Death of Hubble

Not to invite a flaming for my ignorance, but inquiring minds want to
know....

With the recent death knell from NASA about no longer servicing Hubble due
to safety concerns, questions are raised about what could be done to salvage
this valuable instrument from possible disintegration on re-entry.

NASA claims that it will only fly to the space station so the astronauts
will have a refuge should something go awry with the shuttle.... well maybe
someone could tell me why we don't tether the Hubble to the space station?
Possible problem with different orbital heights?

Also in the same vein, our fearless leader, GWB, has called for a manned
lunar outpost. realizing that the moon's orbit would render it useless part
of the time, would a moon based observatory be useful?

Opinions?

I'm not going to answer the hubble question since that has been beaten
to death on this NG some time ago.

But the usefulness of a moon based observatory these days is nil. For
starters it would have to be located on the lunar farside, but that is a
minor issue. But with the advent of spaced based telescopes (Hubble,
Spitzer, Chandra, etc...) there is no point.

First, you would have a limited viewing area based on where you put the
observatory. Space Based Telescopes (SBTs) have no restriction. they can
be rotated to scan 360 degrees with no problem.

Second is the issue of building it. You would either have to ferry
everything up from mother Earth (which gets very expensive), and then
construct it there. Now since we no longer have a lunar launch system
that has to be re-invented.

Third, since the moon is in vacuum you would have to use video capture,
digital data collection. Again this is done already by SBTs so why
duplicate the effort?

Craig

In article ,
says...
Not to invite a flaming for my ignorance, but inquiring minds want to
know....

With the recent death knell from NASA about no longer servicing Hubble due
to safety concerns, questions are raised about what could be done to salvage
this valuable instrument from possible disintegration on re-entry.

NASA claims that it will only fly to the space station so the astronauts
will have a refuge should something go awry with the shuttle.... well maybe
someone could tell me why we don't tether the Hubble to the space station?
Possible problem with different orbital heights?

Also in the same vein, our fearless leader, GWB, has called for a manned
lunar outpost. realizing that the moon's orbit would render it useless part
of the time, would a moon based observatory be useful?

Opinions?

"FranticInFresno" wrote in
. com:

Not to invite a flaming for my ignorance, but inquiring minds want to
know....

With the recent death knell from NASA about no longer servicing Hubble
due to safety concerns, questions are raised about what could be done
to salvage this valuable instrument from possible disintegration on
re-entry.


The latest idea is to send robotic servicing missions to keep the hubble
going. The best idea would be for Nasa to put it up for grabs. I.e anyone
who can service it can have it. I.e Chinese or Russians or anyone else.


NASA claims that it will only fly to the space station so the
astronauts will have a refuge should something go awry with the
shuttle.... well maybe someone could tell me why we don't tether the
Hubble to the space station? Possible problem with different orbital
heights?


Not just a possible problem. Getting the Hubble into the same orbit as
the ISS would be a major mission in itself. Actually the Hubble telescope
isn't unique. The US has a number of similar telescopes in orbit looking
down. (Do a search on keyhole). The Keyhole telscopes probably don't have
the guidance systems that allows the Hubble to lock onto a target and
permit long exposures but I suspect they were a lot cheaper than the
Hubble and didn't have crook optics.


Also in the same vein, our fearless leader, GWB, has called for a
manned lunar outpost. realizing that the moon's orbit would render it
useless part of the time, would a moon based observatory be useful?


I would say a lunar base would be useful as a black hole to pour money
into.

LK






Opinions?

In message , Llanzlan
Klazmon The 15th writes
"FranticInFresno" wrote in
.com:

NASA claims that it will only fly to the space station so the
astronauts will have a refuge should something go awry with the
shuttle.... well maybe someone could tell me why we don't tether the
Hubble to the space station? Possible problem with different orbital
heights?


