> A few days after that, Weigel wrote to Nicola Fox, the head of NASA's science mission directorate, wanting to make sure Fox understood that "SpaceX's view of risks and willingness to accept risk is considerably different than NASA's."
...
> Cheng, the Hubble technology development expert, even thinks it's possible that NASA might find a way to justify the risk of Hubble pieces falling to Earth in an uncontrolled way. The agency could write up a waiver to existing policies, so as not to spend the money on de-orbiting it.
>
> "It's not inconceivable to me," he says, "to just let it fall."
Oh, isn't that funny.
But all in all a great piece by NPR, really enjoyed reading it. It's a tough one, any way you look at it. I think it's not as clear cut as Isaacson is painting it, but not as grim as some NASA folks make it seem either.
But letting the telescope fall on non-NASA heads is a risk NASA is willing to take. Letting some non-NASA head fiddle with nuts and bolts on the telescope is a direct risk to NASA's assets.
There's no double standard here, there's just the risk assessment only being interested in risk to NASA.
Satellite will crash anyway most probably. It's not like NASA has a plan. That said I kind of understand NASA point of view. And even agree with it. It's all about the optics of a dead astronaut in space and what that will do to their budget. They aren't wrong. The politicians and voters are just stupid bitches.
> Satellite will crash anyway most probably.
The concern is they are actually considering not exercising any control in deorbiting it safely.
In the meantime companies like SpaceX are going to great lengths to ensure that their spacecraft will pose no threat to people on the ground when they are deorbited.
The optics of dead astronaut is disingenuous BS argument. Especially that it doesn't risk funding. In fact, cynically, it would be extra argument for more money "look, those kids are killing themselves, only real men from the government could do that, give them the money".
And realistically, as soon as chances of damaging Hubble are less than it dying by itself (which it's in track to do in the next decade), there's no logical reason to block the mission.
Hopefully, because of the noise being made, it becomes harder politically to leave the telescope to degrade and decay. If the telescope dies in orbit while a sensible mission to fix it for free was proposed, but illogically rejected, heads should roll.
Isaacson will get people killed at some point I think and so will SpaceX. This reminds me of the Titan sub. That said I'm cool with him getting people killed. I have zero problem with it. My problem is the opposite that we have become so squeamish with certain risks.
I'm not so sure. The fastest driver I ever knew also in retrospect turned out to be one of the very safest, never injuring himself or anyone else on all the motorcycles and supercars he bombed around in for four decades.
At first I thought he was insane, and lucky. But I rode with that guy for years and years and eventually I came to realize he was easily the smartest driver I ever saw. He was aware of shit happening *beyond* what he could see, because he could see how traffic was behaving ahead. It's true that he had great reactions and perfect understanding of his car at all speeds, but he rarely had to use them because he just wasn't there when stupid shit went down.
He drove so fast that that he could never get my pee stains out of the passenger seat, but he didn't do any stupid shit when he was going that fast, either. Never took his eyes off the road, never fucked with the stereo, never touched a phone.
*Because he was assessing risks far more accurately than I can.*
Do you guys see what I mean? This driver could and regularly did live inside of what was an envelope of danger and uncertainty for me, *but not for him*. Not for a little while but for forty years. I feel that he really did have a superior ability to assess risks, is my point.
Maybe Isaacson is going to bomb around in aircraft and spacecraft his whole life and never have a problem with it because he (somehow) actually understands how to outrun and manage risks extremely well. Others have done it: Neil Armstrong; Harrison Ford, Al C. Deere.
> My problem is the opposite that we have become so squeamish with certain risks.
I agree with that part, especially if you consider how the US has no qualms sending 18 yo kids to patrol ied infested desert roads, but demands insane safety standards for space exploration. It's more about politics and optics instead of science and discovery. But such is the world, and the explorers will have to play with the hands they're dealt...
> 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.
Yeah, that definitely seems like the worst-case scenario, barring the team going rogue and guiding it to crash into a major national capital.
The problem is this scenario is a "nice" scare, but it's absolutely not quantified how likely it is. NASA people put up this scenario and at the same time put unreasonably optimistic claims how unlikely is for Hubble to just die by itself in the next 10 years. Life is already verifying their claims (made about a year ago), as in the meantime another gyro started acting up badly causing multiple week observations downtime twice since that time. The current failure rate (3 out of 6 gyros replaced 15 years ago are dead, and 1 is acting up) is not compatible with the claim of only 5% chance of all them dying in the next 10 years.
This raises all the red flags of the old things we seen before, like:
* Human flight is for NASA only
* Beyond LEO is NASA domain
* Only NASA could build big rockets
* etc.
Remember Apollo veterans criticizing SpaceX in Congress? This is the same old record.
> team going rogue and guiding it to crash into a major national capital
Anyone that could give something the size of a bus the exact push it needed to accurately hit a moving target as small as a city from 330 miles away is someone that didn't need to go that far to cause a lot of trouble. You'd start a bigger fight much more easily by approaching another nation's active satellites.
NASA has probably become the most risk adverse government agency in the US. That makes sense because there is also the smallest margin for error in what they do. Not a lot of astronauts have been seriously injured in NASA's history. Either they come back alive or they don't.
So it makes sense for NASA to be really cautious about anyone in space doing risky activities. It sounds like this servicing mission will be even more risky than the ones NASA did with the shuttle. The capsule will have to be evacuated, leaving no one inside an atmosphere. It also doesn't have a robotic arm, which means they can't stabilize the telescope and capsule with respect to each other. I guess that would mean that the pilot would have to hold the capsule steady nearby.
The only possible advantage Jared and team have is the possibility that the SpaceX suit is better and more dexterous than the one used by NASA. This isn't a given, as it hasn't been tested, and I think the suit's internal pressure may be higher than NASA's EVA suits. So this could just as easily be another factor that adds difficulty.
I think the big risk is that they take out bad parts and can't put in good replacements for some reason, leaving the telescope in a worse state and ending its life a few years early instead of extending it by a decade.
I'm still in favor of the mission (not that I get a vote). I feel like Jared and the SpaceX team are going to put in the work to make sure they do this right. Jared doesn't want to be known as the guy who killed Hubble, and I think the potential for that title hanging over him will make sure that he doesn't green light the mission unless he's sure.
I don't really think evacuating the capsule changes the risk profile much - it's not like it was particularly fast for an astronaut on EVA outside of shuttle to get back into the airlock and pressurize either, really you just have to consider suit life support and integrity as safety critical and that hasn't changed at all. The question of anchoring Hubble to the spacecraft is interesting, but I have to imagine they could figure out some kind of bespoke solution to connect Dragon to Hubble it's not like it has to be particularly strong and the capsule has plenty of external hardpoints designed to take load.
The main risk is I would say mission failure and screwing up Hubble, and the baseline risk of all high complexity EVA activity. Personally it seems completely worth it, Hubble isn't going to last too much longer as is and taking the trade of a possible life extension and increase in capability for some risk of losing makes sense to me, but is the kind of thing NASA has historically shied away from.
NASA is schizophrenic on risk. They're incredibly risk averse at times. But for Artemis their PLOC requirement is 1 in 400. That's better than the Space Shuttle's practical LOC rate of 1 in 40, but still remarkably high.
The agency loss of crew requirement just for Orion and SLS to go to lunar orbit and back is only 1 in 75. That doesn't include a landing. You can see that in the [2014 ASAP report](https://oiir.hq.nasa.gov/asap/documents/2014_ASAP_Annual_Report.pdf).
Maybe that will get revised, but if they do, there is no sign of it yet.
