The vast majority of people have heard of at least one of the big telescopes in space: the Hubble Space Telescope. Fewer have heard of the Chandra X-Ray Observatory although both are big contributors to our knowledge about what's out there.
Both of them, though, are old and showing their ages. Hubble was launched in 1990, although it wasn't fully functional until several years later when the corrective optics were added to compensate for the defects in the primary mirror. Chandra was launched in 1999. They're also the two most expensive NASA astrophysics missions to operate after the James Webb Space Telescope. NASA requested $93.3 million for Hubble and $68.7 million for Chandra in its fiscal year 2024 budget proposal, in line with past years’ budgets. Combined, they represent a little more than 10% of the fiscal year 2024 budget request for NASA astrophysics.
In an Oct. 13 presentation to the National Academies’ Committee on Astronomy and Astrophysics, Mark Clampin, director of NASA’s astrophysics division, said he was studying unspecified cuts in the operating budgets of the Chandra X-Ray Observatory and Hubble Space Telescope to preserve funding for other priorities in the division.
This is a result of Fiscal Year 24 budgets being capped (for non-defense discretionary spending) at 2023 levels and are only expected to allow a 1% increase for 2025. This puts Clampin in the position of deciding which missions to support at the desired levels and which to cap. Since these older observatories are in what's considered "extended operations," they're a natural place to start.
“Chandra has a number of issues right now. It’s becoming increasing difficult to operate,” he said. Insulation on the spacecraft’s exterior is degrading, warming the spacecraft and making operations increasing difficult.
“While Hubble doesn’t have those issues,” he added, “it has been operating for a long time and it is a large piece of the astrophysics budget.”
NASA has a procedure they follow called a “senior review” for satellites like these that are operating beyond their primary mission lifetimes but still pretty much doing good science. Clampin said he was planning two “mini senior reviews” for both telescopes, probably in May 2024 after the release of the fiscal year 2025 budget proposal. Both instruments went through a senior review in 2022 and were essentially exempted from being cut.
“Hubble and Chandra occupy the top tier given their immense, broad impact on astronomy,” the final report of the 2022 senior review stated. “Both missions are operating at extremely high efficiency, and although they are increasingly showing signs of age, both are likely to continue to generate world-class science throughout the next half decade, operating in concert with JWST as it begins its flagship role.”
Clampin said any savings from Chandra and Hubble would go to other astrophysics priorities. “What we are trying to do, though, is protect future missions and developing missions and international partnerships,” he said. That includes the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope, smaller Explorer-class astrophysics missions, and NASA’s role on missions led by other nations, such as ESA’s LISA gravitational-wave observatory and the Israeli Ultrasat ultraviolet observatory.
He said he also wanted to protect early work on the Habitable Worlds Observatory, the next flagship astrophysics mission after Roman slated to launch in the 2040s.
As of this report, all of this is preliminary information for the FY '24 budget and no decisions have been made on how much to cut from which instruments.
Stock photo of the Hubble Space Telescope on orbit. NASA image.
The Hubble (a reconfigured spy sat, of course) is... old.
ReplyDeleteSpaceX (well, Musk) has talked about a rescue mission to the Hubble. Using either Dragon and lots of spacewalks or just swallowing it in a Starship.
Wonder if he's considering doing the same with Chandra?
And I just saw an article talking about how Starship (and potentially New Glenn) would allow more robust, less weight-saving approaches to space telescope design. Something about being able to launch 100 tons (either a single big telescope or a smaller (but still big) telescope with a booster) kind of takes away the fussiness of having to pare down weight and come up with weird technological approaches, like the multi-sail insulation system on Webb.
Now if all the fed agencies would get out of SpaceX's way and let Starship fly....
Beans, I'm not sure that rescuing Chandra is such a good idea from a scientific/research standpoint. Per my other comment, I worked on a part of Chandra, and much of the technology and hardware dated to the 1980s. (I was at Kodak the first time from 1994 to late 1996). Chandra is aging, as all of us are, and I think that it should be allowed to retire in dignity when the time comes.
DeleteAround 1999, I worked as an UG designer on the proposed Interim Control Module at NRL, and even in that short a time frame the tech level had improved significantly(Kodak was hampered by budget constraints that the ICM didn't have; Terry and some others were brought in before I got there to try to salvage Kodak's portion).
Personally, I think that a new generation of telescopes per your paragraph about Starship would make a lot more sense. I'd also like to see faster design times on these observatories, as the technology is advancing so quickly.
By the time Webb was launched, a lot of the parts were considered obsolescent, and I was frankly shocked(and delighted!) that everything worked when it went active.
I completely agree with your last statement: "Let Starship Fly"!!!
The thing that first made me link to Casey Handmer's blog was that he had a handful of posts on how Starship changes everything. Imagine putting something 10x the size of anything that has been to Jupiter or Saturn in orbit around those planets. More and better instruments than ever before. It really is a necessary first step to spreading out into the Galaxy.
DeletePhysics (reality) is a bitch and that apparent speed limit of c is a big holdup, when it takes several years to get to any of the closest stars. It's not as big a barrier if you stay in our solar system.
Cool stories on Chandra, Plague Monk. Considering it has been working since '99 - 24 years - Kodak (and all) done good.
I think both telescopes should be retired and replaced with newer hardware.
