4 ms·

> They could repair it (as well as give the satellite a much-needed orbit re-boost), but for now they've passed on doing so, presumably for budgetary reasons.

by adolph 2y ago

> They could repair it (as well as give the satellite a much-needed orbit re-boost), but for now they've passed on doing so, presumably for budgetary reasons. It isn't clear anyone could "repair it." Part of NASA's reticence has to do with Hubble's sensitivity and that any docking would be completely new since the Space Shuttle was the only vehicle to service Hubble. Additionally at least some see good science continuing '"There's a greater than 70% probability of operating at least one gyro through 2035," Crouse said.' [0] A more conspiratorial part of me says there are imaging secrets the makers prefer to keep. On the other hand, there is the viewpoint that '"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."' [1] Personally, I see sunk cost fallacy as being a strong force in humanity. Additionally, the back and forth that may delay is resistance that will make Isaacman's solution better and certainly won't deter him. 0. https://www.space.com/jared-isaacman-hubble-space-telescope-reboost https://www.space.com/jared-isaacman-hubble-space-telescope-... 1. https://www.npr.org/2024/05/16/1250250249/spacex-repair-hubble-space-telescope-nasa-foia https://www.npr.org/2024/05/16/1250250249/spacex-repair-hubb...

rbanffy 2y ago
It is possible to repair it and we know that because it was repaired many times before. It’d need at least some brand new hardware though. Until reusables make it cheap to launch a replacement (and so cheap the replacement doesn’t need to be built as carefully and expensively) it’s preferable to repair it. Or not, as ground-based observatories have evolved considerably since the Hubble was launched.
- adolph 2y ago
  Possible covers a broad range of effort levels and outcome risks. At a minimum a solution for controlled deorbit is required within 10 years or so. You'd think that something that could use the SCM [0] to catch it could also reboost it or stage a human repair mission, but some involved are not as sanguine as a lay person. "The last time we went to Hubble, it was on the space shuttle, and it was quite a long time ago," Clampin said. "And, of course, Hubble is an old spacecraft now; a lot of the people who were very involved in the early serving missions have retired and there's a lot of work we would have to do to get back up to speed on how to do that." [1] On the other hand, even keeping a program running while a solution is developed might be too much given the rules NASA must follow. "Announced on Wednesday is the cancellation of the VIPER mission to the moon, this is shocking because the Rover is finished construction and just needs a test session. Moreover, NASA is contractually required to pay Astrobotic to fly a NASA payload to the moon, so they have to pay for this anyway. Instead of a rover NASA will send ballast to the moon." [2] 0. https://esahubble.org/about/general/soft_capture/ https://esahubble.org/about/general/soft_capture/ 1. https://www.space.com/jared-isaacman-hubble-space-telescope-reboost https://www.space.com/jared-isaacman-hubble-space-telescope-... 2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OS9kq0-ssg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OS9kq0-ssg
  - rbanffy 2y ago
    > Instead of a rover NASA will send ballast to the moon. This is borderline criminal.
    - adolph 2y ago
      It is certainly a strong and recent example of how intent qualities are orthogonal to outcome qualities.
kelnos 2y ago
Certainly. It's all a cost-benefit and risk-reward analysis. Servicing it would require brand new, untested procedures, and Hubble's technology is now more than 30 years old. While designing a new space telescope is not an easy, cheap endeavor, putting the resources into helping Hubble last longer might not make sense, when those resources could go to something new and better, that can still cover Hubble's current use cases. And especially since they believe we can get another 10+ years out of Hubble without touching it, that gives time to develop alternatives, if that's what turns out to be what's needed.

by adolph 2y ago

rbanffy 2y ago

It is possible to repair it and we know that because it was repaired many times before. It’d need at least some brand new hardware though. Until reusables make it cheap to launch a replacement (and so cheap the replacement doesn’t need to be built as carefully and expensively) it’s preferable to repair it. Or not, as ground-based observatories have evolved considerably since the Hubble was launched.

adolph 2y ago
Possible covers a broad range of effort levels and outcome risks. At a minimum a solution for controlled deorbit is required within 10 years or so. You'd think that something that could use the SCM [0] to catch it could also reboost it or stage a human repair mission, but some involved are not as sanguine as a lay person. "The last time we went to Hubble, it was on the space shuttle, and it was quite a long time ago," Clampin said. "And, of course, Hubble is an old spacecraft now; a lot of the people who were very involved in the early serving missions have retired and there's a lot of work we would have to do to get back up to speed on how to do that." [1] On the other hand, even keeping a program running while a solution is developed might be too much given the rules NASA must follow. "Announced on Wednesday is the cancellation of the VIPER mission to the moon, this is shocking because the Rover is finished construction and just needs a test session. Moreover, NASA is contractually required to pay Astrobotic to fly a NASA payload to the moon, so they have to pay for this anyway. Instead of a rover NASA will send ballast to the moon." [2] 0. https://esahubble.org/about/general/soft_capture/ https://esahubble.org/about/general/soft_capture/ 1. https://www.space.com/jared-isaacman-hubble-space-telescope-reboost https://www.space.com/jared-isaacman-hubble-space-telescope-... 2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OS9kq0-ssg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OS9kq0-ssg
- rbanffy 2y ago
  > Instead of a rover NASA will send ballast to the moon. This is borderline criminal.
  - adolph 2y ago
    It is certainly a strong and recent example of how intent qualities are orthogonal to outcome qualities.

kelnos 2y ago

Certainly. It's all a cost-benefit and risk-reward analysis. Servicing it would require brand new, untested procedures, and Hubble's technology is now more than 30 years old. While designing a new space telescope is not an easy, cheap endeavor, putting the resources into helping Hubble last longer might not make sense, when those resources could go to something new and better, that can still cover Hubble's current use cases. And especially since they believe we can get another 10+ years out of Hubble without touching it, that gives time to develop alternatives, if that's what turns out to be what's needed.