Why space repairs aren't easy

Posted: Friday, May 15, 2009 6:00 PM by Alan Boyle

NASA

Click for video: Perched on the end of the space shuttle Atlantis' robotic arm,
spacewalker Andrew Feustel works on the Hubble Space Telescope with his Pistol
Grip Tool tucked at his side like a sword. Click on the image for a larger
version, or click here for a video about the tools developed for the mission.

Stray rivets? Stuck bolts? Parts that don't quite fit? Sometimes it sounds as if fixing the Hubble Space Telescope is like trying to put a new headlight in my VW Beetle. OK, there are a couple of differences - like the fact that all this is happening in zero-G, where a stray rivet or a broken bolt could ruin a $10 billion investment.

The differences between space repairs and earthly repairs go a long way toward explaining why spacewalkers' tools have to be built from scratch rather than bought off the shelf, and why it takes seven hours or more to install parts that would take much less time on Earth.

The big reason doesn't have as much to do with the technology as it does with the fact that the help desk is a few hundred miles below. During this mission, the small cameras attached to the spacewalkers' helmets ("helmet-cams") have been instrumental for showing Mission Control how the job is going so that experts on the ground can offer timely advice. Nevertheless, nice and easy does it, particularly when you're wearing thick gloves that have been compared to oven mitts.

We've already seen several examples of typical fix-it troubles, writ large because of the space environment:

When veteran Hubble spacewalker John Grunsfeld opened his tool bag, a stray rivet started rising up in zero-G. Fortunately, Grunsfeld made a goalie grab and rescued the rivet. Just imagine the worries that bit of metal might have caused if it floated up and around Hubble's delicate instruments. (It could have been worse.)
Grunsfeld's partner, Drew Feustel, had lots of trouble freeing up Hubble's Wide Field and Planetary Camera 2 for removal. The bolt holding WFPC2 in place wouldn't budge: When Feustel pushed too hard, his power tool would engage a mechanism designed to avoid putting too much torque on the bolt. He got the go-ahead to override that mechanism, but he had to be careful not to push so hard that he broke the bolt. If that happened, WFPC2 would have to stay in the telescope, and its $130 million replacement camera would have to be sent back down to Earth unused. Fortunately, the bolt loosened up with a little extra elbow grease.
During today's spacewalk, one of the three replacement gyroscope units just wouldn't fit in its slot, no matter how hard the astronauts tried. (Maybe they tried too hard. At least that was the problem with my VW headlight.) Fortunately, Atlantis' crew packed along a spare refurbished unit that did the trick.
Throughout the spacewalks so far, astronauts had to deal with doors that were tricky to open and close (what do you expect when the doors haven't been used for seven years?), and tight spots that made it hard to use some of the custom-made tools (such as the "PikStik" gyro grabber).

More than 60 new tools were created for the Hubble mission, in part because the tools have to fit those bulky gloved hands. As I mentioned last fall, tool designers at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center brought an astronaut glove with them to the local hardware store so they could see what kinds of grips worked best for the Mini Power Tool they were making.

The Mini Power Tool is due to get its prime workout this weekend, when Atlantis' spacewalkers try to replace balky circuitry for the Hubble's Advanced Camera for Surveys and the Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph (STIS for short). That's an unprecedented repair job in space, and if it works, it would be a testament to the cleverness of the gearheads at Goddard and ATK.

Your typical power tool would never work in space - and not just because it's hard to hold the darn thing with your glove. The materials and mechanisms have to stand up to the rough environment in space, where temperatures can fluctuate by dozens of degrees in the course of just one orbit. Even the lubricants have to be different: Dry-film lubricants are used in place of the wet lubricants and oils used in earthly tools.

The outer-space power tool of choice, for Hubble as well as the international space station, is the Pistol Grip Tool - a hefty version of a cordless drill/screwdriver. That tool came into play quite a bit during today's replacement of the space telescope's gyroscopes and batteries. But it's too big for unscrewing the more than 100 screws that need to be taken out in order to fix STIS and the Advanced Camera for Surveys.

The Mini Power Tool is smaller, with a screwdriver bit that's sized just right to poke through the holes in specially designed plastic capture plates. The plates will be fitted over the access panels for the two instruments to be repaired, and catch all the screws before they float away. The tool is designed for speed rather than torque: With that many screws, you can't wait around and count the turns one by one, as spacewalkers have done during previous fix-up jobs. For the STIS repair job, one screw should be removed every 15 seconds on average (which adds up to almost a half-hour of solid unscrewing).

