Hubble Question...

So.... on a mission to replace Hubble gyros or add new instruments
why not just load up 2 x Soyuz into the orbiter payload bay? In the
unlikely event of the shuttle being damaged on the way to orbit
you have a bail out facilty for 6 astronauts.

If transfer from the orbiter to 2 different Soyuz's is a problem then fly a
skeleton crew of 3 and engineer a docking adapter directly from the
shuttle payload bay to the Soyuz.



Andy

I like this idea. Once back home safe and sound the soyuz could be reflown on
their actual mission or taken by shuttle to ISS and used for rescue ships
there.

Could Soyuz long term storage be solved by taking them to orbit by shuttle?

"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



I have read the extensive thread that my question has started, but I think
most of you missed my point. I said once the Hubble was OFFLINE
what should we do with it. My idea was to find a way to preserve it
in space as a museum piece, since it is not practical to return it to the
Smithsonian here on earth. Most of the posts talked about how it
could not function at other orbits, etc., which was not my question.
Rather than send a drone to de-orbit Hubble why not boost it to
a LaGrange point or perhaps Geo-sync orbit, where in its offline
state it could be visited in the future...
Bruce

"Bruce Kille" wrote in message
...

I have read the extensive thread that my question has started, but I think
most of you missed my point. I said once the Hubble was OFFLINE
what should we do with it. My idea was to find a way to preserve it
in space as a museum piece, since it is not practical to return it to the
Smithsonian here on earth. Most of the posts talked about how it
could not function at other orbits, etc., which was not my question.
Rather than send a drone to de-orbit Hubble why not boost it to
a LaGrange point or perhaps Geo-sync orbit, where in its offline
state it could be visited in the future...

Telescopes were built to look through, not at. The Hubble shouldn't be
treated like a Questar. A safe but lame Hubble isn't worth a damn. Some
people say putting it in the Smithsonian will be inspirational to the next
generation. But we can't do that yet. And even when we do, wouldn't a
better inspiration be something that is in space and operational?

Spending money on the Hubble to continue ops is good, but spending money
on it for museum purposes is a waste, just like buying a Questar scope.
Our money would be better spent on a next generation scope like NGST/JWST,
like buying an ETX.

The 3.5" Questar has an outrageous price tag of $3,000 to $3,500. This is
way too much for a puny 3.5". The Questar doesn't provide anything special
for that price. The optics are so, so nothing that good. Yes it has finely
machined metal parts which is nice but in no way justifies the price. What
about that nice pretty chart on the tube. It is crap and you can buy
Uranometria for a lot less.

The Meade ETX is a great alternative to the screw you over price Questar. It
only cost around $350. The optical quality of the ETX is better then the
break the bank Questar. I have seen the 2 side by side and the ETX was
noticeably sharper. Also S&T has compared the 2 and they also say the ETX
optics are better. But the ETX has some plastic parts. There is nothing
wrong with plastic parts. Plastic is the way of the future. Even your car
has plastic in it. Plastic is very strong. There are those who think plastic
is not as good as medal. Those who think like that are brainwashed by the
evil merchant thieves. Some claim the Questar can withstand being dropped
down the stairs better then the ETX. You drop either one down the stairs and
the optics will break. But hey the mount is fine but useless with cracked
glass. The ETX wouldn't survive the fall either, but who cares buy another
one just $350. You can drop several down the stairs and replace them and
still save money over the Questar. That is what I call a good investment.

What about other alternatives. All telescopes 4" or larger except refractors
are much better alternatives then the Questar.

The Questar 3.5" is generally considered too small for serious astronomy.
The f/13 f/ratio is too ssssslllllllloooooooowwwwwww for astrophotography or
CCD imaging. $3,500 is a serious price so therefore you would think it is
for serious astronomy. All 6" Newtonians will outperform the Questar in
everyway and they cost less. You can buy a 6" scope for just $300. Read any
book on astronomy and you will learn that aperture is the key. The larger
the more you can see. You can get larger aperture for a fraction of the cost
of the Questar. There are times with travel restrictions or quick setup use
where small aperture is fine. That is what binoculars or the ETX is for.

