the cost of fixing a flywheel will always be way inferior to the price of a new flywheel (same price), plus the cost of a new mirror, plus a new set of instruments plus all the support hardware plus everything else. You usually don't throw the car away when you have a flat tire, it's cheaper to just change that tire...
You usually don't throw the car away when you have a flat tire, it's cheaper to just change that tire
True, but space telescope technology (imaging/CCD especially) has advanced a lot more than automotive technology over the same time. It might be more like throwing away a 1923 model T to replace it with a 2023 Ford Focus, which few would question as an improvement even if the model T could (in principle at least) be repaired for much less since it has far fewer parts and no finicky electronics.
Plus how long would it take to put together a manned mission to Hubble? A couple years, at least? That puts you into late 2025, and Hubble is only supposed to last to the end of the decade so you're talking four years. And this repair isn't even needed as it could function on only one gyro. There is a need for a Hubble successor for visible light astronomy. I think scientists thought that with modern technology ground based telescopes would be sufficient given the much larger mirrors they use, but Starlink is showing us a preview of things to come for ground based astronomy. Think about how bad that will be in 2030 with 10x today's number of LEO satellites.
IIRC they received 2, one of which is currently being converted to the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope, but importantly it's being designed as a survey telescope since the NRO mirrors have a shorter focal length and thus a wider field of view so it's not a direct replacement of Hubble and is most useful for slightly different types of astronomy. Hubbles role in deep field observations has largely been supplanted by JWST though.
"Hubbles role in deep field observations has largely been supplanted by JWST though."
Different spectrum on each, so not really a replacement.
But the deeper the field the more red shifted the light, so there is some truth in the comment - they have similar resolving power (JWST has a bigger mirror, but detects longer wavelength radiation).
And of course the sheer light gathering capacity of JWST is a significant step forward, allowing deep fields with far less time spent on an observation.
So who's going to pay for the new scope?
And what benefits will it bring?
The sensor packages on Hubble have been replaced before, we could replace them again... Hubble isn't nearly as old as the calendar would suggest.
And it's cheaper to send up a new instrument cluster than a whole new telescope.
Can you imagine sending up a mission with a robonaut and some replacement parts, then *leaving* the robonaut attached...
KittenHuffer,
The cost of maintenance missions exceed the cost of sending up a newer replacement......The 'not the best' thing that it has done has been to be the best science for the money spent on it (including maintenance missions).
I think the answer to that is both yes and no.
Firstly no. Because the Hubble repair missions were also science. This is a serious point that I think a lot of people miss. Just surviving in space is science. Operating and doing stuff in space is also science. We don't know how to do a lot of this stuff until we try - and only afterwards can we assess whether it was worth doing or not. Partly because we often don't know how hard stuff would be until we've theorised about it, and then tried it. That experience is also then available to work out if it's worth doing something again. This is why i think the ISS budget has been worth every penny. Even though $100bn over 20+ years would get you an awful lot of science.
Also, if we cost a Shuttle launch at $400m - then those repair missions look awfully expenisve. But the Shuttle infrastructure was already paid for and operating, and Columbia couldn't reach the ISS orbit, so repairing Hubble was maybe a more reasonable use of its time?
On the other hand there still doesn't seem to be talk of in-orbit satellite repairs in the near future - or even the medium term. Which suggests that maybe the Hubble work has been a waste? One problem is that cheaper launch costs make it easier to support astronauts in space on repair work, but also make it cheaper to just build more satellites and launch them instead.
NASA priorities are SLS, Blue Moon then anything essential for Artemis except the deep space tracking network. Hubble would be low down on the list but there is one opportunity for a privately funded mission.
At some point, probably next year (they're aiming for 'early 2024' ), there's a privately funded Dragon mission which aims to reach a 700km orbit, and perform an EVA. After that I guess we'll be able to see how suitable it is.
If replacing the gyros is all Hubble needs to continue functioning for another decade, then I hope some billionnaire somewhere will find enough loose change in his couch to make it happen.