So what happens when the work is done? Will all those screws have to be screwed back in? Fortunately, no. STIS' original electronics access panel wasn't meant to be taken off easily, but spacewalkers should be able to clamp down the redesigned panel in a snap, just by throwing two levers. Chalk up another one for the gearheads.

EMAIL THIS

Comments

i agree mapes. that money would be better spent feeding 3rd-generation welfare recipients.

oneil, opelousas, louisiana (Sent Saturday, May 16, 2009 12:50 AM)

Many people look at what it costs to get a job done and not what we benefit from it. Thank goodness that we have people that are forward thinking enough to see what could be, by looking around and thinking “what if?” and making it happen. Countless times we must learn how not to do something before we can get it right!

Yes it costs money to do what has not been done before! Those who complain about how expensive it is have not created much themselves. You must understand everyone has to work with others to get anything done and everyone wants their piece of the action. This happens whether you are on Earth or in an extreme environment (space, underwater, living in Los Angeles - Phoenix - Hawaii or any other place where nature throws hazards – earthquakes – 100+ degrees – volcanoes – hurricanes - pollution – and so forth), so it is very difficult and expensive to accomplish. For what we spend, we earn back many times in value. What we learn in space we are able to apply here on the Earth!

Because we have gone to space we have looked back to Earth and said “O CRAP look what is happening to our planet!”!!!! A lot of what we know about what is wrong and what needs to be done can be traced back to what we have learned with the space program.

Keep up the good work and help find solutions to many problems that face mankind (and womankind, for those who think that we are not all in this together by whatever you want to call us) and life of every living creature and plant life on this shining jewel of a planet we call EARTH!

David Darling (Sent Saturday, May 16, 2009 12:52 AM)

The "replacement" for the Hubble is the James Webb Space Telescope. It's current budget is $3.5 billion. Replacement is in quotes because it is a different type of telescope, and will not actually orbit the earth, but rather orbit the sun at a point past the moon.

I've seen numbers of $300 million to $1 billion for the repair job.

Eric - NJ (Sent Saturday, May 16, 2009 12:57 AM)

OK millions of dollars for special tools seem extremely high, but in space there are no do overs or mulligans. Because of the technology provided by Nasa and engineers, we would not have a lot of the comforts we take for granted, remember this next time you use your cellphones, or flip on your satelite tv, go ahead and pick some of your favorite items and in some form they probably benifited from technology developed because of space and this includes propulsion technology. Without it we can become stagnant in the technology gains, although I don't see a need for rushing into manned missions to places such as Mars when it can be done by unmanned missions and only if the unmanned mission discovers something warranting manned exploration

G.Smith, Lubbock,Tx. (Sent Saturday, May 16, 2009 1:10 AM)

That is so cool…. making repairs on a telescope so we all can see beyond our reach, is technology as good as it gets?

Flying Mike SoCal (Sent Saturday, May 16, 2009 1:18 AM)

The manned space program doesn't need to be a waste, but it's been managed so poorly that it's been almost a waste. Think back to the hype over the ISS, then look what's happened. Some science gets done, but not nearly what was planned. Here we are almost ready to retire the shuttle fleet and we can't even put a full crew onto the ISS. By the time we'll be able to, we won't have a way to get there unless we hitch a ride with one of our old Cold War adversaries.

As for going elsewhere, the problems are more biological than technological. Our unmanned hardware can happily cruise for years, but astronauts get bored, cranky, sick, old, etc. The real problem, however, is the radiation. We can't fly enough shielding because it takes too much mass to do much good, but without it, the astronauts will not fare well. On the moon we can use rock for shielding, but not on the way to Mars. So far we've been lucky, but we won't be forever. Until we solve that problem, we aren't going anywhere, and there aren't any realistic solutions on the horizon. Arm-waving, yes. Real solutions, no.

As for the Hubble repair mission, can you imagine us designing a mission with so many problems and screw-ups that need to be fixed? If we're even going to low-Earth orbit, we need to be able to build, repair, and maintain things we put up and Hubble has been great training. Personally, I think Hubble (warts and all) has been well worth the cost. It was cheap compared to the ISS, and has produced more science than the ISS ever will. And that, IMO, is the bottom line. It isn't where you go, it's what you bring back that counts.