So with all the reasons not to buy a Questar then why do morons still buy
the over priced to puny to see a damn thing scope? Only explanation is they
have mental problems. They think that if they spend large amount of money on
something it makes them feel better. Then they tell lies that it is the
best. Look at the pretty star chart. I have more money then you do so na na
boo boo. The Questar is looked at more then looked through, how sad. This is
a serious thing. Whenever you see a Questar stay far away from it and the
owner. The owner has a serious problem and may even kill you.

Spending money on the Hubble to continue ops is good, but spending money
on it for museum purposes is a waste, just like buying a Questar

Excuse me but if we really did that we would have no air and space museum. No
KSC visitors center for tourists.All never existing because they cost big bucks
to maintain.

I think hubble should go to a museum, if it can be done safely. Ideally it
should be serviced at least one more time.

With a new manned launch system additional servicing might be possible.

(Hallerb) writes:

Excuse me but if we really did that we would have no air and space museum. No
KSC visitors center for tourists.All never existing because they cost big bucks
to maintain.

Museums are for anything that comes back conveniently. For example, the
Viking landers will never make it into the Smithsonian. You'll have
to be satisfied with the non-flown hardware that is displayed.

I think hubble should go to a museum, if it can be done safely. Ideally it
should be serviced at least one more time.

With a new manned launch system additional servicing might be possible.

You are promoting two different goals that are practically mutually
exclusive. Additional servicing by a new manned launch system would
mean that you're extending the life of Hubble beyond the life of the
shuttle system. Simply put, Hubble isn't coming back to Earth in one
piece without the shuttle.

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

Museums are for anything that comes back conveniently. For example, the
Viking landers will never make it into the Smithsonian.

Never is a LONG time. Who knows 50 years from now it might be recovered and
returned for display. alongside snoopy and other long duration artifacts. If
bushes plan happens we may have the ability to recover snoopy as part of a
asteroid mission.

With a new manned launch system additional servicing might be possible.

You are promoting two different goals that are practically mutually
exclusive. Additional servicing by a new manned launch system would
mean that you're extending the life of Hubble beyond the life of the
shuttle system. Simply put, Hubble isn't coming back to Earth in one
piece without the shuttle.

Jeff

A cargo shuttle C is presently one possiblity. A new crew vehicle could be used
for future service missions.

Since we dont know YET what form future vehicles may take its too early to say
it cant be returned.

A new crew vehicle could be ready before shuttle retirement. In that case a
shuttle could be sent to hubble and it loaded for recovery. If there were any
imminent safety issuers a new crew capsule could be held on the pad and sent
for the crew while the shuttle makes a unmmanned return.

NASA is going to try to keep the shuttle around as long as possible. Who
believes it will retired exactly on schedule?

Al Wilson wrote:



(Snipped strange amateur astronomy rant and reset follow-ups)

Friend, whatever meds you're on, double the dose and keep it out of
sci.space.*, mmmm 'kay?

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
Reformed Aerospace Engineer
Remove invalid nonsense for email.

On 02/03/04 21:43 +0900, Al Wilson wrote:

The 3.5" Questar has an outrageous price tag of $3,000 to $3,500. This is
way too much for a puny 3.5". The Questar doesn't provide anything special

Helloooooooo? Might you wish to convey how 5 paragraphs of
anti-Questar rant has anything to do with turning the HST into a
space exhibit? You did well with the first paragraph. The second
one started to slip. The remaining five were worthless.

That was truly a bizarre piece of work.

trane
--
//------------------------------------------------------------
// Trane Francks Tokyo, Japan
// Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.

Trane Francks wrote in message:

snip
That was truly a bizarre piece of work.

Hi, Trane,

What do you expect from Shawn Grant? Didn't you recognize his style??

Dave Jessie

In (rec.radio.amateur.space), Al Wilson wrote:

[snip the unimportant stuff, notice nothing remains]

"Never go off on tangents, which are lines that intersect a curve at only
one point and were discovered by Euclid, who lived in the 6th century,
which was an era dominated by the Goths, who lived in what we now know
as Poland." - Unknown from Nov. 1998 issue of Infosystems Executive.