A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Space Station
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Hubble Question...



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old February 2nd 04, 07:38 PM
Andy Long
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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




Apologies if I am missing something obvious - but consider the following:

The main reason for not servicing the Hubble AIUI is there is no safe haven or
tile repair system if the orbiter were to be damaged during take off.

The shuttle payload bay has dimensions 15x60ft (4.6x18.3m)
and has a maximum payload weight of approx 50,000lbs (22,680kg)

A Soyuz TM is 7m long, 2.7m diameter and weighs about 7 tons.

So.... on a mission to replace Hubble gyros or add new instruments
why not just load up 2 x Soyuz into the orbiter payload bay? In the
unlikely event of the shuttle being damaged on the way to orbit
you have a bail out facilty for 6 astronauts.

If transfer from the orbiter to 2 different Soyuz's is a problem then fly a
skeleton crew of 3 and engineer a docking adapter directly from the
shuttle payload bay to the Soyuz.



Andy
  #32  
Old February 2nd 04, 07:40 PM
Andrew Gray
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Hubble Question...

In article , Greg D. Moore
(Strider) wrote:
And not only that, except on a perfect sphere, with a separation of 1
mile or so, that will gradually change over time.


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


Fair enough. Ok, perfect sphere in a vacuum. :-)


This is rapidly turning into an exam question. Assuming a point satellite...

--
-Andrew Gray

  #33  
Old February 2nd 04, 08:48 PM
Hallerb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Hubble Question...


So.... on a mission to replace Hubble gyros or add new instruments
why not just load up 2 x Soyuz into the orbiter payload bay? In the
unlikely event of the shuttle being damaged on the way to orbit
you have a bail out facilty for 6 astronauts.

If transfer from the orbiter to 2 different Soyuz's is a problem then fly a
skeleton crew of 3 and engineer a docking adapter directly from the
shuttle payload bay to the Soyuz.



Andy


I like this idea. Once back home safe and sound the soyuz could be reflown on
their actual mission or taken by shuttle to ISS and used for rescue ships
there.

Could Soyuz long term storage be solved by taking them to orbit by shuttle?
  #34  
Old February 3rd 04, 12:36 AM
Bruce Kille
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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 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



  #35  
Old February 3rd 04, 04:57 AM
Henry Spencer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Hubble Question...

In article ,
Brian Gaff wrote:
Why was the Hubble placed in the orbit it is in. Pity nobody thought about
access when it was put up.


Hardly -- it is, in fact, in the *most* accessible orbit for the shuttle.
(The ISS orbit is much less convenient, and was an unhappy compromise that
became necessary when the Russians joined the project.)

I'd have thought that there could have been
orbits that would be reachable from ISS without the huge thrust requirements
that the current one requires.


Not ones where the shuttle could have lifted Hubble to the desired altitude.
(Shuttle payload to ISS-like orbits is rather more limited.)

Besides, nobody *cared* whether Hubble was going to be accessible from
ISS. ISS was utterly irrelevant to Hubble operations. Servicing Hubble
with dedicated shuttle flights made all kinds of sense; having to work via
ISS made no sense at all.
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |
  #36  
Old February 3rd 04, 12:59 PM
Hallerb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Hubble Question...


Why was the Hubble placed in the orbit it is in. Pity nobody thought about
access when it was put up.


I think its kinda sad. NASA abandoning hubble over one service flight, when the
safety upgrades are really needed anyway.

meanwhile with a new launch capability hubble could continue to be serviced if
we had just one more flight.

NASA is cutting costs in the worst way
  #37  
Old February 3rd 04, 01:43 PM
Al Wilson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Hubble Question...

"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...


Telescopes were built to look through, not at. The Hubble shouldn't be
treated like a Questar. A safe but lame Hubble isn't worth a damn. Some
people say putting it in the Smithsonian will be inspirational to the next
generation. But we can't do that yet. And even when we do, wouldn't a
better inspiration be something that is in space and operational?

Spending money on the Hubble to continue ops is good, but spending money
on it for museum purposes is a waste, just like buying a Questar scope.
Our money would be better spent on a next generation scope like NGST/JWST,
like buying an ETX.