Bob J. Southern California (Sent Saturday, May 16, 2009 1:29 AM)

If an astronaut's space suit is compromised, such that it loses pressurization during any extravehicular event, his/her blood will boil within seconds, meaning certain death. Therefor, we all would do well to appreciate the great thought and engineering that goes into the design of ALL spacecraft and machinery. Before criticizing the cost of space exploration, we all should be more apprised of the real environment we ask our astronauts, as well as their tools, to endure. There's nothing easy about it. Just because it seems to be routine doesn't mean that it is; it's just that we've gotten used to the extreme competence of the individuals involved at every level of NASA. It's easy to point fingers at that which is so far removed from your reality. I do not, nor have I ever worked for NASA or any of its contractors.

Donald (Sent Saturday, May 16, 2009 1:32 AM)

why do we have PHD's as astronauts doing these repairs. We should be using regular folk like your next door plumber. We need crafts people up in space and not book nerds. Last i heard the people accompanying Columbus to the new world were criminals, misfits and regular people. The only academic was the priest

Doug Molina, Chicago, IL (Sent Saturday, May 16, 2009 1:34 AM)

Jon Mapes: <It would have been cheaper to replace the Hubble rather than repair with a manned mission.>

No, you're factually misinformed. Each servicing mission costs about 20% of Hubble's sunk costs. Given that Hubble was space junk until after the 1st servicing mission fixed its optics, its net cost was $3 billion at launch + 0.8 billion for the 1st fix, which is ~$5 billion after adjustment (still being debated). Thereafter, each new mission was ~$1 billion for parts + launch.

Servicing is also cheaper in time. To plan, train, and execute a servicing mission takes about a year. The build time for any special parts (like WFC3) probably fits into Shuttle's incredibly backlogged schedule. In contrast, to build a new scope from scratch is a 5-8 year job. That's what Hubble took, and we're doing that right now for James Webb.

<Jon Mapes: Face it folks, manned spaceflight is a titanic waste of money.>

No, it's a tiny expenditure of money. Heck, downtown Chicago spends about as much as all of NASA.

Hubble's total cost to date is ~$10 billion. Compare that to any big-city construction project.

- Boston's Big Dig cost 2.2 Hubbles. A Hubble would just about pay the $7 billion *interest* on the Big Dig.
- Seoul's subway system cost about a Hubble.
- Chicago O'Hare's runway expansion plan is half a Hubble ($6 billion). London Heathrow Terminal 5 cost about the same (L4.3 billion).
- Cowboys Stadium is a servicing mission ($1.3 billion). So are Meadowlands Stadium (1.4), Yankee Stadium (1.5), etc.
- Fort McPherson has an $0.6 billion payroll for ~6000 personnel. Multiply that by 5 for a bigger base, e.g. Fort Bragg ~30,000. That's a Hubble every 3 years, just for their salaries and pensions. We maintain a lot of forts.

Scrap Hubble completely, and you can have any one more of those things. Or maybe buy all-new stadia for the AFC North + AFC South.

<Jon Mapes: Spend the money on trying to clean up our home.> NASA's entire budget wouldn't be a drop in the bucket compared to, say, lower Manhattan. One billion dollars doesn't clean up much.

I think we're better off with one fewer citywork + all of Hubble's discoveries. (Maybe that's where Seattle's light rail system went! *boomp-chh*) A society has to spend a small % of its money on research, exploration, and wild-ass guesses. History has shown that that's where your next breakthrough comes from, which gives you game-changing technologies. The poor you will always have with you. (And Doomsday is just around the corner, repent! etc.)

Eric Wang, Suwon, Korea (Sent Saturday, May 16, 2009 1:36 AM)

CLEAN UP THE EARTH NOW & SLOW DOWN THE BREEDING!!!...UNSCREW SPACE...LIKE MAPES SAID...WE HAVE NOE WHERE TO GOE...

James G. Staples (Sent Saturday, May 16, 2009 1:50 AM)

we are born with a lack of knowledge but does not mean we have to turn to a class of morons. we left the caves looking for knowledge. the sky is still a search in that direction. the more we look the more we see that may some day save all of us an our future

we richard kershman (Sent Saturday, May 16, 2009 1:59 AM)

We are scheduled to send a manned mission to Mars by 2037 with the new Orion program.

George (Sent Saturday, May 16, 2009 2:00 AM)

I don't support government waste of money. So let's go after AIG for the $150B bailout, Fannie Mae for the $100B bailout, Freddie Mac for the $80B bailout and General Motors for the $14.5B bailout.

Repairing and improving Hubble, one of the most important scientific instruments of all time, cost less than 1% of what was given to already-rich executives. How's that for perspective?

