NASA Plans to Bring Down 'Dying' Hubble Telescope

Reuters on Yahoo ^ | 2/7/05 | Deborah Zaborenko - Reuters

[FireTrack]

"The concern is that Hubbles orbit is not the same as the space station. There is not enough fuel on board the shuttle to reach the space station from Hubbles orbit. Therefore if a Shuttle had the same damage as Columbia did and could not repair it in orbit the crew would die before a rescue shuttle could be launched."

Well obviously Hubble has enough fuel on board to enable NASA to bring it down. So, why can't they bring it down to an orbit that would allow for a less risker repair mission? After the repairs have been made, refuel the sucker and return it to it's previous orbit?

Surely NASA has considered the above after all they as one well respected American put it, "NASA has people that just sit around thinking Sh!t up!".

It is a damn shame they can not at least use the remaining fuel to boast it to a higher orbit until future arrangements can be made.

Certainly NASA is either hiding or doing a piss poor job of explaining the reasoning to abandon and destroy the Hubble.

[TXnMA]

Hubble: "...there is no fuel system at all."

Hmmm -- interesting! Never thought about it, but...is the aiming done solely via the gyros?

[RadioAstronomer]

proposal to put up a new "hubble" with the same capabilities, but built with new technologies. Going this route is supposed to cost FAR less than a repair mission. The biggest problem I see, though, is that it'd take about 5.5 years to do.

Who ever wrote that article was smoking crack or is clueless about spacecraft/satellite design and what it takes to build one.

[RightWhale]

Sometimes it seems that the we are still coasting on the huge momentum due to the American Industrial Revolution following the Civil War. The country went from the 5th ranked industrial power to the first in a couple of decades, but that can't last much longer unless we run another industrial cycle. Science and technology development seems like the best way to stay preeminent in science and technology, and science and technology are the reasons we are so strong now. We can lose this advantage and there are undeniable signs that we are losing the advantage due to some kind of self-hypnosis that we will be preeminent simply because it is our destiny. We need to be more active in science and technology; destiny won't do the job in itself.

[TXnMA]

Can't we just turn it off and let nature take it's course, so to speak?

If it chooses to come down where you happen to be, you will need more than your usual tinfoil hat! '-)

[Names Ash Housewares]

"Well obviously Hubble has enough fuel on board to enable NASA to bring it down."

Hubble has no fuel at all. It uses gyros to point itself and relied on shuttles to raise its orbit as it orbits decays naturally, a downside of being in low earth orbit is there is still some drag there. A thruster pack will have to be remotely attached to de-orbit Hubble safely in a uninhabited area.

[Cold Heat]

It's not worth the risk to repair this aged telescope. It has far exceeded it's lifespan and the existing tech cannot be fully modernized.

One wonders why anyone would even consider rebuilding this thing again.

Build a new one.

[RadioAstronomer]

Well obviously Hubble has enough fuel on board to enable NASA to bring it down. So, why can't they bring it down to an orbit that would allow for a less risker repair mission? After the repairs have been made, refuel the sucker and return it to it's previous orbit?

Hubble has no fuel.

It is a damn shame they can not at least use the remaining fuel to boast it to a higher orbit until future arrangements can be made.

Used the Shuttle to boost back up.

Certainly NASA is either hiding or doing a piss poor job of explaining the reasoning to abandon and destroy the Hubble.

Funding and worry about what would happen if another crew were lost.

[Nowhere Man]

Well it is sad, to cut such technically and scientifically important programs, for PEANUTS. What this country wastes on pork programs, supporting our welfare state, caring for ILLEGAL aliens, and giving away to nations that are our enemy....a really sick sense of values.

I'll drink to that. Too bad we can't send a Soyuz up if we are not going to use a Shuttle. I know there is constant debate over the role of government in space exploration, myself, I see no problem with that, heck, Lewis and Clark were sent with the blessing of Tom Jefferson. I think at least we get a better return for our money spent unlike the welfare programs and other prpgrams you stated above. Wish we could save the Hubble at least until we get its replacement up there.

[RightWhale]

It is our watch. If we sleep at the post, it is our responsibility to our family, friends, and neighbors when the enemy sneaks in. We need to be more active in building a strong country with the new challenges coming from all directions. That's the context, resting on our laurels.

[Non-Sequitur]

If it chooses to come down where you happen to be, you will need more than your usual tinfoil hat! '-)

We've had space debris falling out of orbit constantly for the last 45 year or so and nobody has been hurt so far. I think the odds are in our favor.

[RadioAstronomer]

Hmmm -- interesting! Never thought about it, but...is the aiming done solely via the gyros?

Gyros and torque rods.

[RadioAstronomer]

It's not worth the risk to repair this aged telescope. It has far exceeded it's lifespan and the existing tech cannot be fully modernized.

Codswallop. It was designed as a platform that new hardware and technology could be added as needed.

[RadioAstronomer]

We've had space debris falling out of orbit constantly for the last 45 year or so and nobody has been hurt so far. I think the odds are in our favor.

Indeed. Skylab comes to mind.

[ASA Vet]

There is No Such Agency

[RadioAstronomer]

Too bad we can't send a Soyuz up if we are not going to use a Shuttle.

It cannot carry the equipment nor "do" the servicing mission.

[Non-Sequitur]

Indeed. Skylab comes to mind.

And Mir.

[RightWhale]

It is my personal observation that we are going about space development incorrectly. The legal environment under the State demands that we do something else than some state-sponsored science or in addition. The big problem, the main obstacle, in space development is that the private sector is tacitly eliminated from participation by the absence of private property rights in outer space.

This is in the President's Commission report on Moon, Mars and Beyond, but is not being addressed by the White House or Congress. Yet, it is more important by far than the programs NASA is now developing.

[FireTrack]

"remotely attached to de-orbit Hubble safely in a uninhabited area"

In that case, I suggest up-orbiting it. Yea, it's space junk but one that keeps reminding us of kind of people we once were.

How much money, time, manpower has been spent trying to keep the leaning tower of Pisa from toppling over? We can afford a few million to keep our myopic friend afloat.

[RadioAstronomer]

If it chooses to come down where you happen to be, you will need more than your usual tinfoil hat! '-)

That I am not too worried about. However, the loss to science will be a blow. A huge blow to science was the cancellation of the SSC. But we will pour billions into the ISS. Makes us look good to Europe I guess.