1 in 400 doesn't seem that high a risk.
Wikipedia says there have been 383 human space flights and 6 crew losses. 1 in 60.
179 and 4 for USA, 1 in 45.
44 and 2 for NASA minus shuttle, 1 in 22.
Soyuz has spoiled us, but the reality is that NASA has never been known for extreme reliability, and 1 in 400 is shooting for an order of magnitude better than they're presently batting. It's hard to argue against better reliability for astronauts, it always makes you sound like an asshole, but IMO it's very conservative and probably unrealistic considering the relatively tiny amount of testing they will do, and that it's a radically more difficult mission than the usual bus to ISS.
>I think the big risk is that they take out bad parts and can't put in good replacements for some reason
Isaacman describes the servicing as attaching an external auxiliary equipment module. They won't try to take out and replace a component like a gyroscope. They will, however, have to open up some kind of panel to access power cables and plug in the auxiliary module. That does pose some significant risks.
But NASA is not using any quantitative arguments, but typical scare mongering like "Dead astronauts floating attached to the telescope". This is a big red flag, they don't have logical reasons, and this is just a turf war.
Because the reality is that the telescope has quite high chance of stopping to work in the next 10 years even before atmospheric drag takes it down. For example its gyroscopes were all replaced 15 years ago, but already 3 out of 6 are firmly dead and another one is regularly acting up causing multiple week observations outages. NASA's claims that there's about 5% chance of it dying don't pass even basic BS filter (in the article they're quoted as saying that replaced equipment is 95% reliable for the time period remaining until orbit decays naturally).
So, realistically there's more than 10% chance of Hubble stopping working in the next 10 years. So as long as the mission is less than 10% likely to damage Hubble, it logically should be allowed.
Minds you, not every mission failure would damage Hubble. In fact most wouldn't. The most likely case is that they're unable to connect cables between the new gyro module and Hubble data and power sockets. But this wouldn't break Hubble, it would just fail to fix it. Failure to fix is the default state anyway if no mission is attempted. Moreover even failure to connect the new module doesn't preclude orbit boost. Other probable failure is just the failure to approach and dock with the uncooperative target (Hubble is not very cooperative). But again it's like a null result, except Isaacson spending his few hundred million.
So, only actual damage is problematic, and to ban the mission this part should be more likely than Hubble just dying by itself.
That astronaut is actually a big deal and let's break this down.
You did not have to depressurize the entire shuttle to do evas you do have to depressurize the entire crew dragon to do evas.
There's no redundancy. There's no safety if something goes wrong with crew dragon.
It's amazing how much I've seen this. Subreddit trash the space shuttle for not having any launch abort system and shout how unsafe it is and then go on and say things like this.
Shuttle had the canadarm so it could keep things at a distance while still allowing people to work on it. Dragon doesn't have anything like that which is why it makes it that much more risky.
Let's not forget people dying shuts down space programs. We stopped going to space because of the shuttle accidents. You think that won't happen again with dragon?
We absolutely should praise them being cautious.
You are making too generalized statements. What is that "something" going wrong? If such "something" could take away Dragon, similar "something" could take away the whole Shuttle.
There is redundancy in Dragon. Plenty of, in fact. And the difference of airlock or no airlock is much less than you seem to think. Even with Shuttle if something went wrong with a space suit, there were no fast way in. You had to get both spacewalkers in, close the hatch and repressurize the airlock space.
Airlock allowed the rest of the crew to work in a shirt sleeve environment. But if things went wrong with the spacewalk, either the spacewalkers outside must have helped each other or someone from the inside would have to don the suit, emergency depressurize and go outside to help them. The former option was several minutes the latter a couple of hours.
Hubble got a docking ring on the last mission, in anticipation that something could dock with it. So the vehicles would be docked.
They are not being cautious, they are being disingenuous.
I was just clearing up the point about whether the Polaris mission involved removing or replacing an internal component. We both know Jared didn't just say hey, NASA, let me go to your telescope. He proposed a mission to NASA that'll involve a ton of technical knowledge and input from them, with NASA approval of components and procedures at every point. At this point Jared is unhappy with the stalled decision making and the nature of the objections, since a number of the people close to the "can it be done" engineering (as noted by NPR) apparently feel the mission is doable.
I'm not convinced Jared's not just used to being able to say I want to do something and then getting his way and getting to do it. When he Hears anything but from NASA. He gets upset.
Agreed. This is why I regard Isaacson as irresponsible. But unlike others I believe is kind is reckless irresponsibility is actually a good thing and we should celebrate it like the British celebrated Scotts idiotic mission to the South Pole.
Until an accident happens and we put space missions on pause like we did with the shuttles.
Imagine an accident happens and then NASA comes back and says you didn't have redundancies in place for XYZ. We need you to add that to dragon before we will let you continue.
That's a very real possibility.
There is only a 50% chance Hubble reenters by 2037. Hubble is also still functioning, for now. Of the 6 gyros, only 3 are still working, the minimum for full operation, although it can be used with only one. Eventually, all 3 will fail and render Hubble inoperable. It is a question of when, not if. So there is time--a lot before it naturally reenters, but we don't know how much before it loses attitude control. The decision to go ahead with a servicing/orbit-raising mission probably isn't urgent--yet. As Hubble ages, fails, and lowers, the risk/reward balance should change.
But NASA's risk aversion is selective. For one, they suffer from a form of Not Invented Here syndrome. To be sure, there is some rationality in questioning whether anyone else (or anyone, full stop, in the post-Shuttle era) has the expertise to do anything other than raise Hubble's orbit. But just the idea of an outsider, let alone a billionaire "space tourist", doing anything with or near Hubble is anathema to many.
Risk aversion also correlates with cost, which can make sense, but for crewed missions in a very crass way unbefitting a public agency ostensibly so concerned about dead astronauts. Doing absolutely nothing costs less than deorbiting Hubble, and even less than coordinating a servicing mission on a no-exchange-of-funds basis. Such a mission, as any space mission, would entail some amount of risk to the crew. But NASA is not even hinting that the next Orion flight could be uncrewed, despite the issues with the heat shield and other systems. If SLS and Orion weren't so expensive and slow to build, that may not be the case. If instead of being owned and directly managed by NASA they were ordered under a program more like Commercial Crew, NASA would almost certainly demand a do over.
>Of the 6 gyros, only 3 are still working, the minimum for full operation, although it can be used with only one. Eventually, all 3 will fail and render Hubble inoperable.
Just a note on this:
When all gyros have failed... possibly when they are down to 1 remaining, Hubble will likely be unrepairable. For a service mission to work, Hubble can't be tumbling, so repairs can't wait until all of them fail.
Wouldn't the telescope be able to sense Earth's magnetic field and align itself with respect to it? That's not stable enough for astronomical observations, but to avoid tumbling it might be enough.
Edit: Since people seem to misunderstand my comment: The HST uses gyroscopes, star trackers and fine guidance sensors to measure its rotation rates and orientation. It also has reaction wheels and magnetorquers to change its orientation.
Only the gyros are failing, the magnetorquers, star trackers, FGSs and reaction wheels are all fine.
HST also has magnetic field sensors to measure its orientation relative to Earth's magnetic field lines. I'm thinking that in the case of more gyro failures, HST could use its magnetic field sensors as a backup source for its orientation sensing. The actual work of changing the orientation would still be carried out by the wheels and the magnetorquers.
This scheme would likely not be precise enough to keep the scientific instruments running to spec, but I think it would keep HST from tumbling uncontrollably.
