-
NASA RFI on commercial satellite/Hubble reboost
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 09 May, 2023 15:54
-
This RFI was released last December:
https://sam.gov/opp/7d73f2f1cbf34603b7734bb7eacfc79e/viewRequest for Information
Release Date: December 22, 2022
Response Date: January 24, 2023
This National Aeronautics and Space Administration/Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) Request for Information (RFI) does not constitute a commitment, implied or otherwise, that the NASA/GSFC will take action in this matter.
1. Summary
NASA is seeking interest in demonstrating commercial capabilities to re-boost the orbit of a satellite and is considering utilizing the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) for a demonstration in the next few years. Partner(s) would be expected to participate and undertake this mission on a no-exchange-of-funds basis. Should NASA decide to pursue this demonstration, GSFC would provide technical information and technical consultation with GSFC HST experts to facilitate rendezvous, docking, and reboost. Partner(s) would be expected to provide all other resources (including the launch vehicle, spacecraft, crew if applicable to the approach, and mission operations except for HST operations during the mission) necessary to successfully perform the demonstration.
Partners must be U.S. based entities.
Previously it was thought that only the Polaris program (Jared Isaacman and SpaceX) would be interested, but at least one other submission has been received.
Technical details of the possible Polaris mission can still be discussed on the Polaris thread:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=55803.0This thread can cover other submissions, NASA assessment / decisions etc.
-
#1
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 09 May, 2023 15:55
-
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20230508005772/en/Need-a-Lift-Astroscale-and-Momentus-Team-to-Offer-NASA-a-Commercial-Solution-to-Reboost-Hubble-and-Deliver-Additional-In-Space-ServicingNeed a Lift? Astroscale and Momentus Team to Offer NASA a Commercial Solution to Reboost Hubble and Deliver Additional In-Space Servicing
Reboost would extend the life of this iconic 33-year-old, billion-dollar space telescope and build on its successful heritage of countless scientific discoveries and in-space servicing
May 09, 2023 07:57 AM Eastern Daylight Time
SAN JOSE, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Astroscale U.S. Inc., the market leader in securing long-term orbital sustainability across all orbits and Momentus Inc. (NASDAQ: MNTS), a U.S. commercial space company that offers orbital transportation and in-space infrastructure services, are collaborating to offer NASA a sustainable solution for its Hubble Reboost efforts.
Even at 33, Hubble is fully capable of continuing its mission; where it is aging is in its orbital stability. I am thrilled that we collaborated to offer NASA a very cost-effective way to continue to operate this billion-dollar scientific investment by leveraging new robotic in-space servicing technology.
The two companies recently responded to NASA’s Hubble Reboost RFI in a joint proposal. The mission’s objectives include safe relocation of Hubble and removal of nearby threatening debris from the celebrated space telescope’s new orbit.
“Leveraging Momentus’ flight heritage with three orbital service vehicles on-orbit today and Astroscale’s expertise in RPOD (rendezvous, proximity operations and docking), we found our product suites to be synergistic in support of a major NASA mission,” said John Rood, Momentus Chief Executive Officer. “Even at 33, Hubble is fully capable of continuing its mission; where it is aging is in its orbital stability. I am thrilled that we collaborated to offer NASA a very cost-effective way to continue to operate this billion-dollar scientific investment by leveraging new robotic in-space servicing technology.”
The proposed mission concept, a commercial solution to extend the life of this important national asset without risk to humans, includes launching a Momentus Vigoride Orbital Service Vehicle (OSV) to low-Earth orbit on a small launch vehicle. Once on orbit, Astroscale’s RPOD technology built into the OSV would be used to safely rendezvous, approach and then complete a robotic capture of the telescope. Once mated, the OSV would perform a series of maneuvers to raise the Hubble by 50 km. Removal of surrounding and threatening space debris in Hubble’s new orbit using the Vigoride and Astroscale’s RPOD capabilities will be prioritized after the completion of the primary reboost mission.
“The Hubble’s need for a reboost should be an important wake-up call as to why the space industry needs dynamic and responsive in-space infrastructure, and in this case, to extend opportunities to explore our universe,” said Ron Lopez, President and Managing Director of Astroscale U.S. “The proliferation of in-space servicing and assembly allows us to reimagine how our investments are managed in space; it is the foundation on which the new space age is being built. What we’ve proposed to NASA are options—options that were not available during the five previous crewed servicing missions and that leverage the best of in-space servicing to achieve mission objectives and advance U.S. leadership in space.”
About Astroscale U.S.
Astroscale U.S. Inc. provides on-orbit services and logistics across all orbits for commercial operators, the U.S. government and partner governments around the world. Astroscale U.S. is headquartered in Denver, Colorado, and is a subsidiary of Tokyo-based Astroscale Holdings Inc., the first private company with a vision to secure the safe and sustainable development of space for the benefit of future generations, and the only company solely dedicated to on-orbit services across all orbits. Astroscale Israel Ltd., based in Tel Aviv, is a subsidiary of and serves as the research and payload development team for Astroscale U.S. Astroscale U.S. leverages the best of investments and developments made by Astroscale engineering, policy and business teams domestically and in Japan, the United Kingdom and Israel to provide flexibility and value for space operations in the U.S. and partner nations.
About Momentus
Momentus is a U.S. commercial space company that offers in-space infrastructure services, including in-space transportation, hosted payloads and in-orbit services. Momentus believes it can make new ways of operating in space possible with its planned in-space transfer and service vehicles that will be powered by an innovative water plasma-based propulsion system.
-
#2
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 27 Jul, 2023 17:50
-
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1684622075984482304Mark Clampin, NASA astrophysics division director, said NASA is still reviewing responses to an RFI about commercial reboost options for Hubble. NASA received 8 responses earlier this year (plus the SpaceX space act agreement.) No timeline for next steps.
-
#3
by
deadman1204
on 27 Jul, 2023 18:53
-
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1684622075984482304
Mark Clampin, NASA astrophysics division director, said NASA is still reviewing responses to an RFI about commercial reboost options for Hubble. NASA received 8 responses earlier this year (plus the SpaceX space act agreement.) No timeline for next steps.
Thats a tragedy. Delaying the next New Fronteirs for 3+ years? Everyone with a republican congressman should write them to support NASA funding.
-
#4
by
Ben Baley
on 31 Jul, 2023 01:13
-
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1684622075984482304
Mark Clampin, NASA astrophysics division director, said NASA is still reviewing responses to an RFI about commercial reboost options for Hubble. NASA received 8 responses earlier this year (plus the SpaceX space act agreement.) No timeline for next steps.
Thats a tragedy. Delaying the next New Fronteirs for 3+ years? Everyone with a republican congressman should write them to support NASA funding.
8 responses, I didn't realize there was that many.
Does anyone know who the other respondees are?
-
#5
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 15 Sep, 2023 05:39
-
I guess NASA must still be evaluating - Jared Isaacman said yesterday no news yet from BASA on Polaris II helping Hubble:
Polaris Dawn is looking like Q1-2024. It is a development program and new technology takes time to implement. The EVA suits being a big driver of the timeline.
No updates from NASA on Polaris II, but we are still hopeful we can help out Hubble. We have a great plan to extend the life and capability of the exploration platform at really no cost to the government.
https://twitter.com/rookisaacman/status/1702303458844455060
-
#6
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 05 Nov, 2023 20:28
-
Jared is currently talking on NSF Live, along with Tim Dodd:
[...]
A joint SpaceX, Polaris and NASA report was submitted 5 to 6 months ago and was positive about helping Hubble.
The scope of the study was to boost Hubble and leave it healthier (i.e. repair it)
-
#7
by
Ben Baley
on 07 Nov, 2023 02:44
-
Jared is currently talking on NSF Live, along with Tim Dodd:
[...]
A joint SpaceX, Polaris and NASA report was submitted 5 to 6 months ago and was positive about helping Hubble.
The scope of the study was to boost Hubble and leave it healthier (i.e. repair it)
I listened to the interview and from what Jared said it sounds like the plan is to build a structure that would allow Dragon to dock to Hubble and would remain attached after the orbital boost is completed and would provide backup for the gyros etc, sort of like a Mission Extension Vehicle, an EVA would be required to make power and data connections.
-
#8
by
Coastal Ron
on 07 Nov, 2023 03:08
-
Jared is currently talking on NSF Live, along with Tim Dodd:
[...]
A joint SpaceX, Polaris and NASA report was submitted 5 to 6 months ago and was positive about helping Hubble.
The scope of the study was to boost Hubble and leave it healthier (i.e. repair it)
I listened to the interview and from what Jared said it sounds like the plan is to build a structure that would allow Dragon to dock to Hubble and would remain attached after the orbital boost is completed and would provide backup for the gyros etc, sort of like a Mission Extension Vehicle, an EVA would be required to make power and data connections.
I'm trying to imagine what that would look like. Are you talking about a Dragon Crew that would launch, mate to the Hubble somehow, make power connections, move the Hubble to a higher orbit, leave some hardware attached, and then the Dragon Crew would depart to bring the crew back?
Or is there some sort of module being considered that would be carried up in the Dragon trunk, and that hardware is then attached to the Hubble, connected to power, and that pushes the Hubble to a higher orbit and stays attached, while the Dragon Crew brings the crew back?
Or?
Apologies if this has already been defined earlier in the thread...
-
#9
by
Zed_Noir
on 07 Nov, 2023 06:15
-
<snip>
I listened to the interview and from what Jared said it sounds like the plan is to build a structure that would allow Dragon to dock to Hubble and would remain attached after the orbital boost is completed and would provide backup for the gyros etc, sort of like a Mission Extension Vehicle, an EVA would be required to make power and data connections.
I'm trying to imagine what that would look like. Are you talking about a Dragon Crew that would launch, mate to the Hubble somehow, make power connections, move the Hubble to a higher orbit, leave some hardware attached, and then the Dragon Crew would depart to bring the crew back?
Or is there some sort of module being considered that would be carried up in the Dragon trunk, and that hardware is then attached to the Hubble, connected to power, and that pushes the Hubble to a higher orbit and stays attached, while the Dragon Crew brings the crew back?
Or?
Apologies if this has already been defined earlier in the thread...
Think @Ben Baley is writing about a module in the trunk that can docked with Hubble while docked to a docking ring inside the trunk.
However the only connection that is needed is probably a data link between the module and the Hubble. The module should a self-contain unit with solar arrays to powered a backup gyro pointing system for Hubble. There should be no propulsion element in the module that can out gas anything to contaminated the Hubble optical components.
AIUI any Hubble orbit rising will likely be done with the Dragon's nose axial thrusters. Maybe with extra hypergolic tankage in the Dragon.
Skeptical that a Hubble orbit rising mission with a Crew Dragon could swapped out and replaced any internal Hubble components by crew EVA.
-
#10
by
deadman1204
on 08 Nov, 2023 14:36
-
<snip>
I listened to the interview and from what Jared said it sounds like the plan is to build a structure that would allow Dragon to dock to Hubble and would remain attached after the orbital boost is completed and would provide backup for the gyros etc, sort of like a Mission Extension Vehicle, an EVA would be required to make power and data connections.
I'm trying to imagine what that would look like. Are you talking about a Dragon Crew that would launch, mate to the Hubble somehow, make power connections, move the Hubble to a higher orbit, leave some hardware attached, and then the Dragon Crew would depart to bring the crew back?
Or is there some sort of module being considered that would be carried up in the Dragon trunk, and that hardware is then attached to the Hubble, connected to power, and that pushes the Hubble to a higher orbit and stays attached, while the Dragon Crew brings the crew back?
Or?
Apologies if this has already been defined earlier in the thread...
Think @Ben Baley is writing about a module in the trunk that can docked with Hubble while docked to a docking ring inside the trunk.
However the only connection that is needed is probably a data link between the module and the Hubble. The module should a self-contain unit with solar arrays to powered a backup gyro pointing system for Hubble. There should be no propulsion element in the module that can out gas anything to contaminated the Hubble optical components.
AIUI any Hubble orbit rising will likely be done with the Dragon's nose axial thrusters. Maybe with extra hypergolic tankage in the Dragon.
Skeptical that a Hubble orbit rising mission with a Crew Dragon could swapped out and replaced any internal Hubble components by crew EVA.
I imagine that any data would have to go through earth. Hubble certainly doesn't have an easy to access way to plug this unit into it for data relay.
-
#11
by
LouScheffer
on 08 Nov, 2023 15:36
-
Think @Ben Baley is writing about a module in the trunk that can docked with Hubble while docked to a docking ring inside the trunk.
However the only connection that is needed is probably a data link between the module and the Hubble. The module should a self-contain unit with solar arrays to powered a backup gyro pointing system for Hubble. There should be no propulsion element in the module that can out gas anything to contaminated the Hubble optical components.
I imagine that any data would have to go through earth. Hubble certainly doesn't have an easy to access way to plug this unit into it for data relay.
Hubble certainly has radios, and a new module is so close it could easily receive/transmit to and from Hubble no matter which antennas are being used and where they are pointed.
Whether the radios and systems within Hubble can be configured to have low enough latency and high enough bandwidth for an added module to take over pointing, I have no idea.
-
#12
by
Ben Baley
on 12 Nov, 2023 12:08
-
Think @Ben Baley is writing about a module in the trunk that can docked with Hubble while docked to a docking ring inside the trunk.
However the only connection that is needed is probably a data link between the module and the Hubble. The module should a self-contain unit with solar arrays to powered a backup gyro pointing system for Hubble. There should be no propulsion element in the module that can out gas anything to contaminated the Hubble optical components.
AIUI any Hubble orbit rising will likely be done with the Dragon's nose axial thrusters. Maybe with extra hypergolic tankage in the Dragon.
Skeptical that a Hubble orbit rising mission with a Crew Dragon could swapped out and replaced any internal Hubble components by crew EVA.
This is what I envisioned when I was listening to Jared.
I understood from discussion upthread that SpaceX would likely need to build some sort of docking adapter in dragons trunk. When Jared was talking about leaving something attached to Hubble that would need to be plugged in via EVA, the only reasonable way to attach such a thing would be via the docking ring and therefore building as part of the docking adapter makes the most sense.
What sort of plugging in could be done via EVA I'm not sure, the physical connection should be completed automatically like docking to the ISS, I don't know what sort of external power/data ports Hubble has, but I would have thought it would have at least something used for prelaunch testing.
-
#13
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 07 Jan, 2024 21:34
-
https://twitter.com/stephenclark1/status/1744124961776689336Mark Clampin, NASA's astrophysics director, says at this week's AAS meeting that the agency is still deciding on a path forward for Hubble after receiving SpaceX's feasibility study on reboost and servicing.
"I will emphasize that we’re primarily looking for reboost.”
-
#14
by
AS_501
on 07 Jan, 2024 21:40
-
I hope they find a way to at least replace the gyros too.
-
#15
by
Targeteer
on 07 Jan, 2024 22:32
-
If I remember correctly a docking fixture was left on Hubble after the last servicing mission that a reboost/servicing mission could use. When in the Shuttle bay there was also an umbilical connection that was used to command Hubble, I think. If the second is true, couldn't the umbilical connection be used by an attached module to take over Hubble commanding and provide new gyros in the attached module?
-
#16
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 07 Jan, 2024 23:22
-
I hope they find a way to at least replace the gyros too.
https://twitter.com/rookisaacman/status/1744152047534964859With Hubble orbit decaying there is only a limited time to plan, train & fly a mission. I am a bit concerned that the 'clock' is being run out on this game.
The mission has to help advance the capabilities of the commercial space industry. We are not going to just reboost a very unhealthy Hubble. The telescope has been going in and out of safe mode over the last month w/bad gyros. The study provided for several options to enhance the telescope.
As for the crew, we would bring together people to give the mission the best chance of success. I am just concerned at this pace, there may not be a Hubble to save.
-
#17
by
whitelancer64
on 10 Jan, 2024 23:08
-
If I remember correctly a docking fixture was left on Hubble after the last servicing mission that a reboost/servicing mission could use. When in the Shuttle bay there was also an umbilical connection that was used to command Hubble, I think. If the second is true, couldn't the umbilical connection be used by an attached module to take over Hubble commanding and provide new gyros in the attached module?
Yes, a Soft Capture Mechanism, consisting of a passive LIDS (Low Impact Docking System) interface, was indeed attached to Hubble (LIDS was what NASA was considering for its IDSS implementation at the time). It's very similar to, but AIUI, not quite compatible with, the current NASA Docking System. However, the design of the SCM is known, so making something that can attach to it should be a trivial engineering task.
It might be easier to replace the gyro assemblies with an EVA than to design and build something new that would remain attached to Hubble. There are a lot of trade-offs to consider in this study.