Not just a possible problem. Getting the Hubble into the same orbit as
the ISS would be a major mission in itself. Actually the Hubble telescope
isn't unique. The US has a number of similar telescopes in orbit looking
down. (Do a search on keyhole). The Keyhole telscopes probably don't have
the guidance systems that allows the Hubble to lock onto a target and
permit long exposures but I suspect they were a lot cheaper than the
Hubble

I wouldn't bet on that. Hubble "only" cost a billion dollars (the
servicing missions have added a lot to that) which is a huge amount for
a scientific satellite but a lot less for military. Keyhole satellites
don't have the problem of staying fixed on a stationary point, but they
have the opposite problem of having to maintain diffraction limited
observation of points on the ground which are going past much faster.
HST can only see Earth as a blur.
The other problem with putting Hubble into the same orbit as ISS is that
the whole orbit is full of crap (quite literally) being put out by the
station and supply vehicles - Soyuz and Shuttle (if and when). But it's
academic - AFAIK the plane change from 28 degrees to 56 degrees isn't
just major, it's beyond the shuttle's ability. One of the best
descriptions of plane changes I know of is in Martin Caidin's novel
"Marooned" - preferably the original version. The Russians have to do it
in reverse and it isn't easy.
--
Save the Hubble Space Telescope!
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

NASA Can't go back to the Hubble. It now realizes the shuttle is not
safe. Bert

the moon's orbit would render it useless part
of the time, would a moon based observatory be useful?

Huh?
On the far side of the Moon (away from the electronic racket of Earth), is the perfect location for any observatory. 24/7 the Sun
won't be a problem, unless you are pointing in the general region. (no atmosphere)

A suitable sized crater would be an excellent cradle for radio and x-ray scopes, and optical telescopes could be substantially
bigger without the weight problem causing distortion in the mirror on Earth. The air-less environment means pictures will be as
clear as any other orbital space telescope.


Regards Robert

"FranticInFresno" wrote in message . com...
Not to invite a flaming for my ignorance, but inquiring minds want to
know....

With the recent death knell from NASA about no longer servicing Hubble due
to safety concerns, questions are raised about what could be done to salvage
this valuable instrument from possible disintegration on re-entry.

NASA claims that it will only fly to the space station so the astronauts
will have a refuge should something go awry with the shuttle.... well maybe
someone could tell me why we don't tether the Hubble to the space station?
Possible problem with different orbital heights?

Also in the same vein, our fearless leader, GWB, has called for a manned
lunar outpost. realizing that the moon's orbit would render it useless part
of the time, would a moon based observatory be useful?

Opinions?







---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.655 / Virus Database: 420 - Release Date: 09/04/2004

I think you are incorrect on every point Graig.

I'm all in favour of saving the Hubble telescope and I'm hoping we can have more of the same in as many suitable locations as
possible.
Earth, Moon, and Solar orbits to name a few.

I suspect your fear is we either have one or the other?

The only real problem in a maned Luna colony is their ability to recycle all organic materials, water, oxygen, food and all living
applications.
If the light bulb goes it has to be recycled to make another or if the computer breaks down, can you rebuild it? Otherwise the Moon
base will be dependant on Earth.
At the moment we still don't know how to do this even on Earth, no one is completely self-sufficient. I expect the Moon will give
us the answers if we go there.
This of course is not to be expected right away, but must be the main objective goal, others will be to do science research and
build these observatories.

The Moon does contain virtually all the non-organic resources for this, including a huge solar energy generator in the sky for free


Maybe sometime in the not to distant future we will divert an Iceberg meteor of several billion tons to crash or orbit the Moon.


Regards Robert

"Craig" t wrote in message . net...
I'm not going to answer the hubble question since that has been beaten
to death on this NG some time ago.

But the usefulness of a moon based observatory these days is nil. For
starters it would have to be located on the lunar farside, but that is a
minor issue. But with the advent of spaced based telescopes (Hubble,
Spitzer, Chandra, etc...) there is no point.

First, you would have a limited viewing area based on where you put the
observatory. Space Based Telescopes (SBTs) have no restriction. they can
be rotated to scan 360 degrees with no problem.

Second is the issue of building it. You would either have to ferry
everything up from mother Earth (which gets very expensive), and then
construct it there. Now since we no longer have a lunar launch system
that has to be re-invented.

Third, since the moon is in vacuum you would have to use video capture,
digital data collection. Again this is done already by SBTs so why
duplicate the effort?

Craig

In article ,
says...
Not to invite a flaming for my ignorance, but inquiring minds want to
know....

With the recent death knell from NASA about no longer servicing Hubble due
to safety concerns, questions are raised about what could be done to salvage
this valuable instrument from possible disintegration on re-entry.

