Hubble Space Telescope is back in the game after NASA fixes gyro glitch The Hubble Space Telescope is expected to resume science operations on Friday, after a gyroscope glitch forced NASA to suspend astronomical observations for weeks. "After analyzing the data, the team has determined science operations can resume under three-gyro control," the US space agency confirmed in its latest update. " …
As usual, NASA gets a problem, and NASA finds a solution. Redundancy FTW, eh Boeing ?
Being a NASA engineer must be one of the most stressful but rewarding jobs there is. You know that what you do is important, so when there's a mission-breaking issue like this, you have to find a solution. And when you do, it's better than if you won the lottery.
Big kudos to NASA engineers. Well done.
I suspect that as long as the sensors remain useful, the most viable solution is to send an automated propulsive and control module (fuel, engines and many gyros) that latches on to the telescope and takes over all maneuvring and pointing tasks.
This feels like something that a bog standard Falcon 9 could lift.
But unless they can service Hubble and insert replacement gyros and reaction control wheels it's very likely a boost won't extend the lifetime of hubble all that much. All it's current internals are basically designed to get to the mid 2030s anyway. We might get a bit more observing time out of it before it fails but it won't be much and the question is whether that's worth the expense, given we have JWST for deep field observations and it's expected Nancy Grace Roman space telescope will have been built and launched by that time too. What then is the added scientific benefit of keeping Hubble for maybe a few years longer, other than it's "celebrity status"?
Consistency - we have a very good understanding of how hubble works, and what it images. It's a very useful calibration tool for new scopes.
It's also still unique - JWST isn't a replacement, though there is some overlap in observable frequencies.
The Roman scope has a similar diameter mirror but a massively wider fov, it's not looking at the same stuff.
They are, but we don't currently have a way of actually doing that. Hubble isn't robot serviceable. For one thing the doors aren't made to be opened (and more importantly closed) by robot, requiring muscle power and a ratchet strap on one occasion. We don't have any vehicle or robot system designed for it available either (and designing such would probably cost the same as replacing HST outright), nor do we have a human rated system capable of performing such a service mission. There's been some talk of bringing a SpaceX Dragon up there to do the job, but it's not currently equipped or capable of doing such a mission. All service missions so far have been done by the Space Shuttle.
"We don't have any vehicle or robot system designed for it available either (and designing such would probably cost the same as replacing HST outright), ..."
Replacing it gives you one telescope. Repairing it gives you one telescope and one vehicle+robot. Repeatedly choosing to replace _thing_ because repair is too expensive is _why_ repair is so expensive.
Designing and building something that could service Hubble is going to be so incredibly specific to hubble it's not very likely to be useful for servicing anything else.
Grace Roman Space Telescope is being designed specifically to allow unmanned robotic service missions. Hubble just doesn't have the provisions for it. It was designed to be serviced by the Shuttle and it's ability to position astronauts using the CanadArm. It doesn't have doors with easily released hatches, no internal or external grapple or position reference fixtures, no robot manipulator friendly fasteners.
So I'll reiterate my previous statement. Designing and launching a robotic servicing vehicle/mission for hubble is just not worth it. You could likely design amd built an entirely new Hubble with servicing in mind AND a servicing vehicle and launch that new telescope for similar cost in a similar timeframe.
I agree, we are all worried about Technical debt building up in corporate infrastructure with ever increasing maintenance costs and the lack of budget and time to migrate functionality to a new technology stack. I did not come across any argument yet that the HST is free of technical debt. I also think it is better taking lessons learned from the HST mission and design a new telescope from the ground up.
So the whole humanoid robot project that NASA is working on has no hope of ever being used... because you don't think they can make it work with hubble.
Well that's a shame, because it actually provides an interesting option. Or of course the polaris missions which intend to demonstrate EVA from a drgaon capsule.
But no - we shall destroy a perfectly good telescope because you don't think it's worth continuing to service it... this is why we can't have nice things.
I suspect the problem there is a lack of suitable hard points for latches to, uh, latch onto. That said, it's a great idea for future science missions where the instruments could produce useful data for many decades as long as they're pointed accurately - fly a spacecraft bus designed from the getgo to eject the science instruments, comms, control systems etc for pickup by an independent, hot-swappable pointing and thrusting unit...
Hmmm, I don't remember ever hearing or seeing that concept before. This IS the internet, right? (What year is it? **Who's the President??** )
Think the plan for the second mission is to test out EVA. Then work with NASA for a.repair on the next mission. Boosting orbit should be pretty easy. Replacing the gyroscopics will be difficult. There aren't any handholds and they don't have an arm to help them on EVA.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