-
#18
by
StraumliBlight
on 16 May, 2024 11:36
-
Private mission to save the Hubble Space Telescope raises concerns, NASA emails showIn March of 2023, emails show that NASA was arranging for an independent review of the feasibility study.
"The study ends shortly and NASA HQ wants a review of the servicing aspects of the study by a panel that includes several astronauts," one Hubble manager wrote to Feustel.
"Let me assure you that this is a real thing," the manager added, "with a potential mission in a year and a half or so."
In addition to Feustel, the review panel included John Grunsfeld, an astronaut and astronomer who has been called "the Hubble repairman" because of his spacewalks during three separate shuttle missions. Keith Kalinowski, a retired Hubble operations expert, and Dana Weigel, who is currently NASA's program manager for the international space station, also weighed in.
In April of 2023, Kalinowski emailed Patrick Crouse, the project manager for the Hubble Space Telescope mission, to say that he would be all in favor of a "well-planned" mission to reboost the telescope and install an enhancement to its pointing control system, if it would profitably extend the telescope's science life.
But a Polaris spacewalk to do that, Kalinowski wrote, "is unnecessary and risky."
-
#19
by
2megs
on 16 May, 2024 12:10
-
Private mission to save the Hubble Space Telescope raises concerns, NASA emails show
(snip)
But a Polaris spacewalk to do that, Kalinowski wrote, "is unnecessary and risky."
Not exactly wrong, and if the choice were between a NASA spacewalk and no spacewalk, he'd have a great point. But I suspect Mr. Isaacman is going on an "unnecessary and risky" spacewalk no matter what, so the choice is whether Hubble gets a reboost out of it.
-
#20
by
StraumliBlight
on 16 May, 2024 12:14
-
Not exactly wrong, and if the choice were between a NASA spacewalk and no spacewalk, he'd have a great point. But I suspect Mr. Isaacman is going on an "unnecessary and risky" spacewalk no matter what, so the choice is whether Hubble gets a reboost out of it.
He replies to that further down the article.
Isaacman has said that "every one of the arguments" he's heard against the Hubble proposal is that "if you do an EVA, you know, there's a lot of risk in that."
He dismissed this concern. "That risk is being taken, no matter what," he said, arguing that his group plans to proceed with private spacewalks, so NASA should take advantage of this.
-
#21
by
novo2044
on 16 May, 2024 12:34
-
Private mission to save the Hubble Space Telescope raises concerns, NASA emails show
(snip)
But a Polaris spacewalk to do that, Kalinowski wrote, "is unnecessary and risky."
Not exactly wrong, and if the choice were between a NASA spacewalk and no spacewalk, he'd have a great point. But I suspect Mr. Isaacman is going on an "unnecessary and risky" spacewalk no matter what, so the choice is whether Hubble gets a reboost out of it.
There's not just risk to the Polaris crew; there's the risk to Hubble and the risk of criticism of SpaceX, Polaris, and NASA itself if something goes wrong. To be fair it will be 2035ish before it deorbits, so this isn't an emergency yet. If Issacman and crew perform multiple missions and perform multiple EVAs, get dozens of uses and hundreds of hours of data, a mission in 2-3 years is much less risky. Perhaps they hire a veteran NASA astronaut as a crew member, I'm sure there would no shortage of volunteers.
An offer to do it for free is also sort of insane. It's such an obvious win for everyone... as long as nothing goes wrong.
-
#22
by
deadman1204
on 16 May, 2024 14:25
-
Its actually quite a long and good story by NPR, that raises alot of issues. Approaching hubble and working on it is nothing like the ISS. Everything is so much harder and spaceX accepts FAR more risk on everything than nasa does. Alot of issues and details that generally don't get spoken or thought about by space fans. Or how about 20% of all space walks have significant saftey issues - and thats with nasa who is FAR more saftey oriented in the ISS environment which is FAR more supportive and safe than the hubble mission would be - which wouldn't be with professional astronauts with the support of the shuttle either.
It certainly doesn't help that issacman is being an asshat. He's accusing nasa of wanting to keep hubble to itself and basically colluding to keep him away cause he isn't a "real astronaut" or whatever. That alone would signal additional alarm bells for me at nasa - how the proposed mission isn't about hubble, its about this billionaire's ego trip doing something with hubble. If nasa says "stop don't do it", would issacman follow orders? I have my doubts.
-
#23
by
deadman1204
on 16 May, 2024 14:50
-
Private mission to save the Hubble Space Telescope raises concerns, NASA emails show
(snip)
But a Polaris spacewalk to do that, Kalinowski wrote, "is unnecessary and risky."
Not exactly wrong, and if the choice were between a NASA spacewalk and no spacewalk, he'd have a great point. But I suspect Mr. Isaacman is going on an "unnecessary and risky" spacewalk no matter what, so the choice is whether Hubble gets a reboost out of it.
This ignores the multitude of ways it could fail and damage or destroy hubble. EVen approaching hubble in dragon is far more dangerous because you won't have all the gear on the ISS helping it. Smash a solar panel? Fire a jet in the wrong place and pollute/ruin sensors?
The mission is also talking about attaching something to hubble to help with pointing, which polaris said is "just attaching a few wires and stuff....". That means completely opening up hubble and disconnecting stuff and attaching new things. Glossing over how hard it is to remove a single bolt on hubble WITH the shuttle arm and other support. Things polaris won't have. Even the professional astronauts accidentally damaged hubble while working on it, and issacman is very much not a professional astronaut and never will be.
The fact that polaris is pretending this stuff is simple really makes me not want them anywhere near hubble. Its wierd, up to yesterday I was all for the polaris hubble mission. Now after reading this and hearing nasa and issacman talk about it.... I think it would be a mistake for nasa.
-
#24
by
Tomness
on 16 May, 2024 15:12
-
Private mission to save the Hubble Space Telescope raises concerns, NASA emails show
(snip)
But a Polaris spacewalk to do that, Kalinowski wrote, "is unnecessary and risky."
Not exactly wrong, and if the choice were between a NASA spacewalk and no spacewalk, he'd have a great point. But I suspect Mr. Isaacman is going on an "unnecessary and risky" spacewalk no matter what, so the choice is whether Hubble gets a reboost out of it.
This ignores the multitude of ways it could fail and damage or destroy hubble. EVen approaching hubble in dragon is far more dangerous because you won't have all the gear on the ISS helping it. Smash a solar panel? Fire a jet in the wrong place and pollute/ruin sensors?
The mission is also talking about attaching something to hubble to help with pointing, which polaris said is "just attaching a few wires and stuff....". That means completely opening up hubble and disconnecting stuff and attaching new things. Glossing over how hard it is to remove a single bolt on hubble WITH the shuttle arm and other support. Things polaris won't have. Even the professional astronauts accidentally damaged hubble while working on it, and issacman is very much not a professional astronaut and never will be.
The fact that polaris is pretending this stuff is simple really makes me not want them anywhere near hubble. Its wierd, up to yesterday I was all for the polaris hubble mission. Now after reading this and hearing nasa and issacman talk about it.... I think it would be a mistake for nasa.
It won't be Isaacman doing that mission, it will be NASA. This is about selling it to NASA and DOD/NRO for Hubble like Telescopes. Its not hard if you add Super Dragon or Super Cygnus. If they want Shuttle like Capbiltes then they will have to wait for human rated Starship.
-
#25
by
Tomness
on 16 May, 2024 20:09
-
I’ve moved Hubble discussion to the separate specific thread:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=58832.0
If NASA were to select the Dragon offer, and it becomes an official Polaris mission, then discussion can move to a Polaris thread.
Thank you, I tried to search for this earlier, I am glad you were able to find it and move it all over.
-
#26
by
matthewkantar
on 16 May, 2024 20:50
-
Above I see a whole lot of concern trolling. There is no reason Isaacman can’t be trained up to a NASA level of competence. NASA does not employ wizards or witches. The plan of record is to spend more than a billion dollars to junk it.
Ask astronomers which approach they would prefer, an(ooooooooooh)risky! one, or a sure end to Hubble? Maybe NASA wants to line the pockets of the deorbit contractor, or maybe they don’t want NASA and STI burdened with running it?
-
#27
by
Blackstar
on 16 May, 2024 23:13
-
Not exactly wrong, and if the choice were between a NASA spacewalk and no spacewalk, he'd have a great point. But I suspect Mr. Isaacman is going on an "unnecessary and risky" spacewalk no matter what, so the choice is whether Hubble gets a reboost out of it.
Hubble doesn't belong to him.
-
#28
by
matthewkantar
on 16 May, 2024 23:59
-
Not exactly wrong, and if the choice were between a NASA spacewalk and no spacewalk, he'd have a great point. But I suspect Mr. Isaacman is going on an "unnecessary and risky" spacewalk no matter what, so the choice is whether Hubble gets a reboost out of it.
Hubble doesn't belong to him.
I’m sure everybody here will be shocked to hear this. Thanks for the compelling info. S/
I don’t care for the guy either, but he may be making a compelling offer, an offer that could benefit taxpayers, astronomers, SpaceX and NASA. I don’t understand the hostility.
-
#29
by
Athelstane
on 17 May, 2024 02:13
-
Private mission to save the Hubble Space Telescope raises concerns, NASA emails show
(snip)
But a Polaris spacewalk to do that, Kalinowski wrote, "is unnecessary and risky."
Not exactly wrong, and if the choice were between a NASA spacewalk and no spacewalk, he'd have a great point. But I suspect Mr. Isaacman is going on an "unnecessary and risky" spacewalk no matter what, so the choice is whether Hubble gets a reboost out of it.
There's not just risk to the Polaris crew; there's the risk to Hubble and the risk of criticism of SpaceX, Polaris, and NASA itself if something goes wrong. To be fair it will be 2035ish before it deorbits, so this isn't an emergency yet.
What happens if all the remaining gyros fail? Will it still be stable enough to rendezvous and dock with?
-
#30
by
VSECOTSPE
on 17 May, 2024 03:10
-
Above I see a whole lot of concern trolling. There is no reason Isaacman can’t be trained up to a NASA level of competence. NASA does not employ wizards or witches.
There are real issues here that have nothing to do with Isaacman, training, Dragon, or SX.
One, under prior HST servicing missions, the robotic arm on the STS grappled with HST and held it in place. Capsules, Dragon or otherwise, don’t have that capability. So it’s not clear exactly how a capsule like Dragon would actually dock with HST for reboost or keep moment arms induced on HST by servicing/upgrade activities under control. Forget Isaacman/Dragon/SX. These problems would exist even if NASA astronauts flying on an Orion capsule were being considered for this mission.
Two, it’s not clear that astronaut lives, civil or commercial, have to be risked to reboost HST. The original plan for the last HST servicing was robotic, and the satellite servicing industry has matured enormously since that time, especially in terms of simple reboost capabilities. There are also other unmanned reboost capabilities like Cygnus that may be able to pull this off. There were seven other responses to the RFI, and they probably all came in this unmanned flavor. Even if the issues above are dealt with, it’s not clear that a crewed capsule would be the least complex and most straightforward way to approach this mission, especially if it’s just an HST reboost.
Three, HST is in no danger of reentry anytime soon, is pretty healthy, and will probably remain so for some years to come. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. It’s not clear that now is the time to mount a reboost or servicing mission, whether crewed or robotic, commercial or civil. Any mission will carry some risk of damaging or destroying HST, potentially needlessly taking years off its life or capabilities. It would be best to time a reboost or servicing closer to when HST’s useful life is projected to end.
I was the program exec who started COTS so no one is more supportive of NASA better leveraging commercial sector capabilities than me. But the risks here have to be approached along the lines of the old medical axiom of “do no harm”. Plunging into a reboost/servicing mission at this time risks a lot for little upside. NASA should find a way to stay engaged with potential commercial solutions but let those capabilities develop further before pulling the trigger. Let’s see some other satellites get reboosted commercially, let’s see Cygnus do an autonomous rendezvous and docking, let’s see SX pull off a spacewalk, etc. Then let’s make a decision.
Ask astronomers which approach they would prefer, an(ooooooooooh)risky! one, or a sure end to Hubble?
I have not been directly involved in astrophysics research for decades, but I have a degree in it and have worked with that community in past lives. They wouldn’t want to risk the healthy HST and would want to defer a reboost/servicing decision until it’s necessary.
-
#31
by
Emmettvonbrown
on 17 May, 2024 06:48
-
Above I see a whole lot of concern trolling. There is no reason Isaacman can’t be trained up to a NASA level of competence. NASA does not employ wizards or witches. The plan of record is to spend more than a billion dollars to junk it.
Ask astronomers which approach they would prefer, an(ooooooooooh)risky! one, or a sure end to Hubble? Maybe NASA wants to line the pockets of the deorbit contractor, or maybe they don’t want NASA and STI burdened with running it?
Here we go
again. SpaceX f.a.n.b.o.y weaponizing the expression "concern trolling" against somebody critisizing their champion. And its ability to make miracles and unicorns.
Please stick that expression where the Sun never shines. Thank you. God I hate that expression so much, and the way it is mis-used or weaponized on this forum.
-
#32
by
Emmettvonbrown
on 17 May, 2024 06:58
-
In recent months, Isaacman has made some pointed public remarks, saying in interviews and on social media that this trip to Hubble should be a "no brainer" and "this should be an easy risk/reward decision."
In a best-case scenario, a successful private mission could improve Hubble's ability to point at celestial objects and, by boosting its orbit, extend its life by years.
In a worst-case scenario, however, an accident could leave the multibillion-dollar telescope broken — or, even more tragically, tethered to the dead bodies of the astronauts sent to repair it.
Isaacman has said if the mission isn't done, "politics" will be to blame. In January, he wrote: "I am a bit concerned that the 'clock' is being run out on this game ... at this pace, there may not be a Hubble to save."
In a February interview, he suggested that some NASA insiders wanted a monopoly on the prestigious experience of getting to handle Hubble.
"Up until now, there's only been, you know, one group that would ever touch Hubble. And I think that they have an opinion of whether — of who should or shouldn't be allowed to touch it," Isaacman said. "I think a lot would say, 'I'd rather it burn up' than, you know, go down a slippery slope of, you know, the space community growing. So I think that's a factor now, unfortunately."
Oh gosh, he is like a spoiled kid having a tantrum. In a Musk or Trump style. Typical "Booohooo, NASA doesn't agree with me, so a) they are wrong and b) politics, of course."
Insufferable attitude. Can't help thinking about Saul Goodman shouting at Walter White, after they fought "Booohooo, you're a cry baby !"
One, under prior HST servicing missions, the robotic arm on the STS grappled with HST and held it in place. Capsules, Dragon or otherwise, don’t have that capability. So it’s not clear exactly how a capsule like Dragon would actually dock with HST for reboost or keep moment arms induced on HST by servicing/upgrade activities under control. Forget Isaacman/Dragon/SX. These problems would exist even if NASA astronauts flying on an Orion capsule were being considered for this mission.
This. A hundred percent. You say robotic arm, and I say: 15*60 ft payload bay as an orbital workshop.
-
#33
by
edzieba
on 17 May, 2024 11:44
-
It's not just a high-risk (to Hubble, not to mention the servicing crew) option, it's an unnecessary risk. There is no urgent rush to save Hubble, so a Polaris-2-like servicing mission can wait until SpaceX have gotten more experience with EVAs and suits verified to have acceptably low exertion loads during handling tasks during EVA, and crews well trained up on the particulars of EVAs from Dragon and with the new suits. No need for it to be the very first live use of the suits.
Even in the event you want to pay down the risk of Hubble's gyroscopes failing faster than predicted, that still does not require a manned mission. A variant of NG's MEV or similar long-endurance vehicle can be launched and attached to the LIDS on Hubble, and then.. do nothing until and unless Hubble actually experiences such a failure. At that point, it can stabilise Hubble, reboost if needed, and then wait again for a servicing mission with more planning and preparation time available to ensure success.
Isaacman offering the mission 'for free' is nearly a non-factor, cost of the mission is fairly far down the list of requirements, behind not risking the next decade of Hubble observations. If Isaacman is only willing to offer the mission for free now... then oh well? Pay SpaceX for the future mission at that time, that's not a contractual relationship NASA are unfamiliar with.
-
#34
by
matthewkantar
on 17 May, 2024 15:22
-
Above I see a whole lot of concern trolling. There is no reason Isaacman can’t be trained up to a NASA level of competence. NASA does not employ wizards or witches. The plan of record is to spend more than a billion dollars to junk it.
Ask astronomers which approach they would prefer, an(ooooooooooh)risky! one, or a sure end to Hubble? Maybe NASA wants to line the pockets of the deorbit contractor, or maybe they don’t want NASA and STI burdened with running it?