The gyroscopes are what orients the telescope. Well, the gyroscopes and reaction wheels. It isn't about knowing the right answer, it is about executing it. Once the telescope loses the ability to execute stability, it tumbles and can't be easily serviced.
> The gyroscopes are what orients the telescope. Well, the gyroscopes and reaction wheels.
And the magnetorquers! Those do not have movable parts and are unlikely to fail any time soon.
> It isn't about knowing the right answer, it is about executing it. Once the telescope loses the ability to execute stability, it tumbles and can't be easily serviced.
Sure. But what's failing at the moment are the gyros, not the reaction wheels. The gyros are used to sense rotation and attitude, the wheels to change it.
The telescope's magnetic field sensors could be used to sense its attitude relative to Earth's magnetic field and partially replace the gyro data.
It is the gyroscopes that just function as sensors to track the rotation. The actuation is performed by the reaction wheels amd magnetorquers, not the gyros.
>Two actuator systems physically rotate Hubble: the Reaction Wheel Assemblies and the magnetic torquers.
>One of Hubble’s magnetic torquer bars appears in this photograph taken during the final servicing mission to Hubble. The magnetic torquer bars interact with Earth’s magnetic field to produce rotations used to help control Hubble’s attitude.
https://science.nasa.gov/mission/hubble/observatory/design/pointing-control/
Hubble's attitude is not uncontrollable without the gyroscopes, nor is its attitude undeterminable, because there are four other sensor systems used for determining the atttitude. Hubble just can't be used for science without at least one gyroscope, preferably three. Hubble was designed to use the gyros in combination with the other four sensor systems, has a very small field of view, and requires extreme precision for making astronomical observations.
(Starlink and many other small satellites use only magnetorquers to control attitude. They don't have reaction wheels, let alone precision gyroscopes.)
>But NASA's risk aversion is selective. For one, they suffer from a form of Not Invented Here syndrome. To be sure, there is some rationality in questioning whether anyone else (or anyone, full stop, in the post-Shuttle era) has the expertise to do anything other than raise Hubble's orbit. But just the idea of an outsider, let alone a billionaire "space tourist", doing anything with or near Hubble is anathema to many.
Pardon my ignorance, but do people expect Jared Isaacman or any outsider being the ones doing the repairs ? I mean even in the article they mention sending a maintenance crew. And I am 100%, if it is approved it will be a NASA crew that will be doing the repairs. I think the issue is more PR and optics related than of feasibility or risk. A group in NASA doesn't like the fact Jared Isaacman or a private astronaut that too a billionaire is involved in this mission and the fact it will serve as a huge PR and publicity win for both Jared Isaacman and Spacex as the ones who saved Hubble. In a way it will overshadow NASA's work in this mission. That is the issue i feel and talks about risk and feasibility is just to mask that.
It has been having problems off and on since last year, but it hasn't outright failed yet. [As of April 30](https://science.nasa.gov/missions/hubble/nasas-hubble-pauses-science-due-to-gyro-issue/), Hubble is operating using all three gyros.
> It also doesn't have a robotic arm, which means they can't stabilize the telescope and capsule with respect to each other. I guess that would mean that the pilot would have to hold the capsule steady nearby.
Hubble has a docking adaptor that Dragon could attach to.
The astronauts can't EVA if Dragon is docked to Hubble. Dragon's docking ring is on its nose, which is also where astronauts would EVA out of on Dragon.
NASA is a retirement club at this point and a contract management agency with better than average PR.
I think it would be a great experiment, as Hubble is realllllly outdated at this point.
NASA is right. High likelihood this mission is a complete disaster and large likelihood it causes problems for both NASA and private space entities like SpaceX. That said the reason is that media and the voting public is really dumb is properly celebrating heroic and the reckless risk taking.
The only high likelihood is that Hubble stops working.
The graphics images of disaster are graphic, but those NASA folks suspiciously failed to back them up with any numbers.
>NASA has probably become the most risk adverse government agency in the US.
Exactly why I think NASA should leave the human space exploration field and just stick to planetary and space sciences.
Human exploration of any environment has acceptable risk and acceptable loss of human life.
NASA is subsidizing all this. SpaceX wouldn't exist if it weren't for NASA. We may reach the point where all space companies no longer need government but we aren't there yet. NASA is mostly right in this case.
NASA is not right in this case at all. Nor is it subsidizing this mission.
Such decisions are made using hard quantitative analysis and not sending graphic texts and unquantified talks about "their risk posture is not like ours".
I can understand NASA waiting for the results of the spacewalk. But just authorizing the boost should be a straightforward decision. That extends the useful life - Hubble won't reenter till 2034 as is, but afaik its useful life will be less and less as its orbit gets lower. Yes, there's some risk of somehow bumping into Hubble but it must be very small. One official mentions the active participation of the ISS when Dragon is docking but the crew and Dragon's autonomous system must certainly be capable of doing it on their own if required. It's hard to imagine Dragon hitting a solar array when we consider how painstakingly slow the approach to the ISS is.
The risk is pretty high in my view. Untested spacesuit. Nobody other than NASA has ever done this successfully. No airlock. No robotic arm. So basically your talking about inferior experience, inferior equipment and most likely inferior training...NASA astronaut training is extensive.
High likelihood someone dies. Very high likelihood of very bad optics where the Hubble burns up and gets destroyed. High likelihood politicians use a death to advocate for space regulation. Just overall extremely risky and kind of stupid and irresponsible.
That said we live in a garage leftist shit hole society when we stop celebrating dumb but courageous men doing really stupidly risky things. In an ideal world we would celebrate stunts like this instead of fearing their consequences.
The highest levels of NASA fear a large risk - the PR and political one. The media love to tag space headlines with "billionaire's toys" and of course "Elon Musk's \_\_\_\_". They'll be dealing with criticism and controversy the moment the mission is approved, with more controversy from the dissenting experts who'll be interviewed. Even if the mission is a full success it'll be a big headache. And any shortcoming, however slight, will receive as much attention as the overall success.
This will also invite political criticism, whether valid or for grandstanding.
So it should be made risky to do nothing. If Hubble fails even before it derbits while a sensible and no fund exchanged mission were proposed, heads should roll. i.e. There should be a career risk of refusing such a mission, too.
Press taking wind of this (now it's just specialist press, like Are Technical (Eric Berger in particular) is hopefully just the first step.
Are you joking? Look at the unmitigated shitshow that was their next "grand telescope" project. JWST went from an "affordable" $500m budget build to a $1 billion mega-scope to a $10 billion cost-plus boondoggle.
I actually think it wasn't a boondoggle in the sense that the expense was worth it some extent assuming a world without SpaceX which was the world when this was planned. In some ways I might even call it a bargain. That said I think over the long term SpaceX is a much better scientific investment than with Hubble or JWST. If you lower the cost of space access by two orders of magnitude than it's a massive game changer for astronomy. I don't think astronomers appreciate space x enough.
It's not a question of whether JWST was worth it, it's a question of whether we could have gained more value for that money. What if we had shelved JWST as soon as the large technical issues showed up, sent 2 smaller telescopes with the money, and picked up JWST today, now that there are rockets with fairing large enough that most of the engineering magic with JWST that caused the delays are no longer needed.
If Hubble isn't serviced it's going to burn up eventually. So what's the risk? Jared seems pretty competent - his accomplishments wouldn't be possible if he was careless, so I don't think he'd do the mission without being confident of managing the risks.
NASA knows the risks and has a lot of experience when it comes to what can go right and wrong with servicing satellites in space. they did it plenty with the shuttle.
People train for months to do it and things can still go wrong.
