Hubble's last photo, what will it be?

[Delta glider]

Well, when that new telescope, whatever it is called, something like James telescope comes up, hubble will have no use. So

 

[orbitingpluto]

Well, when that new telescope, whatever it is called, something like James telescope comes up, hubble will have no use. So

Since the James Webb Space Telescope(JWST) is built to see in higher wavelengths better than Hubble can, IIRC that means the Webb can't see what Hubble can in the visible light spectrum.

Hubble is far from useless, and there doesn't seem to be anything coming along that might replace or improve on it's unique capabilities yet.

 

[Delta glider]

But Hubble is in need for a replacement though.

 

[Ghostrider]

It will be Bart Sibrel's house, .001 seconds from impact.

 

[Delta glider]

:yes:

 

[RisingFury]

The issue is there's currently no way to do either and likely won't be when HST comes down.

SM4 installed the replacement data-handling unit, repaired the ACS and STIS systems, installed improved nickel hydrogen batteries, and replaced other components. SM4 also installed two new observation instruments—Wide Field Camera 3 (WFC3) and the Cosmic Origins Spectrograph (COS)[88]—and the Soft Capture and Rendezvous System, which will enable the future rendezvous, capture, and safe disposal of Hubble by either a crewed or robotic mission.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Space_Telescope#Servicing_Mission_4


Hubble is too dangerous to just leave in orbit and let it fall down on its own. Parts of it would likely survive re-entry. Mirror being one of the pieces.

It orbits at about 550 km altitude, but there's still some drag there. It's expected to deorbit some time in 2030 to 2040, but it's hard to tell. Certainly telling where it'll land is impossible.

 

[Delta glider]

It is a very large object-a sattelite or manned mission on a GTO could hit Hubble at a very bad velocity. (Why don't NASA restore the space shuttle for 1 mission to reenter with Hubble?):lol:

 

[orbitingpluto]

It is a very large object-a sattelite or manned mission on a GTO could hit Hubble at a very bad velocity. (Why don't NASA restore the space shuttle for 1 mission to reenter with Hubble?):lol:

In order to fly the Shuttle, you have to have the workforce, equipment, and facilities; all of which was dismantled or applied to other uses years ago. The last orders for parts was back in 2004, and even back in 2008 Wayne Hale pointed out "That horse has left the barn". The Space Shuttle wasn't to continue even back then when it still flying, and definitely won't now that the Shuttles are in museums.

Anyway, Space is huge. Mind bogglingly so. Hubble is only the size of a school bus, with a vast amount of volume to sit in. That, and anyone can find out it's orbit, so there is no excuse for hitting Hubble by accident.

 

[Kyle]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Space_Telescope#Servicing_Mission_4


Hubble is too dangerous to just leave in orbit and let it fall down on its own. Parts of it would likely survive re-entry. Mirror being one of the pieces.

It orbits at about 550 km altitude, but there's still some drag there. It's expected to deorbit some time in 2030 to 2040, but it's hard to tell. Certainly telling where it'll land is impossible.

Yea, I know HST-SM-4 installed the SCM on the bottom of HST in 2009. The issue is there is absolutely nothing in the works right now in NASA on an internal level to deorbit or rescue Hubble due to a lack of funding.

 

[Delta glider]

Yeah, that was a joke about the space shuttle, but their is so many satellites and geostationary satellites now that a collision is a very large worry. The space shuttle flew in a retrograde position for cruising so space debris would impact the engines, not the cabin, so NASA were very worried.

 

[RisingFury]

Geostationary satellites are at no risk of any collision. GPS satellites are also at no risk.

The risk is in the 900 km to 1 000 km altitude band and at around 1500 km and mainly for satellites that have a very highly inclined orbits and are dead or uncontrolled.

It would then take decades for debris from those orbits to spiral down to where Hubble is.

 

[orbitingpluto]

Yeah, that was a joke about the space shuttle, but their is so many satellites and geostationary satellites now that a collision is a very large worry. The space shuttle flew in a retrograde position for cruising so space debris would impact the engines, not the cabin, so NASA were very worried.

There's a difference between micro-meteoroids and Hubble. Hubble is more than big enough to be tracked, and is still operating and under control. Micro-meteoroids like the ones that caused damage to at least one window on the shuttle are too small to track, and are obviously uncontrolled. Dead satellites filling up certain heavily used obits are a concern, but Hubble isn't dead yet, and it isn't in a heavily used orbit.

There are other, more worrisome things orbiting up there.

 

[N_Molson]

There are other, more worrisome things orbiting up there.

Agreed. I'm more worried by the swarms of nanosatellites released those last years. As long as it stays in one piece, Hubble isn't a problem.

 

[Andy44]

Geostationary satellites are at no risk of any collision.

Not entirely true; GEO sats all occupy roughly a similar orbit plane and when they die they aren't always placed in disposal orbits, so they run the risk of colliding with each other. The GEO belt is among the most crowded parts of near-earth space and has been accumulating junk for decades. Since there is no drag at that altitude the junk doesn't decay, it just starts swinging back and forth due to triaxialty effects of the nonspherical earth. A dead GEO becomes a problem for decades.

As long as it stays in one piece, Hubble isn't a problem.

Bigger pieces are a bigger problem than small ones, because when they are struck they create more debris.

 

[Delta glider]

Yes, but in the long term NASA and ESA will start to stop thinking about large objects and BOOM! Ten years later, a manned mission hits it. Also I did not mean geostationary satellites, I meant satellites on geostationary transfer orbits. But I do agree with you orbiting pluto.
But to be fair. This is fftopic:

 

[RisingFury]

Not entirely true; GEO sats all occupy roughly a similar orbit plane and when they die they aren't always placed in disposal orbits, so they run the risk of colliding with each other. The GEO belt is among the most crowded parts of near-earth space and has been accumulating junk for decades. Since there is no drag at that altitude the junk doesn't decay, it just starts swinging back and forth due to triaxialty effects of the nonspherical earth. A dead GEO becomes a problem for decades.

They're not entirely free from danger, but danger is much lower.

At lower altitudes and higher inclinations, due to difereing LANs of orbits, the relative velocities can easily exceed 5 km/s. But in GSO, the relative velocities are much lower because of lower orbital speed and lower relative inclinations.

Yea, I know HST-SM-4 installed the SCM on the bottom of HST in 2009. The issue is there is absolutely nothing in the works right now in NASA on an internal level to deorbit or rescue Hubble due to a lack of funding.

Sure, but HST deorbit isn't needed right now. It'll be needed in 20 years.

Agreed. I'm more worried by the swarms of nanosatellites released those last years. As long as it stays in one piece, Hubble isn't a problem.

Nanosats are a problem because they're uncontrolled, but the smaller the object is, the faster its orbit decays. Nanosats deorbit much more quickly than large objects.

 

[Delta glider]

Yeah, if a nanosat was sent into a 150 by 150 km orbit, it would deorbit in few days.

 

[Astro SG Wise]

Hopefully, if it stays in working order until then, a picture of the first NASA Mars stack leaving for the red planet.

 

[Delta glider]

Yeah, that one way trip.