The 3.5" Questar has an outrageous price tag of $3,000 to $3,500. This is
way too much for a puny 3.5". The Questar doesn't provide anything special
for that price. The optics are so, so nothing that good. Yes it has finely
machined metal parts which is nice but in no way justifies the price. What
about that nice pretty chart on the tube. It is crap and you can buy
Uranometria for a lot less.

The Meade ETX is a great alternative to the screw you over price Questar. It
only cost around $350. The optical quality of the ETX is better then the
break the bank Questar. I have seen the 2 side by side and the ETX was
noticeably sharper. Also S&T has compared the 2 and they also say the ETX
optics are better. But the ETX has some plastic parts. There is nothing
wrong with plastic parts. Plastic is the way of the future. Even your car
has plastic in it. Plastic is very strong. There are those who think plastic
is not as good as medal. Those who think like that are brainwashed by the
evil merchant thieves. Some claim the Questar can withstand being dropped
down the stairs better then the ETX. You drop either one down the stairs and
the optics will break. But hey the mount is fine but useless with cracked
glass. The ETX wouldn't survive the fall either, but who cares buy another
one just $350. You can drop several down the stairs and replace them and
still save money over the Questar. That is what I call a good investment.

What about other alternatives. All telescopes 4" or larger except refractors
are much better alternatives then the Questar.

The Questar 3.5" is generally considered too small for serious astronomy.
The f/13 f/ratio is too ssssslllllllloooooooowwwwwww for astrophotography or
CCD imaging. $3,500 is a serious price so therefore you would think it is
for serious astronomy. All 6" Newtonians will outperform the Questar in
everyway and they cost less. You can buy a 6" scope for just $300. Read any
book on astronomy and you will learn that aperture is the key. The larger
the more you can see. You can get larger aperture for a fraction of the cost
of the Questar. There are times with travel restrictions or quick setup use
where small aperture is fine. That is what binoculars or the ETX is for.

So with all the reasons not to buy a Questar then why do morons still buy
the over priced to puny to see a damn thing scope? Only explanation is they
have mental problems. They think that if they spend large amount of money on
something it makes them feel better. Then they tell lies that it is the
best. Look at the pretty star chart. I have more money then you do so na na
boo boo. The Questar is looked at more then looked through, how sad. This is
a serious thing. Whenever you see a Questar stay far away from it and the
owner. The owner has a serious problem and may even kill you.
  #38  
Old February 3rd 04, 02:21 PM
Hallerb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Hubble Question...


Spending money on the Hubble to continue ops is good, but spending money
on it for museum purposes is a waste, just like buying a Questar


Excuse me but if we really did that we would have no air and space museum. No
KSC visitors center for tourists.All never existing because they cost big bucks
to maintain.

I think hubble should go to a museum, if it can be done safely. Ideally it
should be serviced at least one more time.

With a new manned launch system additional servicing might be possible.
  #39  
Old February 3rd 04, 02:46 PM
Herb Schaltegger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Hubble Question...

Al Wilson wrote:



(Snipped strange amateur astronomy rant and reset follow-ups)

Friend, whatever meds you're on, double the dose and keep it out of
sci.space.*, mmmm 'kay?

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
Reformed Aerospace Engineer
Remove invalid nonsense for email.
  #40  
Old February 3rd 04, 03:12 PM
Trane Francks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Hubble Question...

On 02/03/04 21:43 +0900, Al Wilson wrote:

The 3.5" Questar has an outrageous price tag of $3,000 to $3,500. This is
way too much for a puny 3.5". The Questar doesn't provide anything special


Helloooooooo? Might you wish to convey how 5 paragraphs of
anti-Questar rant has anything to do with turning the HST into a
space exhibit? You did well with the first paragraph. The second
one started to slip. The remaining five were worthless.

That was truly a bizarre piece of work.

trane
--
//------------------------------------------------------------
// Trane Francks Tokyo, Japan
// Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
NASA Details Risks to Astronauts on Mission to Hubble Scott M. Kozel Space Shuttle 174 May 14th 04 09:38 PM
NASA Urged to Reconsider Hubble Decision Scott M. Kozel Space Shuttle 116 April 2nd 04 07:14 PM
Don't Desert Hubble Scott M. Kozel Space Shuttle 54 March 5th 04 05:38 PM
Hubble Question... Bruce Kille Space Shuttle 67 February 29th 04 06:30 AM
The Hubble Space Telescope... Craig Fink Space Shuttle 118 December 6th 03 05:41 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.