Boost Hubble to a mothball orbit

[spacester]

Can someone please tell me why we can't change the objective for Hubble's fate?<br /><br />Unserviced, it will keep working for some period of time and then cease to be able to produce Science, correct?<br /><br />It appears that the cheap s.o.b.s aren't going to pony up to service the thing, correct?<br /><br />It will decay into an uncontrolled and dangerous re-entry if we do nothing, correct?<br /><br />So why is the something we're planning to do have to be destroying it?<br /><br />Why can't the measure we take to make it safe also make it continue to exist?<br /><br />I agree that it belongs in a museum. But I also say that this museum should be on the surface of the moon. I'm not kidding.<br /><br />Can someone please tell me why we cannot put Hubble into a high parking orbit out of everybody's way and where it will stay for at least 50 years?<br /><br />Later, after we get established on the moon, Hubble can be retrieved and brought to its final resting place.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[wvbraun]

"Can someone please tell me why we cannot put Hubble into a high parking orbit out of everybody's way and where it will stay for at least 50 years?" <br /><br />Good question. I refuse to believe that this option might simply have been overlooked...

 

[bobvanx]

Sure it just delays the problem.<br /><br />That's what we are after! Mothball it in a parking orbit, and later go get it and put it in the First Lunar Museum. I personally believe that such a museum is likely to exist in 100 years. A parking orbit of as much as 1000 years doesn't take a very big motor to get to.

 

[no_way]

Some people have proposed crashing the thing into lunar polar region, like they did with Lunar Prospector, hoping for a clear sign of water this time.<br /><br />I'd guess the delta-V requirements would be prohibitive .. berpahs ion propulsion would help ?

 

[spacester]

Why crash it? Keep it intact, mothball it.<br /><br />Mothballing is not a new idea. Ever been to Bremerton Washington?<br /><br />I guess I should do a deltaV calculation. I need some data.<br /><br />Does anybody know the exact current mass of HST? How about the estimated mass of the currently planned deorbit module?<br /><br />How high of an orbit should we put it? Is very high LEO (~1200 km) good enough? Completely above the VanAllen belt? (um, ~3000 km IIRC)<br /><br />Given the time and effort, I betcha we could sketch out a mothballing module completely within current technology. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spayss]

Boost it to put it in a museum. If it was 'free' then I'd agree but the money has to come out of the NASA dollar basket. What mission would you cut to pay for a boost and then futuree recovery?

 

[najab]

><i>What mission would you cut to pay for a boost and then futuree recovery?</i><p>The boost would essentially be free. They <b>have</b> to add a de-orbit module, the reboost module would just be the same module with larger propellant tanks. Depending on the hight of the graveyard orbit the recovery could be in 10, 100 or even 1 000 years. One would hope that in that future time, launch costs will be lowered to the point of being inconsequential. The only question is whether our future selves would even care enough about HST to bother putting it in a museum.</p>

 

[bobvanx]

>>whether our future selves would even care enough about HST<br /><br />Judging from my steam-train loving friends, I'd have to say that enough people would. These guys get rabid over restoring steam engines!<br /><br />HST numbers: Mass: 10,863 kg. Perigee: 590 km. Apogee: 596 km. Inclination: 28.5 deg.

 

[steve82]

Shades of Skylab! Back in '78-'79 when I was a young pup we were working on the TRS aka Teleoperator Retreival System. It was to be a remotely-controlled upper stage to be carried up in the shuttle payload bay then guided telerobotically by the shuttle astronauts using CCTV monitors to a rendezvous with the end docking cone of Skylab whence it could be used to boost/deboost the lab. Alas, Skylab had other plans and it's descent was hastened by a hot upper atmosphere due to higher than expected solar activity. Delays in the Shuttle program first launch made the whole plan untenable. I remember it was interesting looking at the different proposals-Martin's looked like it had a lot of Viking hardware. I wonder if some of these concepts will be resusitated for the HRV.

 

[teije]

Layman's question:<br /><br />can a progress derived vehicle be used for a mothball mission?<br />It's got proven robotic docking technology (although it would need a very different docking system.)<br />It's perfectly capable of raising orbits of attached huge hardware<br />It's capable of multiple engine firings<br />It's for sale<br />It's relatively cheap.<br /><br />I am undoubtedly overlooking something very obvious, buth that's why I'm asking. <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><br /><br />Thanx adv.<br />Teije

 

[mikejz]

I'm almost certain that it can't reach HST from its launch site in Russia.

 

[teije]

Too much plane change?<br /><br />******...<br /><br />Launch it from Kourou in 2007?

 

[mikejz]

Maybe. Of course that inbetweent the lose of functionality and its eventual reentry that HST could be left in the 'public domain' Free to the first person/company/or goverment to claim her.