Adam, College Station, TX (Sent Saturday, May 16, 2009 2:32 AM)

Just some of the benefits of the space program.. http://techtran.msfc.nasa.gov/at_home.html Doug from Chicago, are you kidding? They are all PHD's because they are experts at what they do. The fact that they took 8 years of college doesn't mean they can't be excellent at mechanics. If fact you can be certain they are among the cream of the crop. They wouldn't have the job if they weren't.

Dave Berlin NJ (Sent Saturday, May 16, 2009 2:49 AM)

People are right! It would be vastly cheaper to replace the Hubble with new high tech stuff- BUT- by remodeling the thing it costs three times moe and emplys many more aero space contractors who are paid very well! It is the NASA way friends as it is inthe defesnse dept! Spread the wealth man!!! Replacing it is to easy, cost productive etc! Just keep the pay rolls rolling and not mess the bloated fat laden system up... Now I have vented and at 2 am. can sleep,zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

vince vines (Sent Saturday, May 16, 2009 3:24 AM)

When one sees the video of American astronauts doing this kind of work, it's very uplifting, ( no pun intended ) It makes you wonder GM can't design a decent car anymore...

Aleksas Apynys, Vilnius, Lithuania (Sent Saturday, May 16, 2009 4:41 AM)

The economy is in the toilet and the government is worried about space. Does anyone else see a problem with this? As far as sending shuttles to Mars and other useless, worthless and extremely expensive ventures into space I think its time the government pulled the plug on NASA except the launching of satellites.
The space race is over and quite frankly who really cares if there was life on Mars or any other planet. If you cut the NASA program think of the billions of dollars the taxpayers would save by not creating usless space missions.

Jeff, Syracuse,NY (Sent Saturday, May 16, 2009 7:41 AM)

Here are some possible answers to questions posed by previous contributors.

Mark, Seattle WA (Sent Friday, May 15, 2009 8:09 PM)
Velcro and Mylar are not NASA inventions. Mylar is the same chemical as Dacron, Dupont tradenames for poly(ethylene terephthalte) film and fibers respectively. Both predate the space program. NASA didn't invent Tang either. Spin-offs are great, but they can't justify the primary mission. War also generates civilian spin-offs. Jet airplanes and nuclear power come to mind. A different goal would have produced a different set of useful products.

The original idea of having a repairable telescope was predicated on cheap shuttle flights to effect the repairs. That didn't happen. None of the other Great Observatories is repairable.

Charles, Willis MI (Sent Friday, May 15, 2009 10:32 PM)
The Web did come from a Big Science program, but it wasn't NASA. The basic idea came from CERN in Europe as a way for scientists to more conveniently exchange data.

Max Potosme, West Palm Beach, Fl (Sent Friday, May 15, 2009 11:26)
The shuttle and everything in its orbit is speeding along at roughly five miles per second relative to earth's surface. Earth is moving around the sun, the sun is orbiting the galaxy and the galaxy is moving relative to the cosmic microwave background. The only thing that matters to the astronauts repairing the telescope is their relative velocity. And that is ZERO.

Stephen, Edmonton, Alberta (Sent Friday, May 15, 2009 11:41 PM)
The reason we don't bring it back down to repair it is that the shuttle wasn't designed to LAND with such a heavy instrument in its cargo bay.

Our entire society is now geared to producing defective products at the lowest possible cost. What NASA procures is no exception. Until as a society we value competence again, expensive testing will be required to insure that mission critical devices work. And the tests don't always find the problems. Remember Hubble's initial flawed mirror and the antenna on Galileo that didn't deploy properly and reduced the data return by 99%.

Frank Weigert, Wilmington, DE (Sent Saturday, May 16, 2009 8:02 AM)

In everything you do in life there is going to be a cost. Fixing the hubble should be a plus since we will be informed of what is taking place outside of planet earth. I hope that mission will be accomplished.

Inola Barrett, Westmoreland,Ja (Sent Saturday, May 16, 2009 8:14 AM)

Apparently, doing repairs in space is worse than wearing oven mitts. The gloves are puffed up by the inside pressure, so the astronauts must work against the gloves. I am thinking of old dried up old leather padded ski gloves.

SpaceTas (Sent Saturday, May 16, 2009 8:35 AM)

Mr. Mapes has no imagination. Living in a world that only did the "prudent" would just make us [M]apes.

Chuck Staples (Sent Saturday, May 16, 2009 8:49 AM)

I lived in Czech Rep for 10 years and was fortunate to visit with Drew Feustel, when he came to visit wife's family. If the rest of the Astronauts are only 1/2 as nice as he is, NASA is in GREAT shape. My faith in "government" is partially restored.

