Hubble Question...

(Hallerb) writes:

One issue about leaving it in orbit indefinitely is that NASA's orbit
debris policy is specifically against that. From the orbit debris

well then nudge it into a stable heliospheric orbit. that might be safer than
deorbiting anyway/

You've no idea how big a "nudge" you'd need for this, do you? It's
more than a "nudge", it's a huge, freaking upper stage that would be
required. That would seem likely to cause structural failure of
things like the deployed solar arrays.

Alternatively, try this with something low thrust and highly efficient
like ion thrusters over a long period of time and you're forcing
Hubble to spend a lot of time in the van Allen radiation fields. This
isn't good for electronics and solar cells.

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

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?

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?


Thats the REAL problem and shiuld be fixed first. get cheap cost to orbit makes
everything less expensive from then on.

moon mars, whatever just became affordable

It is possible, are we willing to give up sending people into space? That
is where the multiplier of 100x shows up.


"Bootstrap Bill" wrote in message
...

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 rec.radio.amateur.space Bootstrap Bill wrote:

"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?

How many reasons do you want?

A hundred fold decrease in cost is a HUGE decrease. For high tech gadgetry,
the typical decrease is typically about ten fold from initial model to
balls out mass production.

No major advances in basic propulsion science, i.e. no dilithium crystals,
impulse drive or anti-gravity engines nor is there likely to be. Chemical
rockets are going to be around a long time.

No economies of scale and highly unlikely space craft will ever be mass
produced like Toyotas.

Since it is so expensive, only governments can afford to do it, and we
all know how efficient government agencies of any type or nation are.

That's not to say costs can't be reduced, just that it is unrealistic
to expect a couple of orders of magnitude reductions.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove -spam-sux to reply.

Another possibly stupid question:

In the various movies about giant objects on a collision to earth, they have
often used Hubble to get more precise imaging to determine the nature of
object, where to plant the big bomb etc etc .

In real life, once an object of a possible collision course has been detected,
could/would Hubble be tasked to follow that object to provide the most
accurate information ? Or would ground based telescopes be more than
sufficient to get the job done ?

"Bootstrap Bill" wrote in message ...
"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?


Oh, googling on sci.space.* + "CATS" might be interesting. As a
summary: it is unlikely to be NASA that gets the price down. Google
also on Space-X, XCOR, Pegasus, ....

/dps

In article , John Doe wrote:
In real life, once an object of a possible collision course has been detected,
could/would Hubble be tasked to follow that object to provide the most
accurate information ? Or would ground based telescopes be more than
sufficient to get the job done ?

If all you want to do is *track* it, ground-based telescopes would be
perfectly adequate for almost all cases. Hubble might be used for an
attempt to get an actual *image* of the thing, although it's hard to say
how useful that would be.
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |