Jul 25 2005
Prev/Next Posts: « More pareidolia || Curiosity killed the creationist »
Shuttle retry… and Hubble
Note:An interview I did with Paul Harris on KMOX radio about the Shuttle is available online.
Note (July 26, 2005 at 13:37 Pacific time): A lot of the major media are reporting that a piece of foam came off the external tank shortly after the solid rocket booster separation (video from MSNBC). A piece of something clearly does come off, and it clearly misses the orbiter. I’m sure other pieces came off as well; it’s inevitable. NASA is investigating the many, many cameras they used to observe the launch, and I’ll report here when more is found. Remember too, they have a system to inspect tiles now using what is essentially a camera on the end of long boom, and they’ll be taking shots during an EVA (space walk) as well. Also, check out this way cool flash gizmo on MSNBC to see what upgrades have been done to the Shuttle.
Note (July 26, 2005): SUCCESS! The Space Shuttle Discovery is now on orbit after an apparently flawless launch. For more information, try spaceref.com, space.com, and of course NASA.
Two quick notes today:
1) NASA will try to launch the Shuttle once again on Tuesday, July 26, at 10:39 a.m. Eastern US time. The problem with the sensor in the fuel tank was traced to an intermittent shorting of the line. This is true: that was the first thing I thought of when I heard the problem was coming and going. I had the same problem with a poorly insulated distributor line in my old Datsun. NASA needs to hire me as a consultant. Anyway, read more at spaceref.com.
2) Some Hubble news… you probably know that there are all sorts of talks going on about whether to save Hubble Space Telescope (HST) or not. It’s expensive, but it’s a great observatory; it’ll take a Shuttle flight, but that may not be safe; they can just strap on a de-orbiting rocket and ditch it in the Pacific, but astronomers will storm NASA HQ with pitchforks and torches.
A major problem is time. HST is not in deep space, it’s orbiting the Earth only couple of hundred miles up. There is air there… thin, but there. That slowly degrades HST’s orbit, bringing it closer to Earth, where the air is thicker, slowing it more, dropping it farther. You see the problem. So they need to either de-orbit it or boost it to a higher orbit as soon as possible. However, a new model of how the Sun is supposed to behave has dealt NASA a slight reprieve. When the Sun throws a temper tantrum, blasting out solar flares and such, those hit the Earth’s atmosphere, which responds by puffing up. That means satellites (like HST) can get their orbit decaying faster than usual.
Well, things may be looking somewhat brighter now. A new solar model just came out that says the Sun is expected to calm down for a while. If true, there’s not as a big a hurry to take care of HST. That’s good news, because any mission to do anything with Hubble involves the Shuttle, and it would be nice to see a couple of successful missions under NASA’s belt before they make up their minds about the ’scope.
Read more about it here. I have lots of stuff I’ve written about Hubble too, on my Bitesize Astronomy pages.
That’s great news that Hubble is in less trouble… And that the shuttle is fit to fly! I agree, they have to calm down by making a few good missions before they seal off whatever happens with Hubble.
By the by… Your distributor line was *insulted*?
I’m sure he spent much time insulting that distributor line…
I’ll resist (it’s a struggle) commenting on the obvious typo (although it is funny). I just want to point out that you can’t be hired as NASA consultant, you already get paid as a NASA disinfo agent and that would be double dipping.
I have no idea what you mean. It has always said “insulated”.
I wouldn’t be too worried about the Hubble in any case. If we lose the Hubble, at least we have two exciting space-bound astronomy projects in the works.
Check them out:
space interferometery mission
terrestrial planet finder
I wouldn’t be too worried about the Hubble in any case. If we lose the Hubble, at least we have two exciting space-bound astronomy projects in the works.
I cannot use html here so just put “Space Interferometry Mission” and “Terrestrial Planet Finder” in a search engine and check out the jpl websites.
Last night I went to our local observatory (to look at *my* star — see my blog) and we were looking at a slideshow of three-dimensional images of photographs from Spirit and Opportunity on Mars. Both of these rovers have outlived their planned lifespan, as Hubble has, but both continue to send back more images and information every day. On the one hand we should be satisfied that they have more than done the original job they were intended for, but on the other hand it is exciting to think of what more they can do before they finally fail.
Personally, I hope Hubble keeps going for a long time and it’s really good news that the end may not be so near as we fear.
I’d hate to see hubble crash into the sea…
I love everything about it- esspecially the name
Besides there arn’t any plans for a visible light ’scope… it’s just not the same.
How much decision time is available? Is there an approx. “drop dead” date for restoration and another for, heaven forbid, the “deep six” plan?
I work in the control room at JSC and I tell you, when we heard liftoff, the room erupted in cheers and tears! A few minutes later, we got to work: we have a mission to perform. Yet in the back of our minds is that excitiment: we are back!
Just watched the webcast of the launch, what a thing of beauty. Can’t wait to see them do it again to save Hubble!!!!
“SUCCESS!”
