Nasa's most dangerous ever shuttle mission to fix Hubble Telescope due to blast off

Source: Daily Mail (UK)

Nasa's most dangerous ever shuttle mission to fix Hubble Telescope due to blast off

By Jacqui Goddard
Last updated at 10:48 PM on 10th May 2009

Nasa is set to dispatch seven astronauts on its most dangerous ever shuttle mission as it attempts to rescue the $7 billion Hubble Space Telescope from meltdown.

Led by former US Navy fighter pilot Scott Altman, 49, a one-time stunt flier for actor Tom Cruise in the film Top Gun, the crew of Atlantis will repair and upgrade the orbiting observatory, risking a potentially deadly space-junk collision that could leave them stranded 350 miles above Earth.

The mission, which is costing Nasa $1.4 billion and is due to blast off from Florida tomorrow, is considered so perilous that it was once cancelled by space agency chiefs who feared that it could cost the astronauts their lives.

It was resurrected only after they agreed to place a second shuttle and crew on emergency standby, ready to blast into space to save their colleagues should a catastrophe occur. The move is unprecedented in the 28-year history of the shuttle fleet.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1180135/Nasas-dangerous-shuttle-mission-fix-Hubble-Telescope-blast-off.html?ITO=1490

---

My thoughts and prayers are with our brave astronauts.

:shrug:

There is no way for them to abandon the shuttle and use the space station as a life boat. Also, there is no one that can observe if the shuttle incurred any damage to the heat tiles, as they currently do prior to docking with the space station.

So that's not new.

And the shuttle's quite able to be checked for damage on its own that way. The article's just blowing FUD.

If the shuttle is damaged then a second shuttle will be launched to rescue the first one. This rescue mission will at least as risky as the first one.

So, we are going to place two shuttles and their crews in jeopardy?

advancement are not without their risks.

Like in the movie Marooned.

Their spacecraft are sturdier, anyway. Look at all the crap that happened on the Mir. Anyone of those mishaps would have destroyed the ISS.

bushmeister0

The Russians have some robust and sturdier spacecrafts that for sure.. But I really don't believe that the current russian spacecraft have the same ability as the US counterpart have... After Buran was "canceled" in 1991-92 the russians have had no counterpart to the US Shuttle...

But it is pretty correct to say that the russians have the ability to work out many things, that would have destroyed the ISS many times over... Just the fire who hit MIR on the older days would have wrecked ISS I guess... But then MIR was overdue by almost a decade.. MIR was build to last 6, maybe 7 year, and was twice the age when she finally was "going down".. 17 year, that is a old bird when i came to space... Specially when the country who put it up there vanished into thin air, and the other country Russia was broke, and couldn't even get the men stranded there down for a year and a half... Must have been troublesome to be there, and you know the country you once waw a proud member of, was going to hell, and the new Russia was more or less broke them too....

But anyway the russian space program survived and are still there - even it be on a mutch slower pace than the old soviet program.. And as some have told it, the russian program have been living on fumes for good how know, and need some new spacecraft themself.. It is not just the Space Shuttle who are beginning to be old - the russian counterparts have 40 year on their behind... Even that the systems are durable and in working order.. But the funds nessesary to make new space veicles have not coming easy...

And in some year, even NASA have problems as the Space Shuttle are on their way out... A marble when new, but now beginning to be old. And it is maybe more easy to build new ones than to modernize and to fix the old ones... And I would be sure that both Boeing and Locheed Martin would be more than happy to build new ones, if orders was coming.. Even modernize the whole thing to a new one.

Diclotican

The Russians will certainly be taking our astronauts to the ISS once the shuttles are mothballed next year, for the next five years or so, though. Yikes!

adrenaline. Especially if it is about rescuing your own people.

as a mountain rescuer and IRaq vet, I can attest to both.

the article is bullshit. Yes there is an enhanced risk, but still minimal. The NASA is right in taking precautions just in case, but the risk that it goes wrong are only slightly above the "normal risk".

