A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Space Shuttle
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

NYT: Death Sentence for the Hubble?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #12  
Old February 16th 05, 02:41 PM
Henry Spencer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Christopher M. Jones wrote:
...However, a telescope in an orbit with such a
low lifetime would also need frequent reboosts, which would
require a lot of onboard propellant and frequent usage of some
sort of thruster. Things which are not terribly compatable
with high precision optical astronomy equipment...


No, it just means you have to choose propulsion systems carefully,
avoiding orthodox hypergolics and other systems which spew out condensible
garbage that can easily contaminate optics. Xenon Hall-effect thrusters
or an ammonia arcjet would be good choices.
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Death Sentence for the Hubble? MrPepper11 Policy 437 May 4th 05 03:56 PM
NYT: Death Sentence for the Hubble? Pat Flannery History 39 February 20th 05 05:59 PM
Death Sentence for the Hubble? Neil Gerace History 17 February 15th 05 02:06 PM
Congressional Resolutions on Hubble Space Telescope EFLASPO Amateur Astronomy 0 April 1st 04 03:26 PM
UFO Activities from Biblical Times (LONG TEXT) Kazmer Ujvarosy SETI 2 December 25th 03 07:33 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:12 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.