Saving Hubble - Worth the Risk?

NASA has finally approved a final service mission to keep the space telescope Hubble in orbit until 2013 until it is replaced by a new, more advanced space telescope. Many wonder though, what makes the telescope so special, and why take such a risk to save it?

Hubble is no doubt one of NASA's greatest achievements. It was designed to be one of the most powerful telescopes made, and it would be operated remotely in orbit, high above Earths distorting atmosphere, allowing it to snap photos of Galaxies and black holes with clarity unrivaled by any on Earths surface. It's made incredible breakthroughs and discoveries, with the expansion of the universe just being one of them. It nearly was abandoned just weeks after it was put in orbit, but some of the best minds in science came together and three years later a shuttle was sent up to give Hubble a pair of "glasses". The mission was a success and Hubble has been a great contributor to how we look at our universe.

Unfortunately, Hubble wasn't designed to operate forever, and it was known that it would need servicing every few years. Unlike most large telescopes on Earth, you can't just walk up to it and get to work. It requires months of planning and training for a shuttle mission, and it very costly. Until 2003 when Columbia was lost on reentry because of damage to its tile heat shield, NASA and the general public thought that risk was negligible. The loss of another shuttle cast doubt on Hubble's future as repairs could only be made in person, and scientists began debating Hubble's fate.

Meanwhile, the telescopes batteries were dying, and its gyro stabilizers were failing one by one. With out help, it would only last until 2010, and would be rendered useless. It couldn't be completely abandoned because its Orbit would soon decay sending it plunging towards the earth, and an unknown landing, possibly in a populated area. This left two options. Another mission to repair or retrieve Hubble, or bring it down in a controlled descent into an ocean much like the Space Station MIR was.

Finally NASA Administration Sean O'Keefe decided that a manned mission to Hubble was too risky, and that it would have to be brought down by a robotic mission. Its fate was sealed, as NASA was preparing the Shuttle for its return to flight. Then O'Keefe stepped down, and was replaced by a new administrator who headed up the return to flight. The Shuttles made three successful flights before it was decided that a mission would have acceptable risk, and NASA announced they would be going back to refit Hubble in 2008.

The Shuttles primary use since Columbia is to finish building the International Space Station before its retirement in 2010. Since it has only been traveling to ISS, if there was an emergency, it could stay docked with the station until a rescue mission could be put together, or repairs made. With a repair mission to Hubble, the Shuttle is too far away to make it to ISS, and would have no "Safe Harbor". NASA will address the problem by storing up to 25 days worth of food and water, and will have another Shuttle on the pad incase it was needed to rescue the crew. NASA has implemented many new procedures in identifying damage to the shuttles tiles, as well as repairing them, so the risk for a Hubble mission compared to a trip to the ISS will be similar.

Any mission in the Space Shuttle will be risky. Even after two decades in service, it is still the most complicated machine built by man. It is built from over two billion parts, can as we learned from Challenger; just one failing can mean disaster. It's still considered an experimental vehicle, but with the improvements made in the past few years it should be able to get to Hubble and back home safely.