![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Yo,
I think throwing away telescopes is a really bad idea. They're very expensive to build, and I don't think a later one will be much cheaper. So why not, I thought to myself the other day, send Hubble to L1, where it will be free to study the cosmos without fear of falling out of the sky? If it can't be serviced in 2006, at least it will be in cold storage until we can service it at a future L1 station. So I checked it out. It's a heavy telescope to send up that high: Hubble weighs 11,860kg. L1 takes about an additional 3200m/sec of delta-v from Hubble's current orbit. Hubble already weighs 11,860 kg by itself. Throw in engines & tankage (4500 kg for 2 dry centaur derivatives, 460 Isp ea.) You're already at 16,360 kg minus fuel. Mo = 16,360kg * e^(3200m/sec /[460sec * 9.8 m/sec^2]) = 33,000 kg. That's a total mass of 33,000 kg for an L-1 capable Hubble, or an ADDITIONAL 21,000 kg to LEO to boost Hubble to L1. That's a two Atlas V 500 or one Delta IV Heavy mission, at about $200 mil for launch services either way. Anyway this seems like a better idea to me than providing $100 mil in launch services just to safely deorbit the Hubble mirror, although there are probably some issues with moving Hubble by modified Centaur--I believe quite a bit of shaking would be involved... Tom Merkle |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NASA Urged to Reconsider Hubble Decision | Scott M. Kozel | Space Shuttle | 116 | April 2nd 04 07:14 PM |
Don't Desert Hubble | Scott M. Kozel | Space Shuttle | 54 | March 5th 04 04:38 PM |
hubble highjacked | Markus Baur | Policy | 22 | February 6th 04 04:59 PM |
Hubble Space Telescope first casualty of Bush space initiative | Tom Abbott | Policy | 10 | January 21st 04 05:20 AM |
Hubble images being colorized to enhance their appeal for public - LA Times | Rusty B | Policy | 4 | September 15th 03 10:38 AM |