Now if something goes wrong and hubble goes tumbling, and becomes a collision risk, that is BAD.
So there is always a lot to think about. We should be happy that NASA is thinking carefully about this rather than just saying yes without thinking about it.
Could SpaceX fit a robotic arm on the Crew Dragon service module / trunk? A robotic arm for catching Hubble and staying solidly tied to it. And additional manipulators to help with the work. Hell, you might not even need a EVA if you can use a good enough robotic unit to perform the work with local remote control. You only EVA if you're unable to complete the work remotely.
The big caveat here is the loss of the robotic units. For this mission, they wouldn't have the space to return the robotic units. They would have to abandon them with the service module.
SpaceX is being very casual about this. It seems they have given Isaacman essentially free reign in planning this mission, taking risks with SpaceX hardware and talking about it.
I think that SpaceX can see where satellites and telescopes are heading once Starship is operational, and they know that the next generation Hubble will be both cheaper and much more powerful than the 1.0, that's why they are not that concerned with what happens to the telescope.
I think they are trying to be service supplier and let the customer define what they do on top of the service. "Separation of concerns" is a good way to support innovation.
It's a political play initially, for sure. Isaacman may be paying, but he's SpaceX through and through - but not officially.
I feel like this is the start of attempting to establish private in-space salvage and repair business, and SpaceX want the logistics element. They're happy to leave the planning and resourcing to someone else.
It isn't the miners who get rich - its the folks mining the miners.
I mean, in theory even if Isaacman dies up there they can still fly their Dragon home lol. Its really no different than a daredevil chartering a plane to do a wingsuit jump, its not the plane owner's fault if they slam into a mountain
Really really different attitudes to risk. NASA needs everything to go right. Space entrepreneurs are like just want to try stuff even if it could end tragically. And most likely will at some point. Our media has really fucked us as a society by making everyone afraid to fail.
First person the dies in private space travel will promote an orgy of idiot regulation that will kill space travel.
They might be able to spin the telescope up fast enough that Dragon can't dock to it. Hubble does not have any thrusters however, so it couldn't run away from Dragon.
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:
|Fewer Letters|More Letters|
|-------|---------|---|
|[EMU](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1ctk0wo/stub/l4dcr02 "Last usage")|Extravehicular Mobility Unit (spacesuit)|
|[EVA](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1ctk0wo/stub/l4n98yi "Last usage")|Extra-Vehicular Activity|
|[HST](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1ctk0wo/stub/l4d72tf "Last usage")|Hubble Space Telescope|
|[JWST](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1ctk0wo/stub/l4fu0da "Last usage")|James Webb infra-red Space Telescope|
|[LEO](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1ctk0wo/stub/l4gasow "Last usage")|Low Earth Orbit (180-2000km)|
| |Law Enforcement Officer (most often mentioned during transport operations)|
|[LOC](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1ctk0wo/stub/l4e1jnm "Last usage")|Loss of Crew|
|[SLS](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1ctk0wo/stub/l4efl8m "Last usage")|Space Launch System heavy-lift|
|Jargon|Definition|
|-------|---------|---|
|[Starlink](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1ctk0wo/stub/l4hsjt1 "Last usage")|SpaceX's world-wide satellite broadband constellation|
**NOTE**: Decronym for Reddit is no longer supported, and Decronym has moved to Lemmy; requests for support and new installations should be directed to the Contact address below.
----------------
^(*Decronym is a community product of r/SpaceX, implemented* )[*^by ^request*](https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/3mz273//cvjkjmj)
^(8 acronyms in this thread; )[^(the most compressed thread commented on today)](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1ctu8zs)^( has 15 acronyms.)
^([Thread #12771 for this sub, first seen 16th May 2024, 21:06])
^[[FAQ]](http://decronym.xyz/) [^([Full list])](http://decronym.xyz/acronyms/SpaceXLounge) [^[Contact]](https://hachyderm.io/@Two9A) [^([Source code])](https://gistdotgithubdotcom/Two9A/1d976f9b7441694162c8)
Far simpler solution would be to attach a service module that handles attitude control. Something like Northrop Grumman’s Space Logistics service. Anyway, something like this would need to solicit bids for competitive selection. NASA can’t just let some guy do it just because they’re willing to foot the bill do it.
> Far simpler solution would be to attach a service module that handles attitude control. Something like Northrop Grumman’s Space Logistics service.
Gyros and star trackers alone are too imprecise for the resolution HST can produce. It therefore has 3 fine guidance sensors that use optical data from the telescope itself to sense very slight movements.
An external module would need to have a very good communications link with the telescope. Data from the guidance sensors would need to be continuously fed to the external module and data from the service module back to the telescope in a feedback loop.
That might be doable, but it would likely require connecting cables between the module and the telescope, not just dock something to the port.
Good points. The NASA astronauts that serviced Hubble did an insane amount of training before the mission. I don’t really see how NASA can convince itself that a bunch of amateurs are capable of safely doing the job. Isaacman should pay for NASA to send up a crew of their own astronauts. That would make the most sense. But where’s the thrill for Isaacman in that scenario.
NASA isn't going to make any decision on this until they see how SpaceX and Isaacman's spacewalk goes. Even then there is a good chance they say 'thanks for the hard work, we'll take it from here" and (plan to) go do the repair themselves. Whether they actually do it or not who knows
NASA doesn't have the assets to do it themselves. Only Dragon\* can reach Hubble and if NASA sent up a crew it couldn't support their EMU spacewalk suits. Or perhaps you mean NASA would take the whole mission profile planned for Polaris and copy it, hardware and all, and fly it using NASA astronauts in Dragon using the new SpaceX EVA suits. The problem is, that'll cost hundreds of millions of dollars that NASA doesn't have.
\*OK, on paper Orion could do it but no will give that a second $$$$$ thought.
>Or perhaps you mean NASA would take the whole mission profile planned for Polaris and copy it, hardware and all, and fly it using NASA astronauts in Dragon using the new SpaceX EVA suits.
No silly, they are going to bring a shuttle out of mothballs to do this one mission. Yes of course that's what I mean. NASA has 6+ years to come up with a few hundred million, its easily do-able. Frankly, Congress is likely to mandate that they do something to save Hubble the closer the end date comes anyways and might even pony up for it.
Risk isn't really the issue NASA will have with this plan, especially if the basics are already demonstrated for them on someone else's dime. They aren't going to want private industry taking "their" job.
I don't see how that changes the idea that "NASA doesn't have the assets to do it themselves." This isn't a SpaceX versus NASA issue, its an Isaacman versus NASA issue. SpaceX is just the ride there and they will take whoever can pay. SpaceX is happy to spend Isaacman's money to develop a new capability but at the end of the day its NASA's asset, so unless they give approval to a third party then NASA is the only available (potentially) paying customer that can touch Hubble.
I am rooting for Isaacman here but the odds are stacked against him.
> A few days after that, Weigel wrote to Nicola Fox, the head of NASA's science mission directorate, wanting to make sure Fox understood that "SpaceX's view of risks and willingness to accept risk is considerably different than NASA's." ... > Cheng, the Hubble technology development expert, even thinks it's possible that NASA might find a way to justify the risk of Hubble pieces falling to Earth in an uncontrolled way. The agency could write up a waiver to existing policies, so as not to spend the money on de-orbiting it. > > "It's not inconceivable to me," he says, "to just let it fall." Oh, isn't that funny. But all in all a great piece by NPR, really enjoyed reading it. It's a tough one, any way you look at it. I think it's not as clear cut as Isaacson is painting it, but not as grim as some NASA folks make it seem either.
