Hubble Question...

On Sun, 1 Feb 2004 20:19:44 +0200, "Roger Conroy"
wrote:


Recovery of Hubble remains technically possible, but NASA has ground-ruled
it out for safety reasons.

How about attaching it to the ISS?
73 Roger ZR3RC

We'd have to launch a Shuttle to go get Hubble. Bring it home. And
then launch it again on another Shuttle to the ISS. The fuel costs are
roughly comparable to sending a rocket up to it to change Hubble's
orbital inclination.

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. And
somehow, Hubble would have to find a way to point itself irrespective
of what direction the Station is pointing.

Leaving it in orbit nearby is not practical, either. Hubble has no
propulsion system, so it would quickly drift away from ISS (which
performs semi-frequent orbit adjustment firings to maintain the
desired altitude.)

Brian

Bruce Kille wrote:

Apparently, recovery of the Hubble for placement in the Smithsonian is
not possible,

Bruce

*Tell that to Haliburton (sp?) and I'll bet a contract will be let
tomorrow.
Jerry

"jerry warner" wrote in message
...


Bruce Kille wrote:

Apparently, recovery of the Hubble for placement in the Smithsonian is
not possible,

Bruce

*Tell that to Haliburton (sp?) and I'll bet a contract will be let
tomorrow.
Jerry

If it weren't for the fact that they're more than willing to defraud the US
taxpayer at the drop of a hat, Halliburton would be my first choice to build
a manned base on the moon or in the belt.

Doc

--
And if you wish to avoid crushing social embarrassment, it's red wine
with dwarf, white with fetus.

Semolina Pilchard

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 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.

I realise at that the ISS altitude, such a telescope wouldn't provide the
ultimate in precision, but wouldn't it still be of useful to many scientists?

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 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:

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

David Nakamoto wrote:

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.

Could they build simple attachment, with few gyroscopes, that can also
boost it to desired orbit few more times?

I red somewhere about little satellites that can save existing
satellites from deorbiting. This one would just need to have few more
gyros.

Ante

Ancillary question...
Why was the Hubble placed in the orbit it is in. Pity nobody thought about
access when it was put up. I'd have thought that there could have been
orbits that would be reachable from ISS without the huge thrust requirements
that the current one requires. Or is it just a case of nobody knew which
orbit Iss would use at the time, so then the question could be asked about
the orbit chosen for the ISS??

Also, considering the main , or one of the main parts of this new
initiative is to get humans onto other worlds, where they are on their own
for long periods, surely, if Hubble could be preserved in orbit, it could
serve as a relatively safe practice mission destination for any new craft
that might be designed.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________
__________________________________


"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
|
|
|


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free, so there!
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.576 / Virus Database: 365 - Release Date: 30/01/04

"Starlord" wrote in message
...
That's the idea I've been pushing, not only could it be serviced but also
controled from the ISS, have it maybe about a mile from it in same orbit.


And what happens the first time you reboost ISS?

And not only that, except on a perfect sphere, with a separation of 1 mile
or so, that will gradually change over time.