Here we go again. SpaceX f.a.n.b.o.y weaponizing the expression "concern trolling" against somebody critisizing their champion. And its ability to make miracles and unicorns.
Please stick that expression where the Sun never shines. Thank you. God I hate that expression so much, and the way it is mis-used or weaponized on this forum.
I used the term appropriately, apparently it is triggering for some thin skinned haters?
I would not support a servicing mission until it is needed, of course, but the timing is an unknown. I would rather not spend a billion, or maybe even two, on a mission who’s only purpose is to destroy the greatest telescope since Galileo.
Risk management is important, but hysterical risk aversion has to go away. There is an opportunity here to learn some things and maybe save Hubble, let’s see how it unfolds.
-
#35
by
RedLineTrain
on 17 May, 2024 15:50
-
It's not just a high-risk (to Hubble, not to mention the servicing crew) option, it's an unnecessary risk. There is no urgent rush to save Hubble, so a Polaris-2-like servicing mission can wait until SpaceX have gotten more experience with EVAs and suits verified to have acceptably low exertion loads during handling tasks during EVA, and crews well trained up on the particulars of EVAs from Dragon and with the new suits. No need for it to be the very first live use of the suits.
This seems to exaggerate the risks. The suits will be tested in an EVA this Summer and we might expect manufacture and flight of dozens of these suits on ISS milk runs before a Hubble mission.
-
#36
by
edzieba
on 17 May, 2024 16:01
-
This seems to exaggerate the risks. The suits will be tested this Summer and we might expect manufacture and flight of dozens of these suits before a Hubble mission.
The Hubble servicing mission proposed by Isaacman was the second Polaris missions, so no suit use in space other than the float-about-a-bit test on Polaris Dawn.
-
#37
by
RedLineTrain
on 17 May, 2024 16:09
-
This seems to exaggerate the risks. The suits will be tested this Summer and we might expect manufacture and flight of dozens of these suits before a Hubble mission.
The Hubble servicing mission proposed by Isaacman was the second Polaris missions, so no suit use in space other than the float-about-a-bit test on Polaris Dawn.
With a cooperative and opportunistic attitude, I have no doubt that NASA could test the suits to its satisfaction before the servicing mission. For instance, testing on the ISS. NASA's astronauts will be wearing these suits uphill, after all.
To me, this seems like the Dragon propulsive landing problem all over again.
-
#38
by
Athelstane
on 17 May, 2024 17:12
-
It's not just a high-risk (to Hubble, not to mention the servicing crew) option, it's an unnecessary risk. There is no urgent rush to save Hubble
Hubble is down to three working gyros (one of which is spotty), so while it might be hasty to say the need is *urgent*, we might at least have to say that time is not an inconsiderable consideration. If the gyros finally fail, you no longer have a stable target to dock with or latch on to, and that is a problem regardless of whether you are using a crewed Dragon or tug like that of Momentus or Northrop.
That being the case, it is something for NASA to start
thinking hard about, now.
-
#39
by
edzieba
on 17 May, 2024 17:37
-
This seems to exaggerate the risks. The suits will be tested this Summer and we might expect manufacture and flight of dozens of these suits before a Hubble mission.
The Hubble servicing mission proposed by Isaacman was the second Polaris missions, so no suit use in space other than the float-about-a-bit test on Polaris Dawn.
With a cooperative and opportunistic attitude, I have no doubt that NASA could test the suits to its satisfaction before the servicing mission. For instance, testing on the ISS. NASA's astronauts will be wearing these suits uphill, after all.
Or just not rush to do the mission as Polaris 2 and instead fly it later with more mature suits and more operational experience. With all the costs to NASA other than launching the capsule (mission planning, crew training, new hardware development and testing) 'saving' the cost of paying SpaceX for a crew launch is not worth the risk vs. paying them at a later date for a more mature mission. The 'free' mission isn't free to NASA.
To me, this seems like the Dragon propulsive landing problem all over again.
Propulsive landing was abandoned by SpaceX as base-first capsule entry moved off of the critical path for MCT with the switch to 'bellyflop' entry. Development effort (time and money) for propulsive landing then went from being justified scale R&D and operational experience for the a future vehicle, to a dead-end that needed to justify its own funding for Dragon alone, and parachutes + splashdown were deemed the cheaper and faster option.
It's not just a high-risk (to Hubble, not to mention the servicing crew) option, it's an unnecessary risk. There is no urgent rush to save Hubble
Hubble is down to three working gyros (one of which is spotty), so while it might be hasty to say the need is *urgent*, we might at least have to say that time is not an inconsiderable consideration. If the gyros finally fail, you no longer have a stable target to dock with or latch on to, and that is a problem regardless of whether you are using a crewed Dragon or tug like that of Momentus or Northrop.
That being the case, it is something for NASA to start thinking hard about, now.
As mentioned in the same post you quoted, that calls for a stopgap mission to add a stabilising platform (one that can be nearly CoTS too, as the MEVs are operating successfully in orbit latched to host satellites), not any urgency for a more complex and manned servicing mission, which can come later. Purchase a MEV, purchase a launch (how about Falcon 9?), and stabilise Hubble for at least an extra decade regardless of whether the gyroscopes meet their predicted lifetimes or not. Then your complex mission can be planned and prepared for with care rather than an artificial hurry.
tl;dr: servicing mission with Dragon at some point in the future - maybe a good idea. Servicing mission on Polaris 2 - likely a bad idea.
-
#40
by
VSECOTSPE
on 17 May, 2024 18:12
-
If the gyros finally fail, you no longer have a stable target to dock with or latch on to, and that is a problem regardless of whether you are using a crewed Dragon
That’s a problem regardless of whether the gyros are working or not. HST will always be an uncooperative target. Unlike ISS berthings/dockings, where the visiting vehicles and ISS can take measurements of each other, exchange data, and make adjustments in a closed loop (more or less), HST has no ability to discern or tell a capsule that it’s coming in on the wrong vector or to make adjustments itself. All that can be done is make HST quiescent and then have the visiting vehicle match HST’s vector and rotation. Whether the gyroscopes are working or not won’t fix this problem.
To put HST into a spin that would be too fast for a crewed vehicle to match, all three RSUs would have to completely fail within short order and then some other radical event like a hit from substantial piece of space debris or major sudden outgassing would have to occur. That’s a highly unlikely sequence of events, unmanned options akin to NG’s MEV to regain control and reboost would still be an option, and the HST might not be worth recovering after that kind of damage, anyway.
-
#41
by
RedLineTrain
on 17 May, 2024 18:52
-
Propulsive landing was abandoned by SpaceX as base-first capsule entry moved off of the critical path for MCT with the switch to 'bellyflop' entry. Development effort (time and money) for propulsive landing then went from being justified scale R&D and operational experience for the a future vehicle, to a dead-end that needed to justify its own funding for Dragon alone, and parachutes + splashdown were deemed the cheaper and faster option.
That is a bit revisionist. As I recall it, the cause of propulsive landing being dropped was that NASA was not willing to risk any of its downmass from the ISS for test landings. This increased the development cost for the landing method drastically, which then led to them rethinking it all as you laid out. It's the same unwillingness to take risk and seize opportunities that we find here. Aerobraking and propulsive landing of capsules or capsule-like spaceships on heavenly bodies would have been a useful technology to have.
-
#42
by
Jim
on 17 May, 2024 20:50
-
That is a bit revisionist. As I recall it, the cause of propulsive landing being dropped was that NASA was not willing to risk any of its downmass from the ISS for test landings. This increased the development cost for the landing method drastically, which then led to them rethinking it all as you laid out. It's the same unwillingness to take risk and seize opportunities that we find here.
Wrong. It isn't an unwillingness to take risk. Down mass was one of the commodities NASA specifically paid for in Dragon development and each CRS flight. It is an overbooked resource. Getting experiments back to earth is more important than testing propulsive landing. SpaceX was and is fully capable of funding this on their own like Starship.
-
#43
by
RedLineTrain
on 17 May, 2024 21:30
-
Jim: You disagreed with me and then rephrased and repeated what I said. Bottom line is that NASA was unwilling to bear any additional risk on the ISS downmass and thereby did not get the additional capability.
-
#44
by
VSECOTSPE
on 17 May, 2024 23:20
-
Jim is right. We don’t (or shouldn’t) test new technologies and capabilities by putting them in the critical path of important research and science, whether that’s another decade-ish of relatively healthy HST observations or samples from ISS microgravity experiments that still need to be analyzed. We also shouldn’t put untested technologies/capabilities (or poorly understood technologies/capabilities in the case of STS) in the critical path of flying astronauts (civil or commercial).
You want to test out a new rendezvous and capture capability? Great, do it on a defunct satellite or one near the end of its life (or a purpose-built test object). You want to test out a new payload return capability? Great, do it with some used equipment or astronaut underwear (or a purpose-built test payload).
Don’t put unique, rare, or high value research equipment or data (or human lives) in the path of unproven hardware and operations.
There will always be risks associated with space flight. But we should avoid the obvious and dumb ones.
-
#45
by
Jim
on 18 May, 2024 02:51
-
Jim: You disagreed with me and then rephrased and repeated what I said. Bottom line is that NASA was unwilling to bear any additional risk on the ISS downmass and thereby did not get the additional capability.
Powered landing provides little "additional" capability.
NASA didn't want to loose payloads vs the down mass
-
#46
by
thespacecow
on 18 May, 2024 12:24
-
It's wild to see people passing judgement based on just a few - probably cherry picked - sentences from a handful of - probably cherry picked - emails, without even reading the result of the internal study or independent review.
Do you even know all the factors involved to make a decision?
For example, in a 2012 NASA report "Hubble Space Telescope Disposal Study Closeout Report" (
https://cor.gsfc.nasa.gov/studies/HSTD_18DecRev1.pdf, link no longer works after 2023), it is recommended that Hubble to be captured before it reaches 500km, because once below 500km, if it lost attitude control the tumble rate would make it very difficult to capture it:
Finding #1: HST’s natural orbit degradation will cause its uncontrolled reentry NET ~2027.
Action is required as HST reaches an altitude of 500 km. Uncontrolled reentry is predicted
to occur 3 to 5 years later. Future orbit degradation profiles may change HST’s estimated
uncontrolled reentry date.
Finding #2: Uncontrolled HST attitude rates modeled for HRSDM are 0.22 degrees per second
per axis. Analyses from HRSDM were examined and judged to be reliable. Proper consideration
of the magnetic damping in the torque bars is the key to the relatively low rates predicted. HST
would be in a slow, chaotic tumble. Action is required as HST reaches altitude of 500 km.
Below that altitude, the current models for HST’s expected uncontrolled attitude rates become
unreliable—rates are likely higher, and capture becomes more difficult.
The report recommends that NASA start a program to deorbit Hubble 5 years before it reaches 500 km:
Once the earliest date the HST will reach an altitude of 500 km has been determined, the HST-D mission needs to start 5 years prior to that date.
According to the 2019 paper "An updated re-entry analysis of the Hubble Space Telescope", Hubble will reach 500 km in 2027:
According to a new data by NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC), HST will reach an altitude of 500 km in
approximately eight years, around 2027 (personal communication with Scott Hull).
-
#47
by
yg1968
on 18 May, 2024 13:08
-
Jim is right. We don’t (or shouldn’t) test new technologies and capabilities by putting them in the critical path of important research and science, whether that’s another decade-ish of relatively healthy HST observations or samples from ISS microgravity experiments that still need to be analyzed. We also shouldn’t put untested technologies/capabilities (or poorly understood technologies/capabilities in the case of STS) in the critical path of flying astronauts (civil or commercial).
You want to test out a new rendezvous and capture capability? Great, do it on a defunct satellite or one near the end of its life (or a purpose-built test object). You want to test out a new payload return capability? Great, do it with some used equipment or astronaut underwear (or a purpose-built test payload).
Don’t put unique, rare, or high value research equipment or data (or human lives) in the path of unproven hardware and operations.
There will always be risks associated with space flight. But we should avoid the obvious and dumb ones.
Testing new technology is also important. A good example is the Ingenuity Mars helicopter. Jim Bridenstine had to step in in order for it to happen as a number of scientists were against it.
-
#48
by
yg1968
on 18 May, 2024 13:12
-
It's not just a high-risk (to Hubble, not to mention the servicing crew) option, it's an unnecessary risk. There is no urgent rush to save Hubble, so a Polaris-2-like servicing mission can wait until SpaceX have gotten more experience with EVAs and suits verified to have acceptably low exertion loads during handling tasks during EVA, and crews well trained up on the particulars of EVAs from Dragon and with the new suits. No need for it to be the very first live use of the suits.
Even in the event you want to pay down the risk of Hubble's gyroscopes failing faster than predicted, that still does not require a manned mission. A variant of NG's MEV or similar long-endurance vehicle can be launched and attached to the LIDS on Hubble, and then.. do nothing until and unless Hubble actually experiences such a failure. At that point, it can stabilise Hubble, reboost if needed, and then wait again for a servicing mission with more planning and preparation time available to ensure success.
Isaacman offering the mission 'for free' is nearly a non-factor, cost of the mission is fairly far down the list of requirements, behind not risking the next decade of Hubble observations. If Isaacman is only willing to offer the mission for free now... then oh well? Pay SpaceX for the future mission at that time, that's not a contractual relationship NASA are unfamiliar with.
None of these other options are likely to happen.
-
#49
by
yg1968
on 18 May, 2024 13:15
-
If nasa says "stop don't do it", would issacman follow orders? I have my doubts.
Of course he would. The mission won't happen unless NASA approves it.
-
#50
by
Blackstar
on 18 May, 2024 13:27
-
Testing new technology is also important. A good example is the Ingenuity Mars helicopter. Jim Bridenstine had to step in in order for it to happen as a number of scientists were against it.
Congressman Culberson, not Jim Bridenstine. And Ingenuity was a tech demo that was not in the critical path for the mission. The opposition was due to the concern that it could affect the primary mission.
-
#51
by
yg1968
on 18 May, 2024 13:32
-
In recent months, Isaacman has made some pointed public remarks, saying in interviews and on social media that this trip to Hubble should be a "no brainer" and "this should be an easy risk/reward decision."
In a best-case scenario, a successful private mission could improve Hubble's ability to point at celestial objects and, by boosting its orbit, extend its life by years.
In a worst-case scenario, however, an accident could leave the multibillion-dollar telescope broken — or, even more tragically, tethered to the dead bodies of the astronauts sent to repair it.
Isaacman has said if the mission isn't done, "politics" will be to blame. In January, he wrote: "I am a bit concerned that the 'clock' is being run out on this game ... at this pace, there may not be a Hubble to save."
In a February interview, he suggested that some NASA insiders wanted a monopoly on the prestigious experience of getting to handle Hubble.
"Up until now, there's only been, you know, one group that would ever touch Hubble. And I think that they have an opinion of whether — of who should or shouldn't be allowed to touch it," Isaacman said. "I think a lot would say, 'I'd rather it burn up' than, you know, go down a slippery slope of, you know, the space community growing. So I think that's a factor now, unfortunately."
Oh gosh, he is like a spoiled kid having a tantrum. In a Musk or Trump style. Typical "Booohooo, NASA doesn't agree with me, so a) they are wrong and b) politics, of course."
Insufferable attitude.
It's OK to disagree with NASA, especially if you are the one paying for the mission. One of the reasons that most of Isaacman's missions aren't going to the ISS is because Isaacman doesn't want to have to negotiate with NASA what he can and cannot do. There is no way that NASA would have accepted a Polaris Dawn EVA if it was being done from the ISS. There is something to be said for entirely private missions.
-
#52
by
yg1968
on 18 May, 2024 13:45
-
Testing new technology is also important. A good example is the Ingenuity Mars helicopter. Jim Bridenstine had to step in in order for it to happen as a number of scientists were against it.
Congressman Culberson, not Jim Bridenstine. And Ingenuity was a tech demo that was not in the critical path for the mission. The opposition was due to the concern that it could affect the primary mission.
Jim Bridenstine also.
But Zurbuchen's mind was made up. Ingenuity's team had met the two conditions he laid out a year earlier. Now, it was his turn to act. He realized the best way to win the space community's support would be to get top cover. He went to the relatively new NASA administrator, Jim Bridenstine, and told him the helicopter announcement would be better if it came from him. As a pilot, Bridenstine loved this kind of derring-do in an exploration mission. He was all in.
https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/02/before-ingenuity-ever-landed-on-mars-scientists-almost-managed-to-kill-it/
-
#53
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 18 May, 2024 16:00
-
I've rarely seen a more detailed and balanced article about space news. The way they quoted Isaacman made him look a bit petty but the rest of the article is quite good. Jared let out some of his frustration here and there and fell prey to everything on social media remaining out there to be used a little or a lot out of context. The split within NASA is interesting and falls along some predicable lines.
https://twitter.com/rookisaacman/status/1791845941013569616 I also did not love how they pulled my quotes from podcasts. What the article does not capture is the official position of the joint study and hopefully that comes out. On surface it looks like "billionaire wants to touch Hubble and NASA said hell no", but that is not what happened. There are three positions here, but only one that truly matters:
- My personal opinion about the source of delays, which I have never been shy about stating.
