Hubble Question...

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

"Bruce Kille" wrote in news:xx9Tb.14283$Vg3.1349
@bignews5.bellsouth.net:

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?

In theory, the L4/L5 points are stable, but in the Earth/moon system, all
five points are unstable due to the eccentricity of the moon's orbit and
the influence of the sun.

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.

Not *a lot* more - both require a delta-V near escape velocity, or around 3
km/s.

The problem with putting HST outside low Earth orbit is that its pointing
system relies on geomagnetic torquers to desaturate its reaction wheels.
Move HST out of the Earth's magnetic field, and you've got to find some
other way to do that. Also, HST's comm system relies on TDRS, and accessing
TDRS from well outside GEO is questionable at best.

Apparently, recovery of the
Hubble for placement in the Smithsonian is not possible, so I wanted
to put an alternative idea out for discussion.

Recovery of Hubble remains technically possible, but NASA has ground-ruled
it out for safety reasons.

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message
...
"Bruce Kille" wrote in news:xx9Tb.14283$Vg3.1349
@bignews5.bellsouth.net:

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?

In theory, the L4/L5 points are stable, but in the Earth/moon system, all
five points are unstable due to the eccentricity of the moon's orbit and
the influence of the sun.

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.

Not *a lot* more - both require a delta-V near escape velocity, or around
3
km/s.

The problem with putting HST outside low Earth orbit is that its pointing
system relies on geomagnetic torquers to desaturate its reaction wheels.
Move HST out of the Earth's magnetic field, and you've got to find some
other way to do that. Also, HST's comm system relies on TDRS, and
accessing
TDRS from well outside GEO is questionable at best.

Apparently, recovery of the
Hubble for placement in the Smithsonian is not possible, so I wanted
to put an alternative idea out for discussion.

Recovery of Hubble remains technically possible, but NASA has ground-ruled
it out for safety reasons.

How about attaching it to the ISS?
73 Roger ZR3RC

I'm very worried about the Hubble's end. It's big enough to have some of
its bigger parts survive re-entry, and it definitely doesn't have enough
fuel to change course enough to guarentee a splashdown somewhere.

Boosting it to any higher orbit would have to be done with an attachable
expendible, since the Shuttle can't go high enough to guarentee it won't
fall back. If we're talking about putting it up in a higher orbit without
worrying about using it again, then the only problem is to fly the shuttle
up there, grab Hubble, attach the rocket, release it, have the rocket align
itself and Hubble in the right direction, and fire away. Knowing NASA, I
suspect they're going to take their chances and let it fall rather than
spend the money building the rocket, training the crew, and doing the
mission, all of which is going to cost hundreds of millions of bucks.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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.


----------------------------------------------------------------------


"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

"David Nakamoto" wrote in message
news
I'm very worried about the Hubble's end. It's big enough to have some
of
its bigger parts survive re-entry, and it definitely doesn't have enough
fuel to change course enough to guarentee a splashdown somewhere.

Boosting it to any higher orbit would have to be done with an attachable
expendible, since the Shuttle can't go high enough to guarentee it won't
fall back. If we're talking about putting it up in a higher orbit without
worrying about using it again, then the only problem is to fly the shuttle
up there, grab Hubble, attach the rocket, release it, have the rocket
align
itself and Hubble in the right direction, and fire away. Knowing NASA, I
suspect they're going to take their chances and let it fall rather than
spend the money building the rocket, training the crew, and doing the
mission, all of which is going to cost hundreds of millions of bucks.


The plan is to fly up a booster to guide it into a controlled descent.
Without the Shuttle the booster will have to go up on an unmanned launcher.

uray

In article , David Nakamoto
wrote:

I'm very worried about the Hubble's end. It's big enough to have some of
its bigger parts survive re-entry, and it definitely doesn't have enough
fuel to change course enough to guarentee a splashdown somewhere.

Boosting it to any higher orbit would have to be done with an attachable
expendible, since the Shuttle can't go high enough to guarentee it won't
fall back. If we're talking about putting it up in a higher orbit without
worrying about using it again, then the only problem is to fly the shuttle
up there, grab Hubble, attach the rocket, release it, have the rocket align
itself and Hubble in the right direction, and fire away.

That is the whole problem in the first place, NASA decided not to
fly another shuttle mission to Hubble, and that is why it is facing
the end of its life. If NASA were to consider another Hubble flight,
then they would simply keep Hubble in operation.

There is talk of sending a booster pack up to Hubble to ensure
that it is under control as it comes back in.

I would like to see Hubble come to a better ending, such as doing
the additional Shuttle flight despite the risk, or putting Hubble
into some parking orbit to save it until it can be brought back
to the Air & Space Museum (or the NASM Annex to be built on the
moon). But the money, which could be $500-million or so to fly
that mission and build the hardware, could do so much more down
here on Earth. Consider that the Keck cost something like $30-
million each. We could build an enormous amount of space and
astronony hardware for what it would cost to save Hubble.

-john-

--
================================================== ==================
John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
================================================== ==================

That's the idea I've been pushing, not only could it be serviced but also
controled from the ISS, have it maybe about a mile from it in same orbit.


--
"In this universe the night was falling,the shadows were lengthening
towards an east that would not know another dawn.
But elsewhere the stars were still young and the light of morning
lingered: and along the path he once had followed, man would one day go
again."

Arthur C. Clarke, The City & The Stars

SIAR
www.starlords.org
Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
World of Dahlias Slideshowv1.0 $10.00
for Windows machines. Email:



"Roger Conroy" wrote in message
...

..

How about attaching it to the ISS?
73 Roger ZR3RC




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.573 / Virus Database: 363 - Release Date: 1/28/04

In article ,
says...

I'm very worried about the Hubble's end. It's big enough to have some of
its bigger parts survive re-entry, and it definitely doesn't have enough
fuel to change course enough to guarentee a splashdown somewhere.

There is no fuel or propulsion system on the hubble, and there never was.

"David Nakamoto" wrote:

I'm very worried about the Hubble's end. It's big enough to have some of
its bigger parts survive re-entry,

It's not the size of the bird that ensures that components will
survive, but details of construction. (And don't let Hubble's size
fool you, much of it empty space.)

and it definitely doesn't have enough
fuel to change course enough to guarentee a splashdown somewhere.

Hubble doesn't have any fuel at all. It could be controlled the same
way Skylab was, by varying it's drag by changing it's attitude, but
that's of doubtful effectiveness.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

Do you have any idea of what it would take to make such a significant shift
in orbits?



"Starlord" wrote in message
...
That's the idea I've been pushing, not only could it be serviced but also
controled from the ISS, have it maybe about a mile from it in same orbit.


--
"In this universe the night was falling,the shadows were lengthening
towards an east that would not know another dawn.
But elsewhere the stars were still young and the light of morning
lingered: and along the path he once had followed, man would one day go
again."

Arthur C. Clarke, The City & The Stars

SIAR
www.starlords.org
Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
World of Dahlias Slideshowv1.0 $10.00
for Windows machines. Email:



"Roger Conroy" wrote in message
...

.

How about attaching it to the ISS?
73 Roger ZR3RC




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.573 / Virus Database: 363 - Release Date: 1/28/04