I have a few more brief stories from my first time at Kodak, working on Chandra. Feel free to delete this if you find them boring...
DeleteOne of the designers, Karl H, was a fan of Spanish dirt bikes. He got injured in a dirt bike race, and had to have surgery. The doctor warned him not to go racing for two weeks afterwards, and he told all of us, including Terry S, that he would be good.
Monday night, Karl's giving a briefing to some NASA reps about the state of his 12 titanium blocks, his so-called "forever project, when the NASA people(and Terry) see blood running down his pant legs and pooling on the floor of the meeting room.
He had undergone the surgery, went racing the next day, and fell again. Terry didn't get angry; he simply told Karl that someone Karl despised would be taking over the blocks. Karl had to repeat the surgery.
Kodak gave us 6 weeks notice before laying us off. Glen G, who took over after Terry died, invited all of us on 2nd shift to come out and see what we had been working on for the last few years.
He pulled up to the building entrance in a heavily used, dilapidated school bus that "Mongrel" determined dated to the late 1940s. We rode in the bus to where the IAS was being assembled, and got to watch as the Kodak techs put the finishing touches on it before it went to the prime.
Mongrel, Fred, Karl, Wolfgang, a few others, and me got to see some of the drawings we created that were used in the build process. Karl got to see his enormous titanium block drawings, 12 "E" sheets crammed full of views, dimensions, and texts. Glen watched our expressions, and I think it is fair to say that all of us were higher than kites.
Okay, replace Hubble and Chandra with new hotness.
DeleteThen rescue them and bring them back and put them in a museum, the Smithsonian or at KSC, maybe Houston or Huntsville.
Maintain history while cleaning up the spaceways.
I worked as a contractor on the Image Acquisition System portion of Chandra(Kodak), and did most of the detail drawings for the insulation assemblies. Eventual degrading of these assemblies was forecast when the work was completed in 1996, but Kodak's engineers thought that it would last at least 10 years. They knew what they were doing, and I'm pleased that Chandra has held up so well.
ReplyDeleteI learned Unigraphics on the job there, working with some of the best people I've ever seen in a professional setting. This was especially true with my first Kodak supervisor, Terry S, who died far too soon and didn't live to see IAS completed.
NASA requested $93.3 million for Hubble
ReplyDeleteWe know they're not planning any missions to go out and touch the HST. So what's all the money for? Do they replace the ground systems every year? (Not that I would put that past the money wasters in charge.)
They are the new $800 hammers (handle not included) and $2,300 toilet seat.
DeleteMaintenance of the computers and programs that decipher what Hubble sends down, along with the employee salaries and such.
DeleteAnd, yes, maintenance of the ground systems. Of which a lot of stuff is still creeping along on old Apollo and early Shuttle systems hardwares. Think Arecibo, and that's the state of a lot of our telemetry systems. Old and broke, no money to replace so gotta spend twice as much on repairs.
This. I want to see the budget. Give them to a consortium of Universities.
DeleteNASA needs to redirect all that space telescope money into new hires to slow the competition from SpaceX. The last thing anybody in government wants is to build a cost-effective rocket, airplane, or ship.
ReplyDelete"Both missions are operating at extremely high efficiency"
ReplyDelete"NASA requested $93.3 million for Hubble and $68.7 million for Chandra"
That doesn't sound all that efficient to me
I worked as a Mfg Engr on 3 of the Hubble servicing missions, and on all of the optics that were fabricated in Danbury CT for Chandra (AXAF). Perhaps NASA should not have wasted all of their money on the latest moon shot and just used the proven SpaceX tech - much cheaper and infinitely more reliable .
ReplyDeleteOFAN
I wish they'd never gone for the SLS monstrosity, but it's more politics than anything else. TI don't think there has been a scheduled date or budget that SLS/Artemis has ever met. The thing that blows my mind is $146 million each for the RS-25 engines. Half a million pounds of thrust and the best of 1970s technology. Blue Origin's BE-4 engines are around the same thrust and the reports are ULA pays $20 million each for them. SpaceX's Raptor engine is the same power and their production goal is $1 million each.
DeleteWere you involved in the COSTAR mission that fixed the Hubble's primary mirror?
SpaceX's production goal for Raptors is less than $1mil for Vacuum and steerables, and around $200k (pre-Bidenomics) for non-steerable.
DeleteAs to the RS-25s, pretty good for an engine based on the J-2. And NASA looked at a dumbed-down version of the RS-25 and Aerojet could have provided a non-reuseable/throwawayable engine for about $12-15 million.
$146 for refurbished engines (we're not even given the price of new engines, those are refurbs)
Simply put, if NASA and Company would quit pissing money away on the SLS, the problem would disappear and we'd get to the moon sooner/faster/cheaper!
ReplyDeleteThe Space Race was not planned to be a jobs program and/or an opportunity for graft, but it sure is now!
Things HAVE to change, period.
Was not involved with COSTAR as that was another companies instrument. I was involved with the 3 servicing missions that changed out the Fine Guidance Sensors.
ReplyDeleteThanks. Just curious. As a telescope and mirror maker, I followed that as much as I could. I met one of the guys who had worked on it.
DeleteThanks for all you put into this page and the info you bring to all of us. Your efforts are greatly appreciated, and I have sent your link to several former workmates.
Delete