- The personal opinion of those who chimed in late in the process, which I think the article captures well.
- But what really matters is the joint study - Polaris + SpaceX + NASA. The team that performed the technical analysis for ~6 months and arrived at a formal recommendation.
It is unfortunate there is so much discourse over the subject. It is like new space vs. old space, or people who love SpaceX vs. hate SpaceX, incompetent tourist vs. real astronaut. It should really have only been about the mission, because if a mission was planned it would have had resources across all the organizations that participated in the study to ensure success. It is not like anyone was going to wing it, especially after a joint study was assembled to determine generally how a successful mission could be achieved.
I know a lot of people have memories of the heroic shuttle missions to save Hubble...the long EVA's, Canadarm and the giant gyros. The astronauts did an incredible job keeping Hubble going, but that was then and this is now. You can pack a lot of capabilities in to something the size of an iPhone these days. This was not lost on any of the scientists and engineers that worked on the joint study.
Would it be worth the risk to save Hubble? Many of the telescope systems have failed and most redundancy has been lost. This is why it continues to go offline. Hubble's orbit has decayed significantly and will continue to do so through solar max. It will be coming home earlier than what was represented in the article. Once it reaches a certain altitude, the prospects of a mission are all but lost. When it does, it will either be uncontrolled or come at a cost to tax payers to launch something robotic to manage it.
Had a mission been flown, and I was happy to fund it, I believe it would have resulted in the development of capabilities beneficial to the future of commercial space and along the way given Hubble a new lease on life.
I acknowledge this is not my telescope to touch and a lot of time has passed from the study till now. Government priorities change, budgets become tight, regardless of who is funding the mission, it does require contributions of resources from a lot of parties to ensure success. Regardless of what happens from here, I am glad we all, inclusive of NASA, invested the time to see if this could work. Hubble deserved that effort.
-
#54
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 18 May, 2024 16:08
-
https://twitter.com/dr_thomasz/status/1791857579720573100Even though I was not at NASA during the final steps that left of the ultimate demise (for now, at least) of the Polaris-Hubble mission, I can attest to the deep analysis and incredible and deep collaboration between @SpaceX, Polaris, and Hubble experts both from NASA and STScI.
I and others briefed on multiple occasion in public etc. & was in contact with the team and all stakeholders. The work happened like it should have when investigating the opportunities of a commercially funded mission to add value to an incredibly successful mission like Hubble.
It reminded me of the careful work that led to commercial crew & companies like @Axiom_Space, some of the biggest successes in space exploration this past decade. The question remains: when will science fully benefit from commercial approaches? This is what attracted me to this!
In the end, what I think we as scientists should always be after is two metrics, more and/or better science, more and/or better science per dollar. Note, that new approaches always involve questioning the status quo, and that requires the kind of trusted collaboration I saw, leadership and ultimately trying it…
-
#55
by
yg1968
on 18 May, 2024 17:06
-
I've rarely seen a more detailed and balanced article about space news. The way they quoted Isaacman made him look a bit petty but the rest of the article is quite good. Jared let out some of his frustration here and there and fell prey to everything on social media remaining out there to be used a little or a lot out of context. The split within NASA is interesting and falls along some predicable lines.
https://twitter.com/rookisaacman/status/1791845941013569616
I also did not love how they pulled my quotes from podcasts. What the article does not capture is the official position of the joint study and hopefully that comes out. On surface it looks like "billionaire wants to touch Hubble and NASA said hell no", but that is not what happened. There are three positions here, but only one that truly matters:
- My personal opinion about the source of delays, which I have never been shy about stating.
- The personal opinion of those who chimed in late in the process, which I think the article captures well.
- But what really matters is the joint study - Polaris + SpaceX + NASA. The team that performed the technical analysis for ~6 months and arrived at a formal recommendation.
It is unfortunate there is so much discourse over the subject. It is like new space vs. old space, or people who love SpaceX vs. hate SpaceX, incompetent tourist vs. real astronaut. It should really have only been about the mission, because if a mission was planned it would have had resources across all the organizations that participated in the study to ensure success. It is not like anyone was going to wing it, especially after a joint study was assembled to determine generally how a successful mission could be achieved.
I know a lot of people have memories of the heroic shuttle missions to save Hubble...the long EVA's, Canadarm and the giant gyros. The astronauts did an incredible job keeping Hubble going, but that was then and this is now. You can pack a lot of capabilities in to something the size of an iPhone these days. This was not lost on any of the scientists and engineers that worked on the joint study.
Would it be worth the risk to save Hubble? Many of the telescope systems have failed and most redundancy has been lost. This is why it continues to go offline. Hubble's orbit has decayed significantly and will continue to do so through solar max. It will be coming home earlier than what was represented in the article. Once it reaches a certain altitude, the prospects of a mission are all but lost. When it does, it will either be uncontrolled or come at a cost to tax payers to launch something robotic to manage it.
Had a mission been flown, and I was happy to fund it, I believe it would have resulted in the development of capabilities beneficial to the future of commercial space and along the way given Hubble a new lease on life.
I acknowledge this is not my telescope to touch and a lot of time has passed from the study till now. Government priorities change, budgets become tight, regardless of who is funding the mission, it does require contributions of resources from a lot of parties to ensure success. Regardless of what happens from here, I am glad we all, inclusive of NASA, invested the time to see if this could work. Hubble deserved that effort.
It almost feels like Isaacman has been reading this thread. I wouldn't be surprised if he has. In any event, I like his response.
-
#56
by
RedLineTrain
on 18 May, 2024 17:33
-
Jim: You disagreed with me and then rephrased and repeated what I said. Bottom line is that NASA was unwilling to bear any additional risk on the ISS downmass and thereby did not get the additional capability.
Powered landing provides little "additional" capability.
NASA didn't want to loose payloads vs the down mass
Routine powered landings 10-15 years earlier than the alternative (Starship) could have been a benefit when evaluating Mars Sample Return, as one example.
-
#57
by
Jim
on 18 May, 2024 18:18
-
Routine powered landings 10-15 years earlier than the alternative (Starship) could have been a benefit when evaluating Mars Sample Return, as one example.
Nonsense
.
a. Would have disrupted ISS ops and research. This is 1# priority
b. NASA has Mars landers
c. SpaceX could done itself and had Red Dragon for its own
d. 10-15 years? Are you saying Starship is not getting to Mars until 2030-2035? Propulsive Dragon would not have been available earlier than Dragon 2.
Tell me some more fantasies.
-
#58
by
Blackstar
on 18 May, 2024 19:39
-
Testing new technology is also important. A good example is the Ingenuity Mars helicopter. Jim Bridenstine had to step in in order for it to happen as a number of scientists were against it.
Congressman Culberson, not Jim Bridenstine. And Ingenuity was a tech demo that was not in the critical path for the mission. The opposition was due to the concern that it could affect the primary mission.
Jim Bridenstine also.
But Zurbuchen's mind was made up. Ingenuity's team had met the two conditions he laid out a year earlier. Now, it was his turn to act. He realized the best way to win the space community's support would be to get top cover. He went to the relatively new NASA administrator, Jim Bridenstine, and told him the helicopter announcement would be better if it came from him. As a pilot, Bridenstine loved this kind of derring-do in an exploration mission. He was all in.
https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/02/before-ingenuity-ever-landed-on-mars-scientists-almost-managed-to-kill-it/
We can quibble about the degree (and it would be nice to have a more objective reporter), but that article states: "In a lengthy interview, Zurbuchen said Ingenuity never would have reached Mars but for Culberson's support."
-
#59
by
VSECOTSPE
on 18 May, 2024 21:44
-
Testing new technology is also important. A good example is the Ingenuity Mars helicopter.
Apples and oranges. All risks are not the same. Ingenuity maybe posed a tiny mass/volume margin threat to Perseverance during development and could easily be thrown overboard if that threat persisted through reviews. A crew capsule on final approach for its first ever rendezvous with a non-cooperative object threatens years of remaining HST observations if it screws up. The former is a smart, manageable risk. The latter is a dumb, unnecessary risk.
I’m all for supporting the development of new industry capabilities. But we shouldn’t risk high-value assets and research when testing them. That’s why technology demonstration missions exist. Show that the system and team can retrieve a defunct StarLink satellite (or whatever) before risking something like HST.
Anglers, campers, and farmers don’t try out new truck hitches by coupling to Ferraris and Lamborghinis. They use old trailers. I apologize if this sounds grumpy, but why anyone(s) would argue that NASA should be more cavalier than a dude with a pickup truck in dealing with a multi-billion asset with years of operational life left is beyond me. Just because something is in orbit doesn’t mean that common sense is suspended.
Congressman Culberson, not Jim Bridenstine.
Jim Bridenstine also.
We can quibble about the degree (and it would be nice to have a more objective reporter), but that article states: "In a lengthy interview, Zurbuchen said Ingenuity never would have reached Mars but for Culberson's support."
This will also sound grumpy, but who cares about which politician or political appointee gets credit for saying “yes”? That or saying “no” (or coming up with their own bad ideas) are literally the only things they can do. Whoop-dee-doo. Politicians and political appointees don’t come up with these ideas. They don’t do the hard work of formulating them. Their careers don’t suffer when the resulting programs go sideways. And they don’t have to answer to the opposition in the research community.
Like on CLPS, with a foot in both the research and entrepreneurial communities, Zurbuchen is obviously the key guy here — and probably even his role is eclipsed by a couple key staff in SMD. That’s who should get credit. When enough time has passed and the conflicts of interest have lapsed, those are the folks who should be interviewed for a history article on The Space Review website (or more, looking at BlackStar).
Same goes if anything comes from the language on commercial Mars capabilities in the recent decadal, the current RFI on the same, and whatever commercial capabilities (if any) MSR Part Deus leverages.
FWIW...
-
#60
by
Blackstar
on 18 May, 2024 21:49
-
This will also sound grumpy, but who cares about which politician or political appointee gets credit for saying “yes”? That or saying “no” (or coming up with their own bad ideas) are literally the only things they can do. Whoop-dee-doo. Politicians and political appointees don’t come up with these ideas. They don’t do the hard work of formulating them. Their careers don’t suffer when the resulting programs go sideways. And they don’t have to answer to the opposition in the research community.
We've also strayed off topic. But with regards to Ingenuity, Culberson wrote it into law, which meant that NASA could not ignore it. Ultimately, he was the one who made it happen, not anybody else involved. I'm not putting a value judgement on that. I'm not saying it was good or bad, I'm striving for accuracy. To me, the glass is neither half-full nor half-empty, it is a sixteen ounce glass with eight ounces of fluid in it.
-
#61
by
deadman1204
on 19 May, 2024 00:46
-
Above I see a whole lot of concern trolling. There is no reason Isaacman can’t be trained up to a NASA level of competence. NASA does not employ wizards or witches. The plan of record is to spend more than a billion dollars to junk it.
Ask astronomers which approach they would prefer, an(ooooooooooh)risky! one, or a sure end to Hubble? Maybe NASA wants to line the pockets of the deorbit contractor, or maybe they don’t want NASA and STI burdened with running it?
Oh, you mean like 5+ years of full time training doing nothing else with having a previous full career as an engineer instead of a billionaire??
Again, Isaacman isn't and never will be a professional astronaut. He does other things instead. Its not an insult to someone to say they will never be a professional astronaut because almost no one will be. Rich isn't a super power.
-
#62
by
deadman1204
on 19 May, 2024 00:58
-
If nasa says "stop don't do it", would issacman follow orders? I have my doubts.
Of course he would. The mission won't happen unless NASA approves it.
I guess I should have been more clear. I was imagining a situation like the approach isn't going well, and NASA decides the risk to hubble is to great, so says stop and go home. Cancel mission. I'm not sure issacman would do that. He's already demonstrated having a billionaires ego. They don't think they need to take orders from other people.
Unlike in movies, a "cowbow" is the worst attribute possible for an astronaut.
-
#63
by
thespacecow
on 19 May, 2024 03:36
-
I also did not love how they pulled my quotes from podcasts. What the article does not capture is the official position of the joint study and hopefully that comes out. On surface it looks like "billionaire wants to touch Hubble and NASA said hell no", but that is not what happened. There are three positions here, but only one that truly matters:
- My personal opinion about the source of delays, which I have never been shy about stating.
- The personal opinion of those who chimed in late in the process, which I think the article captures well.
- But what really matters is the joint study - Polaris + SpaceX + NASA. The team that performed the technical analysis for ~6 months and arrived at a formal recommendation.
It is unfortunate there is so much discourse over the subject. It is like new space vs. old space, or people who love SpaceX vs. hate SpaceX, incompetent tourist vs. real astronaut. It should really have only been about the mission, because if a mission was planned it would have had resources across all the organizations that participated in the study to ensure success. It is not like anyone was going to wing it, especially after a joint study was assembled to determine generally how a successful mission could be achieved.
I know a lot of people have memories of the heroic shuttle missions to save Hubble...the long EVA's, Canadarm and the giant gyros. The astronauts did an incredible job keeping Hubble going, but that was then and this is now. You can pack a lot of capabilities in to something the size of an iPhone these days. This was not lost on any of the scientists and engineers that worked on the joint study.
Would it be worth the risk to save Hubble? Many of the telescope systems have failed and most redundancy has been lost. This is why it continues to go offline. Hubble's orbit has decayed significantly and will continue to do so through solar max. It will be coming home earlier than what was represented in the article. Once it reaches a certain altitude, the prospects of a mission are all but lost. When it does, it will either be uncontrolled or come at a cost to tax payers to launch something robotic to manage it.
Had a mission been flown, and I was happy to fund it, I believe it would have resulted in the development of capabilities beneficial to the future of commercial space and along the way given Hubble a new lease on life.
I acknowledge this is not my telescope to touch and a lot of time has passed from the study till now. Government priorities change, budgets become tight, regardless of who is funding the mission, it does require contributions of resources from a lot of parties to ensure success. Regardless of what happens from here, I am glad we all, inclusive of NASA, invested the time to see if this could work. Hubble deserved that effort.
So a mainstream media article didn't include important context in its reporting, why am I not surprised?
1. The NASA study result is positive, it gave a formal recommendation, presumably for the mission to go ahead.
2. Hubble and a reboost mission's remaining time is not nearly as long as stated in the article.
Yet here we have a bunch of people jumping on Isaacman based on obviously incomplete information, I think there's a pattern here...
-
#64
by
Star One
on 19 May, 2024 10:38
-
I’d of thought of the Hubble servicing can be left for the longer term that other alternatives such as Dreamchaser especially when combined with Shooting Star might offer a more compelling mission plan.
-
#65
by
edzieba
on 19 May, 2024 10:46
-
1. The NASA study result is positive, it gave a formal recommendation, presumably for the mission to go ahead.
By all accounts, the result of the study was for the mission
not to go ahead.
-
#66
by
woods170
on 19 May, 2024 12:16
-
It's not just a high-risk (to Hubble, not to mention the servicing crew) option, it's an unnecessary risk. There is no urgent rush to save Hubble...
In fact, I would say there is no reason whatsoever to save Hubble. It has served waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay beyond its intended lifespan. If and when it breaks down to the point that it's no longer usefull (which IMO isn't all that far off since most of the redundancy is gone by now, particularly regarding the gyros), we should all salute Hubble for its enormous contribution to the field of astronomy and let it go quietly into the night.
The only sensible reason I can think of, to hook something onto Hubble, is to do a controlled reentry. And people can forget about dreams of Hubble staying up there until at least 2035. The current solar maximum just knocked 3 to 4 years off that prediction. Shades of Skylab...
-
#67
by
thespacecow
on 19 May, 2024 14:09
-
1. The NASA study result is positive, it gave a formal recommendation, presumably for the mission to go ahead.
By all accounts, the result of the study was for the mission not to go ahead.
And you know this ... how exactly?
The study is not public, the only people who talked about it on the record is Isaacman, and he wants it released publicly: "What the article does not capture is the official position of the joint study and hopefully that comes out."
Should be obvious that if the study's recommendation is to not to go ahead, he wouldn't be so eager to see it comes out.
