Slashdot Mirror
Clock Ticking for Hubble
DoraLives writes "Ok then, what are we going to do with Hubble? Eventually, it MUST come down. The New York Times has a piece that addresses this less than pleasant (at least for the astronomical community) subject. Additionally "The decision about what happens then has been complicated by the breakup of the Columbia." Read all about it."
Why would that complicate things? All the incident proved was what we know already. Besides, Hubble's done some great things, and of course it'll have to come down eventually. We just have to move on and produce a successor.
Bash script for FP whores
Why don't we get some other country
to foot the bill on boosting it
into a sustainable orbit and paying
for the initial maintenance after
2010. I'm sure that an India or
Taiwan would be willing to take it on
for less than $500 million.
Not that 're-deployment' would be easy, mind you, but unless there's some kind of fuel issue, I don't see why it wouldn't be possible (bearing in mind I'm far from an expert on the subject).
On one hand, it would develop skills for astronauts that would be needed on the Space Stations, on the other, it's not cheap and doesn't provide advancement in deployed equipment.
Then again, maybe in 50 years, retrofitting sattelites for technology upgrades by Space Station personnel might become a regular thing.
"Gotta do an EVA to install an upgrade on the Hubble, back in about half an hour. Want me to pick up anything while I'm out?"
How difficult would it be for us to use some other craft to boost the hubble into a higher orbit? it's not as if it's any secret what coupling mechanism it has, it should be easy (relatively speaking) to have something unmanned do it.
In terms of maintenance of the Hubble, why don't they consider a structure that allows them to completely envelop and grapple to the telescope, so that they can work without nearly as serious a risk of losing parts while it's disassembled? Whatever they would employ wouldn't have to enclose an atmosphere, but it would provide a room-like feel for astronauts, rather than the current unsurrounded feel. If they drifted away, they would make contact with a wall, and then rebound. Parts that drift would be easily found.
If they felt really adventurous, they could build a module that would be self-contained with an atmosphere that the Hubble could be brought into for service, complete with a personnel airlock, and when not in use be placed into a convenient orbit or else brought down in pieces for later use...
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
It will fall out of orbit eventually if you don't do anything about it. Satellites periodically lifted a bit to keep them up there. "Just leaving it up there" actually costs money. That's why many old satellites are "deorbited".
We spent so much time, money and effort fixing it, why not spend some more and upgrade it for another decade of use?
---
Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
Technology exist to design a heat shield. Make one to fit over the end of it just like the Mercury or Apollo capsules.
make a head resistant cone out of fabric to wrap around the rest of it. Have it over a simple frame.
Package a parachute inside the fabric cone.
Fire retro rockets at the right time and land it anywhere you wish. Score one for the Space Museum
!!
He is the best sailor who can steer within fewest points of the wind, and exact a motive power out of the greatest obsta
I've been an avid avid amateur telescope maker since I was twelve years old. It led to me studying astronomy for a time at Caltech. While I'm a programmer now, it's still a very enjoyable and intellectually stimulating hobby.
While a basic newtonian is a straightforward instrument that can be built by anyone who's good with their hands, telescope making can get as complicated as you want if you're really looking for a challenge. Optical design is still a wide open area of research in mathematics, software engineering, and physics, and some of the more interesting designs take quite a bit of skill to fabricate. That means anyone can make a satisfying telescope, but the hobby will yield a lifetime of interest because there's always new things to learn.
You can construct your own telescope with a primary mirror of 8 inches in diameter for less than $200. It will take quite a bit of work, but it is enjoyable and meditative work. Grinding mirrors is one of the things I do to relax and relieve the strain of coding all day.
A good place to start looking for information is the ATM FAQ. The procedures for grinding, polishing and figuring are pretty involved - you should buy one of the books from astronomy publisher Willman-Bell.
There are a number of people and business who sell inexpensive mirror grinding kits. They will come with a glass mirror blank and an assortment of different sizes of abrasive grits. I would recommend asking on the ATM mailing list (that you can find in the FAQ) when you're ready to order your first kit.
The 8" plate glass kit I bought from Dan Cassaro for my current project set me back $64. When I get done working on the mirror, it will cost me about $35 to have a vacuum coating laboratory aluminize it. Good quality eyepieces cost about $50 - just one will do to start with but it helps to have more.
While fancy equatorial mountings can be expensive to make, it's possible to make a quite servicable altazimuth mount out of common materials like plywood and a few hand tools.
Request your free CD of my piano music.
