Suggestion for Hubble

dj13 · Mar 7, 2005

Seems that at some point long before most of us would prefer, the Hubble will be no more. In an attempt to get one last glorius mission from Hubble, I suggest that one last mission to Hubble be made where it would be fitted with ION engines, and a few new lenses or lense covers, and then programmed to fly North out of the system and start sending us data about what the system looks like from a half light month away above the north pole of the sun (or south), and then arc it toward whichever star seems to be closest and capable of having its own system. All the while sending us pictures and data of both the Sol system, and the other systems around us. This would give us a larger paralax view in looking especially at the closer systems. With the ion engines it may be possible in 5 years to be approaching speeds worthy of mention. I have not done the math, and won't, but seems likely that in maybe ten years something very interesting might show up. For perhaps many of the youngest folks out there it may be that in their lifetime they will get to see actual visual pictures of the things surrounding another sytem. Or, we could plan for the planned demolition into the Atlantic during primetime so we could watch our assets provide us yet one last glorious comet like nightshow.

vogon13 · Mar 7, 2005

Hubble is solar powered and designed for temp gradient at earths' distance from sun. Most likely it will be non functional about time it crosses Mars orbit. Neat idea, also, it was already done by Voyager I and discussed by Sagan in Pale Blue Dot. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!So many people, so few recipes !!Let's clean up this stinkhole !! </div>

erioladastra · Mar 8, 2005

"a few new lenses or lense covers" Groooaaaannnnn!

najab · Mar 8, 2005

What's your problem? Hubble is a telescope. Telescopes have lenses. If you have a lense you have to have a cover for it. <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" />

spacefreek · Mar 8, 2005

I have seen some estimates of the total overall costs of the Hubble program, from inception to present, in excess of $25 billion. Current estimates to de-orbit the Hubble range from $100-300 million, depending on the source, while estimates for the necessary servicing mission range from $1-1.6 billion. My question is this: what would the costs be for a mission to capture the Hubble with a shuttle mission, deliver it to the ISS, and permanently add it to the ISS as an manned orbital astronomy lab? Would this not give the opportunity to continue receiving excellent scientific data, while making the Hubble easily accesible for servicing, thus significantly reducing the long term cost of keeping the telescope operational and allowing for timely upgrades to scientific systems, while eliminating the need for some other systems which have a finite operational life expectancy?

scottb50 · Mar 8, 2005

The only way to do that would be to send a Shuutle to pick it up and bring it back and use another Shuttle to take it back up to ISS, not very economical. The difference in orbital inclination would take a whole lot more propellant than Shuttle could ever carry. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

najab · Mar 8, 2005

I'd have to check, but I don't think it's even possible for a Shuttle to lift a payload the size of HST to ISS's orbit. *EDIT* I was wrong. HST's mass is about 11,000kg, Destiny's launch mass was 14,000kg according a quick Google search. So yes, you could launch HST to ISS.

nacnud · Mar 8, 2005

Apart from the fact that adding the Hubble to the ISS would make the Hubble vibrate and ruin a lot of its observing power and that you don't want to site the Hubble too near the ISS because of all the contamination (water, propellant etc) Moving the Hubble to an orbit on the same plane as ISS varies according to who you ask, NASA will tell you it is impossible ConeXpress will tell you about $150 million + launch costs (SWAG) Once in orbit near the ISS the shuttle would no longer be needed to service the Hubble and it could last decades more why this isn't being seriously looked at I don't know.

najab · Mar 8, 2005

Ahh, ConeXpress has something they are trying to sell you though.

nacnud · Mar 8, 2005

Doesn't mean that it isn't worth buying.