I mean, come on people, read between the lines, this is not rocket science: "But what really matters is the joint study - Polaris + SpaceX + NASA. The team that performed the technical analysis for ~6 months and arrived at a formal recommendation. "
-
#68
by
thespacecow
on 19 May, 2024 14:40
-
In the end, what I think we as scientists should always be after is two metrics, more and/or better science, more and/or better science per dollar. Note, that new approaches always involve questioning the status quo, and that requires the kind of trusted collaboration I saw, leadership and ultimately trying it…
And reading between the lines again, should also be obvious what is the cause of the demise of this mission according to Dr. Zurbuchen.
"the kind of trusted collaboration" already happened in the joint study, so what is lacking is the leadership and the will to try it.
-
#69
by
RedLineTrain
on 19 May, 2024 14:59
-
In fact, I would say there is no reason whatsoever to save Hubble. It has served waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay beyond its intended lifespan. If and when it breaks down to the point that it's no longer usefull (which IMO isn't all that far off since most of the redundancy is gone by now, particularly regarding the gyros), we should all salute Hubble for its enormous contribution to the field of astronomy and let it go quietly into the night.
The only sensible reason I can think of, to hook something onto Hubble, is to do a controlled reentry. And people can forget about dreams of Hubble staying up there until at least 2035. The current solar maximum just knocked 3 to 4 years off that prediction. Shades of Skylab...
I am hearing two mutually exclusive opinions that both lead to inaction. Hubble is either so valuable that Isaacman shouldn't touch it for fear of breaking it, or it is not worth extending its life. I'm not so sure either way, but instinctively do not trust a bias to inaction.
NASA's approach of clearing the decks to protect the primary mission and accepting little risk outside of it is not conducive to a well run space program. That approach provides poor value for money and takes too long. All of the private folks, SpaceX especially, are looking for missions that serve multiple purposes and thereby getting freebies. Naturally, each of those purposes will have different risk allowances.
Ironically, Hubble was always a multipurpose platform. It was only relatively affordable because it was in a series with a black program. NASA also could have had Hubble II if it had wished. Maybe not a freebie, but close to one.
-
#70
by
yg1968
on 19 May, 2024 15:34
-
Above I see a whole lot of concern trolling. There is no reason Isaacman can’t be trained up to a NASA level of competence. NASA does not employ wizards or witches. The plan of record is to spend more than a billion dollars to junk it.
Ask astronomers which approach they would prefer, an(ooooooooooh)risky! one, or a sure end to Hubble? Maybe NASA wants to line the pockets of the deorbit contractor, or maybe they don’t want NASA and STI burdened with running it?
Oh, you mean like 5+ years of full time training doing nothing else with having a previous full career as an engineer instead of a billionaire??
Again, Isaacman isn't and never will be a professional astronaut. He does other things instead. Its not an insult to someone to say they will never be a professional astronaut because almost no one will be. Rich isn't a super power.
That wouldn't happen either. SpaceX wouldn't go along with it and Isaacman wouldn't even suggest it.
-
#71
by
dgmckenzie
on 19 May, 2024 16:35
-
Oh, you mean like 5+ years of full time training doing nothing else with having a previous full career as an engineer instead of a billionaire??
Again, Isaacman isn't and never will be a professional astronaut. He does other things instead. Its not an insult to someone to say they will never be a professional astronaut because almost no one will be. Rich isn't a super power.
Well that would mean that the Mercury Astronauts weren't professional as they were selected in 1959 and began flying in 1961.
inspiration 4 launched in 2021 so Isaacman has been an astronaut or been in training for approx. 4-5 years.
-
#72
by
Blackstar
on 19 May, 2024 16:57
-
Ironically, Hubble was always a multipurpose platform. It was only relatively affordable because it was in a series with a black program. NASA also could have had Hubble II if it had wished. Maybe not a freebie, but close to one.
Eh. No. No. And no.
-
#73
by
matthewkantar
on 19 May, 2024 17:15
-
Above I see a whole lot of concern trolling. There is no reason Isaacman can’t be trained up to a NASA level of competence. NASA does not employ wizards or witches. The plan of record is to spend more than a billion dollars to junk it.
Ask astronomers which approach they would prefer, an(ooooooooooh)risky! one, or a sure end to Hubble? Maybe NASA wants to line the pockets of the deorbit contractor, or maybe they don’t want NASA and STI burdened with running it?
Oh, you mean like 5+ years of full time training doing nothing else with having a previous full career as an engineer instead of a billionaire??
Again, Isaacman isn't and never will be a professional astronaut. He does other things instead. Its not an insult to someone to say they will never be a professional astronaut because almost no one will be. Rich isn't a super power.
y
There are no super powers. Astronauts are not unicorns. Claiming nobody can be trained up for some tasks in space unless it is done by NASA is silly.
-
#74
by
Yellowstone10
on 19 May, 2024 17:48
-
I'm not sure issacman would do that. He's already demonstrated having a billionaires ego. They don't think they need to take orders from other people.
I'm curious what example you have in mind as evidence for this? To be sure, Isaacman is willing to express disagreement with NASA decisionmaking, but I don't think that's a billionaire thing - that's him being a private citizen. There's bound to be people
within NASA who disagree with NASA decisionmaking on occasion, they're just not in a position to express that publicly. I can't think of an example of Isaacman
acting contrarily to an official NASA decision, though.
Again, Isaacman isn't and never will be a professional astronaut. He does other things instead. Its not an insult to someone to say they will never be a professional astronaut because almost no one will be. Rich isn't a super power.
If the report had come back and said - this is plausible, but the astronauts flying the mission would need a couple years of full-time training, much more than the Inspiration4 or Polaris Dawn flights - I suspect Isaacman would have at least attempted to find a way to make that happen. (To be fair, I don't know the man personally, maybe that would have been a dealbreaker for him.)
-
#75
by
VSECOTSPE
on 19 May, 2024 19:21
-
But with regards to Ingenuity, Culberson wrote it into law, which meant that NASA could not ignore it. Ultimately, he was the one who made it happen, not anybody else involved.
Only if there’s evidence that NASA had decided not to pursue Ingenuity prior to the language. Given Zurbuchen and Bridenstine’s support, I don’t think that’s the case. Culberson appears to have merely rubber-stamped a direction that agency leadership was already headed in.
Zurbuchen, and probably a couple of his staff, are really the key here. If they had not stuck their necks out, surfaced, and advanced the Mars chopper, then the politicos like Bridenstine and Culberson would likely have never known about it.
-
#76
by
yg1968
on 19 May, 2024 19:24
-
Ironically, Hubble was always a multipurpose platform. It was only relatively affordable because it was in a series with a black program. NASA also could have had Hubble II if it had wished. Maybe not a freebie, but close to one.
Eh. No. No. And no.
Can you expand on that? I think that he is talking about the Nancy Grace Roman/WFirst telescope and the other NRO telescope which resembled Hubble.
-
#77
by
VSECOTSPE
on 19 May, 2024 19:47
-
NASA also could have had Hubble II if it had wished. Maybe not a freebie, but close to one.
HST design switched from a 3m to a 2.4m primary to take advantage of existing KH-11 fabrication. The mirror polishing used on HST was also proven out on the KH-11 line. But after the basic optics, the design of the rest of these observatories would have diverged. KH-11 remains classified, but the instruments would be different from HST, which is where a lot/most of the development money is spent on these observatories.
WFIRST/Roman is using the optics bed from a spare 2.4m scope from NRO, also presumably a KH-11 spare (but I’ve also read it’s from the failed Future Imagery Architecture). But even with that gift, Roman is still a multi-billion dollar effort. A second HST probably still would have been a large fraction of the $2B+ development cost for the first HST.
-
#78
by
matthewkantar
on 19 May, 2024 19:48
-
Ironically, Hubble was always a multipurpose platform. It was only relatively affordable because it was in a series with a black program. NASA also could have had Hubble II if it had wished. Maybe not a freebie, but close to one.
Eh. No. No. And no.
Can you expand on that? I think that he is talking about the Nancy Grace Roman/WFirst telescope and the other NRO telescope which resembled Hubble.
The hand-me-down mirrors didn’t end up saving much money, NGRST is going to cost more than four billion dollars by the time it is on line. Instruments, fine pointing, etc cost $$$. Hubble didn’t get its mirror from the military, it was a one off, by Perkin Elmer if I recall correctly.
-
#79
by
Blackstar
on 19 May, 2024 20:14
-
NASA also could have had Hubble II if it had wished. Maybe not a freebie, but close to one.
HST design switched from a 3m to a 2.4m primary to take advantage of existing KH-11 fabrication. The mirror polishing used on HST was also proven out on the KH-11 line.
The first part is a bit more complex than that. Perkin-Elmer was capable of making a 3-meter mirror, but Kodak was not. And P-E, which made the Hubble mirror, used a new polishing technique. In fact, that was one of the reasons that NASA chose to purchase a backup mirror from Kodak.
-
#80
by
Blackstar
on 19 May, 2024 20:16
-
Ironically, Hubble was always a multipurpose platform. It was only relatively affordable because it was in a series with a black program. NASA also could have had Hubble II if it had wished. Maybe not a freebie, but close to one.
Eh. No. No. And no.
Can you expand on that? I think that he is talking about the Nancy Grace Roman/WFirst telescope and the other NRO telescope which resembled Hubble.
I think he is talking about the Hubble because he mentions Hubble in his sentence.
As for the other stuff, see my other comment above. I don't know how somebody comes up with the idea of a "freebie." Hubble was a unique and expensive spacecraft.
-
#81
by
Blackstar
on 19 May, 2024 20:19
-
But with regards to Ingenuity, Culberson wrote it into law, which meant that NASA could not ignore it. Ultimately, he was the one who made it happen, not anybody else involved.
Only if there’s evidence that NASA had decided not to pursue Ingenuity prior to the language. Given Zurbuchen and Bridenstine’s support, I don’t think that’s the case. Culberson appears to have merely rubber-stamped a direction that agency leadership was already headed in.
Zurbuchen, and probably a couple of his staff, are really the key here. If they had not stuck their necks out, surfaced, and advanced the Mars chopper, then the politicos like Bridenstine and Culberson would likely have never known about it.
Culberson was regularly hanging out at JPL because of his interest in Europa (this even appeared in articles at the time). He had his own sources of information from JPL, which made headquarters people a bit nervous.
-
#82
by
yg1968
on 19 May, 2024 23:38
-
I hope that NASA fixes Hubble. In my opinion, the visible light pictures that Hubble is able to take of our solar system is worth the price all by itself.
-
#83
by
LouScheffer
on 19 May, 2024 23:39
-
HST design switched from a 3m to a 2.4m primary to take advantage of existing KH-11 fabrication. The mirror polishing used on HST was also proven out on the KH-11 line.
The first part is a bit more complex than that. Perkin-Elmer was capable of making a 3-meter mirror, but Kodak was not. And P-E, which made the Hubble mirror, used a new polishing technique. In fact, that was one of the reasons that NASA chose to purchase a backup mirror from Kodak.
First let me be clear that any opinions I have on this topic are from talking to folks who were very familiar with fabricating large optics, but were not involved in either the Hubble or KH-11 projects. Particularly with regard to black optics programs and their capabilities, everything I heard was N-th hand and informal. But here is what I heard.
PE may well have been capable of making a 3 meter mirror, but the story I heard is that by switching to 2.4 meter they could, at least potentially, share infrastructure and techniques with the spy sat optics. In
Design and fabrication of the NASA 2.4 -meter space telescope it says
The primary blank was moved next to a 2.7-m Draper-style polisher (Figure 6) which provides a grinding and polishing capability for aspheric optics more than 2.5 meters in diameter.
I suspect this was brought over from the black side, as there is no mention of building it custom for the Hubble project, and if it was there would be no need for a 2.5 meter capability. So perhaps PE *could* have built a 3 meter polisher, but by de-scoping could use an existing one.
Also I suspect that one of the commonalities they thought they could use would have been military facilities for testing 2.4 meter optics. However this never happened -see
PENTAGON TESTS COULD HAVE FOUND HUBBLE DEFECTS BEFORE LAUNCH, OFFICIALS SAY for various reasons. So there may not have been as much synergy as expected.
-
#84
by
Blackstar
on 20 May, 2024 03:20
-
I suspect this was brought over from the black side, as there is no mention of building it custom for the Hubble project, and if it was there would be no need for a 2.5 meter capability. So perhaps PE *could* have built a 3 meter polisher, but by de-scoping could use an existing one.
Also I suspect that one of the commonalities they thought they could use would have been military facilities for testing 2.4 meter optics. However this never happened -see PENTAGON TESTS COULD HAVE FOUND HUBBLE DEFECTS BEFORE LAUNCH, OFFICIALS SAY for various reasons. So there may not have been as much synergy as expected.
In December I talked to Kodak people who were involved in both the KH-11 and Hubble programs and other stuff. The reason NASA went down from 3 meters to 2.4 meters was because Kodak could not build larger than 2.4 meters but P-E could. Therefore, if NASA stuck with 3 meters, only P-E could bid and Kodak could not, and NASA didn't want to get stuck in that situation because P-E would clean their clock. That was the basic issue on the mirror selection. (I think this is in Wikipedia too, but I got it directly from people involved.)
-
#85
by
LouScheffer
on 20 May, 2024 04:07
-
In December I talked to Kodak people who were involved in both the KH-11 and Hubble programs and other stuff. The reason NASA went down from 3 meters to 2.4 meters was because Kodak could not build larger than 2.4 meters but P-E could. Therefore, if NASA stuck with 3 meters, only P-E could bid and Kodak could not, and NASA didn't want to get stuck in that situation because P-E would clean their clock. That was the basic issue on the mirror selection.
I don't doubt that the Kodak folks thought that theirs was *the* reason that lead to the descoping. But from what I've heard there were several reasons. For example, from "
The Interdisciplinary Evolution of the Hubble Space Telescope. An Historical Examination of Key Interdisciplinary Interactions.", by Greg Carras, Jerry Cordaro, Andrew Daga, Sean Decker, Jack Kennedy, Susan Raizer of the University of North Dakota, Department of Space Studies, 24 April 2006 (slide 44)
By December 1974 the Program Development task team had downsized the telescope. As before the team had to balance cost and performance and devise a design pleasing to Congress and the astronomers...Working with the [HST] science groups and contractors, the team reduced the telescope’s primary mirror from a 3-meter aperture to 2.4 meters. This major change mainly resulted from new NASA estimates of the Space Shuttle’s payload delivery capability; the Shuttle could not lift a 3-meter telescope to the required orbit. In addition, changing to a 2.4-meter mirror would lessen fabrication costs by using manufacturing technologies developed for military spy satellites. The smaller mirror would also abbreviate polishing time from 3.5 years to 2.5 years. The redesign also reduced the mass of the support systems module from 24,000 pounds to 17,000 pounds...These changes diminished inertia and facilitated steering of the spacecraft, thus permitting a smaller pointing control system...
Upon further searching, this appears to have been taken verbatim from page 483 of the book
NASA SP-4313 (in The NASA History Series)
Power to Explore: A History of Marshall Space Flight Center 1960-1990by Andrew J. Dunar and Stephen P. Waring
So it sounds like there were at least 4 reasons in favor of the de-scope, and various people describe each of them as "the main reason".
-
#86
by
Blackstar
on 20 May, 2024 12:28
-
So it sounds like there were at least 4 reasons in favor of the de-scope, and various people describe each of them as "the main reason".
All that might have been true, but according to the Kodak guys, Kodak simply could not make a 3-meter mirror. So if NASA stuck with a 3-meter mirror, they would have done a sole source bid to P-E. There was no other option. That may have been what the author was referring to as "reducing manufacturing costs." But there's also more to that story as well, because Kodak's bid was too high for NASA, because Kodak included both a backup mirror and a full end-to-end test based upon their KH-11 experience. P-E did not. I suspect that at least part of the answer is based upon
when these things became known. When did NASA learn that Kodak could not make a 3-meter mirror? Was it before or after they started sizing it for the shuttle? if it was before, then it would have been a determining factor.
-
#87
by
woods170
on 20 May, 2024 12:41
-
Ironically, Hubble was always a multipurpose platform. It was only relatively affordable because it was in a series with a black program. NASA also could have had Hubble II if it had wished. Maybe not a freebie, but close to one.
Eh. No. No. And no.
Can you expand on that? I think that he is talking about the Nancy Grace Roman/WFirst telescope and the other NRO telescope which resembled Hubble.
Hubble never was "relatively affordable because it was in a series with a black program". It's an urban myth. Other than the diameter of the primary mirror, HST shares almost nothing with the KENNENs (KH-11).
The optics for the KENNENs were
delivered by Eastman Kodak. The optics for Hubble were delivered by Perkin-Elmer. As is widely known, Perkin-Elmer screwed up its primary mirror, necessitating STS-61 and COSTAR.
