The Hubble Space Telescope...

... belongs in the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum, not spread across the
earth as a debris field.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/994737.asp?0cv=TB10

begin quote

In the wake of the space shuttle Columbia disaster, NASA pulled the plug on
any plans it had to retrieve the Hubble Space Telescope at the end of its
life so it could be displayed in a museum.

end quote, begin rant

NASA (or better yet Congress) should pull the plug on some NASA managers,
instead of the Hubble Space Telescope. The Hubble Space Telescope has
contributed so much to our the knowledge of the Universe it would be
criminal not to put it in a museum for display along with all it's
achievements.

NASA management, definitely the "Wrong Stuff". Not a care in the world
about spreading Columbia all across East Texas, but worried about Hubble
debris. Not a creative or innovative thought about how to repair Columbia
on-orbit with the stuff they had on-board. No wonder they can't figure out
how to make a repair kit for the heat shield so they can service or bring
Hubble down safely.

end rant

Save the Hubble, from a disgraceful death,

Craig Fink

Craig Fink wrote:

.. belongs in the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum, not spread across the
earth as a debris field.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/994737.asp?0cv=TB10

begin quote

In the wake of the space shuttle Columbia disaster, NASA pulled the plug on
any plans it had to retrieve the Hubble Space Telescope at the end of its
life so it could be displayed in a museum.

end quote, begin rant

NASA (or better yet Congress) should pull the plug on some NASA managers,
instead of the Hubble Space Telescope. The Hubble Space Telescope has
contributed so much to our the knowledge of the Universe it would be
criminal not to put it in a museum for display along with all it's
achievements.

NASA management, definitely the "Wrong Stuff". Not a care in the world
about spreading Columbia all across East Texas, but worried about Hubble
debris. Not a creative or innovative thought about how to repair Columbia
on-orbit with the stuff they had on-board. No wonder they can't figure out
how to make a repair kit for the heat shield so they can service or bring
Hubble down safely.

end rant

Save the Hubble, from a disgraceful death,

Is there a shuttle flight that would have utility and justification
independent of a HST return, that would take place at the correct time
and mission profile, when the HST has reached the end of its life?

--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com

"Scott M. Kozel" wrote in
:

Is there a shuttle flight that would have utility and justification
independent of a HST return, that would take place at the correct time
and mission profile, when the HST has reached the end of its life?

Not on the current manifest, I'm afraid. All planned shuttle flights are
either to ISS or HST. They're in different inclinations so you can't visit
both on the same mission. Plus, the Orbiter Docking System takes up too
much room in the payload bay for HST to fit.

A hypothetical mission would have to be launched in HST's orbital plane
(28.5 degrees inclination) and leave the payload bay empty for HST return.
The latter rules out a Spacehab-type science mission, leaving only a
satellite deploy mission possible. And the space shuttle is legally
prohibited from performing satellite deploys that could be done by an ELV.


--
JRF

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

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote:

"Scott M. Kozel" wrote:

Is there a shuttle flight that would have utility and justification
independent of a HST return, that would take place at the correct time
and mission profile, when the HST has reached the end of its life?

Not on the current manifest, I'm afraid. All planned shuttle flights are
either to ISS or HST. They're in different inclinations so you can't visit
both on the same mission. Plus, the Orbiter Docking System takes up too
much room in the payload bay for HST to fit.

A hypothetical mission would have to be launched in HST's orbital plane
(28.5 degrees inclination) and leave the payload bay empty for HST return.
The latter rules out a Spacehab-type science mission, leaving only a
satellite deploy mission possible. And the space shuttle is legally
prohibited from performing satellite deploys that could be done by an ELV.

That is basically what I thought. I think that it would be fascinating
to some day be able to see the HST in the Smithsonian Air and Space
Museum, and that would be easy for me as the new museum annex is less
than 100 miles from where I live (Virginia); but I can't see the
justification for a $500+ million shuttle mission being built around
a returning the HST if the mission is not justifiable for non-HST
reasons.

--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com

In message , Scott M. Kozel
writes

That is basically what I thought. I think that it would be fascinating
to some day be able to see the HST in the Smithsonian Air and Space
Museum, and that would be easy for me as the new museum annex is less
than 100 miles from where I live (Virginia); but I can't see the
justification for a $500+ million shuttle mission being built around
a returning the HST if the mission is not justifiable for non-HST
reasons.