Curtis Parham (Sent Saturday, May 16, 2009 8:55 AM)

new panel didn't fit ?? Must be the gearheads forgot to convert from English to Metric.... AGAIN !!!

Knotheads at NASA (Sent Saturday, May 16, 2009 9:10 AM)

Without space exploration we would never have spotted the growing hole in the ozone layer over antarctica. We would not have realized that freon gases were the cause of the destuction of our protective layer from radiation from space until it was to late. Yes space exploration has its place I only wish it were less expensive. The way were going with the space program now is redundent and depressing the space station is a total waste of resources that money would have been better spent on devising faster propulsion systems. I do like the hubble space telescope one of NASA finest accomplisments there is so much out there to be seen and discovered its a shame none of us will ever live long enough to see men landing on other planets after all its been nearly a hlf century since mankind allegedly set foot on the moon.

Frank Klepeiss (Sent Saturday, May 16, 2009 9:19 AM)

Most timely and excellent article Alan! I've been enjoying the show on NASA tv wathcing the astronauts do the repair work. While they move slowly it still is riveting to watch them use the power tool to unscrew and screw screws. Some great pictures of them doing the work and it is interesting as heck when they run into porblems and then have to figure out how to get around each new problem.

Space exploration is not a waste of money as the future of humanity will be to move out into space to find new habitable planets that aren't in our solar system. We'll need to colonize Mars to keep from being burned up when the sun expands a long time from now. Nope we're laying the groundwork now for humanity's future in space and we must make the investment now in order for future generations to build upon it.

Support Hubble!
Support Space Exploration!

Eric, Salinas, CA (Sent Saturday, May 16, 2009 9:25 AM)

Those of you hyped on manned space travel are pretty undereducated. There is an entire host of reasons--straight from NASA--why we can't go to Mars, reasons we cannot surmount with our current state of technology. Cosmic radiation, the mere psychology of humans in a space capsule for a year and a half, the inability to move heavy equipment into space, etc.

This world needs to come to peace before we venture out into space or we're just seeding the universe with war-like a**holes. We need money to fix the problems on Earth, not dig into space.

We have to become better people before we spread into space.

micheleisfree, New Port Richey, FL (Sent Saturday, May 16, 2009 9:38 AM)

Hubble is the most important instrument mankind has ever made. As far as space travel to another habitable planet, I doubt that will ever happen, even if mankind somehow finds a way to travel near the speed of light. Space is just so amazingly large. I am guessing it's at least a one-in-a-million shot that mankind could ever successfully find, travel to and inhabit another inhabitable planet than earth.

John (Sent Saturday, May 16, 2009 9:44 AM)

Without a sense of wonder humans can not evolve.Open your minds get out of your cave and explore the wonders of this vast universe we live in.The future belongs to those who seek knowledge instead of moneytary value.Open your minds and evolve into the future.

JR Spacewalker (Sent Saturday, May 16, 2009 10:03 AM)

When it comes to return on investment, perhaps we should be focusing on robotics for space exploration for some time to come.

The further from earth we travel, the longer the communications time-lag, the more we need machines that can make complex decisions on their own. The more hostile the environment it operates in, the tougher and more adaptable hardware has to be. Consider the challenge of developing machines and materials with the ability to repair themselves. Creating robots to explore Mars was a great achievment. Building robots that could explore Jupiter's moon Io, with its hundreds of active volcanos, or survive to travel over the surface of Venus - those are challenges of an entirely different order.

Surely the scientific and technological payback from developing such tools and testing them in space would justify the cost of the space program through earthly applications. And that's without even considering what we would learn about the what's out there.

Emphasis on robotic missions won't preclude eventual manned missions. But technology developed for robotic exploration will increase the value and decrease the risks of any manned missions. Using anything like current technology, manned exploration of solar real estate is limited to the Moon and maybe Mars. Robots can go where no man can go without getting squished, fried or flash frozen. Go R2D2.

Brendan, Coralville, IA (Sent Saturday, May 16, 2009 10:04 AM)

The critics of space exploration always talk about how many lives we could save here on earth with the (actually rather small) budgets expended and ask what is the point of going where no man has gone before. What is the point of endlessly staying in one place and fighting your neighbors for the dwindling resources of this planet? What was more imaginative and braver and wiser, the barely human ancestors that risked walking out of Africa or the ones that stayed safely in their cave waiting to become extinct in the next drought? Without giving them courage and hope what is the point of spending that money on the poor here on earth, for what purpose? Even some of the poorest people celebrated when one of their own kind walked on the moon for the first time, they felt instinctively that it was important to them. It was.

