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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

On 23 Feb 2004 13:44:02 -0800, wrote:

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.

Don't mistake my meaning. I do think the HST should continue to be serviced and
kept operational as long as possible. I do think the risk to human life is more
than justified in providing manned missions for that task.

I was only arguing that if the telescope is going to be shut down, recovering it
and returning it to Earth doesn't make economic sense.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com