Hubble may be parked at 2500 KM

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=11956

Could hubble be reactivated at this location in the future once we get a new
manned vehicle operational?

no... once the batteries die NASA says the damage to Hubble will be
unrepairable. If they don't fix the Hubble with a manned mission within the
next 3 or so years it is lost forever no matter what else NASA does with an
automated mission.

"Hallerb" wrote in message
...
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=11956

Could hubble be reactivated at this location in the future once we get a
new
manned vehicle operational?

(Hallerb) writes:

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=11956

Could hubble be reactivated at this location in the future once we get a new
manned vehicle operational?

If the CEV has the capability to go to the moon, a trip to 2,500 km
wouldn't be out of the question. Depending on the details of the CEV
and the details of all of its modular hardware, this may require
several launches, but this ought to be "routine", considering what
will be necessary for lunar missions.

If you take the pictures at Boeing as a base asssumption, you'd need a
Crew Control Module (capsule) with a resource module, and one of the
Autonomous Cargo Vehicles (to take the new parts to Hubble and the old
back to Earth). You'd dock the two and presumably use some sort of
grapple on the Autonomous Cargo Vehicle to grab Hubble.

Of course, reaching Hubble at this altitude would require a fair
amount of delta-V, so the ability to do this mission with two Delta IV
Heavy launches would depend on the details.

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

"Steve" writes:
no... once the batteries die NASA says the damage to Hubble will be
unrepairable. If they don't fix the Hubble with a manned mission within the
next 3 or so years it is lost forever no matter what else NASA does with an
automated mission.

If this is true, why is NASA considering boosting it to 2,500km?
Ditching it in the Pacific would seem to be the best plan if the dead
batteries would absolutely prevent its being revived in the future.

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

jeff findley wrote

If this is true, why is NASA considering boosting it to 2,500km?
Ditching it in the Pacific would seem to be the best plan if the dead
batteries would absolutely prevent its being revived in the future.

2,500 km preserves the Smithsonian Option, if only theoretically,
and it saves NASA from putting Hubble to death in an obvious way.
You can bet that there would be cameras around to catch the reentry
and lots of unfavorable commentary.

The deorbiting option would have all the public appeal of taking a
shotgun to Bambi in front of NASA HQ, while the disposal-orbit option
at least moves the problem way into the future, Not On Their Watch.
Kicking the can down the road is not always a bad thing to do.

jeff findley wrote in
:

(Hallerb) writes:

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=11956

Could hubble be reactivated at this location in the future once we
get a new manned vehicle operational?

If the CEV has the capability to go to the moon, a trip to 2,500 km
wouldn't be out of the question.

2500 km is right smack dab in the worst part of the inner Van Allen belt.
HST's solar arrays will degrade quickly in this environment, and its
avionics will fry.

Like Apollo, CEV will likely only be shielded for quick passage through the
belts. (I foresee that Mars missions will use a dedicated "storm shelter"
rather than having the crew stay in the CEV). A manned servicing mission,
especially one requiring EVAs, would be quite impractical, if not
impossible. Even a robotic servicing mission would be quite challenging,
due to the lack of navaids on HST and the extensive servicing HST would
need to repair radiation-related damage.

On the other hand, a 2500 km orbit won't decay for centuries, if not
millennia. This isn't a "storage orbit" in any meaningful sense. It's a
disposal orbit, as Allen called it.

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

while the disposal-orbit option at least moves the problem way
into the future, Not On Their Watch.

Initial checks indicate that "way into the future" is many
thousands of years, maybe into the hundreds of thousands.

Time enough to make other plans.

"Allen Thomson" wrote in message
m...
| while the disposal-orbit option at least moves the problem way
| into the future, Not On Their Watch.
|
| Initial checks indicate that "way into the future" is many
| thousands of years, maybe into the hundreds of thousands.
|
| Time enough to make other plans.
And more to the point, they can then hope it will be forgotten as well. I
still think that there would be plenty of takers for a service mission crew,
though I suppose the simple logistics of losing another Shuttle could be a
problem when trying to fulfil US commitments for the ISS, which they want to
keep going for life science research for the eventual goals already noted.

However, it will be interesting to see what happens if we get a change of
administration at the Whitehouse in November.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________
__________________________________






---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free, so there!
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.593 / Virus Database: 376 - Release Date: 20/02/04

Initial checks indicate that "way into the future" is many
thousands of years, maybe into the hundreds of thousands.

Time enough to make other plans.


I do support pernmanent storage since it doesnt cost anything extra, and will
be a excellent historic relic. Although I would prefer to keep it operational.

"Jorge R. Frank" writes:

On the other hand, a 2500 km orbit won't decay for centuries, if not
millennia. This isn't a "storage orbit" in any meaningful sense. It's a
disposal orbit, as Allen called it.

Then I don't see benefit to this, when compared with ditching Hubble
in the Pacific), other than politics and public relations.

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.