The Death of Hubble...When Will it Come?

Okay, with the cancelation of SM-4 how long does hubble have left?

The articles I've read list 2007 as the time period when it will likely become
useless as a scientific insturment. But when will it likely come crashing back
to Earth? And how long can Hubble go without servicing? Let's say by 2007 the
gyros fail and Hubble can't be pointed anywhere. Are there any other critical
systems that would likely fail without the Shuttle to service HST?

Basically, at this point I see SM 4 as dead with Bush in office and his fantasy
space initiative becoming NASA's priority. If enough pressure is put on NASA
can an HST repair mission be launched between the time Hubble becomes a dead
bird and it re-enters earth's atmosphere that could bring it up to operational
capability?

I'm hoping if Dubbya fails re-election and the following administration doesn't
share Bush's ideas for space NASA might become more inclined to put SM 4 back
on the books...

-A.L.

The orbit will decay enough to reenter
probably in 2011 or 2012.

The price to build a new much more advanced space telescope and
launching it probably cost less than the cost to repair and update the
Hubble using the shuttle.

If they don't want the Hubble to be burned up and instead wanted it as
a preserved historical relic, I suggest taking it down with the
shuttle and then stored it into the museum, along with the shuttle.

EAC wrote:

The price to build a new much more advanced space telescope and
launching it probably cost less than the cost to repair and update the
Hubble using the shuttle.

If they don't want the Hubble to be burned up and instead wanted it as
a preserved historical relic, I suggest taking it down with the
shuttle and then stored it into the museum, along with the shuttle.

That was the plan that was scrapped. Bring it back, examine it for the long
term effects of space and give the bits to the Smithsonian.

"kegwasher" wrote in message
...
EAC wrote:

The price to build a new much more advanced space telescope and
launching it probably cost less than the cost to repair and update the
Hubble using the shuttle.

If they don't want the Hubble to be burned up and instead wanted it as
a preserved historical relic, I suggest taking it down with the
shuttle and then stored it into the museum, along with the shuttle.

That was the plan that was scrapped. Bring it back, examine it for the
long
term effects of space and give the bits to the Smithsonian.

It was never THE plan. It was A possible plan, as well
as a plan to simply de-orbit it with the shuttle, or use the
shuttle to attach a booster to it to send it to a higher, safer
(but unservicible) orbit.

Bruce

"Ed" wrote in message
...
The orbit will decay enough to reenter
probably in 2011 or 2012.

Yeah these look like good numbers....the latest date possible seems to be
2013.

"Kent Betts" wrote in
:

"Ed" wrote in message
...
The orbit will decay enough to reenter
probably in 2011 or 2012.

Yeah these look like good numbers....the latest date possible seems to be
2013.

With nice fat error bars around them... there's a solar max around 2013, if
I'm not mistaken.


--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

In article , Jorge R. Frank wrote:
"Kent Betts" wrote in
:

"Ed" wrote in message
...
The orbit will decay enough to reenter
probably in 2011 or 2012.

Yeah these look like good numbers....the latest date possible seems to be
2013.

With nice fat error bars around them... there's a solar max around 2013, if
I'm not mistaken.

Actually, the next Solar Max should be around 2011 or possibly early 2012
since they run in a ~11 year cycle and last one was in 2000; the peak was
around mid-2000.

http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/istp/outreach/solarmax/
http://www.solcomhouse.com/solarmax.htm

I visited Alaska throughout the last Solar Max period, and *WOW*, the
auroras were unreal! So I'm recommending to everyone who will put up with
the fact that I rave so much about Alaska, that the best time to go and see
Alaska will likely be in mid to late fall 2011. September is a bit too much
daylight... but by early October is real good.

On recent visits, I noted the auroras were a little muted compared to
during the Solar Max. Still enjoyable and the occasional bright ones but on
the whole, just somewhat 'off'. I'm thinking of skipping Alaska visits in
2005-2007, if such sacrilegious thoughts can be endured.

(I personally like visiting Alaska in middle of winter on any given year
but that's way too brutal for most folks I know, so I only recommend they
visit when it gets dark enough to see auroras -- fall is it, and around
Fairbanks area at ~65 deg N latitude or points north.)

-Dan