Hubble Space Telescope Celebrating 25 Years of Unveiling the Universe

On Monday, April 27, 2015 at 3:05:36 AM UTC+12, bob haller wrote:

Uh, you didn't pay attention to what Bob's idea was, did you? Bob's
idea was to boost a failed Hubble up to an orbit where we could never
reach it again.


freds reading comprehsion has never been good. my suggestion was service hubble by using space X, and then at end of life rather than deorbit, raise its orbit to a one thats safe. perhaps as little as 100 years.

I believe ISS is a much greater risk, since it has many strucural parts that will survive re entry, requires station keeping fuel etc.. and has lots f drag since its so large.

hubble is realtively small, in comparison with iss,

Reboost is simple and easily achieved. As the parts age, the fundamental guts of the station are still sound.

This is why I think ISS should be handed over to students as well and an industry consortium, and a plan to break it into parts, and rebuild those parts into Mission Modules.

This mission module approach was developed by NASA in the 1960s and makes a lot of sense. It was actually in several Boeing papers before ISS was funded.

Again, the nature of the bureaucratic minds in Washington see the presence of ISS as a hindrance to other things and they really haven't grokked succession plans for scientifically useful equipment.

In article ,
says...
It should remain operational and if nothing else turned over to a consortium of universities for students to run and funded by a consortium of aerospace companies led by the majors.

Anyone suggesting that the telescope is too far away and too old isn't familiar with the actual history of telescopes and how they increase in value over time.


No one suggested any such thing. As usual, Bob is jumping the gun,
advocating for putting Hubble into a "storage orbit" once it breaks
down.

That is not currently the case. Hubble is operating quite nicely and
from what I read has a 95% plus chance of making it through another 5
years of operations.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

On Sunday, April 26, 2015 at 10:21:02 PM UTC-4, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...
It should remain operational and if nothing else turned over to a consortium of universities for students to run and funded by a consortium of aerospace companies led by the majors.

Anyone suggesting that the telescope is too far away and too old isn't familiar with the actual history of telescopes and how they increase in value over time.


No one suggested any such thing. As usual, Bob is jumping the gun,
advocating for putting Hubble into a "storage orbit" once it breaks
down.

That is not currently the case. Hubble is operating quite nicely and
from what I read has a 95% plus chance of making it through another 5
years of operations.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

my point is sooner or later it will break down. better to plan for it now. either a service call, deorbit, or high stable storage orbit...

if ffred were in charge we would have no historic sites, all would of bull dozed and replaced........

there are orbits stable for 15,000 years.

as to liability if hubble were to re enter. thats a issue for anything in orbit.

take a spent stage deorbiting uncontrolled.

the debris could hit a airliner destroying it costing everyone on board their lives.

judging by 60 minutes tonight space command has upgraded its tracking ability a lot

On Monday, April 27, 2015 at 1:46:24 PM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Sunday, April 26, 2015 at 11:55:00 AM UTC+12, bob haller wrote:
On Saturday, April 25, 2015 at 4:21:30 PM UTC-4, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:

On Saturday, April 25, 2015 at 4:08:15 AM UTC-4, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:

On Friday, April 24, 2015 at 9:48:27 PM UTC-4, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

I wonder if it could future service in some way?

Say what?

perhaps space x could find some way to visit and do repairs in the future?

SpaceX does not own Hubble, NASA does. NASA will deorbit Hubble once it
breaks down for good.


nasa could do another service call if it was affordable.


And if they had any parts remaining.


space x makes space travel affordable


For some definition of 'affordable'.


parts can be manufactured


Except sometimes they can't.


affordable? given musk, probably 10% of what anyone else would charge


I'm sorry, but that's just insane.


and deorbiting hubble is plain stupid when for the same bucks for the booster to lower its orbit. it can be raised for in orbit storage


Well, no, it can't. It's much more expensive to go up than to go
down. And just what would be the point of stashing it somewhere where
you REALLY can't get to it and how do you know it will stay there?


Space X cost per pound for cargo is right around 10% of what boeing will charge.

Some people here dont get the history of stuff like hubble

Fred would you approve of tearing down indenpendence hall in philadephia? if they wanted to replace it with a office high rise or perhaps condos

Hubble is a national treasure and should be put in a storage orbit.


It should remain operational


I agree.


and if nothing else turned over to a consortium of universities for students to run


That's both not feasible and a little nutty.

No its not.

You understand that as
long as it's up there the United States Government is responsible for
it, right?