Hubble was designed to be serviced, on-orbit, by the Shuttle. This is '70s NASA remember which was juust getting the hang of perpetually self-justifying programs. Why do we need a Shuttle? To service Hubble, of course! Ahh, but why do we need Hubble? To give the Shuttle something to do!
Rather less cynically, note that the design life[*] of most unattended satellites is 5 years. After that period of time, enough is going to have started going wrong (fading power from radiation and micro-meteorite damaged solar cells is the classic example) that it's just not worth adding extra redundancy into the design up front to cover it (remember that redundancy = mass consumed that can't be used for the primary purpose of the sat.). Hubble has been up nearly 15 years now, and still has 5 years of useful life in it. That's because all of the things that traditionally go wrong - see the solar cells - have been replaced at least once. Also note that not only was the critical design-flaw in the mirror corrected on-orbit by the first Shuttle service mission (turning what would have been a wasted sat. requiring complete replacement and relaunch into a fully-functioning success), but later service missions have replaced components with improved versions, increasing the capabilities of Hubble enormously. It's like there's been 3 Space Telescopes up there, for the cost of... well, let's not go there. NASA's more than capable of making it look like it's cost less than 3 complete new telescopes, I'm sure...
[*] = as opposed to the actual life which can be much longer, but can't be predicted in advance
--
I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy
For everything Hubble has done to further astronomy (and since it was practically the only bright spot of the otherwise maligned space program), they owe it a better end than what they are proposing. To deorbit it and let it burn up with as much thought as one would give to flushing a dead goldfish is just plain wrong.
It should definitely be retrieved and become a piece in the Air & Space Museum's collection.
As much as I hate saying anything against ANY part of our space exploration, I would have to say that STScI is right behind NASA in being the cause of ossification of science. Thanks to the bureaucracy, the average astronomer has NO chance of receiving observing time on the Hubble, but the members of STScI have gained fame and fortune, thanks to the taxpayers' largesse. They've tied their fortunes to the Hubble, and if it stops, they may have to actually produce! "Faster, better, cheaper" is a good motto. High-end astronomy is a good thing, but when a program starts drawing resources from other programs it should be ended. Wouldn't you rather see more planetary probes, maybe a Mars colony? I am an amateur astronomer, and personally I don't care WHEN the universe began or ends. We've got a whole Solar system out there in our backyard. let's go explore!
This has already been done! (at the request of Carl Sagan in the early 90's)
- "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
unless you read it at a public library
Soma: because a gramme is better than a damn.
I agree with you on this one. I work for the company that designed position encoders for the HST, and NASA has long since worn out its design life on the parts. The good news is that they still work very well, but the HST wasn't supposed to last this long. NASA is doing the right thing by exploring all options before they are left with none.
There are two types of people: those prepared for the zombie apocalypse and those who will be eaten.
For the same reason you don't put an 80GB ATA133 in that old 486.
Sometimes it's better to just to get a new machine.
It *will* be sad when Hubbble burns up. (And don't think that it's ever going to come down nicely. That opportunity was lost with Columbia as others have pointed out.)
If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.
Off by a factor of two, give or take. 8 km/sec for a typical LEO velocity would be better.
The Earth orbits the sun at around 30KM/S, give or take.
This one's right where it ought to be.
The fastest any object has left the earth is around 8KM/S for the interplanetary probes
8 miles per second it is. Chalk it up to a conversion error.
Otherwise your post is on the money. Yeah yeah, I know I know, it's a damnable bit of persnickityness, but no sense in giving folks bad numbers when good ones are just as cheap, eh?
Is it fascism yet?
If Webb is going to be a literal replacement for Hubble, it could be in a similar orbit as Hubble. If so you could kill two birds with one stone--shuttle up with Webb in it, deploy it, then retrieve Hubble on the same trip.
Ya, that introduces a ton of logistical problems--three massive objects in close proximity (shuttle, Webb, Hubble), or fuel to shift orbit, tech crew has to be trained in deployment and capture of different satellite, etc; and I suppose Hubble wasn't meant to be returned to Earth to begin with.
But it sure wouldn't cost an additional $600M (the cost of a typical shuttle launch), and an important piece of space history could be preserved.
I haven't seen this suggestion here, maybe I missed it.
The HST does have attitude control jets. Generally those are used just to rotate the HST in various axes. They could be reprogrammed to thrust in pairs on the same side of the system, and thus accelerate rather than rotate it. This would slightly alter the orbit each time. Done at the proper points in the orbit it could gradually 'leapfrog' into a higher orbit with minimal effect on the system or usage.