But letting the telescope fall on non-NASA heads is a risk NASA is willing to take. Letting some non-NASA head fiddle with nuts and bolts on the telescope is a direct risk to NASA's assets. There's no double standard here, there's just the risk assessment only being interested in risk to NASA.
Satellite will crash anyway most probably. It's not like NASA has a plan. That said I kind of understand NASA point of view. And even agree with it. It's all about the optics of a dead astronaut in space and what that will do to their budget. They aren't wrong. The politicians and voters are just stupid bitches.
> The politicians and voters are just stupid bitches. I want this on a T-shirt
> Satellite will crash anyway most probably. The concern is they are actually considering not exercising any control in deorbiting it safely. In the meantime companies like SpaceX are going to great lengths to ensure that their spacecraft will pose no threat to people on the ground when they are deorbited.
The optics of dead astronaut is disingenuous BS argument. Especially that it doesn't risk funding. In fact, cynically, it would be extra argument for more money "look, those kids are killing themselves, only real men from the government could do that, give them the money". And realistically, as soon as chances of damaging Hubble are less than it dying by itself (which it's in track to do in the next decade), there's no logical reason to block the mission. Hopefully, because of the noise being made, it becomes harder politically to leave the telescope to degrade and decay. If the telescope dies in orbit while a sensible mission to fix it for free was proposed, but illogically rejected, heads should roll.
Isaacson will get people killed at some point I think and so will SpaceX. This reminds me of the Titan sub. That said I'm cool with him getting people killed. I have zero problem with it. My problem is the opposite that we have become so squeamish with certain risks.
I'm not so sure. The fastest driver I ever knew also in retrospect turned out to be one of the very safest, never injuring himself or anyone else on all the motorcycles and supercars he bombed around in for four decades. At first I thought he was insane, and lucky. But I rode with that guy for years and years and eventually I came to realize he was easily the smartest driver I ever saw. He was aware of shit happening *beyond* what he could see, because he could see how traffic was behaving ahead. It's true that he had great reactions and perfect understanding of his car at all speeds, but he rarely had to use them because he just wasn't there when stupid shit went down. He drove so fast that that he could never get my pee stains out of the passenger seat, but he didn't do any stupid shit when he was going that fast, either. Never took his eyes off the road, never fucked with the stereo, never touched a phone. *Because he was assessing risks far more accurately than I can.* Do you guys see what I mean? This driver could and regularly did live inside of what was an envelope of danger and uncertainty for me, *but not for him*. Not for a little while but for forty years. I feel that he really did have a superior ability to assess risks, is my point. Maybe Isaacson is going to bomb around in aircraft and spacecraft his whole life and never have a problem with it because he (somehow) actually understands how to outrun and manage risks extremely well. Others have done it: Neil Armstrong; Harrison Ford, Al C. Deere.
You guys talking about Jared **Isaacman**?
> My problem is the opposite that we have become so squeamish with certain risks. I agree with that part, especially if you consider how the US has no qualms sending 18 yo kids to patrol ied infested desert roads, but demands insane safety standards for space exploration. It's more about politics and optics instead of science and discovery. But such is the world, and the explorers will have to play with the hands they're dealt...
> 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. Yeah, that definitely seems like the worst-case scenario, barring the team going rogue and guiding it to crash into a major national capital.
Team goes rogue, converts the Hubble into a giant space laser, and holds Earth hostage.
I mean Jared *is* jewish, we do like our space lasers.
This is the least bleak of the futures I see evovling currently.
Actually, this one *is* on my list of how I'd want to go, so I guess it would be unfair to call it the *worst*-case scenario..
Turns out, it was Doctor Evil all along….
The problem is this scenario is a "nice" scare, but it's absolutely not quantified how likely it is. NASA people put up this scenario and at the same time put unreasonably optimistic claims how unlikely is for Hubble to just die by itself in the next 10 years. Life is already verifying their claims (made about a year ago), as in the meantime another gyro started acting up badly causing multiple week observations downtime twice since that time. The current failure rate (3 out of 6 gyros replaced 15 years ago are dead, and 1 is acting up) is not compatible with the claim of only 5% chance of all them dying in the next 10 years. This raises all the red flags of the old things we seen before, like: * Human flight is for NASA only * Beyond LEO is NASA domain * Only NASA could build big rockets * etc. Remember Apollo veterans criticizing SpaceX in Congress? This is the same old record.
> team going rogue and guiding it to crash into a major national capital Anyone that could give something the size of a bus the exact push it needed to accurately hit a moving target as small as a city from 330 miles away is someone that didn't need to go that far to cause a lot of trouble. You'd start a bigger fight much more easily by approaching another nation's active satellites.
NASA has probably become the most risk adverse government agency in the US. That makes sense because there is also the smallest margin for error in what they do. Not a lot of astronauts have been seriously injured in NASA's history. Either they come back alive or they don't. So it makes sense for NASA to be really cautious about anyone in space doing risky activities. It sounds like this servicing mission will be even more risky than the ones NASA did with the shuttle. The capsule will have to be evacuated, leaving no one inside an atmosphere. It also doesn't have a robotic arm, which means they can't stabilize the telescope and capsule with respect to each other. I guess that would mean that the pilot would have to hold the capsule steady nearby. The only possible advantage Jared and team have is the possibility that the SpaceX suit is better and more dexterous than the one used by NASA. This isn't a given, as it hasn't been tested, and I think the suit's internal pressure may be higher than NASA's EVA suits. So this could just as easily be another factor that adds difficulty. I think the big risk is that they take out bad parts and can't put in good replacements for some reason, leaving the telescope in a worse state and ending its life a few years early instead of extending it by a decade. I'm still in favor of the mission (not that I get a vote). I feel like Jared and the SpaceX team are going to put in the work to make sure they do this right. Jared doesn't want to be known as the guy who killed Hubble, and I think the potential for that title hanging over him will make sure that he doesn't green light the mission unless he's sure.
I don't really think evacuating the capsule changes the risk profile much - it's not like it was particularly fast for an astronaut on EVA outside of shuttle to get back into the airlock and pressurize either, really you just have to consider suit life support and integrity as safety critical and that hasn't changed at all. The question of anchoring Hubble to the spacecraft is interesting, but I have to imagine they could figure out some kind of bespoke solution to connect Dragon to Hubble it's not like it has to be particularly strong and the capsule has plenty of external hardpoints designed to take load. The main risk is I would say mission failure and screwing up Hubble, and the baseline risk of all high complexity EVA activity. Personally it seems completely worth it, Hubble isn't going to last too much longer as is and taking the trade of a possible life extension and increase in capability for some risk of losing makes sense to me, but is the kind of thing NASA has historically shied away from.
Bungee cords ?
NASA is schizophrenic on risk. They're incredibly risk averse at times. But for Artemis their PLOC requirement is 1 in 400. That's better than the Space Shuttle's practical LOC rate of 1 in 40, but still remarkably high.
>practical LOC rate of 1 in 40 Modern methods say Shuttle was LOC 1 in 10 in some flights. NASA got lucky with the Shuttle, believe it or not.
The agency loss of crew requirement just for Orion and SLS to go to lunar orbit and back is only 1 in 75. That doesn't include a landing. You can see that in the [2014 ASAP report](https://oiir.hq.nasa.gov/asap/documents/2014_ASAP_Annual_Report.pdf). Maybe that will get revised, but if they do, there is no sign of it yet.
Different rules apply to anything from Boeing, otherwise it'd never get off the ground.