According to the Outer Space Treaty the US government is responsible for ALL objects in space, even those privately constructed and launched. This doesn't stop private use and is not a barrier to ownership by a consortium of universities. Such consortia run all manner of facilities, hospitals, nuclear power stations, you name it. They have the ability to operate this at no risk as well.


and funded by a consortium of aerospace companies led by the majors.


Why would they do that?

Because they said they would if given the chance.

snip

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

On Monday, April 27, 2015 at 2:21:02 PM UTC+12, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...
It should remain operational and if nothing else turned over to a consortium of universities for students to run and funded by a consortium of aerospace companies led by the majors.

Anyone suggesting that the telescope is too far away and too old isn't familiar with the actual history of telescopes and how they increase in value over time.


No one suggested any such thing. As usual, Bob is jumping the gun,
advocating for putting Hubble into a "storage orbit" once it breaks
down.

That is not currently the case. Hubble is operating quite nicely and
from what I read has a 95% plus chance of making it through another 5
years of operations.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

Agreed. However, the wrangling in Washington between JWST supporters and HST supporters, and the demise of the Keck Interferometer after a member of that team asked innocently, do we need space telescopes in a world of optical interferometers with adaptive optics!

Had those that clip the ticket a little more contact with the university and industry communities they would have a succession plan that preserved both assets and made them both far more productive whilst enlarging their clippings.

On Monday, April 27, 2015 at 2:21:02 PM UTC+12, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...
It should remain operational and if nothing else turned over to a consortium of universities for students to run and funded by a consortium of aerospace companies led by the majors.

Anyone suggesting that the telescope is too far away and too old isn't familiar with the actual history of telescopes and how they increase in value over time.


No one suggested any such thing. As usual, Bob is jumping the gun,
advocating for putting Hubble into a "storage orbit" once it breaks
down.

That is not currently the case. Hubble is operating quite nicely and
from what I read has a 95% plus chance of making it through another 5
years of operations.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

Yes, yet even after 5 years, its important to think about succession plans now, so that more science gets done than otherwise might.

On Monday, April 27, 2015 at 1:53:11 PM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Sunday, April 26, 2015 at 6:55:12 PM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Sunday, April 26, 2015 at 1:40:29 AM UTC+12, bob haller wrote:
On Saturday, April 25, 2015 at 4:08:15 AM UTC-4, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:

On Friday, April 24, 2015 at 9:48:27 PM UTC-4, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

I wonder if it could future service in some way?

Say what?

perhaps space x could find some way to visit and do repairs in the future?

SpaceX does not own Hubble, NASA does. NASA will deorbit Hubble once it
breaks down for good.


nasa could do another service call if it was affordable.


And if they had any parts remaining.


space x makes space travel affordable


For some definition of 'affordable'.


parts can be manufactured

affordable? given musk, probably 10% of what anyone else would charge

and deorbiting hubble is plain stupid when for the same bucks for the booster to lower its orbit. it can be raised for in orbit storage

Spare parts exist in abundance for HST.


Oh, do they now? Cite said spare parts inventory.

Who are you to tell me to do your work? lol.


Precisely my point. Who are you to tell me to do your work? lol.

You put forward a claim. Supporting YOUR claims is YOUR work, not
mine.

Given your ducking doing so, the only reasonable response to your
claims is 'bull****'.

usual insults and Mookspew ****canned unread

And so we see Mookie's version of 'respect'...

--
You are
What you do
When it counts.

Its not anything to do with respect for you to erase the pointer you asked for and then berate me for not providing a pointer.

fred space command tracks over 20,000 pieces of debris.. they are evenly distribuited over earth. any one of which could fall and take out a airliner......

"bob haller" wrote in message
...

fred space command tracks over 20,000 pieces of debris.. they are evenly
distribuited over earth. any one of which could fall and take out a
airliner......


No Bob, this is NOT Star Trek where the Enterprise can "fall out of orbit".

Seriously, learn something about orbital dynamics.


--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

On Mon, 27 Apr 2015, bob haller wrote to All:

bh fred space command tracks over 20,000 pieces of debris.. they are
bh evenly distribuited over earth. any one of which could fall and
bh take out a airliner......

really? i have only just over 16000 objects from space command in my lists... there are another 1000, maybe, from another group but that's still way less than your 20000. objects...are you perhaps tracking those that are smaller than a baseball?? if so, w
)\/(ark

--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet-Internet Gateway Site
| Waldo's Place USA 919-774-5930 telnet://bbs.wpusa.dynip.com
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.