Tom Jones, Oklahoma City, OK (Sent Saturday, May 16, 2009 10:13 AM)

Hey, instead of having the fix it crew go to the craft, why not have the hubble brought down to the ISS and be worked on there at leisure? A simple space tug could bring the bad sattellitte down to it and a work station garage can be made to make repairs, easier than going to the Hubble

gary (Sent Saturday, May 16, 2009 10:23 AM)

I thought I read the hubble was to big to be retrieved from orbit. As far as space exploration I think that there is a good chance that man will discover an Earth-like planet and the means by which to travel there in the next few hundred years. Of course, this can only happen if our world can survive that long.

rob kerrigan daugherty (Sent Saturday, May 16, 2009 10:25 AM)

The reason NASA spends so much money is "THEY ARE A GOVERNMENT AGENCY". Period. Leave their work to a private enterprise and it will cost 20-30% of what the lavishly spend. Just wait until they start working on the replacement for the shuttle. It will cost 50-75% more than what they ask. NASA should have its budget cut and forced to be mindful with spending.

Charlie (Sent Saturday, May 16, 2009 10:36 AM)

Ten billion investment? Where's the return!
What's an astronaut's salary? Spacebus driver, mechanic, electronics tech, scientist, cross-country diaper wearing crybaby, just do the job as best you can and chop, chop, we need that investment return for the deficit.
Looking for an inhabitable planet, you're on one. Unless of course you're a polar bear on a strict diet of penguin stuck on an ice cube somewhere north of Gore's global summer sun warming retreat.
Secure those rivits on some duct tape will you!
Special tools, design the parts needing to be repaired with simpler methods.
How about sending hubble up after its second lease of service? It's already out there, can't it be projected outward easier from its present orbit? Scientists? Policemen on manhole cover watch soon to retire on disability? Anyone?
Great pictures Hubble, eye candy anyway if nothing else.

Drifty (Sent Saturday, May 16, 2009 10:38 AM)

The reference to the knob replacement at an exorbitant price is so true, but rewriting specs cost more than the part. It is a shame that government purchasing cannot be done on a common sense basis , without fear that some sleaze would exploit the lack of spending millions on specs to keep them honest.
Did you hear about the mailing tubes that cost a dollar each, but half that amount if in a toilet paper roll?

ken Kimball, West Springfield, MA (Sent Saturday, May 16, 2009 10:59 AM)

I know the first thing a lot of conservatives jump on is the expense issue. Someone said it would have been cheaper to build a brand new telescope than all of the money spent on repair missions, I'd like to see the source behind that before I believe it any more than the boogie man in the closet. As far as nasa's entire budget, isn't it somewhere between 2 and 5 billion dollars a year? How much money did we spend in a single day in Iraq at the height of the war on terror, I think it was 5 or 10 billion right? In a single day. You can't say Nasa is a waste of money with those figures. You must be crazy if you think it's a waste of money. Nasa does more with 1 billion in new technologies researched, new scientists inspired for the new generations, and the future of our country in general than the war in Iraq will ever do for us(at the current price tag the war has, anyway.)

Josh, MO (Sent Saturday, May 16, 2009 11:01 AM)

What is the best thing coming out of the hubble repair. Pride in our accomplishments in space. Feeding our desire for other planets to explore. Billions of $$$ spent on destroying the earth's atmosphere with all of the polution launching rockets into space. There is more pollution made in building and launching large rockets as the shuttle in one launch than the city of Denver pollutes in 5.4 years. So if we find another planet to live on will we destroy it as we are doing on our planet? We should use our knowledge to help our world before going elsewhere.

Roy Fritz. Butte, Mt (Sent Saturday, May 16, 2009 11:20 AM)

This dont make any sense at all look at this country people need work to feed there familes places to live !! I guess we need to take care of the Aliens first. Feed The Little Green Men

Johnny - WISE Va. (Sent Saturday, May 16, 2009 11:50 AM)

Wow! Pretty amazing how much conversation has been started by this topic. If anyone is still paying attention, I'd like to clarify a couple things. First of all, I an not against space exploration. I think it's great. However, after many years of following and supporting the space program, I have realized that "manned" exploration is not the way to go. There are no habitable planets within light years of us. Until we can overcome traveling at the speed of light or faster, we should spend NASA's budget on more affordable unmanned missions. Let's send all kinds of probes out to explore. I loved the Hubble and all the discoveries it's made, and I think the Mars rovers are an excellent example of cost effective exploration. What I object to is spending money to fix space toilets, at the cost of sending probes out. I'm not for cutting NASA's budget, just a shifting of priorities.