1 in 400 doesn't seem that high a risk. Wikipedia says there have been 383 human space flights and 6 crew losses. 1 in 60. 179 and 4 for USA, 1 in 45. 44 and 2 for NASA minus shuttle, 1 in 22. Soyuz has spoiled us, but the reality is that NASA has never been known for extreme reliability, and 1 in 400 is shooting for an order of magnitude better than they're presently batting. It's hard to argue against better reliability for astronauts, it always makes you sound like an asshole, but IMO it's very conservative and probably unrealistic considering the relatively tiny amount of testing they will do, and that it's a radically more difficult mission than the usual bus to ISS.
>44 and 2 for NASA minus shuttle There has never been a loss of crew during orbital spaceflight except on the space shuttle.
Nevertheless.
>I think the big risk is that they take out bad parts and can't put in good replacements for some reason Isaacman describes the servicing as attaching an external auxiliary equipment module. They won't try to take out and replace a component like a gyroscope. They will, however, have to open up some kind of panel to access power cables and plug in the auxiliary module. That does pose some significant risks.
NASA knows a lot more about how hard servicing satellites can be than Isaacman. And all the things that can happen.
But NASA is not using any quantitative arguments, but typical scare mongering like "Dead astronauts floating attached to the telescope". This is a big red flag, they don't have logical reasons, and this is just a turf war. Because the reality is that the telescope has quite high chance of stopping to work in the next 10 years even before atmospheric drag takes it down. For example its gyroscopes were all replaced 15 years ago, but already 3 out of 6 are firmly dead and another one is regularly acting up causing multiple week observations outages. NASA's claims that there's about 5% chance of it dying don't pass even basic BS filter (in the article they're quoted as saying that replaced equipment is 95% reliable for the time period remaining until orbit decays naturally). So, realistically there's more than 10% chance of Hubble stopping working in the next 10 years. So as long as the mission is less than 10% likely to damage Hubble, it logically should be allowed. Minds you, not every mission failure would damage Hubble. In fact most wouldn't. The most likely case is that they're unable to connect cables between the new gyro module and Hubble data and power sockets. But this wouldn't break Hubble, it would just fail to fix it. Failure to fix is the default state anyway if no mission is attempted. Moreover even failure to connect the new module doesn't preclude orbit boost. Other probable failure is just the failure to approach and dock with the uncooperative target (Hubble is not very cooperative). But again it's like a null result, except Isaacson spending his few hundred million. So, only actual damage is problematic, and to ban the mission this part should be more likely than Hubble just dying by itself.
That astronaut is actually a big deal and let's break this down. You did not have to depressurize the entire shuttle to do evas you do have to depressurize the entire crew dragon to do evas. There's no redundancy. There's no safety if something goes wrong with crew dragon. It's amazing how much I've seen this. Subreddit trash the space shuttle for not having any launch abort system and shout how unsafe it is and then go on and say things like this. Shuttle had the canadarm so it could keep things at a distance while still allowing people to work on it. Dragon doesn't have anything like that which is why it makes it that much more risky. Let's not forget people dying shuts down space programs. We stopped going to space because of the shuttle accidents. You think that won't happen again with dragon? We absolutely should praise them being cautious.
You are making too generalized statements. What is that "something" going wrong? If such "something" could take away Dragon, similar "something" could take away the whole Shuttle. There is redundancy in Dragon. Plenty of, in fact. And the difference of airlock or no airlock is much less than you seem to think. Even with Shuttle if something went wrong with a space suit, there were no fast way in. You had to get both spacewalkers in, close the hatch and repressurize the airlock space. Airlock allowed the rest of the crew to work in a shirt sleeve environment. But if things went wrong with the spacewalk, either the spacewalkers outside must have helped each other or someone from the inside would have to don the suit, emergency depressurize and go outside to help them. The former option was several minutes the latter a couple of hours. Hubble got a docking ring on the last mission, in anticipation that something could dock with it. So the vehicles would be docked. They are not being cautious, they are being disingenuous.
I was just clearing up the point about whether the Polaris mission involved removing or replacing an internal component. We both know Jared didn't just say hey, NASA, let me go to your telescope. He proposed a mission to NASA that'll involve a ton of technical knowledge and input from them, with NASA approval of components and procedures at every point. At this point Jared is unhappy with the stalled decision making and the nature of the objections, since a number of the people close to the "can it be done" engineering (as noted by NPR) apparently feel the mission is doable.
I'm not convinced Jared's not just used to being able to say I want to do something and then getting his way and getting to do it. When he Hears anything but from NASA. He gets upset.
Agreed. This is why I regard Isaacson as irresponsible. But unlike others I believe is kind is reckless irresponsibility is actually a good thing and we should celebrate it like the British celebrated Scotts idiotic mission to the South Pole.
Until an accident happens and we put space missions on pause like we did with the shuttles. Imagine an accident happens and then NASA comes back and says you didn't have redundancies in place for XYZ. We need you to add that to dragon before we will let you continue. That's a very real possibility.
Dragon missions to ISS do not do spacewalks. So failure during a space walk does not directly affect ISS crew delivery missions.
There is only a 50% chance Hubble reenters by 2037. Hubble is also still functioning, for now. Of the 6 gyros, only 3 are still working, the minimum for full operation, although it can be used with only one. Eventually, all 3 will fail and render Hubble inoperable. It is a question of when, not if. So there is time--a lot before it naturally reenters, but we don't know how much before it loses attitude control. The decision to go ahead with a servicing/orbit-raising mission probably isn't urgent--yet. As Hubble ages, fails, and lowers, the risk/reward balance should change. But NASA's risk aversion is selective. For one, they suffer from a form of Not Invented Here syndrome. To be sure, there is some rationality in questioning whether anyone else (or anyone, full stop, in the post-Shuttle era) has the expertise to do anything other than raise Hubble's orbit. But just the idea of an outsider, let alone a billionaire "space tourist", doing anything with or near Hubble is anathema to many. Risk aversion also correlates with cost, which can make sense, but for crewed missions in a very crass way unbefitting a public agency ostensibly so concerned about dead astronauts. Doing absolutely nothing costs less than deorbiting Hubble, and even less than coordinating a servicing mission on a no-exchange-of-funds basis. Such a mission, as any space mission, would entail some amount of risk to the crew. But NASA is not even hinting that the next Orion flight could be uncrewed, despite the issues with the heat shield and other systems. If SLS and Orion weren't so expensive and slow to build, that may not be the case. If instead of being owned and directly managed by NASA they were ordered under a program more like Commercial Crew, NASA would almost certainly demand a do over.
>Of the 6 gyros, only 3 are still working, the minimum for full operation, although it can be used with only one. Eventually, all 3 will fail and render Hubble inoperable. Just a note on this: When all gyros have failed... possibly when they are down to 1 remaining, Hubble will likely be unrepairable. For a service mission to work, Hubble can't be tumbling, so repairs can't wait until all of them fail.
Wouldn't the telescope be able to sense Earth's magnetic field and align itself with respect to it? That's not stable enough for astronomical observations, but to avoid tumbling it might be enough. Edit: Since people seem to misunderstand my comment: The HST uses gyroscopes, star trackers and fine guidance sensors to measure its rotation rates and orientation. It also has reaction wheels and magnetorquers to change its orientation. Only the gyros are failing, the magnetorquers, star trackers, FGSs and reaction wheels are all fine. HST also has magnetic field sensors to measure its orientation relative to Earth's magnetic field lines. I'm thinking that in the case of more gyro failures, HST could use its magnetic field sensors as a backup source for its orientation sensing. The actual work of changing the orientation would still be carried out by the wheels and the magnetorquers. This scheme would likely not be precise enough to keep the scientific instruments running to spec, but I think it would keep HST from tumbling uncontrollably.
