#31
|
|||
|
|||
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 Apologies if I am missing something obvious - but consider the following: The main reason for not servicing the Hubble AIUI is there is no safe haven or tile repair system if the orbiter were to be damaged during take off. The shuttle payload bay has dimensions 15x60ft (4.6x18.3m) and has a maximum payload weight of approx 50,000lbs (22,680kg) A Soyuz TM is 7m long, 2.7m diameter and weighs about 7 tons. 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 |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Hubble Question...
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... -- -Andrew Gray |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Hubble Question...
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. | |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Hubble Question...
Why was the Hubble placed in the orbit it is in. Pity nobody thought about access when it was put up. I think its kinda sad. NASA abandoning hubble over one service flight, when the safety upgrades are really needed anyway. meanwhile with a new launch capability hubble could continue to be serviced if we had just one more flight. NASA is cutting costs in the worst way |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Hubble Question...
"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. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Hubble Question...
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. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Hubble Question...
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. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Hubble Question...
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NASA Details Risks to Astronauts on Mission to Hubble | Scott M. Kozel | Space Shuttle | 174 | May 14th 04 09:38 PM |
NASA Urged to Reconsider Hubble Decision | Scott M. Kozel | Space Shuttle | 116 | April 2nd 04 07:14 PM |
Don't Desert Hubble | Scott M. Kozel | Space Shuttle | 54 | March 5th 04 05:38 PM |
Hubble Question... | Bruce Kille | Space Shuttle | 67 | February 29th 04 06:30 AM |
The Hubble Space Telescope... | Craig Fink | Space Shuttle | 118 | December 6th 03 05:41 PM |