"The Mail takes an anti-EU, anti-mass-immigration, anti-abortion view, based upon "traditional values", and is pro-capitalism and pro-monarchy, as well as, in some cases, advocating stricter punishments for crime. It also often calls for lower levels of taxation. The paper is generally critical of the BBC, which it argues is biased to the left."

wikipedia

it represents all the prejudices of populist conservative Britain, which includes even basic anti-americanism.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/main/index.html


I am directly across state from it and in the flight pattern...and will sit on the beach and watch it.

Good luck and god speed to these wonderful flyers!! Return safely to us!!

fly

i like the night launches best though..

I saw the one going up to look for extra terrestrials ..and i thought it was a jumbo jet on fire..it looked like it was coming right at me on my porch!! A giant ball of fire!!

You will enjoy it over there..but they usually stop you on the roadway ..unless you have a pass..

Enjoy it..i still get a huge thrill over each launch..i wish i could be in it..

I guess that is the flight crew in me..i love being aloft!!

We had dinner one night years ago in Vail with Jim Irwin..my son was 12..when we walked out of our hotel to go to dinner ..there was a huge full moon..and it looked like you could touch it..Jim leaned down to my son and pointed to the moon and he said.."BEEN THERE DONE THAT!!!"

It was the first time i ever heard that phrase.

JIM IS GONE NOW,he is missed.. BUT I HAVE WONDERFUL PICTURES OF HE AND MY SON TOGETHER.

He was a lovely man.

Have fun at the Cape..it still is a thrill!!

fly:hi:

Hubble's last fix-it mission is also its riskiest


The shuttle Atlantis, left, is set to lift off from Cape Canaveral, Fla., on
Monday. On a nearby launch pad, Endeavor is on standby to rescue the Atlantis
crew if trouble arises.


The grand telescope's fifth and final repair expedition will involve five spacewalks and extended exposure in a debris-filled region. NASA will take extra precautions to protect the shuttle crew.

By John Johnson Jr.
May 10, 2009

After 19 years of service, during which time it has provided the most eye-popping images ever of galaxies, nebulae and, most recently, of a planet orbiting an alien star, the Hubble Space Telescope is suffering the pains of old age. It's unsteady, with only half its gyroscopes working, and several of its key science instruments are broken.

To restore the ailing telescope to its former glory, NASA on Monday is set to launch the fifth and final repair mission to the orbiting telescope.

The Hubble mission is unusually risky, even by space travel standards, involving five spacewalks and extended time in the debris-riddled layer above Earth, where even a small collision with space junk could render the shuttle useless. The vulnerability of the shuttle fleet to small bits of flotsam was tragically demonstrated by the destruction of the shuttle Columbia in 2003, which was hit during liftoff by a piece of foam insulation from the external fuel tank. The searing heat of reentry widened the hole on the left wing and destroyed the orbiter as it attempted to land in Florida.

Top NASA officials say they will do everything they can to ensure the safety of the crew of the shuttle Atlantis, including flying the orbiter upside down and backward to minimize the danger of being struck by space debris and having a second shuttle on the launchpad in case a rescue mission must be mounted.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-sci-hubble10-2009may10,0,1172894.story

of course they say that the mission is riskier. But don't present it the way the DM does.

compare with :

"Nasa's most dangerous ever shuttle mission"

and the Daily Mail is still a rag, so the least publicity they get, the better

Americans like capital letters better than Brits do.

I doubt that they use Pm for Prime Minister. Or Bbc. At least they don't at the BBC.

If it is really an acronym (i.e., if it is pronounced as a word), then the Brits will usually spell it with only the first letter capitalized (e.g., Nato, Nasa).

PM and BBC are initialisms, not acronyms.

