Hubble Question...

"John Doe" wrote in message
...
Brian Thorn wrote:
Then Hubble would have to contend with a relatively polluted
environment around ISS, which has rocket thrusters and many spacecraft
coming and going. And Hubble would have to be insulated somehow from
the vibration of humans and machines working inside the Station.

Forgetting economic reality for a moment, couldn't you tether a
telescope to
the station with a cable that is a few kilometres long ? That would
allow the
telescope to benefit from reboosts, while still being far enough away to
avoid
the "pollution" near the station and with a tether long enough to
attenuate
vibrations.

And what are you going to do if and when it drifts into the ISS; expend
more fuel on ISS to avoid it? Sure it could be done, but given that MIR got
smacked by an experimental rocket once gives the Astronauts food for thought
that they might fight such a proposal.



And at regular intervals, they could pull the telescope to the ISS where
changes could be done by ISS crews doing EVAs from Quest, and then push
it
back to its tethered position. From a maintenance point of view, this
would
end up costing a lot less since it woudln't require dedicated flights.

Push it back how? The ISS isn't that manueverable.

Of course, this is academic. Given that they're in such totally different
orbits, for a reason, to avoid a collision, getting Hubble to the ISS would
require a lot of propellant, something the shuttle doesn't have, given that
the cargo bay would be filled with Hubble and unavailable to hold extra
fuel.

John Doe wrote in :

Brian Thorn wrote:
Then Hubble would have to contend with a relatively polluted
environment around ISS, which has rocket thrusters and many
spacecraft coming and going. And Hubble would have to be insulated
somehow from the vibration of humans and machines working inside the
Station.

Forgetting economic reality for a moment, couldn't you tether a
telescope to the station with a cable that is a few kilometres long ?
That would allow the telescope to benefit from reboosts, while still
being far enough away to avoid the "pollution" near the station and
with a tether long enough to attenuate vibrations.

Even a tether only a few km long will still generate some tension due to
gravity-gradient torque. HST's attitude control system, optimized as it is
for fine pointing at relatively high altitudes, may not be able to keep up.

--
JRF

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

John Doe wrote:

Forgetting economic reality for a moment, couldn't you tether a telescope to
the station with a cable that is a few kilometres long ? That would allow the
telescope to benefit from reboosts, while still being far enough away to avoid
the "pollution" near the station and with a tether long enough to attenuate
vibrations.

Yes!!!
Maybe Hubble would be useless, but ISS astronauts would have _really_
big jojo to play

Ante

I'm very worried about the Hubble's end. It's big enough to have some of
its bigger parts survive re-entry, and it definitely doesn't have enough
fuel to change course enough to guarentee a splashdown somewhere.

Boosting it to any higher orbit would have to be done with an attachable
expendible, since the Shuttle can't go high enough to guarentee it won't
fall back. If we're talking about putting it up in a higher orbit without
worrying about using it again, then the only problem is to fly the shuttle
up there, grab Hubble, attach the rocket, release it, have the rocket align
itself and Hubble in the right direction, and fire away. Knowing NASA, I
suspect they're going to take their chances and let it fall rather than
spend the money building the rocket, training the crew, and doing the
mission, all of which is going to cost hundreds of millions of bucks.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There is a fifth dimension beyond that which is known to Man.
It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity.
It is the middle ground between light and shadow,
Between Science and superstition
And it lies between the pit of Man's fears
and the Sunlight of his knowledge.
It is the dimension of imagination.
It is an area that might be called. . . The Twilight Zone.


----------------------------------------------------------------------


"Bruce Kille" wrote in message
.. .
With or without any future service the Hubble will some day go offline.
There have been a lot of ideas floating around as to what to do then.
I was wondering if it could be possible to boost it to a LaGrange Point,
rather than de-orbit it? Is an earth-moon point stable? I know the
earth-sun point can be used as the SOHO satellite is there, but it
would require a lot more fuel to reach. Apparently, recovery of the
Hubble for placement in the Smithsonian is not possible, so I wanted
to put an alternative idea out for discussion.
Bruce

"David Nakamoto" wrote in message
news
I'm very worried about the Hubble's end. It's big enough to have some
of
its bigger parts survive re-entry, and it definitely doesn't have enough
fuel to change course enough to guarentee a splashdown somewhere.