NASA claims that it will only fly to the space station so the astronauts
will have a refuge should something go awry with the shuttle.... well maybe
someone could tell me why we don't tether the Hubble to the space station?
Possible problem with different orbital heights?

Also in the same vein, our fearless leader, GWB, has called for a manned
lunar outpost. realizing that the moon's orbit would render it useless part
of the time, would a moon based observatory be useful?

Opinions?








---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.655 / Virus Database: 420 - Release Date: 09/04/2004

In message , Robert McCurdy
writes
the moon's orbit would render it useless part
of the time, would a moon based observatory be useful?

Huh?
On the far side of the Moon (away from the electronic racket of Earth),
is the perfect location for any observatory. 24/7 the Sun
won't be a problem, unless you are pointing in the general region. (no
atmosphere)

A suitable sized crater would be an excellent cradle for radio and
x-ray scopes, and optical telescopes could be substantially
bigger without the weight problem causing distortion in the mirror on
Earth. The air-less environment means pictures will be as
clear as any other orbital space telescope.

Probably not. The weight problem is by definition zero in an orbital
telescope, and if you put it a long way from the Earth it will be able
to look in any direction except for a region near the Sun - I'll give
you the fact that a lunar polar observatory would be a superb site for a
solar observatory, except that we seem to be doing quite well with
probes like SOHO.
The Moon is a remarkably hostile environment, and surface installations
will be subject to wide temperature variations and ultraviolet during
daylight.
Then there's the problem of dust. Abrasive dust raised by observatory
activities and electrostatic effects. I'm not sure if it was seeing
dust, but the Russian Lunokhod 2 rover found that the night sky was
13-15 x as bright as on Earth.
--
Save the Hubble Space Telescope!
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

Jonathan I like what you wrote about a useful crater on the dark side of
the moon. In Chile where we have the huge radio telescope its base was
made by a meteorite crater. On the dark side of the moon these craters
are there for our picking. That alone makes the moon man's best place
for a base. PS Best to make use out of stuff that nature gives us
free.

This shows a remarkable lack of vision and imagination.
You only have 2 choices either we lug everything into space from the huge gravity hole of Earth or we learn to use the Moons 74
quintillion tons (about 1/81 the mass of Earth) for all the things we need to put into orbit and shield ourself from the sun.

The Moon is a remarkably hostile environment, and surface installations
will be subject to wide temperature variations and ultraviolet during
daylight.

This is worse than being in orbit and millions of $ for each maintenance visit?
And of course the fun EVA's required using those zero gravity tools, just like stroll in the park?

the Russian Lunokhod 2 rover found that the night sky was
13-15 x as bright as on Earth.

What does that mean?
The Moon's trace atmosphere is murky?

Lets save the Hubble space telescope, and lets build bigger and better things on the Moon as well.


Regards Robert

"Jonathan Silverlight" wrote in message ...
In message , Robert McCurdy
writes
the moon's orbit would render it useless part
of the time, would a moon based observatory be useful?

Huh?
On the far side of the Moon (away from the electronic racket of Earth),
is the perfect location for any observatory. 24/7 the Sun
won't be a problem, unless you are pointing in the general region. (no
atmosphere)

A suitable sized crater would be an excellent cradle for radio and
x-ray scopes, and optical telescopes could be substantially
bigger without the weight problem causing distortion in the mirror on
Earth. The air-less environment means pictures will be as
clear as any other orbital space telescope.

Probably not. The weight problem is by definition zero in an orbital
telescope, and if you put it a long way from the Earth it will be able
to look in any direction except for a region near the Sun - I'll give
you the fact that a lunar polar observatory would be a superb site for a
solar observatory, except that we seem to be doing quite well with
probes like SOHO.
The Moon is a remarkably hostile environment, and surface installations
will be subject to wide temperature variations and ultraviolet during
daylight.
Then there's the problem of dust. Abrasive dust raised by observatory
activities and electrostatic effects. I'm not sure if it was seeing
dust, but the Russian Lunokhod 2 rover found that the night sky was
13-15 x as bright as on Earth.
--
Save the Hubble Space Telescope!
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.659 / Virus Database: 423 - Release Date: 15/04/2004