Surely you can see the HST (or its spare), unless it's been removed?
They even took a component from it for a servicing mission. Let it go.
--
Rabbit arithmetic - 1 plus 1 equals 10
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

The interesting concept thread has a proposed propulsion system that could move
hubble to a near ISS orbit for easy servicing. It could then be updated
indefinetely.

I believe this is a excellent cost effective idea and would make retrieval easy
too

"Hallerb" wrote:
The interesting concept thread has a proposed propulsion system that could
move
hubble to a near ISS orbit for easy servicing. It could then be updated
indefinetely.

I believe this is a excellent cost effective idea and would make retrieval
easy
too

This is completely impractical from an orbital mechanics standpoint, as well
as a safety standpoint.

It is cost prohibitive to move HST's inclination that much, and once "near
ISS" would steadily move away from ISS without very costly maintenance
thrusters, which (of course) would degrade the scientific merits for the
telescope *in the first place*.

Roger
--
Roger Balettie
former Flight Dynamics Officer
Space Shuttle Mission Control
http://www.balettie.com/

"Roger Balettie" wrote in message . ..
"Hallerb" wrote:
The interesting concept thread has a proposed propulsion system that could
move
hubble to a near ISS orbit for easy servicing. It could then be updated
indefinetely.

I believe this is a excellent cost effective idea and would make retrieval
easy
too

This is completely impractical from an orbital mechanics standpoint, as well
as a safety standpoint.

It is cost prohibitive to move HST's inclination that much, and once "near
ISS" would steadily move away from ISS without very costly maintenance
thrusters, which (of course) would degrade the scientific merits for the
telescope *in the first place*.

You'd be surprised. It can be made to work, though in my
opinion the benefits don't outweight the costs. Those
crazy Europeans are planning (or maybe, kinda, sorta
planning on planning, in the classic European fashion) to
do this trick (stunt?) with an X-Ray telescope:

http://astro.esa.int/XEUS/

Unfortunately, NASA does not seem to be taking a particularly rational
approach to saving Hubble. Goddard wants to spend $300 million on
developing a robotic servicing mission. Too bad for this option that
by the time the system is developed, all the Hubble gyros will likely
be out of action, making a robotic mission difficult if not
impossible. Johnson Space Center wants to use 2 Shuttles for a
servicing mission, one for the prime mission, one as a backup in case
the first Shuttle has problems inflight and the crew needs to be
rescued. Since there is no way that NASA would launch a Shuttle in a
few days in the wake of a possibly unknown crippling accident aboard a
prior Shuttle, this 2 Shuttle option won't pass the first serious
look.

So, things look grim not just for Hubble but to avoid a 2nd Skylab
type failure.


"Scott M. Kozel" wrote in message ...
Craig Fink wrote:

.. belongs in the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum, not spread across the
earth as a debris field.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/994737.asp?0cv=TB10

begin quote

In the wake of the space shuttle Columbia disaster, NASA pulled the plug on
any plans it had to retrieve the Hubble Space Telescope at the end of its
life so it could be displayed in a museum.

end quote, begin rant

NASA (or better yet Congress) should pull the plug on some NASA managers,
instead of the Hubble Space Telescope. The Hubble Space Telescope has
contributed so much to our the knowledge of the Universe it would be
criminal not to put it in a museum for display along with all it's
achievements.

NASA management, definitely the "Wrong Stuff". Not a care in the world
about spreading Columbia all across East Texas, but worried about Hubble
debris. Not a creative or innovative thought about how to repair Columbia
on-orbit with the stuff they had on-board. No wonder they can't figure out
how to make a repair kit for the heat shield so they can service or bring
Hubble down safely.

end rant

Save the Hubble, from a disgraceful death,

Is there a shuttle flight that would have utility and justification
independent of a HST return, that would take place at the correct time
and mission profile, when the HST has reached the end of its life?

(Explorer8939) wrote in
m:

Johnson Space Center wants to use 2 Shuttles for a
servicing mission, one for the prime mission, one as a backup in case
the first Shuttle has problems inflight and the crew needs to be
rescued.

Incorrect. JSC is *studying* the option of a rescue shuttle in the even
that GSFC *wants* an HST servicing mission before the shuttle program has
standalone repair capability. JSC does not *want* to use a rescue shuttle;
it would *prefer* to delay the next HST servicing mission until standalone
repair capability is available.

I've explained this to you before. You seem to be pretty clue-proof.

--
JRF

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