could the hubble be attached to the iss?

[mott]

could the hubble be attached to the iss?? I think it would make it easier to repair, and give it a longer life span. <br />could it be done with a manned mission to attach a rocket to raise/lower its orbit to the iss. if so why not we already paid for the telescope might as well get as long a life out of it as possible??

 

[darrrius]

To me, this sounds like a very good Idea!! It would be a shame to lose hubble, and adding its functionality to the ISS would be only be a good thing. I cant see it happening tho, I think hubble is destined for the bin.

 

[thalion]

1.) As has been mentioned in other threads, it would take far too much energy to change the inclination (let alone altitude) of the HST's orbit to match ISS's.<br /><br />2.) IIRC, if it were attached to ISS, vibrations would severely degrade the quality of the imagery. Also, the environment near the station is fairly "dirty" IIRC, due to various vented substances.<br /><br />3.) Fortunately, there are *tentative* plans to put an amateur space telescope up at ISS, perhaps a 14-16 incher, that could be used free by the world community. Unfortunately, those plans were drawn up before Columbia and M2M, so who knows how, or if they'll ever come to fruition? I haven't heard any news of the project in some time...<br /><br />http://www.issat.org/index.htm

 

[mott]

what if they attached rockets to blast hubble off into deep space or on a large solar orbit (like comits) i know it wouldnt work very long but we may get alot of bang for our buck so to speek.

 

[mott]

or put it on the iss with a arm like the shuttle has to give it say 100ft. reach away from the station? i think that would stop most vibs?

 

[CalliArcale]

No, you'd need it to be completly unattached from the ISS. The arm will transmit the vibrations along it, and anyway, the arm would prevent Hubble from slewing through its full range, greatly limiting the places you could view.<br /><br />The bigger problem, though, is the venting. Hubble keeps its tube shut for days after a Shuttle departs, if I recall correctly, because its waiting for RCS contaminants to dissipate. These contaminants are the exhaust from thruster firings by the RCS (Reaction Control System) and OMS (Orbital Maneuvering System) aboard the Shuttle Orbiter. They've fairly dirty -- hypergolic propellants. You don't want that to get on the mirror. ISS uses similar propellants to maintain altitude and orientation, and so do Progress and Soyuz. The environs of ISS will not be very nice to Hubble, I'm afraid. <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>

 

[mott]

true we may not see as well, but what will we learn by blowing it up in the atmosphere? then its just a waste.<br /><br /> we could salvage the parts build a new tele on the iss or near it. i agree its out of date but it can still give us alot of useful info.... atleast its not as old as the shuttle.<br />i have never understood nasa's love for throwing away billion doller toys. im no hippy but recycle.

 

[redwhitearcher]

The resons for de-orbiting the Hubble is because the decision was that its too costly to keep servicing it. The de-orbit is necessery in order to make sure that uncontrolled re-entry will not happen which could cause damage in unknown part of the world. Thats it. Sending it to higher orbit will make it unservisable thus useless.

 

[crono21]

Is their going to be a updated replacement for it?

 

[nacnud]

Sort of, the James Web Space Telescope (JWST) replaces and exceeds some of the capabilities of the Hubble but there is currently nothing planned to replace the visible and UV performance of it. The UV is the most important of these as it can't be replaces by a ground telescope as UV is absorbed in the ozone layer.

 

[vogon13]

Elektron 'gunk' probably about the worst contaminant possible. Black, mobile, possibly sentient ooze from beyond reality could really mess up the optics. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

Well, I personally am hoping that JWST becomes a reality, because my company wants to build the command & control subsystem for it.....<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/laugh.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>

 

[nexium]

If the technology of tethers were more advanced, we could perhaps tie the ISS and Hubble together with a bungy cord about 1000 miles long. Likely neither ISS nor Hubble would survive the jerk when the tether stretched to it's limit. Vibrations would be very low frequency which Hubble could compensate for. <br /> Putting Hubble in a lots higher orbit or in solar orbit, would make future repairs almost as difficult as a manned trip to the moon or Mars = Well beyond present technology. Neil

 

[erioladastra]

"If the technology of tethers were more advanced, we could perhaps tie the ISS and Hubble together with a bungy cord about 1000 miles long. Likely neither ISS nor Hubble would survive the jerk when the tether stretched to it's limit. Vibrations would be very low frequency which Hubble could compensate for. "<br /><br />Still wouldn't work - keep in mind that Hubble points all over the sky. A tether would restrict it. While ISS doesn't pivot as much it does go through a number of different attitudes. trying to "tie" to rotating objects would not be feasible.<br />