Discussion Replacement of HST

[Grover]

as i recently found out, the good old hubble space telescope, which has watched a possible "Armageddon asteroid" make a close call, hitting jupiter instead of earth, which has seen hundreds of solar systems spring to life, and seen outwards into the depths of space which we could once only dream of, is now coming towards the end of its life.

its replacement, the Webb Telescope is now beginning its construction, and is proposed to have a higher orbit than even our moon, use more advanced technology, allowing us to see more of the EM spectrum, and generally be better in every way. it will be the size of a tennis court (about half the size of the completed ISS?) and so it will have to be transported by multistage rocket (Ariane 5) then unpacked at its destination orbit using the most confusing metal origami known to man

here are some specs of the new telescope, taken from Hubblesite's article on the new Webb telescope:
Wavelength Coverage: 0.07- 28 micrometers
Instruments: 4
Near Infrared Camera (NIRCam) (0.6–5 micrometers)
Near Infrared Spectograph (NIRSpec) (0.8–5 micrometers)
Mid Infrared Instrument (MIRI) (5–27+ micrometers)
Fine Guidance Sensors–Tunable Filter (FGS-TF) (1.25–5 micrometers)

but what is to become of our beloved HST? a museum? left in orbit for future space tourists to use as a tourist attraction? no. NASA is going to de-orbit it and let it burn up in the atmosphere. not a nice way to go dont you think?

i think it should be retrieved by discovery (i think that it would be discovery;s last flight), and returned to earth safely, where it can be put in a nice museum or put to some good use, not burned up like a forgotten thought.

anyway, post on the poll, and lets see if we cant get some more info on this new telescope.

-=Grover=-

 

[garyw]

but what is to become of our beloved HST? a museum? left in orbit for future space tourists to use as a tourist attraction? no. NASA is going to de-orbit it and let it burn up in the atmosphere. not a nice way to go dont you think?

i think it should be retrieved by discovery (i think that it would be discovery;s last flight), and returned to earth safely, where it can be put in a nice museum or put to some good use, not burned up like a forgotten thought.

Let's have a look at this argument.

HST orbits around the 600km height and it's plane of orbit is nowhere near the ISS. Congress have funded shuttle flights up to STS-135. After that they are musuem pieces so you are proposing to add another shuttle flight to go to Hubble, collect it and land?

First of all, the risk involved isn't worth it. You are talking about sending 4-7 people to collect a piece of metal just for sentimental reasons when the flight spare is already in a musuem. What possible point could collecting it serve?

What would happen if the shuttle was lost on such a poinless mission? Do you really want people risking life and limb to collect a lump of metal? WHY? What next? Disassemble the ISS and bring it back to Earth?

The cost of training, assembly and integration of a shuttle flight averages $1billion. The cost of ADDING a flight will be closer to $2.5billion due to the fact that the only remaining hardware is test hardware that needs to be brought up to flight standards. Wouldn't this money be better spent on maintaining the ISS or going into the next programme?

No. Better to let hubble have a firey end in the pacific than to go to all the trouble of collecting it. Hubble has done a grand job but it's time is close to an end.

 

[Stevodoran]

THIS CANT BE HAPPENING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Urwumpe]

THIS CANT BE HAPPENING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How much money would it be worth you? And I mean YOUR money. Not money in general.

 

[Stevodoran]

How much money would it be worth you? And I mean YOUR money. Not money in general.

eh well................nothing:embarrassed:

 

[Grover]

i know its expensive, every launch is, but this has watched so many things, taught us so much, it would be a shame to see it go. and there could be a more efficient way to collect it:

if left to its own devices, it would slowly come closer to earth, and eventually it would re-enter, but if we catch it as it gets to ISS altitude, it wouldnt be as expensive, and it could even be done on the return leg of an ISS re-supply.

i know it will still cost alot, but the for the HST, i think its worth it

 

[garyw]

i know its expensive, every launch is, but this has watched so many things, taught us so much, it would be a shame to see it go. and there could be a more efficient way to collect it:

if left to its own devices, it would slowly come closer to earth, and eventually it would re-enter, but if we catch it as it gets to ISS altitude, it wouldnt be as expensive, and it could even be done on the return leg of an ISS re-supply.

That's just daft. It'll take a few decades to descend and during that time it'll have lost power due to it's batteries failing so it'll become and out of control piece of junk waiting to collide with something. At that point the shuttle is gone. There is nothing with the payload capability to bring it down so what are you going to do? Go to additional cost of building something? How much will YOU spend on bringing down something that you don't need?

i know it will still cost alot, but the for the HST, i think its worth it

The Voyagers taught us a lot. Lets spend $100 billion and go collect them. The argument is silly. It's a machine. it did a job, sure it took some pretty pictures and did some good science and it's that legacy which will live on. You don't need to risk lives and spend out billions to bring it home.

 

[T.Neo]

Yeah... it is a fantasy of mine if HST could be recovered by the shuttle and placed in a museum, but it isn't practical, or even possible, at this stage.

the flight spare is already in a musuem

It is? Great! :thumbup:

 

[Kyle]

Send a Dragon or an Orion with a RMS (Dextre was supposed to be used in this manner IIRC) to the HST with a servicing pallet for HST-SM-5, just so there isn't a major gap between HST and JWST. Plus the idea of Hubble burning up in 2015 is pretty sad.

 

[garyw]

It's in the National Smithsonian Air & Space museum along with the backup mirror. A friend of mine recently (and very kindly) got me some photos of it along with some other things there.