Boosting it to any higher orbit would have to be done with an attachable
expendible, since the Shuttle can't go high enough to guarentee it won't
fall back. If we're talking about putting it up in a higher orbit without
worrying about using it again, then the only problem is to fly the shuttle
up there, grab Hubble, attach the rocket, release it, have the rocket
align
itself and Hubble in the right direction, and fire away. Knowing NASA, I
suspect they're going to take their chances and let it fall rather than
spend the money building the rocket, training the crew, and doing the
mission, all of which is going to cost hundreds of millions of bucks.


The plan is to fly up a booster to guide it into a controlled descent.
Without the Shuttle the booster will have to go up on an unmanned launcher.

uray

In article , David Nakamoto
wrote:

I'm very worried about the Hubble's end. It's big enough to have some of
its bigger parts survive re-entry, and it definitely doesn't have enough
fuel to change course enough to guarentee a splashdown somewhere.

Boosting it to any higher orbit would have to be done with an attachable
expendible, since the Shuttle can't go high enough to guarentee it won't
fall back. If we're talking about putting it up in a higher orbit without
worrying about using it again, then the only problem is to fly the shuttle
up there, grab Hubble, attach the rocket, release it, have the rocket align
itself and Hubble in the right direction, and fire away.

That is the whole problem in the first place, NASA decided not to
fly another shuttle mission to Hubble, and that is why it is facing
the end of its life. If NASA were to consider another Hubble flight,
then they would simply keep Hubble in operation.

There is talk of sending a booster pack up to Hubble to ensure
that it is under control as it comes back in.

I would like to see Hubble come to a better ending, such as doing
the additional Shuttle flight despite the risk, or putting Hubble
into some parking orbit to save it until it can be brought back
to the Air & Space Museum (or the NASM Annex to be built on the
moon). But the money, which could be $500-million or so to fly
that mission and build the hardware, could do so much more down
here on Earth. Consider that the Keck cost something like $30-
million each. We could build an enormous amount of space and
astronony hardware for what it would cost to save Hubble.

-john-

--
================================================== ==================
John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
================================================== ==================

Looks like Hubble is running for President in 2004!

-------------------------
SAVE HUBBLE FOR KIDS SAKE!

http://www.Hubble2004.com

What Can I do NOW to help SAVE Hubble Space Telescope?
The best way to get your voice heard is in chorus with others, as a
group we can make sure the Hubble Space Telescope will be maintained
for the "Worlds" benefit. NASA has said that the telescope is too
"risky" to maintain, but at the same time they support sending
astronauts to Mars as their current and past "robotic" missions are
repeatedly having serious technical problems.

We're starting a GLOBAL petition that will take the voices of people
from all over the world and send them to the US Congress to pass a
resolution to allow the Hubble to provide imagery until the mission is
complete in 2011. At that time, its expected that a new telescope
will replace Hubble.
-------------------------

"John A. Weeks III" wrote in message ...
In article , David Nakamoto
wrote:

I'm very worried about the Hubble's end. It's big enough to have some of
its bigger parts survive re-entry, and it definitely doesn't have enough
fuel to change course enough to guarentee a splashdown somewhere.

Boosting it to any higher orbit would have to be done with an attachable
expendible, since the Shuttle can't go high enough to guarentee it won't
fall back. If we're talking about putting it up in a higher orbit without
worrying about using it again, then the only problem is to fly the shuttle
up there, grab Hubble, attach the rocket, release it, have the rocket align
itself and Hubble in the right direction, and fire away.

That is the whole problem in the first place, NASA decided not to
fly another shuttle mission to Hubble, and that is why it is facing
the end of its life. If NASA were to consider another Hubble flight,
then they would simply keep Hubble in operation.

There is talk of sending a booster pack up to Hubble to ensure
that it is under control as it comes back in.