I’ll drink to that
I just discovered the vast amount of Hubble images available on the web. Personally I’ll have pictures to look at for years even if Hubble ends its mission. Maybe a new, more powerful telescope once will bring us pictures from the outer rim of space.
How about a ’scope in orbit around the moon?
Lunar orbit provides the worst of both worlds for a space telescope.
The moon is difficult to get to for a servicing mission, so the telescope would essentially be on it’s own, at least until we get our new lunar program rolling. Taking bets on how long that actually takes to implement?
Meanwhile orbit means that the telescope cycles in and out of shadow, providing thermal cycling that stresses the components. Gravitational changes drag here and there, influence of Earth, etc, add more stresses.
The James Webb Space Telescope (aka Next Generation Space Telescope, NGST) will be put in solar orbit at the L-2 lagrange point.
http://www.stsci.edu/jwst/
http://www.stsci.edu/jwst/overview/design/orbit.html
OKAY this is Funny!
I’ve been keeping track of NASA TV all day…
They had an initial “Debris Event” Report at about 5:30 EDT. They were showing several areas where they had recorded debris falling off the ET and the orbiter. None of them appeared serious.
But one made me laugh out loud…
Apparently during launch, before the shuttle even cleared the tower, the ET hit a bird in flight!!! It fell off the side opposite of the orbiter and never presented a danger to the craft! If I find a picture I’ll post it and let you know!
So the bird got “road killed” by the impact, then probably got roasted by the SRB exhaust… I wonder what it did in its past life to deserve such an awful fate in this one!
Phil, Thanks for the link to your interview with Paul Harris. It was nice hearing your dulcet tones (and strange accent).
People down in this hemisphere are mostly interested in this shuttle launch because of Andy Thomas — he hasn’t lived in Australia for years but apparently we own him anyway.
What, do none of you have a roll of insulting tape in your toolbox?? It’s second only to gaffer tape as a most useful item (incidentally, why is The Force like gaffer tape? Because it’s light on one side, dark on the other and holds the universe together!).
Getting back on topic … it’s nice to see a successful launch, although I have read that the controllers are only going to call it a success once the shuttle is safely on the ground in one piece.
BA
Excellent interview with Paul Harris. It’s great to think that there are people on the radio who have such an open admiration for the space program, and so happily reminisce about the earlier programs.
In my humble (hubble?) opinion, we should scrap this ’scope to the eternal rest - repair mission will cost MORE than new, shiny telescope with better parameters. In other words, new telescopes provide us with 100x better science that Hubble NEVER be able to give to us - and Hubble is black hole where money fall into without return.
A Hubble repair will cost MORE than a new telescope? Please justify that.
Repairing Hubble likely won’t happen now with the fleet grounded. We’ll have to settle for a new scope.
Irishman - I think I also read somewhere that a Hubble repair mission (including specialised hardware and new pieces for Hubble plus training the astronauts for the mission plus the time spent in orbit (definitely need at least one EVA to repair Hubble, but may not need an EVA to deploy a new ’scope) etc.) would be more than a new space telescope.
But, the James Webb ST will not have optical wavelengths, plus will be orbiting at the L2 point (which I think means no option to upgrade or repair). Plus, Hubble has done more to publicise astronomy than any previous single instrument - I do not believe not having an optical space telescope is such a good idea. I know that, with modern adaptive optics, a ground-based scope can outperform Hubble in terms of resolution, but Hubble can get more reliable dark skies and can usually take longer exposures. Oh, yes, the Hubble Deep Field pictures were extraordinarily long exposures, that could not have been done by a ground-based telesope (wasn’t the Ultra-Deep Field about 20 days or something?).
So, even if a repair is more expensive, Hubble is probably worth it.
Nigel, it depends on what the scope of the repair is. The plan for an automated repair mission probably would run that high, because that’s a whole new untried system with new equipment to build and test. The Hubble repair already has some work accomplished, has designs for some of the items (i.e. the gyros) already done, and we have astronauts who are already trained on spacewalks with Hubble, they just need mission specific training. Adding a new deorbit package for future contingency would up the price, but what you’re buying there is not operations of Hubble but safety when the final plug is pulled. A non-orbiting new telescope would be cheaper from that standpoint, because we don’t have to worry about it falling on Houston. Or Mexico City.
Yes, the shuttle grounding will impact the Hubble decision.
Why the James Webb doesn’t have visible wavelengths is because for looking farther in space, redshift comes into play and the visible spectrum can’t see that far - the visible stuff from there/then is in our IR bands.
Irishman - all noted.
I recognise that James Webb is more appropriate for viewing highly-redshifted objects, and that the L2 point might give it the potential for extraordinarily long exposure times (collecting photons from one patch of sky for up to 6 months, anyone?), but I think the value of Hubble is not down to science alone. I believe that the Hubble images have captured the imagination of many more people than all of our other space-based observatories combined (would you pay to have a poster of the WMAP data on your bedroom wall?). Consequently, Hubble has engaged more public enthusiasm (and therefore public funding) for astronomy than would otherwise be the case.
So I say “long live Hubble”. (Or at least as long as it is able to return such stunning images and such quality data).