The ironic thing is that Eastman Kodak, having prior experience with a 2.4 meter primary mirror from its work on KENNEN, produced a back-up primary mirror for Hubble which was flawless, unlike the one from Perkin-Elmer:
https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/mirror-primary-backup-hubble-space-telescope/nasm_A20010288000
-
#88
by
deadman1204
on 20 May, 2024 14:59
-
In fact, I would say there is no reason whatsoever to save Hubble. It has served waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay beyond its intended lifespan. If and when it breaks down to the point that it's no longer usefull (which IMO isn't all that far off since most of the redundancy is gone by now, particularly regarding the gyros), we should all salute Hubble for its enormous contribution to the field of astronomy and let it go quietly into the night.
The only sensible reason I can think of, to hook something onto Hubble, is to do a controlled reentry. And people can forget about dreams of Hubble staying up there until at least 2035. The current solar maximum just knocked 3 to 4 years off that prediction. Shades of Skylab...
I am hearing two mutually exclusive opinions that both lead to inaction. Hubble is either so valuable that Isaacman shouldn't touch it for fear of breaking it, or it is not worth extending its life. I'm not so sure either way, but instinctively do not trust a bias to inaction.
NASA's approach of clearing the decks to protect the primary mission and accepting little risk outside of it is not conducive to a well run space program. That approach provides poor value for money and takes too long. All of the private folks, SpaceX especially, are looking for missions that serve multiple purposes and thereby getting freebies. Naturally, each of those purposes will have different risk allowances.
Ironically, Hubble was always a multipurpose platform. It was only relatively affordable because it was in a series with a black program. NASA also could have had Hubble II if it had wished. Maybe not a freebie, but close to one.
This is a false dichotemy. Hubble just is. Its not "about to fail" as many proponents of the mission are claiming, in dire need of rescue from a white knight billionaire savior. Hubble might last another 10+ years, or it might fail tomorrow. There is no "emergancy".
Its also being ignored by some that the proposed mission by Isaacman wouldn't be a far future thing after many missions have proven out the tech. It would be testing BASIC low TLR things in space. He wanted to do it as the 2nd mission, not the 10th or 15th. Which mean's the actual "hubble mission" would be incredibly risky to hubble. Isaacman wants the credit for "rescuing hubble" when:
1. hubble doesn't actually need a rescue mission currently
2. hubble/nasa is bearing ALL the risk for issacmans low tlr/untested tech and procedures.
NASA basically stands to lose everything for no clear benefit. Boost hubble? That doesn't need isaacman to do it, and its safer/easier to do it with something not dragon, as people aren't needed for a boosting operation. Anything else just cranks up the risk levels.
Could a different mission be proposed by isaacman that involves well understood and demonstrated tech with greatly reduced risk? Sure it could. However that is NOT the mission actually proposed here.
-
#89
by
Emmettvonbrown
on 20 May, 2024 15:51
-
Wait, so P.E had the capability to polish 3 m diameter mirrors ? time to dust off that KH-11 thread...
-
#90
by
RedLineTrain
on 20 May, 2024 16:15
-
Hubble never was "relatively affordable because it was in a series with a black program". It's an urban myth. Other than the diameter of the primary mirror, HST shares almost nothing with the KENNENs (KH-11).
The optics for the KENNENs were delivered by Eastman Kodak. The optics for Hubble were delivered by Perkin-Elmer. As is widely known, Perkin-Elmer screwed up its primary mirror, necessitating STS-61 and COSTAR.
The ironic thing is that Eastman Kodak, having prior experience with a 2.4 meter primary mirror from its work on KENNEN, produced a back-up primary mirror for Hubble which was flawless, unlike the one from Perkin-Elmer:
https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/mirror-primary-backup-hubble-space-telescope/nasm_A20010288000
Thank you to you and Blackstar for setting me straight on this.
-
#91
by
RedLineTrain
on 20 May, 2024 16:35
-
In fact, I would say there is no reason whatsoever to save Hubble. It has served waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay beyond its intended lifespan. If and when it breaks down to the point that it's no longer usefull (which IMO isn't all that far off since most of the redundancy is gone by now, particularly regarding the gyros), we should all salute Hubble for its enormous contribution to the field of astronomy and let it go quietly into the night.
The only sensible reason I can think of, to hook something onto Hubble, is to do a controlled reentry. And people can forget about dreams of Hubble staying up there until at least 2035. The current solar maximum just knocked 3 to 4 years off that prediction. Shades of Skylab...
I am hearing two mutually exclusive opinions that both lead to inaction. Hubble is either so valuable that Isaacman shouldn't touch it for fear of breaking it, or it is not worth extending its life. I'm not so sure either way, but instinctively do not trust a bias to inaction.
NASA's approach of clearing the decks to protect the primary mission and accepting little risk outside of it is not conducive to a well run space program. That approach provides poor value for money and takes too long. All of the private folks, SpaceX especially, are looking for missions that serve multiple purposes and thereby getting freebies. Naturally, each of those purposes will have different risk allowances.
Ironically, Hubble was always a multipurpose platform. It was only relatively affordable because it was in a series with a black program. NASA also could have had Hubble II if it had wished. Maybe not a freebie, but close to one.
This is a false dichotemy. Hubble just is. Its not "about to fail" as many proponents of the mission are claiming, in dire need of rescue from a white knight billionaire savior. Hubble might last another 10+ years, or it might fail tomorrow. There is no "emergancy".
Its also being ignored by some that the proposed mission by Isaacman wouldn't be a far future thing after many missions have proven out the tech. It would be testing BASIC low TLR things in space. He wanted to do it as the 2nd mission, not the 10th or 15th. Which mean's the actual "hubble mission" would be incredibly risky to hubble. Isaacman wants the credit for "rescuing hubble" when:
1. hubble doesn't actually need a rescue mission currently
2. hubble/nasa is bearing ALL the risk for issacmans low tlr/untested tech and procedures.
NASA basically stands to lose everything for no clear benefit. Boost hubble? That doesn't need isaacman to do it, and its safer/easier to do it with something not dragon, as people aren't needed for a boosting operation. Anything else just cranks up the risk levels.
Could a different mission be proposed by isaacman that involves well understood and demonstrated tech with greatly reduced risk? Sure it could. However that is NOT the mission actually proposed here.
I find this attitude regarding billionaires to be odious. Objectionable. Isaacman is willing to risk his life and to spend on the order of a half billion dollars of his own money to extend the life of Hubble and to augment its capabilities. This offer should be applauded in a free society at every opportunity, and, if successful, he should be showered with glory. Also, by all accounts, he's a great guy otherwise.
Regarding the amount of time left, it appears that some believe that Hubble has no chance of surviving more than seven years. I have not seen any planned budget at NASA for your supposed high TRL solution.
-
#92
by
Blackstar
on 20 May, 2024 17:01
-
Other than the diameter of the primary mirror, HST shares almost nothing with the KENNENs (KH-11).
And in fact, Hubble and KENNEN mounted their mirrors differently (one around the edges, the other from behind). So the spacecraft and optical systems were significantly different. The one place where they benefited most from previous intelligence community investment was probably the manufacturing and testing facilities. If NASA had to pay for the creation of those, the program would have been even more expensive than it was.
As for the previously-mentioned issue of Hubble "affordability" and buying a second one and so on, that's a really complex subject, with a lot of subtleties. People have long argued that NASA could have built Hubble so that it was not serviceable, and then spent less money over the lifetime of the program by "simply" building replacements (Hubble 2, 3, and so on). But that's not how the program was conceived, and it's not how astronomers prioritize their missions, and it is not how Congress actually agrees to fund big, expensive projects. The astronomers never would have wanted near-identical replacement Hubbles, they would have wanted new and different observatories. But to really understand this, you have to delve into how the astrophysics community determines its priorities, and how projects gain political support and funding, and how that changed over five decades.
(As an aside, it's not at all clear that very low series rate production saves any money at all, because things like workforce churn could mean that you are constantly relearning how to build the same thing over and over. If you really want to save money, you have to build rapidly in series production, and that's very difficult to do for precision spacecraft.)
-
#93
by
deadman1204
on 20 May, 2024 17:50
-
In fact, I would say there is no reason whatsoever to save Hubble. It has served waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay beyond its intended lifespan. If and when it breaks down to the point that it's no longer usefull (which IMO isn't all that far off since most of the redundancy is gone by now, particularly regarding the gyros), we should all salute Hubble for its enormous contribution to the field of astronomy and let it go quietly into the night.
The only sensible reason I can think of, to hook something onto Hubble, is to do a controlled reentry. And people can forget about dreams of Hubble staying up there until at least 2035. The current solar maximum just knocked 3 to 4 years off that prediction. Shades of Skylab...
I am hearing two mutually exclusive opinions that both lead to inaction. Hubble is either so valuable that Isaacman shouldn't touch it for fear of breaking it, or it is not worth extending its life. I'm not so sure either way, but instinctively do not trust a bias to inaction.
NASA's approach of clearing the decks to protect the primary mission and accepting little risk outside of it is not conducive to a well run space program. That approach provides poor value for money and takes too long. All of the private folks, SpaceX especially, are looking for missions that serve multiple purposes and thereby getting freebies. Naturally, each of those purposes will have different risk allowances.
Ironically, Hubble was always a multipurpose platform. It was only relatively affordable because it was in a series with a black program. NASA also could have had Hubble II if it had wished. Maybe not a freebie, but close to one.
This is a false dichotemy. Hubble just is. Its not "about to fail" as many proponents of the mission are claiming, in dire need of rescue from a white knight billionaire savior. Hubble might last another 10+ years, or it might fail tomorrow. There is no "emergancy".
Its also being ignored by some that the proposed mission by Isaacman wouldn't be a far future thing after many missions have proven out the tech. It would be testing BASIC low TLR things in space. He wanted to do it as the 2nd mission, not the 10th or 15th. Which mean's the actual "hubble mission" would be incredibly risky to hubble. Isaacman wants the credit for "rescuing hubble" when:
1. hubble doesn't actually need a rescue mission currently
2. hubble/nasa is bearing ALL the risk for issacmans low tlr/untested tech and procedures.
NASA basically stands to lose everything for no clear benefit. Boost hubble? That doesn't need isaacman to do it, and its safer/easier to do it with something not dragon, as people aren't needed for a boosting operation. Anything else just cranks up the risk levels.
Could a different mission be proposed by isaacman that involves well understood and demonstrated tech with greatly reduced risk? Sure it could. However that is NOT the mission actually proposed here.
I find this attitude regarding billionaires to be odious. Objectionable. Isaacman is willing to risk his life and to spend on the order of a half billion dollars of his own money to extend the life of Hubble and to augment its capabilities. This offer should be applauded in a free society at every opportunity, and, if successful, he should be showered with glory. Also, by all accounts, he's a great guy otherwise.
Regarding the amount of time left, it appears that some believe that Hubble has no chance of surviving more than seven years. I have not seen any planned budget at NASA for your supposed high TRL solution.
Or more likely, he hadn't thought it out very clearly. If Isaacman was willing to do this out of the kindness of his heart, he'd also be willing to do it once the tech was worked out as polairs 8 or whatever. He very intentionally proposed it as polaris 2, so that he could test out all the technology.
I'm not saying Isaacman is a "bad person", but pretending he is a white knight saving nasa from itself is pretty silly. The mission is VERY carefully designed to test everything he needs tested and give him a gigantic ego/pr boost, while most all risk is borne by nasa.
This is no different than spaceX tellling NASA they'd launch anything "for free" on the first flight of the falcon heavy. We're pretending the risk isn't insane on this hubble mission, and its all borne by nasa. Because any decision will be made for crew survival, and not breaking hubble becomes a VERY distant 2nd place.
-
#94
by
RedLineTrain
on 20 May, 2024 19:12
-
In fact, I would say there is no reason whatsoever to save Hubble. It has served waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay beyond its intended lifespan. If and when it breaks down to the point that it's no longer usefull (which IMO isn't all that far off since most of the redundancy is gone by now, particularly regarding the gyros), we should all salute Hubble for its enormous contribution to the field of astronomy and let it go quietly into the night.
The only sensible reason I can think of, to hook something onto Hubble, is to do a controlled reentry. And people can forget about dreams of Hubble staying up there until at least 2035. The current solar maximum just knocked 3 to 4 years off that prediction. Shades of Skylab...
I am hearing two mutually exclusive opinions that both lead to inaction. Hubble is either so valuable that Isaacman shouldn't touch it for fear of breaking it, or it is not worth extending its life. I'm not so sure either way, but instinctively do not trust a bias to inaction.
NASA's approach of clearing the decks to protect the primary mission and accepting little risk outside of it is not conducive to a well run space program. That approach provides poor value for money and takes too long. All of the private folks, SpaceX especially, are looking for missions that serve multiple purposes and thereby getting freebies. Naturally, each of those purposes will have different risk allowances.
Ironically, Hubble was always a multipurpose platform. It was only relatively affordable because it was in a series with a black program. NASA also could have had Hubble II if it had wished. Maybe not a freebie, but close to one.
This is a false dichotemy. Hubble just is. Its not "about to fail" as many proponents of the mission are claiming, in dire need of rescue from a white knight billionaire savior. Hubble might last another 10+ years, or it might fail tomorrow. There is no "emergancy".
Its also being ignored by some that the proposed mission by Isaacman wouldn't be a far future thing after many missions have proven out the tech. It would be testing BASIC low TLR things in space. He wanted to do it as the 2nd mission, not the 10th or 15th. Which mean's the actual "hubble mission" would be incredibly risky to hubble. Isaacman wants the credit for "rescuing hubble" when:
1. hubble doesn't actually need a rescue mission currently
2. hubble/nasa is bearing ALL the risk for issacmans low tlr/untested tech and procedures.
NASA basically stands to lose everything for no clear benefit. Boost hubble? That doesn't need isaacman to do it, and its safer/easier to do it with something not dragon, as people aren't needed for a boosting operation. Anything else just cranks up the risk levels.
Could a different mission be proposed by isaacman that involves well understood and demonstrated tech with greatly reduced risk? Sure it could. However that is NOT the mission actually proposed here.
I find this attitude regarding billionaires to be odious. Objectionable. Isaacman is willing to risk his life and to spend on the order of a half billion dollars of his own money to extend the life of Hubble and to augment its capabilities. This offer should be applauded in a free society at every opportunity, and, if successful, he should be showered with glory. Also, by all accounts, he's a great guy otherwise.
Regarding the amount of time left, it appears that some believe that Hubble has no chance of surviving more than seven years. I have not seen any planned budget at NASA for your supposed high TRL solution.
Or more likely, he hadn't thought it out very clearly. If Isaacman was willing to do this out of the kindness of his heart, he'd also be willing to do it once the tech was worked out as polairs 8 or whatever. He very intentionally proposed it as polaris 2, so that he could test out all the technology.
I'm not saying Isaacman is a "bad person", but pretending he is a white knight saving nasa from itself is pretty silly. The mission is VERY carefully designed to test everything he needs tested and give him a gigantic ego/pr boost, while most all risk is borne by nasa.
This is no different than spaceX tellling NASA they'd launch anything "for free" on the first flight of the falcon heavy. We're pretending the risk isn't insane on this hubble mission, and its all borne by nasa. Because any decision will be made for crew survival, and not breaking hubble becomes a VERY distant 2nd place.
My opinion regarding this attitude remains. Isaacman is aces in my book and we would benefit by having more people like him in our society. It would be wonderful if more billionaires offered unsolicited bids regarding Hubble or other space telescopes like he did. There is unlimited glory available, and we should be willing to spread it around.
-
#95
by
thespacecow
on 21 May, 2024 03:41
-
This is a false dichotemy. Hubble just is.
"just is" doesn't prove it's a false dichotomy at all, it's just word salad devoid of meaning.
Its not "about to fail" as many proponents of the mission are claiming, in dire need of rescue from a white knight billionaire savior. Hubble might last another 10+ years, or it might fail tomorrow. There is no "emergancy".
Hubble only has 3 functioning gyros left out of 6, and it keeps entering safe mode - most recently in just last month- since the functioning 3 are not completely healthy either, so claiming it doesn't need servicing is delusional.
And as implied by Isaacman and also hinted by woods170, Hubble doesn't have nearly as long as 10+ years left due to the current solar maximum.