Jon Mapes (Sent Saturday, May 16, 2009 12:07 PM)

I've always been amazed at the astronomical cost of producing tools for use in space.How many people are put on the job to design a given power screwdriver for instance? and how much are those people paid for their ideas and gadgets? I would love to see an accounting for exactly who the checks are written payable to and what the payment is for.

Joe Papierz, Deerfield, FL (Sent Saturday, May 16, 2009 12:43 PM)

"Why Space Repairs Aren't Easy??? Your Kidding me right? Do you want to know why they aren't easy? BECAUSE ITS OUTER- F&*$ing- SPACE!!!! I will never go to outer space..."

Okay, you're off the ship. Next?

"...and no one reading this article will ever go to outer space..."

Do speak for yourself.

"Much less try to work on a spaceship in the middle of outer space."

Probably not. I'm sure that, just as with airliners and cruise ships, if I ever can, it'll be as a passenger, not crew, when the technology gets cheap enough. I don't have the engineering talent, maintenance won't be my responsibility.

"That why its hard... They are in SPACE!!!"

Shout all you want, but it's still important to specify exactly *why* some (not all) things are harder 'in space.' You cannot hope to make it easier before identifying the problems,

People do tough repair/maintenance jobs on oil platforms (IT'S IN THE MIDDLE OF THE OCEAN!), deep underwater (IT'S ON THE SEA FLOOR!), in the polar lattitudes (IT'S IN THE FRIGGIN' ARCTIC!) and elsewhere, every day.

Don't you understand that they do months of neutral buoyancy pre-mission practice, and learn from the experience of everyone since the first space walk? (including previous Hubble repairs/upgrades...this is the last one, but by no means the first one)

We all know it's tough. But only *you* seem to be surprised.

Frank Glover, Rochester, NY (Sent Saturday, May 16, 2009 2:29 PM)

"The economy is in the toilet and the government is worried about space. Does anyone else see a problem with this? As far as sending shuttles to Mars..."

The space shuttle cannot (and was never meant to) go beyond Low Earth Orbit.

"...and other useless, worthless and extremely expensive ventures into space I think its time the government pulled the plug on NASA except the launching of satellites."

Um, the Hubble Space telescope *is* a satellite. (And whenever it's in orbit, so is a shuttle orbiter)

"The space race is over...."

It was never *entirely* about beating the Soviets/Russians...

"...and quite frankly who really cares if there was life on Mars or any other planet."

(shrug) It's clear that you do not.

"If you cut the NASA program think of the billions of dollars the taxpayers would save by not creating usless space missions."

Yes, Six-tenths of one cent from each of my tax dollars might come back to me. I'll try not to spend it all in one place...

Frank Glover, Rochester, NY (Sent Saturday, May 16, 2009 2:37 PM)

One very interesting consequence of the space program in the late 1950s and '60s was the development and manufacture of the mass produced integrated circuit. While NASA didn't invent or first start utilizing the new devices, it did kick start the industry buy quantity buying and making economy of scale possible for their production. The space race one important factor in our current technological society.

Barry, Indpls (Sent Saturday, May 16, 2009 2:38 PM)

After reading the article, I found some of the posters seem to have missed the points (such as the gasket missing after 100 screws are put back in.... the article says they will have two clamps now). One of the points I do not see mentioned to the usefulness of space exploration is a study done on the atmosphere of mars being able to be turned into highly potent rocket fuel. This world is almost out of fossil fuels, if we were able to start a system of converting and transporting this fuel to earth or a orbiting station (a small production unit is already on mars) it would change our entire world. My own personal Thoughts about production of large energy producing solar panels combined with wireless power transfer not transform how we power everything not to mention being extremely "Green".

How can the advantages of expanded knowledge and possibilities that so directly relate to humanity as a whole not be one of our main goals? Perhaps people who can not understand these advantages should accept that others have a different perspective and abilities to do things that the arguers can not conceive.

To those that have not the capacity to make intelligent input or skill to add.... Please do not get in the way of those that have skills to achieve higher minded goals.

Larry Combs, Cincinnati, Ohio (Sent Saturday, May 16, 2009 2:41 PM)

"Hey, instead of having the fix it crew go to the craft, why not have the hubble brought down to the ISS and be worked on there at leisure? A simple space tug could bring the bad sattellitte down to it and a work station garage can be made to make repairs, easier than going to the Hubble"

There's no large pressurized enclosure at ISS. Even if you went to all that trouble, you'd *still* have to work on it in vacuum, in the open, in spacesuits.