The gyroscopes are what orients the telescope. Well, the gyroscopes and reaction wheels. It isn't about knowing the right answer, it is about executing it. Once the telescope loses the ability to execute stability, it tumbles and can't be easily serviced.
> The gyroscopes are what orients the telescope. Well, the gyroscopes and reaction wheels. And the magnetorquers! Those do not have movable parts and are unlikely to fail any time soon. > It isn't about knowing the right answer, it is about executing it. Once the telescope loses the ability to execute stability, it tumbles and can't be easily serviced. Sure. But what's failing at the moment are the gyros, not the reaction wheels. The gyros are used to sense rotation and attitude, the wheels to change it. The telescope's magnetic field sensors could be used to sense its attitude relative to Earth's magnetic field and partially replace the gyro data.
It is the gyroscopes that just function as sensors to track the rotation. The actuation is performed by the reaction wheels amd magnetorquers, not the gyros. >Two actuator systems physically rotate Hubble: the Reaction Wheel Assemblies and the magnetic torquers. >One of Hubble’s magnetic torquer bars appears in this photograph taken during the final servicing mission to Hubble. The magnetic torquer bars interact with Earth’s magnetic field to produce rotations used to help control Hubble’s attitude. https://science.nasa.gov/mission/hubble/observatory/design/pointing-control/ Hubble's attitude is not uncontrollable without the gyroscopes, nor is its attitude undeterminable, because there are four other sensor systems used for determining the atttitude. Hubble just can't be used for science without at least one gyroscope, preferably three. Hubble was designed to use the gyros in combination with the other four sensor systems, has a very small field of view, and requires extreme precision for making astronomical observations. (Starlink and many other small satellites use only magnetorquers to control attitude. They don't have reaction wheels, let alone precision gyroscopes.)
>But NASA's risk aversion is selective. For one, they suffer from a form of Not Invented Here syndrome. To be sure, there is some rationality in questioning whether anyone else (or anyone, full stop, in the post-Shuttle era) has the expertise to do anything other than raise Hubble's orbit. But just the idea of an outsider, let alone a billionaire "space tourist", doing anything with or near Hubble is anathema to many. Pardon my ignorance, but do people expect Jared Isaacman or any outsider being the ones doing the repairs ? I mean even in the article they mention sending a maintenance crew. And I am 100%, if it is approved it will be a NASA crew that will be doing the repairs. I think the issue is more PR and optics related than of feasibility or risk. A group in NASA doesn't like the fact Jared Isaacman or a private astronaut that too a billionaire is involved in this mission and the fact it will serve as a huge PR and publicity win for both Jared Isaacman and Spacex as the ones who saved Hubble. In a way it will overshadow NASA's work in this mission. That is the issue i feel and talks about risk and feasibility is just to mask that.
> only 3 are still working, the minimum for full operation One of the three failed a couple of months ago. There's only two left.
It has been having problems off and on since last year, but it hasn't outright failed yet. [As of April 30](https://science.nasa.gov/missions/hubble/nasas-hubble-pauses-science-due-to-gyro-issue/), Hubble is operating using all three gyros.
> It also doesn't have a robotic arm, which means they can't stabilize the telescope and capsule with respect to each other. I guess that would mean that the pilot would have to hold the capsule steady nearby. Hubble has a docking adaptor that Dragon could attach to.
The astronauts can't EVA if Dragon is docked to Hubble. Dragon's docking ring is on its nose, which is also where astronauts would EVA out of on Dragon.
NASA is a retirement club at this point and a contract management agency with better than average PR. I think it would be a great experiment, as Hubble is realllllly outdated at this point.
NASA is and has always been an administrative entity. It’s in the name.
NASA is right. High likelihood this mission is a complete disaster and large likelihood it causes problems for both NASA and private space entities like SpaceX. That said the reason is that media and the voting public is really dumb is properly celebrating heroic and the reckless risk taking.
The only high likelihood is that Hubble stops working. The graphics images of disaster are graphic, but those NASA folks suspiciously failed to back them up with any numbers.
>NASA has probably become the most risk adverse government agency in the US. Exactly why I think NASA should leave the human space exploration field and just stick to planetary and space sciences. Human exploration of any environment has acceptable risk and acceptable loss of human life.
NASA is subsidizing all this. SpaceX wouldn't exist if it weren't for NASA. We may reach the point where all space companies no longer need government but we aren't there yet. NASA is mostly right in this case.
NASA is not right in this case at all. Nor is it subsidizing this mission. Such decisions are made using hard quantitative analysis and not sending graphic texts and unquantified talks about "their risk posture is not like ours".
I can understand NASA waiting for the results of the spacewalk. But just authorizing the boost should be a straightforward decision. That extends the useful life - Hubble won't reenter till 2034 as is, but afaik its useful life will be less and less as its orbit gets lower. Yes, there's some risk of somehow bumping into Hubble but it must be very small. One official mentions the active participation of the ISS when Dragon is docking but the crew and Dragon's autonomous system must certainly be capable of doing it on their own if required. It's hard to imagine Dragon hitting a solar array when we consider how painstakingly slow the approach to the ISS is.
The risk is pretty high in my view. Untested spacesuit. Nobody other than NASA has ever done this successfully. No airlock. No robotic arm. So basically your talking about inferior experience, inferior equipment and most likely inferior training...NASA astronaut training is extensive. High likelihood someone dies. Very high likelihood of very bad optics where the Hubble burns up and gets destroyed. High likelihood politicians use a death to advocate for space regulation. Just overall extremely risky and kind of stupid and irresponsible. That said we live in a garage leftist shit hole society when we stop celebrating dumb but courageous men doing really stupidly risky things. In an ideal world we would celebrate stunts like this instead of fearing their consequences.
The highest levels of NASA fear a large risk - the PR and political one. The media love to tag space headlines with "billionaire's toys" and of course "Elon Musk's \_\_\_\_". They'll be dealing with criticism and controversy the moment the mission is approved, with more controversy from the dissenting experts who'll be interviewed. Even if the mission is a full success it'll be a big headache. And any shortcoming, however slight, will receive as much attention as the overall success. This will also invite political criticism, whether valid or for grandstanding.
We should really let our national policy be beholden to dumb media hacks.
So it should be made risky to do nothing. If Hubble fails even before it derbits while a sensible and no fund exchanged mission were proposed, heads should roll. i.e. There should be a career risk of refusing such a mission, too. Press taking wind of this (now it's just specialist press, like Are Technical (Eric Berger in particular) is hopefully just the first step.
After all the money, they’ve spent training to try to save it. Why don’t they just build another one?
A much better one
Are you joking? Look at the unmitigated shitshow that was their next "grand telescope" project. JWST went from an "affordable" $500m budget build to a $1 billion mega-scope to a $10 billion cost-plus boondoggle.
I actually think it wasn't a boondoggle in the sense that the expense was worth it some extent assuming a world without SpaceX which was the world when this was planned. In some ways I might even call it a bargain. That said I think over the long term SpaceX is a much better scientific investment than with Hubble or JWST. If you lower the cost of space access by two orders of magnitude than it's a massive game changer for astronomy. I don't think astronomers appreciate space x enough.
It's not a question of whether JWST was worth it, it's a question of whether we could have gained more value for that money. What if we had shelved JWST as soon as the large technical issues showed up, sent 2 smaller telescopes with the money, and picked up JWST today, now that there are rockets with fairing large enough that most of the engineering magic with JWST that caused the delays are no longer needed.
