Boost Hubble to a mothball orbit

[erioladastra]

"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 />True - but that is because they can have daily/weekly/yearly maintainence. The big one - resurfacing the mirror - can't be done on Hubble. In addition there is a limit to how much retro fit you can do with HST.

 

[bushuser]

I have previously advocated boosting Hubble to a much higher orbit, even lunar orbit. The comment about NRO spy satellites and self-destruct made me wonder...if NASA refuses to boost Hubble or service Hubble, couldn't we just wait for it to descend to about 100 mile altitude, then send an unmanned mission to attach and blow the thing into smaller, harmless pieces? Or does the vacuum of space render explosives inadequate?<br /><br />PS--I'd really rather see it properly serviced.

 

[mikejz]

At least I hope they take a shot of Mercury right before it goes out.

 

[scottb50]

Or maybe it could be put up to the highest bidder. Shuttle repair and refit mission and boost to higher, long term orbit included.<br /><br />How much science could be done and could it be funded?<br /><br />Either way it sounds like we have a few years to decide, and Hubble seems to be working pretty good, so why panic?<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[rogers_buck]

Point it at the sun and let it vaporize itself with a rotating off axis image.After the tube is burned off, set the spinning and reenter it over Mexico City. They'll finally get a real flying saucer.

 

[spacester]

erioladastra:<font color="yellow">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.</font><br /><br />Thank you for your thoughtful response. In the following presentation, “for a while” would be in the hundreds of years. So space debris police will look to every other culprit before they look to Hubble. If we don’t have the capability to deal with it within hundreds of years, so be it. We’re talking about mothballing, not pretending it can be serviced, that’s what the experts say, right? I also see the return of HST to Earth as a big task. But if we become Spacefaring, who are we to say it will <i>never</i> happen? My proposal is to put it in a high orbit and take it from there to the surface of the moon for display. Something Lunar residents and visitors will have access to but that Earthers won’t.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">>>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.<br /></font><br />Thanks, newsartist, najab and bobvanx. You guys get it.<br /><br />Like I said, I betcha we could sketch out a mothballing module completely within current technology. If we admit that we do not currently have a vehicle to do the job (not enough dV margin and a total lack of grappling capability), we then must look to existing technology to synthesize a new vehicle. <br /><br />A Delta IV Medium+ (5.2) launch can put a 13600 kg payloa <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[teije]

spacester: <font color="yellow"> I’ll spare you an even longer post. But come on folks, this is doable, honest. <br /><br />Why can’t we change the objective? <br /><br />Mothball it! Don’t just throw it away! </font><br /><br />Spacester, you don't have to convince me (or most people here I guess...) it all sounds plausible enough. But then again, I'm not enough of an expert to really be the judge of that.<br />The people that have to be convinced are the people holding the money. No money, no mission. That simple.<br /><br />However, as was already stated somewhere in this post. A mission has to be launched anyway to deorbit Hubble. This means that 3 of your projected 6 engines and all the grappling equipment necessary are already planned somewhere. So, actually the only extra thing on a mission to a mothball orbit are 3 SRB's. That can't be that expensive....<br /><br />Another question. What are the main materials used in hubble? Would it be possible to manoeuver within a few centimeters and then turn on a big electromagnet to capture the thing? As soon as you've magnetically locked use a clamp of some kind and then you can turn of your magnet again.<br />How realistic is this idea?<br /><br />thanks again<br />Teije

 

[spacester]

I'm sure we would want a mechanical hard dock before we go pushing it around. Magnets could help with the initial contact, though. The Shuttle achieved a hard dock, why can't our mothballing robot?<br /><br />***<br /><br />So then is it safe to assume that no one sees any serious reason why HST cannot be mothballed other than that no one has thought of it before? <br /><br />Are we going to let HST pass into oblivion simply due to NIH syndrome?<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nacnud]

No once the batteries die the thermal control system dies and so does any use for the Hubble it will never be able to be revived once it gets cold.<br /><br />I think the solution could be to send one expensive robot to dock with the HST add de-orbiting thrusters a stabilization package, a batter package and most importantly a way for future robots to easily dock with it. Then send a number of cone expresses to move the HSP so it can be accessed from the ISS via shuttle or CEV or Soyuz or whatever.<br /><br />That is as long as the ISS orbit is scientifically valid.<br />

 

[spacester]

nacnud, I realize that Hubble will cease to perform science operations at some point in the future. The question is: what do we do with it after that? <br /><br />The idea is to save it for future generations and possibly help enable space commerce. Put it in a high mothball orbit. Maybe NASA would e-bay the thing in a future year when private capability can take it to its final resting place. <br /><br />Also, who's to say that the mothballing robot couldn't extend the life of some of the science capabilities? It docks, provides stabilization and power, and when it completely fails, only then do you boost it to a mothball orbit. <br /><br />It belongs in a lunar museum. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacester]

Okie-dokie, we need to add an RMS and grapple fixture to the mothballing robot. There should still be plenty of mass budget left for other stuff. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacester]

(something more than a shameless bump)<br /><br />So just so y'all know, I'm not going to mount a campaign to make this happen or anything. Not by myself anyway. But I was hoping someone here might respond with some enthusiasm for a good idea that has been overlooked.<br /><br />But I suppose my conclusion is valid that folks here are only interested in talking, not doing anything. Shoot, worse than that, no one wants to talk about solutions, just problems.<br /><br />We can extol on the virtues of past space endeavors, dream wistfully about far-off gee whiz technologies, but heaven forbid that we should embrace an actual solution to an actual problem that we can actually do something about.<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[no_way]

Hey, why not a Hubble Prize for an organization that comes up with a best legally acceptable solution soonest ? Be it boosting it to lunar or heliocentric orbit, deorbiting it safely or reviving it, as long as U.S. doesnt get into trouble over not deorbiting it safely.

 

[spacester]

Hey, I like that! Well explained. (Bit you <i>did</i> leave high LEO off the list )<br /><br />All I want is for the idea to get a fair hearing. There are doubtless many better ideas than my simple solid rocket vehicle. But let's stop and think about this, people!<br /><br />I was up on Hubble factoids at one point but am pretty rusty. Um, the batteries fail and active cooling fails and instruments take a fatal temerature excursion, is that the death process?<br /><br />Is partial revival possible? Do all the instruments go belly-up? The corrective optics should work, right? And Hubble will be all about the visual spectrum once the rest of the great space telescopes are in place, don't you suppose?<br /><br />So isn't it possible to convert Hubble into a long-term optical only telescope? <br /><br />With private funds of course, I'm sure the main thing for the budget guys is getting the thing crossed off the budget item list. No maintenance, no liability, that would be the primary mission for proposed solutions. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[bobvanx]

>>It belongs in a lunar museum.<br /><br />I absolutely agree. What does it take to help this happen? Do we need a telephone tree? Do we need the ear of a Senator? How about the Artemis scoiety people? What would Elon Musk do?

 

[scottb50]

My idea is: a Shuttle mission does all the upgrades, including new batteries and adds a boost stage. Hubble is put in a much higher orbit and continues to return images for another 20 or thirty years, or until it dies. By then it could probably be retrieved for the Smithsonian.<br /><br />My point is sort of like with the Social Security crisis, everything will be perfectly fine for a few years. So why panic!<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>