This would take much more thruster fuel than it presently carries, so on the next Shuttle visit, they could bring a larger fuel tank and adapters to mount it to the HST. (They might even be able to develop a remote refueling port that could be used by a robotic tender, but that's more complicated.) This would require some research on how to do so without unduly disturbing the center of mass and reprogramming to deal with the different moment of inertia, but it seems not much more complicated than things they've done before like replacing the mirror, or doing the upgrade a couple of years ago. I think (but I'm not an astronomer) that in between thrust events most observations could continue with updated ephemera.
Another way would be to add a small ion thruster and reaction 'fuel' to the end of the HST and use a small continuous thrust to move it to higher orbit - perhaps even to one of the LaGrange points (L5?). This method would make many types of observations difficult during the entire thrust period of perhaps a year. I speculate that the solar panels would provide enough electrical power to drive the ion thruster(s).
Either of these methods would be stressing the HST at the same order of magnitude as the existing stabilization systems, and it would seem to me that engineering either of these mods is doable in the time frame for the next Shuttle visit, thereby avoiding a separate, expensive visit.
While the Web telescope is anticipated to be much better, there are good reasons to have HST still available. The fact that it is such a piece of science history, I would dearly like to see it moved to a place where it is safe from total destruction, like one of the LaGrange points. It might even become a popular sightseeing "flyby" for tourists on the way to the moon. There it could rest and continue to be used until a means of, for example, safely bringing it down to a museum on the moon could be developed in 50 years or so. Letting it burn up in the atmosphere would be too bad.
It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
If www.theregister.co.uk required registration, I probably would, because I read it often enough. I read stuff on the NYT once in a blue moon. It's absurd I should have to remember some account on it which offers no benefit to me.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
...but it's a telescope, right?
:-p
Why not just weld it (not literally) to the Space Station? I mean... it could be maintained, and, still used. We've got some damned interesting information from that thing in the past, IIRC. Upgrades and fixes would be a lot freaking easier if we didn't have to yank it out of orbit every time. I mean, if it's attached to the station, we know right where it is. Parts could be delivered via shuttle to the space station, so repairs could be done through airlocks there. Wouldn't add TOO much mass to the equation - I mean, the Hubble is no bigger than any of the other modules (it fit in the shuttle...). Also, the downlink and power requirements are easily met.
So, go ahead, debunk my idea? I know Slashdot is chock-full of certified NASA Engineers.
Informatus Technologicus
Actually, NASA does have a technology that would be ideal for this task. On Deep Space I (IIRC), they used ion propulsion as the main (and only) propulsion system. This would be ideal for near earth orbit orbital maintenance/boost.
Ion engines have very low thrust (think fractions of a pound), but very, very high specific impulse (think push per pound of fuel and long 'burn' duration), and have none of the vibration, detonation, exhaust contamination, or moving-parts problems that chemical rockets have. They provide at least 15X more delta V than chemical systems for a given propellant mass. Compared to chemical systems, they're small, simple, efficient, and cheap.
The ion engine on DS1 is a space-qualified technology, runs on electricity (could use Hubble's recently refurbed solar panels), and I'll bet there's a ground proof test model (flight hardware, but it stays home so the engineers have a local test bed for trying repairs, if needed) ready to be checked out for a mission.
Mechanical interface to Hubble should be pretty easy, mainly because the thrust is so low. You could literally attach it with Velcro or rubber bands (space-rated, of course) if you wanted to. The Hubble's momentum wheel attitude stabilization system and the attitude control computer have plenty of torque/momentum and computational margin to take out any off-axis thrust component.
I think keeping Hubble in operation until its successor is actually in orbit and working is important. Government funding commitments are ephemeral at best, especially for projects regarded (with faint disdain) as 'pure science'. In the fiscal crunch we are guaranteed to have in light of current trends, it will be lots easier to find $600M for a Hubble refurb mission later this decade than several $B for the James Webb successor telescope.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it - just keep it running, doing good science.
Is this the beginning of the end of NASA, and US space research in general? I think so! Folks, the show is over. Regardless of how you look at it, space exploration is too expensive. Even for the imperialist superpower, it is too costly. The only reason there was anything done 30 or 40 years ago was to battle the Communists--it had nothing to do with science. There is little interest and the neo-cons running USA can't possibly garner enough support. So instead of spending on space, they will be spending it all on the missile shield.
