Why not bring the Hubble back to Earth?
Rich
one of the most productive pieces of scientific gear back, in a museum
once it is decommissioned rather than burned up and dumped into the
Pacific ocean. It is certainly a far more important (for history)
task than sending countless missions to the money-sucking, "results
not-oriented" ISS.
Sam Wormley
Is not the cost more tha one billion dollars?
Chris L Peterson
wrote:
Sure it would be "nice". But getting it back would be really expensive,
it would be dangerous, and would provide nothing but sentimental value.
It makes no sense.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
Quadibloc
> Sure it would be "nice". But getting it back would be really expensive,
> it would be dangerous, and would provide nothing but sentimental value.
> It makes no sense.
Yes, bringing it back to Earth is little better than letting it burn
up on re-entry. Now, if a small rocket booster could be dispatched to
it, to bring it to dock with the ISS, then it would at least still be
in orbit, and later it could be put to good use again.
John Savard
Bob Lablaw
"Quadibloc" <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:a1fff8c9-4877-42b6...@h14g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
lal_truckee
While the Hubble was launched by the shuttle and fits in the bay, the
dynamic loads on re-entry are undoubtedly different than launch loads.
I'd be very surprised if the shuttle could safely re-enter and land with
the Hubble aboard.
Anyway, if the intention is to preserve the Hubble as a science museum,
it's current environment is far superior.
Chris L Peterson
wrote:
>While the Hubble was launched by the shuttle and fits in the bay, the
>dynamic loads on re-entry are undoubtedly different than launch loads.
>I'd be very surprised if the shuttle could safely re-enter and land with
>the Hubble aboard.
That was my first thought, as well. A little research revealed that
while the payload would be above the preferred landing weight, it isn't
above the design limit. The shuttle never takes more up than it can land
with, because it needs to be able to abort in an emergency.
Martin Brown
> Ya. picture that... the ISS with it's own observatory.
Part of the reason the ISS is useless for astronomical imaging is that
it flexes too much and the space around it is fairly dirty.
I think it will basically have run out of things to do and any new scope
would be designed differently to allow robotic maintenance.
There is presently a NASA competition running to redesign astronauts
gloves to permit better fine motor control. Humans are not that great
when working in a clumsy pressure suit.
Regards,
Martin Brown
Quadibloc
> While the Hubble was launched by the shuttle and fits in the bay, the
> dynamic loads on re-entry are undoubtedly different than launch loads.
> I'd be very surprised if the shuttle could safely re-enter and land with
> the Hubble aboard.
It's true that the Hubble is heavier than the LDEF, for example, but
if that was an issue, Spacelab would have been a problem as well, I
would think.
John Savard
Sjouke Burry
With no maintenance burnup will occur automatically because of
atmospheric drag.
That even goes for the ISS, which gets an occasional boost from a
visiting craft, so even keeping hubble at the ISS will need
occasional fuel.
Quadibloc
wrote:
> With no maintenance burnup will occur automatically because of
> atmospheric drag.
True, they would have to boost it into a higher orbit for it to be
safely in space permanently.
John Savard
Bob Lablaw
"Quadibloc" <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:37d7c4b7-63ca-4519...@o9g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
wsne...@hotmail.com
IIRC, the original concept was that the space telescope would/could be
periodically brought back for repairs and returned to orbit. That was
back when it was thought that Shuttle missions would be cheap. But a
special mission to retrieve the HST now seems dangerous and frivolous,
even if not outrageously expensive in the grand scheme. Cars-for-
Clunkers cost $3,000,000,000 and accomplished nothing. The HST might
at least generate some revenue from museum-goers. Right now we should
just save the money.
Quadibloc
> Can they just send it to the moon?
That would require landing it gently, which would again be excess
effort.
John Savard
SkyGuide
(I posted the following in the forums on Astronomy.FM,
http://astronomy.fm/forum/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=300 , more comments
relevant to the items discussed in this thread follow)
The original plan for retiring the Hubble was to place it back in the
Shuttle cargo bay and bring it home to a place of honor in the
Smithsonian.
Then, we had two Shuttles die.
Problem #1: The Hubble is HUGE. It absolutely fills the cargo bay to
capacity, in both size and mass. If we had a Columbia-type problem on
a returning Shuttle (but with less damage, perhaps; something that is
on the edge of survivability) then the added mass may be what pushes
the mission over the edge of disaster. Even if everything on the
returning Shuttle was nominal, the added mass increases the risk of
the de-orbit flight profile. Is a way-cool museum piece worth risking
lives?
Problem #2: The Hubble has been extensively modified over the years.
After five servicing missions there is concern that Hubble may no
longer fit in the cargo bay, and may now be too heavy to bring back
home...
Problem #3: And the clincher, of course, is that we have only 6 more
Shuttle flights until the fleet is slated to be mothballed. (Proviso -
The current administration is reviewing the future of Human
spaceflight, so right now nothing is certain.) Those 6 flights are
fully booked, and because of the pending Shuttle retirement we have
already started to shut down the manufacturing base that would be
needed to continue flights. Further, if we decide to extend the
Shuttle, then the Ares program (the Shuttle replacement) will be
delayed. As is, we face a five-year gap between the Shuttle retirement
and the return to Human spaceflight with Ares. [NOTE ADDED FOR SAA -
We are now down to only 5 Shuttle flights; the above comments were
written a few months ago.]
The Likely Outcome: On the last Hubble repair mission (flown earlier
this year) a new docking mechanism was attached to the 'scope. This
will allow NASA and ESA (don't forget, ESA are Hubble partners, too)
to send up a robotic "tugboat" to the Hubble at some point in the
future. Then we have a decision... We could either safely de-orbit the
Hubble, to splash somewhere in the remote Pacific, or perhaps we could
boost the Hubble's orbit to an altitude where it will be stable for
millennia. Then, perhaps a dozen decades from now, more capable
spacecraft could retrieve Hubble and bring her back home. (I'm sure
that the Smithsonian will keep a spot open for her!)
(And new comment added for SAA) You can't move the Hubble to the
ISS. You just can't; not in any practical sense. The Hubble and the
ISS are in vastly different orbits - ISS is much more inclined to the
equator, and is MUCH lower. The delta V to make such a move would be
huge, and most would argue that the ISS would be a worse location than
where Hubble is located now (thruster contamination getting on the
optics, decaying orbit, less FOV being closer to Earth, etc.).
And rocket with sufficient thrust to take Hubble to the ISS, would
have enough oomph to take Hubble just about anywhere in Earth orbit.
And, as for sending Hubble to the Moon - why? Perhaps I missing
something, but I don't see the advantage.
Thanks! ~Michael
Astronomy.FM
PS- Tonight on AFM*Radio (Astronomy.FM Radio) Dr. Guy Consolmagno,
S.J., will talk about asteroid structure, in a presentation called
"Are Asteroids Fluffy?" The program starts at 02:00 UTC (9pm US
Eastern), and repeats two hours later.
Rich
@news.eternal-september.org:
Not really. It's like what envirokooks do with nature preserves, ban all
people from them, so no one has access or can see them, same as the Hubble
in space. But if they could orbit it so it wouldn't fall back, then
perhaps in 50 years retrieving it would be easier? Personally, I'd rather
see it continue to be used, but I don't see these new rockets being
amenable to any repair missions like the Shuttle was.
wsne...@hotmail.com
> lal_truckee <lal_truc...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:hed669$ted$1
As SkyGuide pointed out, the Shuttle will not be flying after next
year. There won't be a way to bring HST back, so better to leave it
in orbit and continue to use it for as long as possible, especially
since it was recently refurbished.