CalliArcale · Mar 8, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Once in orbit near the ISS the shuttle would no longer be needed to service the Hubble and it could last decades more why this isn't being seriously looked at I don't know.<hr /></blockquote> Why wouldn't the Shuttle be needed? Are you expecting ISS to shift its own orbit enough to rendezvous with it? (And yes, even if it's in the same plane, ISS would have to shift its orbit to meet Hubble before it could capture it.) ISS is extremely massive; it's not really designed for that sort of thing. It's propulsion system is designed for maintenance of its orbit -- and in fact, it's propulsion system isn't even enough for that. It requires periodic reboosting from visiting spacecraft (Progress and Shuttle). It doesn't matter where you put the Hubble. For it to operate for decades, you're going to need regular Shuttle servicing missions. Plus, moving the Hubble to the ISS's orbit is not cheap, easy, or practical. You'd be better off just building a new space telescope, taking advantage of all of the technological advances that have come in the past few decades, and perhaps making design choices that can allow it to function for decades without physical human assistance. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "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." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

najab · Mar 8, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />You'd be better off just building a new space telescope, taking advantage of all of the technological advances that have come in the past few decades, and perhaps making design choices that can allow it to function for decades without physical human assistance.<hr /></blockquote>You mean like this: James Webb Space Telescope?

nacnud · Mar 8, 2005

All valid points, I was thinking along the lines of a Soyuz + Pirus combination. Wouldn't be straight forwards but it could be done and future vehicle might manage the process more easily. I imagine something like: <ol type="1"><li> fly a second Pirus to the ISS, the Pirus is basically a modified Soyuz orbital module so I imagine that it is no more than twice as expensive as a Soyuz. You might want to modify the strellar booms or add a European ISS arm to help capture the Hubble as well. <li> Send up a progress freighter with the parts needed for the Hubble, no modifications need and the parts can be added to any supply vehicle. <li> Transfer the bits to the modified Pirus <li> Send up a three man crew trained to repaired the Hubble on a regular Soyuz, top up the tanks of the Soyuz at the ISS (I think this is possible but might be worth checking) <li> Pick up the modified Pirus and head over to the Hubble, fix it and head back to the ISS and re-dock the modified Pirus <li>Quick tea at the ISS and back to Earth for beer and medals</li></li></li></li></li></li></ol> The first mission would cost a Soyuz, a progress and a modified Pirus. Future mission would only need the progress and Soyuz flights. Admittedly it might be hard to replace the large science instruments as they are the size of a telephone box but you get the idea.

spacefreek · Mar 8, 2005

OK, so it's problematic, yet not impossible, to bring the Hubble to the ISS. Whether NASA services the bird or brings it down eventually, something will definitely be going to Hubble. How feasable would it be to attach an ion engine to Hubble to bring it to the ISS plane instead of attaching a de-orbit vehicle to dump it in the drink?

CalliArcale · Mar 9, 2005

Yes, najaB, I mean exactly like JWST. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> Personally, I'd prefer to have Hubble *and* JWST running. But from a purely economical standpoint, if Hubble can't be serviced by Shuttle anymore, diverting funds for the now-cancelled servicing mission to JWST would make the most sense. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "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." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

CalliArcale · Mar 9, 2005

What's Pirus? Do you mean Pirs? "Pirs" is actually a proper noun; it's the name given to the Russian docking module/airlock on the ISS. Pirs is not exactly a modified Soyuz OM, but it was built to fit on a Soyuz SM so that it could be autonomously delivered to the ISS. I'm not really sure what you are expecting to get out of it. It's not a space taxi, nor a cargo container. And if you *did* use it as a cargo container, be advised that you could only transfer relatively small bits in it -- things that will fit through its hatches. This is a major limitation of Soyuz technology. There are many Hubble components that would not fit. This is not limited to science instruments; this also includes the gyros. A Strela boom will not be able to capture Hubble. Strela is not sufficiently dextrous, lacks an RMS end effector (neccesary to capture the Hubble, which is of course outfitted with an RMS grapple fixture), and is almost certainly not even remotely strong enough. The European arm of course does not yet exist, so I don't think we know it's capabilities yet. It's doubtful that it will be able to manage an 11-ton load; that would make it redundant, as the ISS is already equipped with the enormous Canadian SSRMS. So you are left with the need to build a completely new robot arm, one which can fit on a Soyuz. And of course if you do not leave it in orbit (as with your hypothesized modified Pirs), it will be destroyed on reentry. Also, I still don't think it's practical to go to ISS, then go to Hubble, then go back to ISS before returning to Earth, no matter what you use for the job (Soyuz, Shuttle, or some other spacecraft). It's less impractical than physically moving the entire station, but it's still an awful lot to expect a spacecraft to rendezvous *three times* over the course of its mission. Remember, you're going to have to keep Hubble quite a long ways away from ISS, partly because of the contamination issue but also because it is ma <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "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." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

