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'd like to see it pointed at Mercury for a very good look just before they
ditch it in the Pacific.


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

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

"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote in message
...

"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?

Hmmm, it'll be a tight fit for Mercury.
Seriously, HST last observation before it's plunge into the Pacific should
be on Mercury even though HST probably fry its optics with the Sun nearby.


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

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

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.

I was thinking more of a unmanned shuttle with return capabilties.

If your going to have a shuttle C then the infrastructure might be useful for a
unmanned shuttle too.

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

Would they not slowly depart one another but eventually end up close
again?

No.

Roger
--
Roger Balettie
former Flight Dynamics Officer
Space Shuttle Mission Control
http://www.balettie.com/

"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote in message
...



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?



I once saw a Mercury ditched in a pond, all four wheels in the air. Very
sad.

Yup, belly up, definitely a dead horse. ^_^

"Dosco Jones" wrote in message
link.net...

"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote in
message
...



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?



I once saw a Mercury ditched in a pond, all four wheels in the air. Very
sad.

In article , rk wrote:

Ahh send up another satellite and launch it then recover Hubble and bring
it home.

Back in '86 they stopped launching satellites on the Shuttle, when possible,
for safety, since satellites can be launched on unmanned rockets. This might
have been stated at the level of a Presidential Directive but I don't recall
exactly.

US Code, Sec. 42, Chapter 26, section 2564a.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/2465a.html

This was a result of National Security Decision Directive 254.

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nsdd/nsdd-254.htm

Anyways, interesting to see you engage in a theoretical cost-safety tradeoff
discussiong, putting cost (savings not shown) over astronaut safety for a
mission with no gain in science but strictly public relations.

It would get Triana off our hands, at least... ;-)

--
-Andrew Gray

It would get Triana off our hands, at least... ;-)

Shutt;e has been used for ther satellites too like TRDS

"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...
Bruce

Hi Bruce,

One issue about leaving it in orbit indefinitely is that NASA's orbit
debris policy is specifically against that. From the orbit debris
point of view, it's in the best interests of everyone to remove dead
spacecraft from orbit as quickly as possible. The longer an object is
in orbit, the longer it is a target for existing debris. Once hit,
there is a chance the collision will create more debris, further
polluting the orbit. Hubble just had a anomalous event recently (5
August 2003) where a 5-cm piece of something (probably thermal
blanket) detached itself from the telescope. See current issue of ODQN
at:

http://orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/ne...ewsletter.html

So the longer you leave HST or any spacecraft in the "shooting
galley", the greater the chances it will be hit and cause more debris.
New NASA LEO missions are required to re-entry within 30 years of
launch. The best way to preserve HST for a museum would unfortunately
be to retrieve it and bring it back.

GEO orbits have their own disposal requirements for similar debris
reasons. Most operators boost nearly-dead GEO satellites out of the
belt (by at least 250-km in altitude) in order to prevent introducing
more debris there (and to free up the slot for future spacecraft).
Sun-Earth LaGrange points would be a little different, since they are
quasi-stable depending on the effects of solar radiation pressure.
Something put there may eventually wander off into a heliocentric
orbit.

Patrick,

One issue about leaving it in orbit indefinitely is that NASA's orbit
debris policy is specifically against that. From the orbit debris

well then nudge it into a stable heliospheric orbit. that might be safer than
deorbiting anyway/