IndianaGreen

Every space mission are dangerous.. And I would be very sure that NASA have doing everything in their power, to make this mission as safe as human possible... I for one are still amazed that it is posible to put humans to space, and back safe.. And I haveen following the Space Shuttle since the early 1980s... (Even that I was young then, and might not have been sure about all of the shuttle lunches).. My first "paper" in 1 grade was about the space shuttle.. Two pages, not bad for one who had just learned to write I would say:evilgrin: And now the Space Shuttle program are on their last leg - or at least on one of their last leg.. Admasing how long it have been.. I hope NASA are not wrecing them when the program is over.. The Space Shuttle system was far before their time..

Diclotican

Better Believe It

True, I wish them well on their yourney out in space.. And a safe return to Earth when the work is finish... And I hope that the Space Program as sutch would be there for a long time.. We, all humans need to explore and to go where no man have been going before...

Diclotican

.
.
.

Not that the USA would put weapons in space or anything - -

OR turn the Hubble into another spy satellite for Earth.

USA DOES have a reputation for wanting to dominate,

not just the Globe methinks

the Galaxy . . . ? ?

hmmmmm

:freak:

Obama will fix it, more should be sent into the space industry

our economy off the ropes first, Got to stop the bleeding, clear the airway, and comfort the victim.

Good leadership at NASA is worth a lot of dollars.

Jeeez...

After Columbia broke up during reentry, NASA cancelled a scheduled repair mission to Hubble.

...because for this flight, they've addressed some of the issues with external tank foam loss that were revealed because of the Columbia incident.

Just because we didn't know about these dangers before 2003, doesn't mean they didn't exist.

doing that alone has to cost several million. They wouldn't do it if there wasn't a real danger. This will be interesting.

I remember the last time they rehabbed the Hubble. The pictures of them working were spectacular.

It is only now that they realize that the tiles can really fall off due to launch debris that they REALIZE that it is a "DANGEROUS" mission. I think that when they didn't KNOW that the tiles might actually get damaged by launch foam falling off the external tank, these missions were way more dangerous - they're lucky history.

I think the chances of a launch accident are about 1 in 50 with the shuttle... despite the precautions taken. It was a huge mistake to put the shuttle itself beside it's first stage rather than above it. I wouldn't fly the damn thing!

Space station is too far away, on a lower orbit than Hubble. This is why NASA has a second shuttle on standby.

...are they just planning to be floating around until the other shuttle can get there? :shrug:

It was exactly like that all the other times the shuttle serviced the Hubble, or engaged in risky satellite rescue missions, or flew any mission when there was no space station to ditch at or a spare shuttle wasn't on the pad.

Then the Columbia bought it, and NASA decided such things were dangerous. Then NASA held the Hubble maintenance mission hostage for more funding, and apparently got it. Now it's still dangerous, but it's going to be done, just like all the other times it was done, when it wasn't dangerous but really was and was dangerous but really wasn't.

Simple, no?

Which is what they were thinking of doing this time around.

and several launched with the the station - before 2003.

The reason they can not get to the station is not because it is in a "lower orbit" though it is. It is usually fairly easy to drop to a lower orbit - thought the details of the Rendezvous might be tricky. The problem is the orbital inclination of the space station is far too high because it needs to pass over the Russian launch site - the Hubble doesn't.

As I understand it - though I don't know how true this was in the past - they say they are concerned about space junk in the higher orbit of the Hubble. Actually, that seems unlikely to me. I don't believe the space junk problem would be greater there but perhaps I'm thinking about the time before the collision that happened a few months ago. Anyway, I'm not entirely satisfied with NASA's explanations here but I'm too lazy to actually read up on there reasoning. Anybody follow this?

I might consider risking my life for the Hubble..

in one of those charter or fundamental parochial schools.

Anyone with any brain knows it should be NASA not Nasa.

(Not criticizing you IndianaGreen. I checked the original article and they have it as Nasa at the UK newspaper.]

the shuttle to fend off space junk that is travelling and 10s of thousands of miles an hour. And we all know how they need all tiles upon reentry. I hope all who volunteered get medals cause it is just a crazy scary mission.