One off the satellites where apparently already dead and would not respond to commands when they got it mounted on the rocket.
But they launched it anyway.
But they launched it anyway.
We have better than half a century where space launch was so expensive, and so rare, that this had an impact on the payloads themselves. Perversely it caused the payloads to become so highly engineered (for a variety of reasons) that they also became ultra-expensive in-line with the launch vehicle and launch opportunity cost.
This also created a negative feedback loop that because the payload was expensive, the launch vehicle had to be extra reliable and thus cost more.
Think of the entire lifetime program expense (R&D, launch, repair, etc.) for the Hubble program, billions upon billions of dollars to basically put a large 1 MP sensor at the end of a tube with a digital radio for communications.
What would happen if this program cost went into hundred of launches, every month, for decades? We could launch not only an equivalent, but technologically improving payload every month? Why not make the device cheaper? Experiment a bit? Who cares if one fails? Maybe launch 2, 3, 4 at a time? Have constellations of Hubbles spread throughout the system? What if Hubble was 300 telescopes with massive 20MP sensors clustered into a distributed virtual telescope the size of the orbit of Mars?
When the launch costs, and cadence drop so low, it doesn't really matter if your satellite doesn't work because you didn't spend 15 years of R&D, and a billion dollars putting up as technologically "perfect" a device as possible, you fab another one, maybe with better parts, and put it up next month instead and write-off the couple hundred thousand as cost of doing business. It's all still cheaper than the alternative.
Smallsats were a kind of way to try to squeeze costs down by simply cutting capability, size, and power. But the cost of a smallsat in orbit was still dominated by the cost of the launch. What if you could launch a fully capable space platform (not a compromised small sat) for less than the cost of a shared-ride smallsat.
With the tonnage going up comes more capability as a by-product. The ISS took over 40 flights to get ultra expensive space hab parts into orbit. A SpaceX Starship might be able to life equivalent mass in 5 launches, at a fraction of the cost. What if, instead of one space station every 20 years, we get two per year?
We have no idea what's about to happen in the next decade.
That's such a gross over-simplification of what the Hubble platform is and what it is capable of that it annoys me.
First, there are _six_ scientific sensor packages on the Hubble craft. These have been swapped out and upgraded several times during its life with a process that allowed us to bring the failed instruments back to surface and study them.
Second, it's not just scientific instruments.. the Hubble is one of the few satellites to have a fine guidance system, that allows it to lock onto and then _track_ with extreme precision exceptionally distant objects. The newer JWST is the only other telescope with similar capabilities.
This system has also been upgraded during the several servicing missions that were a planned part of the entire mission, which is another reason the initial costs were so high. This is an exceptionally advanced program to launch one of the most advanced scientific instruments we created up to that point.
Finally, I think it's also worth pointing out that Hubble was launched into orbit over 29 years ago and it's still working.. which is incredibly impressive considering it has to transit between Earth's shadow and direct sunlight every 47 minutes.
This thing is as _far_ from "a 1MP sensor at the end of a can attached to a radio" as you can possibly get. By the way, we could have made it larger.. but congress wanted to keep the price under $100 million. (Or about $201 million in Today's dollars).
> We could launch not only an equivalent, but technologically improving payload every month?
If all you're doing is making phone calls and routing packets, sure. If you're trying to do legitimate astrophysical science it seems almost an entirely worthless attribute.
> We have no idea what's about to happen in the next decade.
I think your reasoning is exactly backwards. We only launched highly specific and purpose built scientific instruments because it was the only thing _worth_ doing with our previous limited and highly government subsidized launch activities.
There was simply no way to commercialize those launches, and now that we entering an era where you easily can see long term value in them, you're simply going to see typical commercial activities and value realization behavior when they utilize this destination. It's absurdly predictable.
We know today that the Hubble instrument cost about $4.7 billion, and lifetime costs as of 2010 are around $10 billion [1] which doesn't appear to have included launch costs (1 initial launch and I believe 5 servicing missions) which at around $450 million per launch is quite a bill of around $2.7 billion in total program launch costs.
One might try to make the argument that shuttle missions involved multiple mission objectives for each launch (and thus the total cost shouldn't be borne by the HST alone). However, HST servicing missions were designed around the shuttle, making it mandatory for the servicing mission and thus the entire cost is a minimum regardless of other shuttle duties.
