Orbinaut Pete
ISSU Project Manager
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2008
- Messages
- 4,261
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 0
The purpose of this thread is to discuss the possibilities/feasibility/need for a fifth servicing mission to the Hubble Space Telescope.
With all the buzz lately about STS-125 being the "last ever opportunity" for humans to visit Hubble to make repairs/upgrades, I was just wondering: It is Really?
Hubble was originally designed to be returned to Earth in 2009 in the payload bay of Shuttle Columbia, on what would have been STS-144, but that mission was scrubbed after the Columbia disaster. The reasoning being: Why launch an empty shuttle to retrieve a useless payload? It would be impossible to have an ISS mission launch a payload to the ISS, then retrieve Hubble, as Hubble & the ISS are on different orbits (ISS = 51.6° / HST = 28.4°).
So, instead of having a useless telescope stuck in orbit (currently, all Hubble's gyroscopes are slated to fail by 2010), NASA decided to launch STS-125 to extend Hubble's life until at least 2014, whereupon the current plan is to have an unmanned vehicle meet with it in orbit & de-orbit it to burn up in the atmosphere.
The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) will be the successor to Hubble, however that will only be an infrared telescope, although it will be able to observe more distant objects than Hubble. That is currently planned to be launched around June 2013 on an Ariane 5 rocket, into MEO (Medium Earth Orbit).
Below = the JWST - just not as grand as Hubble, is it
So, back to the idea: I read an interesting article the other day HERE that got me thinking. Is STS-125 really the last chance for humans to go to Hubble? It will definitely be the last chance for the Shuttle to go to Hubble, but STS-125 will install the SCM (Soft Capture Mechanism), so any future vehicle that uses that docking system will be able to rendezvous with Hubble & berth itself to it. I saw this picture of a possible scenario, and to me it seems ingenious:
As the Orion spacecraft will probably be tasked with de-orbiting Hubble anyway, as it will be cheaper then developing a robotic craft, why not have Orion service the HST? Obviously, Orion has no payload carrying capability, but why not develop a system depicted in the above picture? Just a payload carrier to the same dimensions as the existing Shuttle payload bay, with a docking mechanism at each end. That way all current Hubble science instrument carriers & other payloads that use the Shuttle TPAS (Trunnion Pin Attachment System) could fly in the future. Ideally, this payload carrier would be better launched on the Jupiter 120 rocket as detailed in the DIRECT proposal (which I fully support, as it brings this kind of capability to NASA). Below is an example of how the Jupiter 120 could carry the payload carrier (see rocket third from left).
However, I guess this payload carrier could be launched on a separate rocket such as the Delta II, then Orion could rendezvous with it on orbit & take it to Hubble. The Orion could dock to one end of the carrier, and the other end could berth to Hubble. The payload carrier also features an airlock. Also, the SpaceX Dragon capsule could maybe be used instead of Orion. Of course, a fully robotic mission to service the HST could be a possibility, but I doubt that a robot will be able to get anywhere near the dexterity & precision of humans, which is required to service the HST. Just look at STS-125: To repair the STIS instrument, astronauts will have to remove 111 tiny screws to gain access to a circuit board they need to replace. I'm no robotics expert, but I just can't see a robot doing that - not yet anyway.
So it would seem there are many opportunities to return to Hubble if we really wanted to, but the question is, do we really need to? Given Hubble’s achievements already, some would say it would certainly be beneficial to keep it going for as long as possible. But other may not agree – Hubble has been in orbit since 1990 – in 2 month’s time (Apr 2009), it will have had 19 years in orbit. Is it worth pursuing plans to keep Hubble alive?
My opinion: If it is possible, then do it. However, if another telescope can be built with the same capabilities as Hubble (but obviously more advanced) then I would say there is little point in repairing Hubble.
But maybe you disagree?
Please, discuss here.
-Pete
With all the buzz lately about STS-125 being the "last ever opportunity" for humans to visit Hubble to make repairs/upgrades, I was just wondering: It is Really?
Hubble was originally designed to be returned to Earth in 2009 in the payload bay of Shuttle Columbia, on what would have been STS-144, but that mission was scrubbed after the Columbia disaster. The reasoning being: Why launch an empty shuttle to retrieve a useless payload? It would be impossible to have an ISS mission launch a payload to the ISS, then retrieve Hubble, as Hubble & the ISS are on different orbits (ISS = 51.6° / HST = 28.4°).
So, instead of having a useless telescope stuck in orbit (currently, all Hubble's gyroscopes are slated to fail by 2010), NASA decided to launch STS-125 to extend Hubble's life until at least 2014, whereupon the current plan is to have an unmanned vehicle meet with it in orbit & de-orbit it to burn up in the atmosphere.
The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) will be the successor to Hubble, however that will only be an infrared telescope, although it will be able to observe more distant objects than Hubble. That is currently planned to be launched around June 2013 on an Ariane 5 rocket, into MEO (Medium Earth Orbit).
Below = the JWST - just not as grand as Hubble, is it
So, back to the idea: I read an interesting article the other day HERE that got me thinking. Is STS-125 really the last chance for humans to go to Hubble? It will definitely be the last chance for the Shuttle to go to Hubble, but STS-125 will install the SCM (Soft Capture Mechanism), so any future vehicle that uses that docking system will be able to rendezvous with Hubble & berth itself to it. I saw this picture of a possible scenario, and to me it seems ingenious:
As the Orion spacecraft will probably be tasked with de-orbiting Hubble anyway, as it will be cheaper then developing a robotic craft, why not have Orion service the HST? Obviously, Orion has no payload carrying capability, but why not develop a system depicted in the above picture? Just a payload carrier to the same dimensions as the existing Shuttle payload bay, with a docking mechanism at each end. That way all current Hubble science instrument carriers & other payloads that use the Shuttle TPAS (Trunnion Pin Attachment System) could fly in the future. Ideally, this payload carrier would be better launched on the Jupiter 120 rocket as detailed in the DIRECT proposal (which I fully support, as it brings this kind of capability to NASA). Below is an example of how the Jupiter 120 could carry the payload carrier (see rocket third from left).
However, I guess this payload carrier could be launched on a separate rocket such as the Delta II, then Orion could rendezvous with it on orbit & take it to Hubble. The Orion could dock to one end of the carrier, and the other end could berth to Hubble. The payload carrier also features an airlock. Also, the SpaceX Dragon capsule could maybe be used instead of Orion. Of course, a fully robotic mission to service the HST could be a possibility, but I doubt that a robot will be able to get anywhere near the dexterity & precision of humans, which is required to service the HST. Just look at STS-125: To repair the STIS instrument, astronauts will have to remove 111 tiny screws to gain access to a circuit board they need to replace. I'm no robotics expert, but I just can't see a robot doing that - not yet anyway.
So it would seem there are many opportunities to return to Hubble if we really wanted to, but the question is, do we really need to? Given Hubble’s achievements already, some would say it would certainly be beneficial to keep it going for as long as possible. But other may not agree – Hubble has been in orbit since 1990 – in 2 month’s time (Apr 2009), it will have had 19 years in orbit. Is it worth pursuing plans to keep Hubble alive?
My opinion: If it is possible, then do it. However, if another telescope can be built with the same capabilities as Hubble (but obviously more advanced) then I would say there is little point in repairing Hubble.
But maybe you disagree?
Please, discuss here.
-Pete
Last edited:
