I was just watching an episode of Naked Science on NatGeo, and they mentioned that "soon", it would be crash-landed in the middle of the Pacific. I was outraged because of all the money and support that has been put into it, for one, and two, all the things it has done for us..it is basically a legendary icon that needs to go in a museum.

Then, after reading the Wikipedia article about it, the explanation was found in section 8.2.

NASA's original plan for safely de-orbiting Hubble was to retrieve it using a space shuttle (see STS-144). The Hubble telescope would then have most likely been displayed in the Smithsonian Institution. This is no longer considered practical because of the costs of a shuttle flight (US$500 million by some estimates), the mandate to retire the space shuttles by 2010, and the risk to a shuttle's crew. Instead NASA looked at adding an external propulsion module to allow controlled re-entry.[113] The final decision was not to attach a de-orbit module on STS-125, but to add a grapple fixture so a robotic mission could more easily attach such a module later.[114] There is also some discussion regarding a visit by the manned Orion spacecraft, for the purpose of attaching such a propulsion module.

Also, it weighs 24,000 pounds..that's pretty heavy as a payload for a shuttle re-entry. So I am again outraged that we're not going to try to keep it in orbit, or try to bring it home in one piece. Shouldn't there be some kind of world-wide petition to demand that it be brought home or at least preserved in orbit? I know it needs assistance to fix its orbit, but it could be towed over to the space station and strapped down to keep it from floating away at least..

I'm outraged.

---

Linux laptop:
record uptime: 1511d 20h 19m (ended due to the power brick giving-up)

Isaac Newton: What goes up!...Must come down!

For the price of bringing down Hubble in one piece you could send up 10 brand new telescopes that could look further and deeper.

While it would be nice to have Hubble in a museum, i agree with spending the money on new science.

But i do agree, it is a shame that we cannot preserve it in orbit.

John.

---

I know it would cost a lot to bring it down safely, but it's the first of a kind. Successors can be crash landed, but HST is a pioneer. Surely pioneers should be honored and preserved.

---

Linux laptop:
record uptime: 1511d 20h 19m (ended due to the power brick giving-up)

I know it would cost a lot to bring it down safely, but it's the first of a kind. Successors can be crash landed, but HST is a pioneer. Surely pioneers should be honored and preserved.

I bet you would make an exception if instead they used the money to send up a telescope that searched for other life in the universe, a SETI space telescope :)

I would anyway!

John.

---

Well what I'm now wondering is when the replacement gets sent up, will it just be a rocket or will it be a shuttle mission? If it's a shuttle mission, bring the new one up, bring the Hubble home. One mission can solve it. They probably won't do that though.. makes too much sense and is efficient. :p

the other option that I was thinking of is..surely there's a lot of very wealthy people that might have an opinion about keeping HST intact. Some kind of funding could be set up as a tax-deductible donation or something similar if funding is the only problem. Or even an open-to-the-public fund-raiser worldwide. I'd chip in at least a a couple hundred US dollars. I can't really afford it, but I see it as an important icon of technological history that needs to be saved.

---

Linux laptop:
record uptime: 1511d 20h 19m (ended due to the power brick giving-up)

After doing some more reading, STS-125 (HST-SM4) is installing a mechanism to allow a later unmanned craft to latch on and bring it home without crashing it or having it be torn apart on re-entry. So they are actually looking at a good way to bring it back.

Outrage level has gone down a little.

---

Linux laptop:
record uptime: 1511d 20h 19m (ended due to the power brick giving-up)

After doing some more reading, STS-125 (HST-SM4) is installing a mechanism to allow a later unmanned craft to latch on and bring it home without crashing it or having it be torn apart on re-entry. So they are actually looking at a good way to bring it back.

Outrage level has gone down a little.

Sorry to disappoint you, but the phrase "safe de-orbiting" refers to 'not bonking' (boinking?) somebody on the head during reentry. Not to any safe recovery of the telescope. Too expensive inspite of it's historical significance.

The crew will also install a new thermal blanket layer to provide improved insulation, and a "soft-capture mechanism" to aid in the safe de-orbiting of the spacecraft by an unmanned spacecraft at the end of its operational lifespan.

... bring the new one up, bring the Hubble home. One mission can solve it. They probably won't do that though.. makes too much sense and is efficient. :p

I'm sure the Hubble replacement won't fit into the SST. It will likely also be in a very different orbit.

:-p

Keep searchin',
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Even if it is in a different orbit, the expensive part of a shuttle launch is..the launch. ~US$50,000 per pound just for the rocket fuel. Once they're in "zero G" it takes hardly anything to change orbit and intercept a satellite. HST is essentially a satellite.

---

Linux laptop:
record uptime: 1511d 20h 19m (ended due to the power brick giving-up)

... Once they're in "zero G" it takes hardly anything to change orbit and intercept a satellite...

Sorry, very wrong.

Look up "delta V".

There are kinetic energy and momentum to consider beyond just potential energy.

Keep searchin',
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Alright, well at any rate..the expensive part is getting out into space. Guess I don't know too much about the rest of it.. afterall, I'm not a rocket scientist. :p

---

Linux laptop:
record uptime: 1511d 20h 19m (ended due to the power brick giving-up)

... Once they're in "zero G" it takes hardly anything to change orbit and intercept a satellite...

Sorry, very wrong.

Look up "delta V".

There are kinetic energy and momentum to consider beyond just potential energy.

Keep searchin',
Martin

Exactly, just because its in sapce doens't mean it doesnt have mass.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

They couldn't return Hubble in the shuttle anyway (now). Columbia was the only shuttle with a cargo bay long enough. Modifications made to the other shuttles to enable docking at ISS made the cargo bay too short to accommodate the telescope. These mods are not easily, quickly, or inexpensively removable.

---

"Gentlemen, there are only two types of naval vessels..........Submarines, and Targets" -- U.S. Navy Submarine SONAR Instructor.

Alright, that makes sense, but the whole telescope is modular and built in pieces, right? Can't they do some minor disassembly to make it smaller? Being mostly hypothetical.

---

Linux laptop:
record uptime: 1511d 20h 19m (ended due to the power brick giving-up)

Alright, that makes sense, but the whole telescope is modular and built in pieces, right? Can't they do some minor disassembly to make it smaller? Being mostly hypothetical.

Nope, it's one piece.

---

"Gentlemen, there are only two types of naval vessels..........Submarines, and Targets" -- U.S. Navy Submarine SONAR Instructor.

the Idea of the crew hanging out there as space junk is floating by and hits the massive lens just makes me cringe. The main problem is controlling the shuttle with the extra 12 tons on board. I'm betting it would fall like a stone

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

the Idea of the crew hanging out there as space junk is floating by and hits the massive lens just makes me cringe. The main problem is controlling the shuttle with the extra 12 tons on board. I'm betting it would fall like a stone

Hubble is a bit above most of the debris. In fact it's very close to the shuttle's maximum orbital height.

Shuttles have landed heavy before:

"Brakes overheated but no landing problems turned up in January 1990 at Edwards Air Force Base, California, despite the heavy cargo of the rescued 11-ton LDEF satellite which pushed shuttle Columbia landing weight to 228,400 pounds, 8,000 pounds heavier than any previous."*


But it's moot as the Hubble can't be made to fit in the cargo bay.




*Taken from: http://www.spacetoday.org/History/SpaceFactoids/SpaceFactoids4.html

---

"Gentlemen, there are only two types of naval vessels..........Submarines, and Targets" -- U.S. Navy Submarine SONAR Instructor.

Alright, that makes sense, but the whole telescope is modular and built in pieces, right? Can't they do some minor disassembly to make it smaller? Being mostly hypothetical.

Nope, it's one piece.

OK, Macro, but there might be a way they could remove only the lens and return it to put in the Smithsonian; allow the rest to "safely de-orbit".

---

I really don't care if Hubble stays up or not, so long as we have an orbital replacement of equal or better capacity in the same spectra BEFORE it goes down.

Trying to preserve it for a museum is a massive waste of resources. Hubble's memorial is the data it has gathered.

---

Alright, that makes sense, but the whole telescope is modular and built in pieces, right? Can't they do some minor disassembly to make it smaller? Being mostly hypothetical.

Nope, it's one piece.

OK, Macro, but there might be a way they could remove only the lens and return it to put in the Smithsonian; allow the rest to "safely de-orbit".

Not gonna happen. Ever. The telescope would have to be quite literally disassembled to get to the mirror. No way NASA is going to risk a shuttle and crew (not to mention the cost) for such a thing.

---

"Gentlemen, there are only two types of naval vessels..........Submarines, and Targets" -- U.S. Navy Submarine SONAR Instructor.