CalliArcale · Mar 9, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />How feasable would it be to attach an ion engine to Hubble to bring it to the ISS plane instead of attaching a de-orbit vehicle to dump it in the drink?<hr /></blockquote> Personally, I don't think there's much point bringing the Hubble to the ISS's orbit; it's not really a good place for Hubble. But speaking purely hypothetically, it should be quite feasible, although personally I'd want to send a manned mission to attach that ion engine. I don't believe ion engines have been used on a vehicle as massive as the ISS, but they are becoming increasingly popular for commsats, which occupy such distant orbits that they have the luxury of gradual orbit corrections. It's mainly a question of building and then attaching the thing. I've no idea what it would cost. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "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." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

najab · Mar 9, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Also, I still don't think it's practical to go to ISS, then go to Hubble, then go back to ISS before returning to Earth, no matter what you use for the job (Soyuz, Shuttle, or some other spacecraft). It's less impractical than physically moving the entire station, but it's still an awful lot to expect a spacecraft to rendezvous *three times* over the course of its mission.<hr /></blockquote>If the two vehicles are in the same orbit plane and the phasing is correct, it is relatively trivial. The Russians have done it quite a few times to transfer equipment between stations, and if Mini-Station 1 ever gets built the operational plan they were proposing was to is to launch to MS-1, then transfer to ISS and possible back to MS-1 - using a regular Soyuz.

najab · Mar 9, 2005

I believe Calli's comment was made on the assumption that ISS and HST were in the same orbit plane.

erioladastra · Mar 9, 2005

"What's your problem? Hubble is a telescope. Telescopes have lenses. If you have a lense you have to have a cover for it." najaB - my filter is malfunctioning today and I am sure you are joking and fully realize there are no lenses on HST but mirrors.

najab · Mar 9, 2005

Next thing you'll be trying to convince me that there's no eyepiece for the astronauts to look through.

CalliArcale · Mar 9, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />If the two vehicles are in the same orbit plane and the phasing is correct, it is relatively trivial. The Russians have done it quite a few times to transfer equipment between stations, and if Mini-Station 1 ever gets built the operational plan they were proposing was to is to launch to MS-1, then transfer to ISS and possible back to MS-1 - using a regular Soyuz.<hr /></blockquote> Hmmm....then I stand corrected! Thanks! Actually, I should've known that. As soon as I read your post I remembered reading about that when I was learning up on Salyut. Salyut-7 and Mir coexisted for a while, didn't they? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "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." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

najab · Mar 9, 2005

Yup. They did it between Mir and Salyut 7, and also between at least two of the earlier Salyut stations (might be 6 and 7, I can't remember at the moment). In the on-again, off-again Freedom/Alpha/ISS debacle the Russians initially insisted on the 56.1 degree orbit so as to allow the transfer of the Krystal module to ISS. Then changed their minds and said they were going to keep Mir and so insisted that the phasing be changed so that ISS and Mir were 90 degrees apart, and then shortly before STS-98 they insisted that the phasing be changed back.By then the US had had enough and said "inclined-plane-fastening-device you".

CalliArcale · Mar 9, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />"inclined-plane-fastening-device you"<hr /></blockquote> ROTFL!!! I'm going to use that phrase sometime. It's too funny to leave. <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "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." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

kdavis007 · Mar 9, 2005

How about getting over the Hubble???

Suggestion for Hubble

dj13

Guest

vogon13

Guest

erioladastra

Guest

najab

Guest

spacefreek

Guest

scottb50

Guest

najab

Guest

nacnud

Guest

najab

Guest

nacnud

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

najab

Guest

nacnud

Guest

spacefreek

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

najab

Guest

najab

Guest

erioladastra

Guest

najab

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

najab

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

kdavis007

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page