So there is no emergency if you're willing to lost Hubble in the next few years and let it re-enter uncontrollably. An uncontrolled reentry of Hubble has a 1 in 240 risk of killing someone on the ground, which far exceeds the 1 in 10,000 threshold specified in US government's Orbital Debris Mitigation Standard Practices and NASA's own standard NASA-STD-8719.14C
But if you want to save Hubble and remove the risk to innocent civilians on the ground, then yes there is absolutely an urgency, since there's not much time left, and preparing a servicing mission takes years. In fact as hinted by Isaacman it may already be too late.
Its also being ignored by some that the proposed mission by Isaacman wouldn't be a far future thing after many missions have proven out the tech. It would be testing BASIC low TLR things in space. He wanted to do it as the 2nd mission, not the 10th or 15th. Which mean's the actual "hubble mission" would be incredibly risky to hubble. Isaacman wants the credit for "rescuing hubble" when:
1. hubble doesn't actually need a rescue mission currently
2. hubble/nasa is bearing ALL the risk for issacmans low tlr/untested tech and procedures.
First of all, you don't know the preparations proposed by Isaacman, so claiming it would be low TRL is BS.
Second, there's nothing wrong with doing this in a 2nd mission, Axiom's lunar suit would be used on the Moon for the first time during the 1st landing mission, I don't see people worrying about that.
As for the risk to Hubble, the NASA study for this mission is done by "Hubble experts both from NASA and STScI" as stated by Dr. Zurbuchen. STScI is the operator of Hubble, if they're comfortable with the risks, who are you to object?
And how is NASA/Hubble "bearing ALL the risk"? Isaacman is literally risking his own life to do this.
NASA basically stands to lose everything for no clear benefit. Boost hubble? That doesn't need isaacman to do it, and its safer/easier to do it with something not dragon, as people aren't needed for a boosting operation. Anything else just cranks up the risk levels.
Could a different mission be proposed by isaacman that involves well understood and demonstrated tech with greatly reduced risk? Sure it could. However that is NOT the mission actually proposed here.
There're clear benefits for NASA if this mission is successful:
1. It prolongs Hubble's life
2. It leaves Hubble in a healthy state
3. It removes the risk to civilians on the ground from an uncontrolled Hubble reentry.
As for whether this needs Isaacman, well if not him, who else? If someone else is willing to fund an alternative mission, let's see it.
-
#96
by
woods170
on 21 May, 2024 11:59
-
Wait, so P.E had the capability to polish 3 m diameter mirrors ? time to dust off that KH-11 thread...
The 2.4 meter diameter "limitation" which applied to the KENNENs and Hubble had nothing to do with the grinding and polishing process. NASA was encouraged to dump the idea of a 3 meter mirror for Hubble in favour of a 2.4 meter mirror, "to take advantage of existing production capabilities". This however doesn't refer to the grinding and polishing process. Both contractors for the HST primary mirror (Perkin Elmer and Eastman Kodak) had already ground and polished larger-diameter mirrors for Earth-based observatories.
The "existing production capability" referred to the existing Corning Glass Works production line for light-weight 2.4 meter diameter mirror blanks for space-based applications.
Building a new production line for a 3 meter diameter light-weight mirror blank would be prohibitively expensive to NASA, particularly considering that it would only ever produce just two mirror blanks, contrary to the existing 2.4 meter production line which eventually produced several dozen mirror blanks. Added bonus: the development of the 2.4 meter diameter production line had been paid for by some other agency than NASA.
-
#97
by
deadman1204
on 21 May, 2024 14:17
-
This is a false dichotemy. Hubble just is.
"just is" doesn't prove it's a false dichotomy at all, it's just word salad devoid of meaning.
Its not "about to fail" as many proponents of the mission are claiming, in dire need of rescue from a white knight billionaire savior. Hubble might last another 10+ years, or it might fail tomorrow. There is no "emergancy".
Hubble only has 3 functioning gyros left out of 6, and it keeps entering safe mode - most recently in just last month- since the functioning 3 are not completely healthy either, so claiming it doesn't need servicing is delusional.
And as implied by Isaacman and also hinted by woods170, Hubble doesn't have nearly as long as 10+ years left due to the current solar maximum.
So there is no emergency if you're willing to lost Hubble in the next few years and let it re-enter uncontrollably. An uncontrolled reentry of Hubble has a 1 in 240 risk of killing someone on the ground, which far exceeds the 1 in 10,000 threshold specified in US government's Orbital Debris Mitigation Standard Practices and NASA's own standard NASA-STD-8719.14C
But if you want to save Hubble and remove the risk to innocent civilians on the ground, then yes there is absolutely an urgency, since there's not much time left, and preparing a servicing mission takes years. In fact as hinted by Isaacman it may already be too late.
Its also being ignored by some that the proposed mission by Isaacman wouldn't be a far future thing after many missions have proven out the tech. It would be testing BASIC low TLR things in space. He wanted to do it as the 2nd mission, not the 10th or 15th. Which mean's the actual "hubble mission" would be incredibly risky to hubble. Isaacman wants the credit for "rescuing hubble" when:
1. hubble doesn't actually need a rescue mission currently
2. hubble/nasa is bearing ALL the risk for issacmans low tlr/untested tech and procedures.
First of all, you don't know the preparations proposed by Isaacman, so claiming it would be low TRL is BS.
Second, there's nothing wrong with doing this in a 2nd mission, Axiom's lunar suit would be used on the Moon for the first time during the 1st landing mission, I don't see people worrying about that.
As for the risk to Hubble, the NASA study for this mission is done by "Hubble experts both from NASA and STScI" as stated by Dr. Zurbuchen. STScI is the operator of Hubble, if they're comfortable with the risks, who are you to object?
And how is NASA/Hubble "bearing ALL the risk"? Isaacman is literally risking his own life to do this.
NASA basically stands to lose everything for no clear benefit. Boost hubble? That doesn't need isaacman to do it, and its safer/easier to do it with something not dragon, as people aren't needed for a boosting operation. Anything else just cranks up the risk levels.
Could a different mission be proposed by isaacman that involves well understood and demonstrated tech with greatly reduced risk? Sure it could. However that is NOT the mission actually proposed here.
There're clear benefits for NASA if this mission is successful:
1. It prolongs Hubble's life
2. It leaves Hubble in a healthy state
3. It removes the risk to civilians on the ground from an uncontrolled Hubble reentry.
As for whether this needs Isaacman, well if not him, who else? If someone else is willing to fund an alternative mission, let's see it.
You missed the concept of a false dichotemy. Hubble is neither "perfect for decades to come" nor is it "in need of a rescue mission". Thats the false dichotemy - where you try to force the reader to pick one or the other.
Yes hubble has 3/6 gyros left. That doesn't mean any of them are gonna fail for years to come. It also doesn't mean hubble will blow up if another one fails.
The "rescue hubble" also ignores how hubble isn't an all or nothing success or failure. However polaris 2 could very easily leave hubble in a worse state than beforehand. We get excited about the prospects of doing something for hubble, but completely fail to appreciate how attempting to help with the mission as laid out is worse for hubble than doing nothing.
As well, the goalposts keep getting moved by conflating polairs 2 with some other mission which issacman HAS NOT PROPOSED. We talk about a mission after things are tested and practiced? Sure thats possible. However this thread is about polaris 2 where nothing will be tested before hand or practiced. Issacman said he would pay for the mission where he gets to test all his stuff at the risk of destroying hubble. Issacman doesn't wanna rescue hubble for real - which means building and testing tech for years to make sure its done right. He wants the glory of using hubble as his own personal test bed.
-
#98
by
Chris Bergin
on 21 May, 2024 16:58
-
I don't mind viable mission debate, but when I see "billionaire" in a post, I ignore everything else you say, and thus, you're not helping yourself. Let's not do that on here.
-
#99
by
Kansan52
on 21 May, 2024 18:49
-
I don't mind viable mission debate, but when I see "billionaire" in a post, I ignore everything else you say, and thus, you're not helping yourself. Let's not do that on here.
Sorry.
-
#100
by
gongora
on 21 May, 2024 19:08
-
Trimmed the worst stretch of posts from today.
-
#101
by
VSECOTSPE
on 21 May, 2024 19:23
-
Hubble has long since earned its salt, is on the verge of being worthless
These are just factually false statements
In terms of research papers generated annually, HST hit a new high just last year (2023) of 1,056. And the program continues to be oversubscribed by a factor of 5:1. (See graph and figures at NASA website below.) Some of this research is based on data taken in prior years, but the fact that the program is still hitting new highs and remains way oversubscribed speaks to the continued high value of HST as a tool for the astrophysics community. They won’t/don’t want HST unnecessarily risked. Compare to the low research output and subscription of programs like SOFIA that NASA and the astrophysics community have tried to shut down (and finally did).
https://science.nasa.gov/mission/hubble/overview/hubble-by-the-numbers/#hds-sidebar-nav-8Although nothing is a given in the space environment, we should also be clear that HST is expected to “continue operating into the late 2020s and possibly beyond” and is “not expected to re-enter Earth’s atmosphere until the mid to late 2030s at the earliest”:
https://science.nasa.gov/mission/hubble/overview/faqs/it’s a great opportunity for some daring do.
There’s nothing wrong with derring-do. But unique, expensive scientific instruments at the peak of their research output should not be needlessly risked. Again, speaking as the former NASA program exec who started the COTS program that saved SX, I’d want to see if Isaacman & Co could touch a defunct StarLink satellite (or whatever demo) before committing to have them reboost HST. And even then, if an MEV-equivalent showed that it could be done reliably without astronauts or a Dream Chaser could do it with a robotic arm that reduced certain risks, then I’d probably still pick one of those approaches over a human capsule with no arm. That’s not a knock against SX or Isaacman. It’s just the recognition that their approach involves risks that others probably don’t.
-
#102
by
thespacecow
on 22 May, 2024 04:16
-
You missed the concept of a false dichotemy. Hubble is neither "perfect for decades to come" nor is it "in need of a rescue mission". Thats the false dichotemy - where you try to force the reader to pick one or the other.
Yes hubble has 3/6 gyros left. That doesn't mean any of them are gonna fail for years to come. It also doesn't mean hubble will blow up if another one fails.
As I explained earlier, whether Hubble is in need of a rescue mission depends on your goals. If your goal is to avoid losing it in the next few years and avoid the risk of uncontrolled reentry hurting somebody, then it absolutely does need a rescue mission.
As for the remaining gyros, given they keep putting the telescope into safe mode, they're clearly not in the best condition, failure is not an unexpected outcome in the years to come. And while a failure wouldn't blow up Hubble, it would force Hubble to enter single gyro mode, which would cause it to lose 20%~25% of its productivity. And old telescope losing productivity in the current budget environment is not a good thing, given what happened to Chandra.
The "rescue hubble" also ignores how hubble isn't an all or nothing success or failure. However polaris 2 could very easily leave hubble in a worse state than beforehand. We get excited about the prospects of doing something for hubble, but completely fail to appreciate how attempting to help with the mission as laid out is worse for hubble than doing nothing.
Nobody is failing to appreciate the possibility that the rescue mission could damage Hubble, that's just a strawman argument.
But given no one here has the details of the Polaris proposal nor the in-depth knowledge about Hubble, should be obvious that nobody in this thread is qualified to determine whether the risk outweigh the benefit, so anyone who claim to know for certain that the risk is too high is just plain kidding themselves.
As Isaacman said, what he personally thought about the mission doesn't matter, what naysayers say about the mission doesn't matter either, what matters is the 6 months NASA study that has the support of experts from NASA and STScI. So unless you can show the study's conclusion is the risk is too high, this entire line of argument is moot.
As well, the goalposts keep getting moved by conflating polairs 2 with some other mission which issacman HAS NOT PROPOSED. We talk about a mission after things are tested and practiced? Sure thats possible. However this thread is about polaris 2 where nothing will be tested before hand or practiced. Issacman said he would pay for the mission where he gets to test all his stuff at the risk of destroying hubble. Issacman doesn't wanna rescue hubble for real - which means building and testing tech for years to make sure its done right. He wants the glory of using hubble as his own personal test bed.
Funny that you just claimed you don't think Isaacman is a bad person, yet here you're claiming he just wants to use Hubble as his personal test bad and doesn't want to rescue it in the first place.
And how do you know Polaris wouldn't build and test the tech for years to make sure it's done right? You saw the plan? You participated in the NASA study? You're in Isaacman's head when he thought bad thoughts?
Nobody is moving the goal post, it is you who brought up the topic of another mission, the fact is there is no other mission, as far as we know it's either the Polaris plan or letting Hubble fall.
And the entire idea that NASA couldn't make a decision without "things are tested and practiced" is ludicrous. NASA awarded HLS to SpaceX and Blue Origin when neither has tested and practiced landing on the Moon, in fact Blue hasn't even launched anything to orbit and operated a spacecraft even today. NASA also awarded spacesuit contract to Axiom when Axiom hasn't tested or practiced a functioning spacesuit.
Finally why are you so obsessed with Isaacman in the first place? He's only the funder and one out of several astronauts on the mission, that is all. He's not personally building or testing the hardware, SpaceX would be doing that. And NASA would be the one calling the shots given Hubble is their property. Pretending this is all about Isaacman is disingenuous at best.
-
#103
by
deltaV
on 22 May, 2024 06:48
-
Finally why are you so obsessed with Isaacman in the first place? He's only the funder and one out of several astronauts on the mission, that is all. He's not personally building or testing the hardware, SpaceX would be doing that. And NASA would be the one calling the shots given Hubble is their property. Pretending this is all about Isaacman is disingenuous at best.
His offer to fund the mission is contingent on amateurs including himself doing a job that would be better done by professionals. From that fact we can safely deduce that the main purpose of the mission is about him and his ego. People are allowed to have egos and act accordingly but the rest of the world shouldn't be expected to donate a billion-dollar telescope to his ego.
I'm not saying that this mission is definitely a bad idea, just that NASA is right to evaluate whether this mission is a good idea.
-
#104
by
edzieba
on 22 May, 2024 11:39
-
You missed the concept of a false dichotemy. Hubble is neither "perfect for decades to come" nor is it "in need of a rescue mission". Thats the false dichotemy - where you try to force the reader to pick one or the other.
Yes hubble has 3/6 gyros left. That doesn't mean any of them are gonna fail for years to come. It also doesn't mean hubble will blow up if another one fails.
As I explained earlier, whether Hubble is in need of a rescue mission depends on your goals. If your goal is to avoid losing it in the next few years and avoid the risk of uncontrolled reentry hurting somebody, then it absolutely does need a rescue mission.
Even
if you assume a triple gyroscope failure is imminent, that still does not require a manned mission to 'save' Hubble, let alone one performed on Polaris 2 with second-flight-ever EVA suits. Stabilising and orbit-raising Hubble can not only be accomplished without a manned mission, but is a capability that can be accomplished with a COTS product: NG's MEV.
If Isaacman's sole goal was to 'save Hubble' on his own dime, then purchasing a MEV and an F9 launch for NASA would accomplish that with a lower cost to NASA (no crew training, no crew support, no digging out old Hubble hardware to create a mission plan and training aids for manual interventions, etc). A crewed mission
at a later date, with
well tested suits and
a corps of astronauts experienced with them would then have ample time available for planning and testing with no arbitrary rush to meet the timeline for Polaris 2.
-
#105
by
thespacecow
on 22 May, 2024 13:35
-
Finally why are you so obsessed with Isaacman in the first place? He's only the funder and one out of several astronauts on the mission, that is all. He's not personally building or testing the hardware, SpaceX would be doing that. And NASA would be the one calling the shots given Hubble is their property. Pretending this is all about Isaacman is disingenuous at best.
His offer to fund the mission is contingent on amateurs including himself doing a job that would be better done by professionals. From that fact we can safely deduce that the main purpose of the mission is about him and his ego. People are allowed to have egos and act accordingly but the rest of the world shouldn't be expected to donate a billion-dollar telescope to his ego.
I'm not saying that this mission is definitely a bad idea, just that NASA is right to evaluate whether this mission is a good idea.
Actually we don't know the crew selection criteria for this mission, since it's never been disclosed. When asked about this in the press conference both Isaacman and SpaceX representative said it's too early for that, they also kept it open whether this will be the 2nd Polaris mission or not.
I think it's safe to assume Isaacman himself would be going, but it's entirely possible he could take current or retired NASA astronauts along with him.
And Isaacman is not an amateur, he flies fighter jet all the time, he went through Crew Dragon training and flew a mission already, and will at least fly another, he's also familiar with SpaceX's spacesuit, I'd say he's as qualified as any new addition to the NASA astronaut corps.
Also none of the objections stated in the NPR piece is about Isaacman's qualification as an astronaut, so I'm not even sure why this comes up. The whole ego discussion doesn't belong to this forum, it's pure speculation that could be said about anybody, including NASA astronauts. I could also ask if NASA should be spending billions on Blue in order to stroke Bezos' ego, but I don't since it's bad form.
