|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
How to bring the HST back to Earth
Hello,
we can read in the article Hubble in Limbo (S&T, March 2004, p. 24): "NASA has already determined that the massive telescope cannot be brought back to Earth safely in the shuttle's cargo bay, as was once envisioned". I just wonder why is it so. The costs are not the point apparently - a $300 million one purpose robot development has begun. Is it because of Hubble's mass and expected difficulties during landing? Regards Roman Svihorik |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
How to bring the HST back to Earth
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 17:23:00 +0100, Roman Svihorik wrote:
Hello, we can read in the article Hubble in Limbo (S&T, March 2004, p. 24): "NASA has already determined that the massive telescope cannot be brought back to Earth safely in the shuttle's cargo bay, as was once envisioned". I just wonder why is it so. The costs are not the point apparently - a $300 million one purpose robot development has begun. Is it because of Hubble's mass and expected difficulties during landing? It's because there is no point. Economically, it makes the most sense to execute a controlled re-entry, or if that can't be done safely, to push it into a higher orbit. The money that would be required to return in safely (just for sentimental reasons) is far better spent elsewhere. _________________________________________________ Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
How to bring the HST back to Earth
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 17:23:00 +0100, Roman Svihorik wrote:
Hello, we can read in the article Hubble in Limbo (S&T, March 2004, p. 24): "NASA has already determined that the massive telescope cannot be brought back to Earth safely in the shuttle's cargo bay, as was once envisioned". I just wonder why is it so. The costs are not the point apparently - a $300 million one purpose robot development has begun. Is it because of Hubble's mass and expected difficulties during landing? It's because there is no point. Economically, it makes the most sense to execute a controlled re-entry, or if that can't be done safely, to push it into a higher orbit. The money that would be required to return in safely (just for sentimental reasons) is far better spent elsewhere. _________________________________________________ Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
How to bring the HST back to Earth
Sending people to Mars is pointless. We should either keep Hubble going or
put up a new optical/UV space telescope. Del Johnson "Chris L Peterson" wrote in message ... On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 17:23:00 +0100, Roman Svihorik wrote: It's because there is no point. Economically, it makes the most sense to execute a controlled re-entry, or if that can't be done safely, to push it into a higher orbit. The money that would be required to return in safely (just for sentimental reasons) is far better spent elsewhere. _________________________________________________ Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
How to bring the HST back to Earth
On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 09:38:24 -0800, "Del Johnson" delastro@{right star in
Orion's belt}.sdsu.edu wrote: Sending people to Mars is pointless. We should either keep Hubble going or put up a new optical/UV space telescope. I'd support both, but if that isn't an option (and it seems unlikely) I couldn't agree more. Highest priority should be Hubble and a new space telescope, followed by various robotic exploration programs, and finally manned space flight if the political will and money are there. _________________________________________________ Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
How to bring the HST back to Earth
Roman Svihorik wrote:
Hello, we can read in the article Hubble in Limbo (S&T, March 2004, p. 24): "NASA has already determined that the massive telescope cannot be brought back to Earth safely in the shuttle's cargo bay, as was once envisioned". I just wonder why is it so. The costs are not the point apparently - a $300 million one purpose robot development has begun. Is it because of Hubble's mass and expected difficulties during landing? Excess strain on the tiles ... NASA is running scared right now. It is exceedingly stupid to not do a refurbish and boost it to a higher orbit. Or if they can't refurbish, just boost it, so it's still there if we ever want it for something. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
How to bring the HST back to Earth
Chris L Peterson wrote:
Economically, it makes the most sense to execute a controlled re-entry, The HST has no motor. Supposedly the last expected re-supply mission was to install a motor for this purpose. The money that would be required to return in safely (just for sentimental reasons) is far better spent elsewhere. 0.3 gigabucks to destroy one(1) LEO satellite is typical for NASA. What happens if the robot fails on launch? Or fails en route? Or just plain fails? Does NASA get to spend another 300 megabucks for the studies to explain the failure and maybe twice the amount in a second attempt? ("Members of congress, our latest failure shows just what happens when you give us an insufficient amount of money. If we had more money to spend, we could make 10x the number of viewgraphs we normally do, which means that mission success would be a sure thing!") http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/he...ons/p78-1.html http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/asat.htm Seems a bit more reasonable to me. Even better, important sacred traditions are upheld: at the time of its destruction, P78-1 was also a completely functional, science-returning satellite as well. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Space Calendar - July 28, 2004 | Ron | Astronomy Misc | 0 | July 28th 04 05:18 PM |
The Apollo FAQ (moon landings were faked) | Nathan Jones | Astronomy Misc | 8 | February 4th 04 06:48 PM |
Space Calendar - January 27, 2004 | Ron | Astronomy Misc | 7 | January 29th 04 09:29 PM |
UFO Activities from Biblical Times (LONG TEXT) | Kazmer Ujvarosy | SETI | 2 | December 25th 03 07:33 PM |
Space Calendar - July 24, 2003 | Ron Baalke | History | 0 | July 24th 03 11:26 PM |