Hubble Question...

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.

(Hallerb) writes:

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.

Museums are for anything that comes back conveniently. For example, the
Viking landers will never make it into the Smithsonian. You'll have
to be satisfied with the non-flown hardware that is displayed.

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.

You are promoting two different goals that are practically mutually
exclusive. Additional servicing by a new manned launch system would
mean that you're extending the life of Hubble beyond the life of the
shuttle system. Simply put, Hubble isn't coming back to Earth in one
piece without the shuttle.

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

Museums are for anything that comes back conveniently. For example, the
Viking landers will never make it into the Smithsonian.

Never is a LONG time. Who knows 50 years from now it might be recovered and
returned for display. alongside snoopy and other long duration artifacts. If
bushes plan happens we may have the ability to recover snoopy as part of a
asteroid mission.

With a new manned launch system additional servicing might be possible.

You are promoting two different goals that are practically mutually
exclusive. Additional servicing by a new manned launch system would
mean that you're extending the life of Hubble beyond the life of the
shuttle system. Simply put, Hubble isn't coming back to Earth in one
piece without the shuttle.

Jeff

A cargo shuttle C is presently one possiblity. A new crew vehicle could be used
for future service missions.

Since we dont know YET what form future vehicles may take its too early to say
it cant be returned.

A new crew vehicle could be ready before shuttle retirement. In that case a
shuttle could be sent to hubble and it loaded for recovery. If there were any
imminent safety issuers a new crew capsule could be held on the pad and sent
for the crew while the shuttle makes a unmmanned return.

NASA is going to try to keep the shuttle around as long as possible. Who
believes it will retired exactly on schedule?

(Hallerb) writes:

A cargo shuttle C is presently one possiblity. A new crew vehicle could be used
for future service missions.

Since we dont know YET what form future vehicles may take its too early to say
it cant be returned.

It's going to be a *long* time after the shuttle is retired before
anything recoverable flies with a 15'x60' payload bay. Return of
large payloads to earth is one of the capabilities that doesn't make
much sense for sustained lunar/Mars missions. It certainly doesn't
make sense for the commercial market (geo comsats). Without any real
requirement for this capability, it won't be developed.

It's better to keep your assets up and running as long as possible,
rather than to keep bringing them back to earth.

A new crew vehicle could be ready before shuttle retirement. In that case a
shuttle could be sent to hubble and it loaded for recovery. If there were any
imminent safety issuers a new crew capsule could be held on the pad and sent
for the crew while the shuttle makes a unmmanned return.

This is a possibility, but my point is that it is at odds with keeping
Hubble functioning as long as possible. If you used that mission to
service Hubble one more time (and possibly install a deorbit package),
then you'd get even more science out of it.

If you use one of the last shuttle flights to service Hubble, then
shuttle won't be around later to retrieve it when it finally dies.
Remember Skylab? I really don't think we want to bet on hypothetical
future recovery systems that haven't even been funded yet.

NASA is going to try to keep the shuttle around as long as possible. Who
believes it will retired exactly on schedule?

It likely will be, just as Apollo was ruthlessly hacked into non
existence in order to free up funding for shuttle development.
Several lunar missions were canceled and all that became of the
Apollo Applications Project was one Skylab (with three manned
missions) and one ASTP flight. Remember the planned shuttle mission
to rescue (or deorbit) Skylab?


So, should that hypothetical last shuttle mission to Hubble be used
for? You can either use it to return it to Earth or you can use it to
service Hubble and keep it functioning? This is an either/or
question, you can't have both.

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

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 !]

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

Great retire hubble prematurely then lack its replacement because of budget
cuts.

You realize if Bushes plan fails we will be left with a gutted nasa, little
science, a crippled station lacking service vehicles and a future of a manned
space shutdown if not a closed nasa./

It's going to be a *long* time after the shuttle is retired before
anything recoverable flies with a 15'x60' payload bay. Return of
large payloads to earth is one of the capabilities that doesn't make
much sense for sustained

Could a shuttle C compete with a expendable? Figuring shuttle C would provide
heavy lift with retaining the ability of big payloads too and from orbit.

(Hallerb) wrote in
:


It's going to be a *long* time after the shuttle is retired before
anything recoverable flies with a 15'x60' payload bay. Return of
large payloads to earth is one of the capabilities that doesn't make
much sense for sustained

Could a shuttle C compete with a expendable? Figuring shuttle C would
provide heavy lift with retaining the ability of big payloads too and
from orbit.


Umm. you need to read up on your shuttle-C concepts. It *is* an expendable.
And zero return capability. Very nice on the payload capacity going up
though.

"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.