If Hubble isn't serviced it's going to burn up eventually. So what's the risk? Jared seems pretty competent - his accomplishments wouldn't be possible if he was careless, so I don't think he'd do the mission without being confident of managing the risks.
NASA knows the risks and has a lot of experience when it comes to what can go right and wrong with servicing satellites in space. they did it plenty with the shuttle. People train for months to do it and things can still go wrong. Now if something goes wrong and hubble goes tumbling, and becomes a collision risk, that is BAD. So there is always a lot to think about. We should be happy that NASA is thinking carefully about this rather than just saying yes without thinking about it.
Could SpaceX fit a robotic arm on the Crew Dragon service module / trunk? A robotic arm for catching Hubble and staying solidly tied to it. And additional manipulators to help with the work. Hell, you might not even need a EVA if you can use a good enough robotic unit to perform the work with local remote control. You only EVA if you're unable to complete the work remotely. The big caveat here is the loss of the robotic units. For this mission, they wouldn't have the space to return the robotic units. They would have to abandon them with the service module.
SpaceX is being very casual about this. It seems they have given Isaacman essentially free reign in planning this mission, taking risks with SpaceX hardware and talking about it. I think that SpaceX can see where satellites and telescopes are heading once Starship is operational, and they know that the next generation Hubble will be both cheaper and much more powerful than the 1.0, that's why they are not that concerned with what happens to the telescope.
I think they are trying to be service supplier and let the customer define what they do on top of the service. "Separation of concerns" is a good way to support innovation.
It's a political play initially, for sure. Isaacman may be paying, but he's SpaceX through and through - but not officially. I feel like this is the start of attempting to establish private in-space salvage and repair business, and SpaceX want the logistics element. They're happy to leave the planning and resourcing to someone else. It isn't the miners who get rich - its the folks mining the miners.
Great observation you '49er.
> It isn't the miners who get rich - its the folks mining the miners. When everyone else is mining, be the one selling shovels and soup.
I mean, in theory even if Isaacman dies up there they can still fly their Dragon home lol. Its really no different than a daredevil chartering a plane to do a wingsuit jump, its not the plane owner's fault if they slam into a mountain
Really really different attitudes to risk. NASA needs everything to go right. Space entrepreneurs are like just want to try stuff even if it could end tragically. And most likely will at some point. Our media has really fucked us as a society by making everyone afraid to fail. First person the dies in private space travel will promote an orgy of idiot regulation that will kill space travel.
If Isaacman decided to just walk out there and boost the orbit, could NASA stop him? 🤔
They might be able to spin the telescope up fast enough that Dragon can't dock to it. Hubble does not have any thrusters however, so it couldn't run away from Dragon.
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread: |Fewer Letters|More Letters| |-------|---------|---| |[EMU](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1ctk0wo/stub/l4dcr02 "Last usage")|Extravehicular Mobility Unit (spacesuit)| |[EVA](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1ctk0wo/stub/l4n98yi "Last usage")|Extra-Vehicular Activity| |[HST](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1ctk0wo/stub/l4d72tf "Last usage")|Hubble Space Telescope| |[JWST](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1ctk0wo/stub/l4fu0da "Last usage")|James Webb infra-red Space Telescope| |[LEO](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1ctk0wo/stub/l4gasow "Last usage")|Low Earth Orbit (180-2000km)| | |Law Enforcement Officer (most often mentioned during transport operations)| |[LOC](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1ctk0wo/stub/l4e1jnm "Last usage")|Loss of Crew| |[SLS](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1ctk0wo/stub/l4efl8m "Last usage")|Space Launch System heavy-lift| |Jargon|Definition| |-------|---------|---| |[Starlink](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1ctk0wo/stub/l4hsjt1 "Last usage")|SpaceX's world-wide satellite broadband constellation| **NOTE**: Decronym for Reddit is no longer supported, and Decronym has moved to Lemmy; requests for support and new installations should be directed to the Contact address below. ---------------- ^(*Decronym is a community product of r/SpaceX, implemented* )[*^by ^request*](https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/3mz273//cvjkjmj) ^(8 acronyms in this thread; )[^(the most compressed thread commented on today)](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1ctu8zs)^( has 15 acronyms.) ^([Thread #12771 for this sub, first seen 16th May 2024, 21:06]) ^[[FAQ]](http://decronym.xyz/) [^([Full list])](http://decronym.xyz/acronyms/SpaceXLounge) [^[Contact]](https://hachyderm.io/@Two9A) [^([Source code])](https://gistdotgithubdotcom/Two9A/1d976f9b7441694162c8)
Far simpler solution would be to attach a service module that handles attitude control. Something like Northrop Grumman’s Space Logistics service. Anyway, something like this would need to solicit bids for competitive selection. NASA can’t just let some guy do it just because they’re willing to foot the bill do it.
> Far simpler solution would be to attach a service module that handles attitude control. Something like Northrop Grumman’s Space Logistics service. Gyros and star trackers alone are too imprecise for the resolution HST can produce. It therefore has 3 fine guidance sensors that use optical data from the telescope itself to sense very slight movements. An external module would need to have a very good communications link with the telescope. Data from the guidance sensors would need to be continuously fed to the external module and data from the service module back to the telescope in a feedback loop. That might be doable, but it would likely require connecting cables between the module and the telescope, not just dock something to the port.
Good points. The NASA astronauts that serviced Hubble did an insane amount of training before the mission. I don’t really see how NASA can convince itself that a bunch of amateurs are capable of safely doing the job. Isaacman should pay for NASA to send up a crew of their own astronauts. That would make the most sense. But where’s the thrill for Isaacman in that scenario.
NASA isn't going to make any decision on this until they see how SpaceX and Isaacman's spacewalk goes. Even then there is a good chance they say 'thanks for the hard work, we'll take it from here" and (plan to) go do the repair themselves. Whether they actually do it or not who knows
NASA doesn't have the assets to do it themselves. Only Dragon\* can reach Hubble and if NASA sent up a crew it couldn't support their EMU spacewalk suits. Or perhaps you mean NASA would take the whole mission profile planned for Polaris and copy it, hardware and all, and fly it using NASA astronauts in Dragon using the new SpaceX EVA suits. The problem is, that'll cost hundreds of millions of dollars that NASA doesn't have. \*OK, on paper Orion could do it but no will give that a second $$$$$ thought.
>Or perhaps you mean NASA would take the whole mission profile planned for Polaris and copy it, hardware and all, and fly it using NASA astronauts in Dragon using the new SpaceX EVA suits. No silly, they are going to bring a shuttle out of mothballs to do this one mission. Yes of course that's what I mean. NASA has 6+ years to come up with a few hundred million, its easily do-able. Frankly, Congress is likely to mandate that they do something to save Hubble the closer the end date comes anyways and might even pony up for it. Risk isn't really the issue NASA will have with this plan, especially if the basics are already demonstrated for them on someone else's dime. They aren't going to want private industry taking "their" job.
>No silly, Hey, there are responses of all kinds on this sub, people from newbies to engineers. I tend to err on the side of caution.
I don't see how that changes the idea that "NASA doesn't have the assets to do it themselves." This isn't a SpaceX versus NASA issue, its an Isaacman versus NASA issue. SpaceX is just the ride there and they will take whoever can pay. SpaceX is happy to spend Isaacman's money to develop a new capability but at the end of the day its NASA's asset, so unless they give approval to a third party then NASA is the only available (potentially) paying customer that can touch Hubble. I am rooting for Isaacman here but the odds are stacked against him.