For example, STS-61, the mission to repair the HST (plus a few other odds and ends) required one of the most complex mission profiles in history. I can't find solid figures on how much the mission cost, but I'm guessing it was on the order of around $1 billion dollars, launch costs included. I think it could be argued that such a complex mission was worth the cost in terms of maybe crew and mission planning experience, but my central argument is, in a cheap launch future, such a mission (and all servicing missions) would be entirely pointless -- which not only would be cheaper, but allow more advanced sensing packages to be put up over time with less of a risk to the lives of the astronaut crews.
Suppose Falcon-9 Heavy technology existed when the Hubble was launched. Here might be a take on an entirely different program:
1 - Separate satellites for each orthogonal sensing package. Say maybe, 1x FOC/FOS, 1x GHRS/HRS, 1x HSP, and 1x WFPC. So a constellation of 4 satellites to start with.
2 - Let's build all missions off of a single designed "things in a can" platform so we can realize cheaper costs over time. Let's assume an expected life-span of 4 years (the time between STS-61 and STS-82). So we can reduce the per device cost from $4.7 billion/per to probably something more in line with reality. Maybe $250 million/per so we can at least gold plate it a bit, but keep it within the original budget per instrument.
3 - Launch mass of the original HST was about 11.1 metric tonnes. Since we're getting rid of stuff, we can shave that down to probably <11 tonnes per satellite.
4 - A F9Heavy can shove 63,800 kg to LEO, which is about where the HST sits (with periodic reboosts during servicing missions). That means we can put the entire constellation up in one launch with room to spare.
5 - So no we're now in program year 5 and total cost (minus ground station and staff and such) is $1.09 billion. Even with a complete failure of one of the satellites, the replacement cost is $300 million ($250 for another satellite + $50 for an F9 launch). At 5 years in, with an equivalent optics failure as the HST, we're at $1.39 billion for a program of greater capability and one failed device.
6 - Over the years, the HST servicing missions added the ACS, COS, NICMOS, STIS, and the WFPC2 and WFC3 instruments. The COSTAR was never needed, and never needed to be replaced by the COS. That's two servicing missions that never had to happen at all! We've just shaved off almost another billion dollars from the program. For that cost, we can almost repeat the entire first launch and shove another 4 satellites of the the same capability in the air. So we do that and we're extend the life of the HSP and the WFPC missions beyond what actually happened and we're at a total cost of around $2.5 billion.
7 - We go ahead and do two more F9Heavy launches to clear out the mission backlog and now we have 14 satellites conducting mission, in orbit, for almost exactly the cost of just the original HST device, and no lives risked on servicing missions. With the remaining funds, we can deorbit failed satellites, engineer better/different sensing packages, and put another 14 satellites in orbit. Hell, there's enough spare launch capacity in the flight plan to put a couple JWSTs, CXOs, and roadsters up as well.
8 - We don't know what Starship launch costs might be, but they could significantly expand these kinds of mission profiles. Musk's crazy claim is $2 million per, and could shove maybe 6-8 HST-class satellites up in one go.
9 - For $2 million per launch, why the hell are we putting up $250 million dollar devices? Why not get crazy, set up an assembly line for "things in a can" space sensing devices and crank them out at $500,000 per can and radio setup with a "bring your own sensor" policy? Who the fuck cares if the STIS mission didn't pan out? Deorbit the sucker and put two more up next month!
At the scale of nation states and large corporations, it means space platforms become as disposable as they de facto actually are.
[1] https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/499224main_JWST-ICRP_Report-FINAL.p...
https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1193687615528042496
And in this case, if dead, the satellite will be used as a science experiment
There is an annoying interstitial ad, but the URL really says it all. From March 21, 2019.
They say the first 75 have iron thruster parts and steel reaction wheels which can survive reentry, but that in subsequent builds no parts will come down with lethal energy.
My guess is that they did a cost benefit analysis of doing this, and realized it was worth more to them to launch a dead satellite and verify it deorbits as planned than it was to miss a launch deadline, take apart the stack, fix the bum satellite, reintegrate the stack, put it back on the rocket, and schedule a new launch date.
The satellite's cheap - that's literally the point. Verifying failure modes with NASA and the USAF? Now that's expensive. It's worth more as a science experiment than a time sink.
There could be some systematic failure that affects them all, and just this was the first to fail. If the rest fail over the next 2 weeks, that will be a big goof.
PS: besides, who said they don't know the reason?
SpaceX is going for vast scale with this project. Failures up to and including the loss of a launch vehicle can't derail the rest of it.