 

[CalliArcale]

It'd pretty much have to launch from KSC, right?<br /><br />The main problem with getting Progress to dock with Hubble is that there is no mechanism for it to do so. Progress relies on Soyuz docking equipment on the target vehicle. Hubble has no such equipment. What it <i>does</i> have is an RMS grapple fixture and I believe some sort of interface for mounting it onto a framework in the Shuttle's payload bay (which would be on the aft end of the Hubble). That's basically what you've got to work with.<br /><br />I think refitting a Progress to mate to Hubble would not be worth the expense, because Progress is not the most efficient vehicle for the job. It's more than just a propulsion system; it's also got a pressurized forward compartment which normally gets loaded down with equipment and supplies to upload onto the ISS. That's all wasted mass on a Hubble mission. The useful part is the service module (which it has in common with the Soyuz). This would have to be adapted to mate with Hubble. Deleting the pressurized modules of the Progress <i>might</i> save enough mass to get Progress to Hubble, although that would burn up much of the propellant you need for moving Hubble. Refitting KSC for Soyuz is really not practical in the short term, so you're looking at modifying Progress to fit on, say, a Delta IV or Atlas V. That's probably enough modification that you're not really saving a whole of money compared to just building the propulsion module from scratch. Sometimes reuse isn't the most efficient solution. That's not to say that concepts can't be reused; I have no doubts that the finished module will bear some resemblance to a Progress service module simply because there are really only so many ways to acheive the goal. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[teije]

Hmmm... pity.<br /><br />Well, like I said, it was a layman's question. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />So how 'difficult' would it be to fit a Delta II/IV or Atlas V with an adapter for a beefed up progress that consists basically of an enlarged service module, a grappling hook, and some good optics for robotic manoevring? (I know, that doesn't even remotely look like a standard progress anymore.)<br /><br />Difficult here to be read in terms of WAG's about millions of $. <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" />

 

[bobvanx]

Or even, since TMA-1 has the crew cabin, go ahead and have a manned mission! Replace a gyro unit, since those only mass a dozen kilos. We've got about 3 years to prepare for such a mission, plenty of time to rehearse!<br /><br />The Russians charge US $20m for a flight on their spacecraft. Triple it, add another $50m for training, add another $50m for hardware modifications, and we've got a mission to save Hubble for about $200m.<br /><br />Sell Hubble on Ebay. Let ESA buy it from us.

 

[erioladastra]

<br />A mothball orbit doesn't really make much sense. While it may not be in danger of reentering and hurting people for a while, you will still have degradation over time thus creating yet another source of space debris. It will never be cost effective to reservice it at that point so that option is not practical. And I don't see any vehicle on the horizon that would be safe and cost effective to return it to earth to put on display.

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Or even, since TMA-1 has the crew cabin, go ahead and have a manned mission! Replace a gyro unit, since those only mass a dozen kilos. We've got about 3 years to prepare for such a mission, plenty of time to rehearse!<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Well, you still have the problem of getting Soyuz to Hubble. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> But if it could be done (say, by building an adapter to put it on a Delta IV or something), then you'd have to work out some way of docking it to Hubble, first of all. That's the same hardware you'd have to build for a deorbit module, though, so it shouldn't be impossible. Then you mate Soyuz to Hubble, so your astronauts aren't in danger of drifting off and getting lost.<br /><br />I think you've still got the insurmountable problem here of trying to carry up enough equipment to make it worth the trip. If you carry the stuff up on Soyuz, you can't bring up anything that can't pass through the hatch of Soyuz. (And that brings up another question; while you're docked to Hubble, presumably through the forward end of Soyuz, blocking the forward hatch, how do you egress for your spacewalk? Can you egress through the descent module hatch? Otherwise you're looking at bigger mods to get the Soyuz to dock at right angles to its long axis, which may not be trivial.) I'm not sure how big the gyros are, but some of the equipment I've seen installed during Shuttle missions in past have been way too big to fit through a Soyuz hatch.<br /><br />It's cool to think about, though. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[mikejz]

I don't agree. It is common that major telescopes have been used for 50-70 years. Afterall, Hubble still has plenty of good 'guts' and a Mirror that might come in handy for something. <br /><br />A better question to be asked: Seeing that Hubble is reported to be based arond the same design as some spy satellites--what does the NRO do in the same situation?

 

[teije]

Another wild idea.<br /><br />(One of) the problem(s) with Hubble right now is that it's hard to reach because it's so high up right?<br />Another is that it will eventually come down and that this has to be controlled to prevent accidents right?<br />Ok, so what's the problem of waiting a couple of years (dunno how many) till the orbit has decayed to 300k or so and there will no longer be a problem to get to it?<br /><br />You can then choose to boost it to it's original orbit, a higher orbit or send it to burn itself in the atmosphere.<br /><br />I'm sure there's an excellent reason again why it wouldn't work. (There always is...) I just haven't figured it out yet. <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" />

 

[mikejz]

I really am wondering more now about how the NRO deals with these issues of there ground-looking Hubbles. Its kind of stange that no one brings that up.

 

[najab]

><i>I really am wondering more now about how the NRO deals with these issues of there ground-looking Hubbles.</i><p>The NRO, as part of the DoD, has no worries about finance. They don't have to 'save' 20-year old assets since they have a nearly unlimited budget to procure the latest and greatest technology.</p>

 

[mikejz]

Its more about how they avoid having these huge spy satellites reenter

 

[najab]

They do re-enter sometimes. However, if they are anything like the Russian satellites they have self-destruct mechanisms to break them up as they enter so that little survives to be recovered on the ground. I know about the Russian system since on at least on occasion it operated inadvertently while the satellite was still on-orbit.<p>Other than that, I would assume that they use their orbital manouvering systems to boost themselves into higher storage orbits.</p>

 

[averygoodspirit]

Mikejz:<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> I really am wondering more now about how the NRO deals with these issues of there ground-looking Hubbles. Its kind of stange that no one brings that up. <br /><br /><font color="white"> It’s a secret. You’re not suppose to know anything about that.<br /></font></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>