I would like to see Hubble come to a better ending, such as doing
the additional Shuttle flight despite the risk, or putting Hubble
into some parking orbit to save it until it can be brought back
to the Air & Space Museum (or the NASM Annex to be built on the
moon). But the money, which could be $500-million or so to fly
that mission and build the hardware, could do so much more down
here on Earth. Consider that the Keck cost something like $30-
million each. We could build an enormous amount of space and
astronony hardware for what it would cost to save Hubble.

-john-

The problem is that we can't afford everything we now have and can
eventually think of.
It's lots of fun to go to a party & have a great time as long as somebody
else pays for it. The live band, the great food, real crystal dinnerware,
but eventually the bill does show up, all the talk of the national deficit
seems to disappear when it's my fun thing that might not be fully funded.
Somehow using the kids as a shield, especially now, really isn't genuine.
I'm all for science, who in the group isn't, but talking about saving
everything and wanting more just adds to the bill that will have to be
paid later.
I know, I know, you can't hear with all the great music right now, but I
hope I am not around when the music stops, you on the other hand probably
will be. Make wise choices now, they will still be there tomorrow.



"Charlie A." wrote in message
om...
Looks like Hubble is running for President in 2004!

-------------------------
SAVE HUBBLE FOR KIDS SAKE!

http://www.Hubble2004.com

What Can I do NOW to help SAVE Hubble Space Telescope?
The best way to get your voice heard is in chorus with others, as a
group we can make sure the Hubble Space Telescope will be maintained
for the "Worlds" benefit. NASA has said that the telescope is too
"risky" to maintain, but at the same time they support sending
astronauts to Mars as their current and past "robotic" missions are
repeatedly having serious technical problems.

We're starting a GLOBAL petition that will take the voices of people
from all over the world and send them to the US Congress to pass a
resolution to allow the Hubble to provide imagery until the mission is
complete in 2011. At that time, its expected that a new telescope
will replace Hubble.
-------------------------

"John A. Weeks III" wrote in message
...
In article , David Nakamoto
wrote:

I'm very worried about the Hubble's end. It's big enough to have
some of
its bigger parts survive re-entry, and it definitely doesn't have
enough
fuel to change course enough to guarentee a splashdown somewhere.

Boosting it to any higher orbit would have to be done with an
attachable
expendible, since the Shuttle can't go high enough to guarentee it
won't
fall back. If we're talking about putting it up in a higher orbit
without
worrying about using it again, then the only problem is to fly the
shuttle
up there, grab Hubble, attach the rocket, release it, have the
rocket align
itself and Hubble in the right direction, and fire away.

That is the whole problem in the first place, NASA decided not to
fly another shuttle mission to Hubble, and that is why it is facing
the end of its life. If NASA were to consider another Hubble flight,
then they would simply keep Hubble in operation.

There is talk of sending a booster pack up to Hubble to ensure
that it is under control as it comes back in.

I would like to see Hubble come to a better ending, such as doing
the additional Shuttle flight despite the risk, or putting Hubble
into some parking orbit to save it until it can be brought back
to the Air & Space Museum (or the NASM Annex to be built on the
moon). But the money, which could be $500-million or so to fly
that mission and build the hardware, could do so much more down
here on Earth. Consider that the Keck cost something like $30-
million each. We could build an enormous amount of space and
astronony hardware for what it would cost to save Hubble.

-john-

"ypauls" wrote in message
news
The problem is that we can't afford everything we now have and can
eventually think of.
It's lots of fun to go to a party & have a great time as long as somebody
else pays for it.

NASA has its priorities wrong. We need to find a way to greatly reduce the
cost of launches. $10,000 per pound is too much! If we could get it down to
$100 per pound or less, every university in the country could have its own
space telescope if they wanted one. The question is, how do we make space
affordable? Why is it still so expensive after nearly 50 years of launches?

In article ,
says...

I'm very worried about the Hubble's end. It's big enough to have some of
its bigger parts survive re-entry, and it definitely doesn't have enough
fuel to change course enough to guarentee a splashdown somewhere.

There is no fuel or propulsion system on the hubble, and there never was.