-
#106
by
thespacecow
on 22 May, 2024 13:46
-
You missed the concept of a false dichotemy. Hubble is neither "perfect for decades to come" nor is it "in need of a rescue mission". Thats the false dichotemy - where you try to force the reader to pick one or the other.
Yes hubble has 3/6 gyros left. That doesn't mean any of them are gonna fail for years to come. It also doesn't mean hubble will blow up if another one fails.
As I explained earlier, whether Hubble is in need of a rescue mission depends on your goals. If your goal is to avoid losing it in the next few years and avoid the risk of uncontrolled reentry hurting somebody, then it absolutely does need a rescue mission.
Even if you assume a triple gyroscope failure is imminent, that still does not require a manned mission to 'save' Hubble, let alone one performed on Polaris 2 with second-flight-ever EVA suits. Stabilising and orbit-raising Hubble can not only be accomplished without a manned mission, but is a capability that can be accomplished with a COTS product: NG's MEV.
If Isaacman's sole goal was to 'save Hubble' on his own dime, then purchasing a MEV and an F9 launch for NASA would accomplish that with a lower cost to NASA (no crew training, no crew support, no digging out old Hubble hardware to create a mission plan and training aids for manual interventions, etc). A crewed mission at a later date, with well tested suits and a corps of astronauts experienced with them would then have ample time available for planning and testing with no arbitrary rush to meet the timeline for Polaris 2.
Isaacman never said his sole goal is just to save Hubble, the entire point of the Polaris Program is to advance the state of art for private human spaceflight capabilities, this is not a secret, it's been his agenda from the start.
This is not a charity, it's a partnership, and just like any commercial partnership NASA is in, the partner has their own goals that is separate from NASA's goal, that is entirely normal and to be expected. Asking why the partner doesn't change their plan purely for the sake of NASA is dumb, it's like asking why SpaceX doesn't bid a smaller lander instead of HLS Starship.
BTW, Isaacman never said this has to be the 2nd Polaris mission, he and SpaceX left it open, so there is no arbitrary rush to meet the timeline for Polaris 2 to begin with.
-
#107
by
deadman1204
on 22 May, 2024 14:09
-
You missed the concept of a false dichotemy. Hubble is neither "perfect for decades to come" nor is it "in need of a rescue mission". Thats the false dichotemy - where you try to force the reader to pick one or the other.
Yes hubble has 3/6 gyros left. That doesn't mean any of them are gonna fail for years to come. It also doesn't mean hubble will blow up if another one fails.
As I explained earlier, whether Hubble is in need of a rescue mission depends on your goals. If your goal is to avoid losing it in the next few years and avoid the risk of uncontrolled reentry hurting somebody, then it absolutely does need a rescue mission.
Even if you assume a triple gyroscope failure is imminent, that still does not require a manned mission to 'save' Hubble, let alone one performed on Polaris 2 with second-flight-ever EVA suits. Stabilising and orbit-raising Hubble can not only be accomplished without a manned mission, but is a capability that can be accomplished with a COTS product: NG's MEV.
If Isaacman's sole goal was to 'save Hubble' on his own dime, then purchasing a MEV and an F9 launch for NASA would accomplish that with a lower cost to NASA (no crew training, no crew support, no digging out old Hubble hardware to create a mission plan and training aids for manual interventions, etc). A crewed mission at a later date, with well tested suits and a corps of astronauts experienced with them would then have ample time available for planning and testing with no arbitrary rush to meet the timeline for Polaris 2.
Isaacman never said his sole goal is just to save Hubble, the entire point of the Polaris Program is to advance the state of art for private human spaceflight capabilities, this is not a secret, it's been his agenda from the start.
This is not a charity, it's a partnership, and just like any commercial partnership NASA is in, the partner has their own goals that is separate from NASA's goal, that is entirely normal and to be expected. Asking why the partner doesn't change their plan purely for the sake of NASA is dumb, it's like asking why SpaceX doesn't bid a smaller lander instead of HLS Starship.
Which is the problem. Polaris 2 would be a tech demo mission that risks destroying hubble. NASA bears ALL The risk.
Polaris 8 with tested and proven tech to service hubble? Sounds good. The mission as proposed is incredibly dangerous for hubble and nasa bears all the risk.
That is the problem. throwing away a national asset in the name of a private tech demo mission.
-
#108
by
thespacecow
on 22 May, 2024 14:13
-
Isaacman never said his sole goal is just to save Hubble, the entire point of the Polaris Program is to advance the state of art for private human spaceflight capabilities, this is not a secret, it's been his agenda from the start.
This is not a charity, it's a partnership, and just like any commercial partnership NASA is in, the partner has their own goals that is separate from NASA's goal, that is entirely normal and to be expected. Asking why the partner doesn't change their plan purely for the sake of NASA is dumb, it's like asking why SpaceX doesn't bid a smaller lander instead of HLS Starship.
Which is the problem. Polaris 2 would be a tech demo mission that risks destroying hubble. NASA bears ALL The risk.
Polaris 8 with tested and proven tech to service hubble? Sounds good. The mission as proposed is incredibly dangerous for hubble and nasa bears all the risk.
That is the problem. throwing away a national asset in the name of a private tech demo mission.
Nobody said this has to be Polaris 2.
NASA does not bear all the risk as I already explained earlier.
And as I explained earlier, you have no qualification to judge the risk to Hubble from this mission, whether it's Polaris 2 or not.
Oh, BTW, the whole adding a tech demo which could pose risk to a billion dollar primary mission thing? NASA already did it, with Ingenuity helicopter. There were objections to that too, fortunately Dr. Zurbuchen is still in charge back then and he pushed it through.
-
#109
by
matthewkantar
on 22 May, 2024 14:49
-
Realistically, it’s going to cost NASA two billion dollars to deorbit Hubble. I understand the usual suspect’s desire to get their hands on that money, but I would much rather see it spent on a mission like New Horizons or TESS.
It’ll be up to NASA to manage the risk, but I believe Dragon is flexible enough, and NASA is capable enough to avail the tax payers of this golden opportunity.
-
#110
by
RedLineTrain
on 22 May, 2024 15:05
-
Routine powered landings 10-15 years earlier than the alternative (Starship) could have been a benefit when evaluating Mars Sample Return, as one example.
Nonsense
.
a. Would have disrupted ISS ops and research. This is 1# priority
b. NASA has Mars landers
c. SpaceX could done itself and had Red Dragon for its own
d. 10-15 years? Are you saying Starship is not getting to Mars until 2030-2035? Propulsive Dragon would not have been available earlier than Dragon 2.
Tell me some more fantasies.
a. It could have caused some adjustment of ISS ops and research. There is nothing wrong with doing this on the #1 priority.
b. NASA has landers based on a parachute tech stack, with a practical mass limit of about a ton. I understand that Red Dragon could have topped out a bit above this.
c. SpaceX could have done itself, but it just didn't pencil out for their own goals without multipurpose landings.
d. Yes, I think Starship may not be in a position to help MSR until 2030-2035 (and assuming that they can hit the planetary protection requirements). Musk says "5 years" to return a lot of mass from Mars in relation to MSR, but it seems reasonable to assume at least one missed conjunction because returning mass from Mars is the very last piece of a long tech stack that still needs to be developed.
Regarding Dragon 2 schedule in the alternate timeline, it's impossible to know. The program seemed to be paced in relation to Starliner, not Dragon 2, up until the last of the parachute development. When Dragon 2 launched Bob and Doug, it was a very complete product. Very shiny.
-
#111
by
Jim
on 22 May, 2024 15:10
-
Realistically, it’s going to cost NASA two billion dollars to deorbit Hubble.
Not at all, see MEV
-
#112
by
deadman1204
on 22 May, 2024 16:27
-
Isaacman never said his sole goal is just to save Hubble, the entire point of the Polaris Program is to advance the state of art for private human spaceflight capabilities, this is not a secret, it's been his agenda from the start.
This is not a charity, it's a partnership, and just like any commercial partnership NASA is in, the partner has their own goals that is separate from NASA's goal, that is entirely normal and to be expected. Asking why the partner doesn't change their plan purely for the sake of NASA is dumb, it's like asking why SpaceX doesn't bid a smaller lander instead of HLS Starship.
Which is the problem. Polaris 2 would be a tech demo mission that risks destroying hubble. NASA bears ALL The risk.
Polaris 8 with tested and proven tech to service hubble? Sounds good. The mission as proposed is incredibly dangerous for hubble and nasa bears all the risk.
That is the problem. throwing away a national asset in the name of a private tech demo mission.
Nobody said this has to be Polaris 2.
NASA does not bear all the risk as I already explained earlier.
And as I explained earlier, you have no qualification to judge the risk to Hubble from this mission, whether it's Polaris 2 or not.
Oh, BTW, the whole adding a tech demo which could pose risk to a billion dollar primary mission thing? NASA already did it, with Ingenuity helicopter. There were objections to that too, fortunately Dr. Zurbuchen is still in charge back then and he pushed it through.
Jared Issacman said polaris 2. That is the mission as proposed. Your moving the goal posts by saying its a future mission with tried and true tech, because this entire thread is about the mission he proposed - polaris 2
-
#113
by
ccdengr
on 22 May, 2024 18:22
-
Realistically, it’s going to cost NASA two billion dollars to deorbit Hubble.
Not at all, see MEV
Not clear that a stock MEV, designed for operation in GEO, can perform this LEO mission. The specifics of the capture mechanism, solar panel articulation, and the electric propulsion may require some modification?
I'll grant that it should cost much less than $2B.
-
#114
by
matthewkantar
on 22 May, 2024 18:45
-
Realistically, it’s going to cost NASA two billion dollars to deorbit Hubble.
Not at all, see MEV
Not clear that a stock MEV, designed for operation in GEO, can perform this LEO mission. The specifics of the capture mechanism, solar panel articulation, and the electric propulsion may require some modification?
I'll grant that it should cost much less than $2B.
Am having a hard time finding the cite, I read the NASA estimate was $1.5 Billion. If the guesstimate is a 1.5, 2 is a good bet, imo.
-
#115
by
ccdengr
on 22 May, 2024 22:59
-
Am having a hard time finding the cite, I read the NASA estimate was $1.5 Billion.
If you find it, post it. FWIW
https://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/orbitaldebris2019/orbital2019paper/pdf/6125.pdf -- hardly an official analysis -- had an estimate of $500M to $1B-ish for a deorbit (not reboost) mission depending on whether HST was stable or not. That was done using "NASA’s Project Cost Estimating Capability" and somehow relied on Restore-L cost history, which has to be one of the least cost-effective programs of all time.
Presumably costs like this are what lead NASA to release the RFI in the first place, and I will note that Northrop-Grumman didn't respond with anything MEV-based AFAIK, though were any of the other proposals ever disclosed?
-
#116
by
thespacecow
on 23 May, 2024 04:29
-
Jared Issacman said polaris 2. That is the mission as proposed. Your moving the goal posts by saying its a future mission with tried and true tech, because this entire thread is about the mission he proposed - polaris 2
No, Polaris 2 is just his personal preference, but as explained by Jessica Jensen in the press conference, the actual mission sequence will be determined by the study, with extra emphasis for protecting Hubble:
at around 20:53:
"This is Jessica from SpaceX. I can jump in as well. You know one of the things we look for whenever we're doing new developments are, we are going to do the feasibility study with NASA with Polaris. And part of it is going to be figuring out the cost and figuring out a little bit of the schedule, what's it going to take to actually make this happen and make it happen safely. Because we don't want to do something that's going to put Hubble at risk at all. So once we figure out a little bit more on schedule and cost, at that point in time, we could try and figure out - if the study shows good then it's from a cost and schedule perspective - what mission do we assign it to."
-
#117
by
StraumliBlight
on 23 May, 2024 12:04
-
Am having a hard time finding the cite, I read the NASA estimate was $1.5 Billion. If the guesstimate is a 1.5, 2 is a good bet, imo.
There's an
ESA estimate from a 2013 disposal study:
The cost of each disposal option was also examined, using an estimation model drawn from actual cost data collected from over 130 space missions.
The model is driven primary by the expected complexity, dry mass, and operational mission time, to produce a rough estimate for the purpose of comparing several architectures.
Estimates ranged from $440 M for controlled reentry through $620M for 2000 km storage orbit disposal, including launch services, for a conventional single-flight mission implementation.
Adaptation of existing vehicles appears feasible, with added cost for necessary modifications.
-
#118
by
VSECOTSPE
on 05 Jun, 2024 02:48
-
No reboost or servicing mission for now. Gyros good for another decade. Risk of losing science from that decade outweighs benefits of reboost mission:
https://spacenews.com/hubble-goes-to-single-gyro-operating-mode-as-nasa-passes-on-private-servicing-mission/Key passages:
Crouse said an engineering analysis concluded that there was at least a 70% chance Hubble will have at least one working gyro through the mid-2030s. Other spacecraft systems as well as its instruments are also working well. “We do not see Hubble as being on its last legs,” he concluded.
He said his concern was the risk that a private mission might damage the telescope. “Our assessment also raised a number of considerations, including potential risks such as premature loss of science and some technology challenges,” he said. An example of those risks he offered was contamination of Hubble’s mirror from volatiles like thruster plumes.
However, he did not rule out reconsidering a private reboost or servicing mission at some later point. “While the reboost is an option for the future, we think we need to do some additional work to determine whether the long-term science return will outweigh the short-term science risk.”
Also more here:
https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/hubble-good-for-another-decade-despite-gyro-woes/
-
#119
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 27 Jun, 2024 05:58
-
You don't believe Jared has a tilt towards SpaceX? I appreciate the large amount of charity he does, but to say he doesn't have a bias is ridiculous. He did seem not happy when NASA said no to attempt to move Hubble as if if they don't have a right to determine what to do.
https://twitter.com/rookisaacman/status/1806118806064169308You misinterpreted Hubble.. as did a lot of people who only read an article & not an official report. I participated in and have seen the real NASA/SX/Polaris study. That is very different than an article with email quotes from individuals & not actually NASA. I’m actually reasonably optimistic about the future of Hubble. In any case, I love NASA and all they have accomplished. There would never have been an Inspiration4 or Polaris Program without NASA creating commercial crew program. I do lean SpaceX on a lot of issues especially when it comes to government or defense/aerospace industry waste and stagnation. But not a blind follower. On the flip side it’s clear many others will blindly take the anti-SpaceX position simply because of Elon or other nonsensical reasons.
-
#120
by
deadman1204
on 01 Jul, 2024 19:01
-
You don't believe Jared has a tilt towards SpaceX? I appreciate the large amount of charity he does, but to say he doesn't have a bias is ridiculous. He did seem not happy when NASA said no to attempt to move Hubble as if if they don't have a right to determine what to do.
https://twitter.com/rookisaacman/status/1806118806064169308
You misinterpreted Hubble.. as did a lot of people who only read an article & not an official report. I participated in and have seen the real NASA/SX/Polaris study. That is very different than an article with email quotes from individuals & not actually NASA. I’m actually reasonably optimistic about the future of Hubble. In any case, I love NASA and all they have accomplished. There would never have been an Inspiration4 or Polaris Program without NASA creating commercial crew program. I do lean SpaceX on a lot of issues especially when it comes to government or defense/aerospace industry waste and stagnation. But not a blind follower. On the flip side it’s clear many others will blindly take the anti-SpaceX position simply because of Elon or other nonsensical reasons.
Its exhausting that anything that questions if spacex can do it or has the right method is "anti-spacex". Pretending to always be oppressed must be alot of fun.
-
#121
by
matthewkantar
on 01 Jul, 2024 21:26
-
You don't believe Jared has a tilt towards SpaceX? I appreciate the large amount of charity he does, but to say he doesn't have a bias is ridiculous. He did seem not happy when NASA said no to attempt to move Hubble as if if they don't have a right to determine what to do.
https://twitter.com/rookisaacman/status/1806118806064169308
You misinterpreted Hubble.. as did a lot of people who only read an article & not an official report. I participated in and have seen the real NASA/SX/Polaris study. That is very different than an article with email quotes from individuals & not actually NASA. I’m actually reasonably optimistic about the future of Hubble. In any case, I love NASA and all they have accomplished. There would never have been an Inspiration4 or Polaris Program without NASA creating commercial crew program. I do lean SpaceX on a lot of issues especially when it comes to government or defense/aerospace industry waste and stagnation. But not a blind follower. On the flip side it’s clear many others will blindly take the anti-SpaceX position simply because of Elon or other nonsensical reasons.
Its exhausting that anything that questions if spacex can do it or has the right method is "anti-spacex". Pretending to always be oppressed must be alot of fun.
Projection