Hubble Question...

"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

"Andrew Gray" wrote in message
. ..
In article , Greg D. Moore
(Strider) wrote:
And not only that, except on a perfect sphere, with a separation of 1
mile or so, that will gradually change over time.

Even over a "perfect sphere", the differential drag would move ISS and
HST
apart rapidly.

Fair enough. Ok, perfect sphere in a vacuum. :-)

This is rapidly turning into an exam question. Assuming a point
satellite...

And your point is?

BTW, I got a great deal on massless rope for hauling things up my
frictionless inclined plane. I'm willing to trade for an unused Klien
bottle.



--
-Andrew Gray

In article ,
Brian Gaff wrote:
Why was the Hubble placed in the orbit it is in. Pity nobody thought about
access when it was put up.

Hardly -- it is, in fact, in the *most* accessible orbit for the shuttle.
(The ISS orbit is much less convenient, and was an unhappy compromise that
became necessary when the Russians joined the project.)

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.

Not ones where the shuttle could have lifted Hubble to the desired altitude.
(Shuttle payload to ISS-like orbits is rather more limited.)

Besides, nobody *cared* whether Hubble was going to be accessible from
ISS. ISS was utterly irrelevant to Hubble operations. Servicing Hubble
with dedicated shuttle flights made all kinds of sense; having to work via
ISS made no sense at all.
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |

"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.

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.

I agree with the sediments(sic) expressed here. I also think that a lot of
the suggestions on what to do with Hubble are generated from romantic
notions and not by scientific and/or economic realities. One is trying to
bring Hubble back to display it in the Smith. This is something that
shouldn't be taken from the NASA budget, since the funding WILL come from
other projects that need the funding right now.

Case in point is that the funding for the Next Generation Space Telescope
has been held back, if not cut back, for now, thanks to a tight NASA budget.
I know this first hand because I lost a job working for that project because
one of the contractors didn't have the funding they were expecting this
year. Also, a lot of funding for the two rovers came from other projects
that have sinced suffered; some were reorganized or simply cut.

Those that want to see their romantic notions realized should raise the
funding for it publically and not suggest "NASA do this" or "NASA do that".
There's enough things done by NASA for image rather than scientific and
technological return that robs programs that do the latter of funding. And
those that say NASA isn't about science should be reminded that the images
taken by Hubble were, for the most part, science oriented, whether you
believe money should have been spent on the science or not, and not just for
NASA's public image.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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.


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

"Al Wilson" wrote in message
om...
"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.

[snip !]

"Andy P. Jung" spam@yourownrisk wrote in message
news:Wh%Tb.2227$Yj.625@lakeread02...
"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'd like to see it pointed at Mercury for a very good look just before
they
ditch it in the Pacific.

They're ditching Mercury in the Pacific? Will it fit?




--
Andy P. Jung
Metairie, Louisiana U.S.A.
http://www.JungWorld.com/

To reply via e-mail, please visit my web site.