Though the idea of doing other kinds of orbital assembly/repair at a space station is perfectly sound, but you must design all that in from the beginning. That you can do *any* work on Hubble attests to the fact that it was designed with orbital maintenance in mind and the Shuttle or something like it, would be available to get them there with replacement parts (though there were some portions of HST it was assumed that astronauts would *never* have to get to...that, clearly was incorrect, yet they're handling it)

Frank Glover, Rochester, NY (Sent Saturday, May 16, 2009 2:48 PM)

It was once stated that the "world is flat" but there were those inquisitive minds that sought answers and truth. In the context of time, it wasn't very long ago that some were executed for such blasphemy.

Without the imagination, inspiration, determination, ingenuity and fundings from private investors, royalty, and government, explorers such as Christopher Columbus, Ferdinand de Magellan, and Marco Polo would have never been able to share their insightful adventures. Consider the consequences if such people had not been given the opportunity. We teach these rich experiences to our children for a reason.

Even today, there are still those who lack imagination and condemn others for attempting to explore the unknown. Imagine if we gave in to such thoughtless ramble, what a boring existence it would be.

I look forward to learning what unknown wonders will be discovered as I'm sure many others do.

Robo - Camano Island, Wa (Sent Saturday, May 16, 2009 2:53 PM)

There are those who say the Hubble repair is a political stunt only and that the telescope should have been replaced because it's cheaper than sending men into space. I say "not so!" We cannot go backwwards because others are not. The Chinese are planning a maned moon landing. The future is and always will be manned space flight with robots "helping out" only.

Ed Herrington, Atlanta, GA (Sent Saturday, May 16, 2009 3:09 PM)

"Neanderthals of the previous administration?" The Previous administration planned this mission. And approved this administration. The Obama Administration would rather run GM than help NASA.

Brian P Fussmucker (Sent Saturday, May 16, 2009 3:40 PM)

Frank Glover: what a volley ! "People do tough repair/maintenance jobs on oil platforms (IT'S IN THE MIDDLE OF THE OCEAN!), deep underwater (IT'S ON THE SEA FLOOR!), in the polar lattitudes (IT'S IN THE FRIGGIN' ARCTIC!) and elsewhere, every day."

LMAO !

I see that all wasn't perfect on the HST afterall. Things did get out of alignment and got stuck. Luckily it was worked through. I hope it's a perfect mission when all is said and done.

Thomas Ashby, Calgary (Sent Saturday, May 16, 2009 3:45 PM)

Hello Mr. Billy Bob: I think I understand your point about magnets; why not just use magnets to round up all the loose screws? Because, I believe (correct me), the screws used in space hardware would be made of Titanium, and therefore not magnetic...so, they have think up some other way.
As for the million dollar power tools, I'm thinking that's chicken feed. Back in the mid 80's, Gillette spent (if memory serves me) about 300 million bucks to develop the new Sensor razor--much of that went to developing high-speed welding lasers that would join small blades to very small springs, on a high-speed assembly line. But the Sensor was a commercial success, even though (after inflation) it would cost at least a billion now. Essentially, they created a new manufacturing capability, and we all benefit with having cool, inexpensive gadgets that do things that nothing else ever did before. The same for NASA's investment, which is our tax money: we're paying a lot of development costs, and generally private industry receives the new technology without having to compensate the government. But we all benefit anyway; Black and Decker (for example) will be able to sell us new tools in a couple years that do things that tools never did before, at ANY price. Do you like living in a high civilization? Me too; we just have to pay for it.
I think the cost of a single shuttle mission is about half a billion bucks; the cost of replacement of the Hubble (after inflation) could run, say, 5 billion--and we get about 5 more years of usable life(and greatly increased capabilities) from this one mission. So, I think it's worth it.
When I was in grade school (the sixties), the books in our library only had a few sentences of information about, for example, the planet Neptune. That's all that was known about it at the time. Now there's a great deal of information, because we bit the bullet, bought the hardware, and made some new knowledge. How unfortunate it would be, if that investment hadn't been made? If you want more knowledge, you have to pay for it.

Ron Shevuah, Seattle, Wa. (Sent Saturday, May 16, 2009 4:35 PM)

<< Previous

Next >>

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=1934029

More Cosmic Log

Recent Posts:

Archives:

Categories:

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

Add Cosmic Log to your news reader:

ABOUT COSMIC LOG