---------- Post added at 13:28 ---------- Previous post was at 13:24 ----------

Send a Dragon or an Orion with a RMS (Dextre was supposed to be used in this manner IIRC) to the HST with a servicing pallet for HST-SM-5, just so there isn't a major gap between HST and JWST. Plus the idea of Hubble burning up in 2015 is pretty sad.

Problems with this idea:

1. Dragon isn't human rated yet and nor has it flown.

2. Where do you put the RMS, how do you control it (Dragon has no RMS station) and do you have space in the fairing to fit it?

3. Does Dragon have the delta-v to get up to HST?

4. Where do you put the servicing pallet? that's a large piece of hardware.

5. HST and JWST are two different telescopes. JWST is limited in the visual optics range.

6. Lead time for a mission is at least three years and will require a few training runs in LEO. Who is paying? (Cost $3-4billion I'd say).

 

[Eccentrus]

how about if people from all over the world donate to NASA, for the single purpose of recollecting HST? I mean, we already have derelict telescopes all over the world, which has pretty much outage their usefulness, outpowered by many of the newly built ones, and yet, we do still keep them around, for memory's sake, or even aesthetics, and hell, why not the most prominent Space telescope there is? as long as it is possible to use the shuttle for that purpose though.

 

[T.Neo]

Even if we amass billions of dollars, I don't think NASA would take the risk for the crew, or the trouble for setting up for a mission...

 

[astrosammy]

I would have no problem to let it burn up. But it would be sad to let it burn up over the pacific ocean, like all the other stuff. In my opinion it should burn up over land (Australia/Sahara desert would be good places) and collect all parts that survive the reentry (propably not many?) for museums. Would have been a great end for Mir.

 

[garyw]

I would have no problem to let it burn up. But it would be sad to let it burn up over the pacific ocean, like all the other stuff. In my opinion it should burn up over land (Australia/Sahara desert would be good places) and collect all parts that survive the reentry (propably not many?) for museums. Would have been a great end for Mir.

NASA couldn't accept that money as they are not a charity.

Collect as much money as you like you still won't make $2.5billion and even if you do at that point the shuttle is in a musuem with the teams disbanded.

Allowing a vehicle to enter over land breaks the outerspace treaty and is dangerous. What happens if an intact part of hubble kills someone? Do you want that all for the glory of picking up a piece of burnt metal?

If you want burnt metal that badly I'll send you a piece of a burnt out car.

 

[Wishbone]

People. Please. Spacecraft are machines. When they get old they have to be discarded, not repaired. The cost of taking something from orbit is more than all the benefits. You are SUGGESTING TO PUT FOUR OF YOUR FELLOW HUMANS AT GREAT PERIL. Shuttles
are older than you, with multiple points of failure.

Please re-consider... PLEAASE. There are several memorable pieces in the basement of Chernobyl station. Will you go and fetch them?

 

[Urwumpe]

Also, for what reason do you want to see Hubble in a museum - it isn't the first space telescope, it has just been for some 15 years of the highest significance for science. It isn't even the best or the biggest space telescope anymore, it is just one famous member of a large group of scientific tools. Which has done its purpose well. In a museum, it would just collect dust.

Also, Hubble is mostly visual, while JWST is infrared, and JWST will be at the L2 point, together with the two new European space telescopes Planck and Herschel. Herschel is currently the best IR space telescope and the biggest as well, its mirror is 50% bigger than the Hubble mirror.

I think if you really want to honor Hubble, build a second visual/near-IR space telescope, name it Hubble, launch it into space and let it do its work to honor the family name.

Nobody complains that the ships that Columbus used for rediscovering America again, are not preserved in a Museum. Or that nobody tries to raise the Bismarck or the Yamato or the Prince of Wales for putting them into a museum. Why? Because sometimes the place of their final rest is part of the legend.

 

[Wishbone]

...actually because they are war graves, but I get your drift. The HST also exemplifies a history of technical blunders, let us just preserve the memory of the good and the bad, and we should be OK, if the generations to come learn from both.

 

[Urwumpe]

...actually because they are war graves, but I get your drift.

Well, that as well, but why they are declared as war graves and protected in such a strict way is part of the theme. We could of course declare Hubble a technological wonder of the world... but why? The real wonder of Hubble is not the spacecraft, but the Space Shuttles, ground complexes and astronauts that kept it running and deliver better science every year despite its shortcomings.

I think every crew and every engineer that fixed Hubble would deserve a few dozen statues or squares named after him before Hubble should get saved.

The HST also exemplifies a history of technical blunders, let us just preserve the memory of the good and the bad, and we should be OK, if the generations to come learn from both.

Never forget your past, it will be your future.
(Slogan of Clan Goliath Scorpion, BattleTech universe)

 

[Keatah]

I never fully understood the fascination with having to recover the hardware, but I guess it exists and is very real. I sold a bunch of skylab stuff recently and got big $$$ for it.

But as another poster said, it really is pretty pictures and data that is the legacy. That's what will be useful. And saving that easy, A box of hard disks will do nicely. That's the real legacy. But anyways, with the all the wars and lives lost daily due to them, why such a big deal with 4 astronauts? I never understood the balance of that either!

Now, as to getting a fully functional JWST going, I can imagine the deployment on-station is going to be dependent on a lot of things happening right and in sequence. I hope it doesn't go Galileo on us!

 

[Orbinaut Pete]

My head says let her burn up, but my heart says bring 'er home.