Obviously, Space is now beyond government budgets, but the Science is still necessary. No use talking to politicians, so billionnaires is where it's at.
You're of course completely right.
Except for that part where not even 2 years ago, a government-made space telescope was launched on a rocket made by a government-controlled company from a government-opérated launchpad.
And the JWST has been quite a success since.
But don't let those silly facts get in the way of a fun narrative !
> No use talking to politicians, so billionnaires is where it's at.
What have billionaires ever done for us?... :-p
Seriously, beyond emitting newsworthy sound bites? I haven't noticed any attempt at selflessly spending some 10-20 millions for pure science. IIRC that was about the price of a service mission, back when the Shuttles were still operational. Nowadays it's most likely a lot more expensive, if at all possible (Is there currently any vessel able to reach higher orbits while being certified for human passengers? I don't think so.).
So you are asking for billionaires to spend 1-2 percent of their net wealth on pure science?
Let's individually add up all our assets - house, cars, toys, retirement, etc, and pick $500,000 for net wealth. Some may be more, some may be less. It doesn't matter, it is just a basis for this example.
When was the last time any of us handed over $5,000-10,000 for pure science? As individuals, if we are unwilling to contribute at that same percentage level, why should we expect anyone else to do the same?
I could only dream of being worth $500,000 personally. I think my sum total of assets I own plus my pension kitty is slightly less than accrued student and medical debt, so personally I'm actually worth less than nothing.
I will happily provide -$200 to the cause though.
> So you are asking for billionaires to spend 1-2 percent of their net wealth on pure science?
If you were indeed replying to me, no, I definitely don't. My whole point was that it won't ever happen, for many reasons, including but not limited to those you mention.
If you are replying to the OP, I think he was just confused by all the triumphant sound bites various wealthy people have emitted lately. It might sound like they want to take up the torch, but they most certainly won't. If at all, they will just explore the aspects which might yield an interesting return on investment (mostly, putting commercial satellites into orbit). Yes, Musk claims wanting to colonize Mars, but that's just another sound bite, unlikely to happen, for many (actually an awful lot of) reasons, economic, technical, scientific, legal.
(Didn't downvote you though.)
Robotic service, as in bolt on a new external module with extra gyros = easy
Robotic service, as in pull out failing reaction wheels from deep inside the body = tricky, although they were swapped by one of the last service missions. Unfortunately you really need the reaction wheels to be close the CoG so a bolt-on upgrade isn't as easy
Issacman is looking at this as part of Polaris missions. NASA had signed off on a feasibility study last year but not heard of any updates since.
First flight is due in first half of 2024 and they are planning a EVA so will see how feasible a service mission from a dragon capsule would be. Boosting the orbit shouldn't be an issue, NASA installed a mating ring on the last shuttle service to make that easier. The lack of a robotic arm apparently is a major issue for changing the gyros as there aren't any handgrips on Hubble.
BTW, this would be all be paid for Issacman and potentially SpaceX and any 3rd parties as companies such as Axiom who may be able to assist.
This post has been deleted by its author
Obviously, since the Space Shuttle was built, despite allowing some of the technology to be lost, a similar vehicle could be developed again, to allow the HST to be repaired.
A second HST mirror, one without the incorrect corrections from spherical that required the Hubble to use a less efficient optical design, is in the Smithsonian Institution. It could be used to make a second HST.
And the HST has a smaller aperture than originally planned, because the original design required the gyros to be placed at on end of the scope, rather than around its middle, which was a more problematic design. They could have shipped a space telescope up in three pieces; one trip for the telescope proper, and one trip for two snap together pieces to go around its middle with the gyros. If we have a Space Shuttle-like vehicle again, that would be a reasonable thing to try launching.
Of course, though, it might be argued that both the HST and a minor improvement to it are obsolete, as a successor to the JWST, with a similar design, but larger, and operating in the visual and ultraviolet range like the HST, is in the works. If, indeed, this telescope does work well, instead of just getting one telescope for all that design work, they should build maybe twenty of them after the first one is shown to work, so as to allow more astronomy to get done.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