Once USA cuts back their space program (circa 2010, with the downing of the Hubble), I think space exploration will decrease. Russia is practically out of the space equation. India and China are simply in it for political reasons (not scientific). I don't see too much activity happening beyond 2010. Sure, there will be more commercial activity. But they will all be money-making schemes to send people into orbits, put up advertising in space, and such things.
I guess one country or a small number of countries simply can't carry on space programs anymore. The ISS alone is too expensive. Note how the member countries don't want to spend much money on the ISS. As I--as well as many others--have been predicting for a long time, humans need to unite or else kiss goodbye to space...
NOTE: I do not count militarization of space (which USA will attempt in 10-15 years) as space exploration
KoalaBear33
......The worst thing in my life happened when the stock market started mattering more than the economy
This may have been true of WFPC-2 (the camera installed during the first servicing mission that went along with the corrective optics package that worked around the defective secondary mirror. However, I don't believe it's true of the current optics set installed after the last mission, since all of the instruments installed then (leaving none of the original cameras and sensors, IIRC) were designed with the spherical aberration in mind. Indeed, the corrective optics package was removed during this last mission to make room for another instrument...
On the other hand, I can't recall whether the ability to do wide field-of-regard imaging was restored since that would have been down to the scientific merit; I believe the advances in earth bound observation from active optics have made the return from doing wide-area imaging from Hubble less attractive..
--
I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy
Hubble is basically a modified "Keyhole" class military satellite... But Hubble costs a lot more...Why? Because it was built to be serviced by people. As Richard Muller said in Technology Review: "True, Hubble was defective, and required repair by Shuttle astronauts. But the military loses its spy telescopes too, and its response is to launch a replacement. Launching two completely new Hubble telescopes--the original and a replacement, with neither qualified for human servicing (and therefore cheaper)-- would arguably have been less expensive in the long run. http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/wo_muller 021003.asp?p=2
Essentially, the Shuttle was built on the premise of servicing satellites. And Hubble was built to justify that premise. But the cost is enormous when compared to building satellites that aren't intended to be serviced.
Hubble, which is already old as dirt, should be allowed to fall. In its place, NASA should design and launch a cheaper, unservicable, Keyhole based telescope. This new space telescope would be simply the first of a series- NASA would build and have ready a new space telescope when the previous one croaked. Not only would this still be cheaper than building Hubbles in the long run...it would also allow incremental technological improvements to be made with each new satelite.
RTGs are a magic bullet, most of the problems (political mostly) with previous implementations were caused by the radio active material used at the core: plutonium. Old RTGs used Plutonium because it produces photons which can be picked up easily by thermocouples or PVCs and converted into electrical power. Many people including myself are actively working on capturing energy from alternative, less dangerous radio active sources, such as uranium. Easy to obtain (Ebay), easy to manage (except in powder form [oxide form]), it produces alfa radiation mostly (2 protons & 2 neutrons) which isn't very disruptive and only travels a few centimeters in open air. Alfa radiation can be converted to electrical energy by 2 means: By using the ionising properties of alfa radiation on gases, or by using the momentum of the alfa particles to knock of electron off of other molecules (proxy effect). This is the point where I have to shut off or risk losing my grant (Metropolitan University, Aguadilla, PR), but this technology has the potential of producing electrical energy out of nuclear reactor byproducts (or natural uranium ore) in a safe way w/ minimun shielding. Image a cellphone that doesn't need recharging, remote controls or PDAs that work forever. Small amounts of current, but lasts a lifetime.
True enough but there is also the issue of no parasitic atmospheric drag ( well very miniscuel at Hubble's altitude ) or loss of efficiency of nozzels for various pressure levels etc.... so while in terms of pure delta V its ~60-70 some odd percent.. in terms of a full on engineering excercise in practice getting the LEO, or out of any gravity well in general is by far the hardest thing to do which is all I was saying.
.... PROFIT.....
.. possibly even include the relay sats to be placed in lunar orbit prior to landing.... during the dark side day Hubble could be lowered and the cargo bay doors cloosed to help shield it.... viola a dark side telescope with 24 hour night and a more stationary location than can be achieved on earths surface or in LEO.
As for actually sending Hubble out into deep space I doubt it would work very well..... but an interesting idea would be putting it in a Lunar Orbit. Better vacume and dark side pics would be nice indeed.... better yet lets put together a mission to take it to the moon and use it to build a dark side observational base. I would preffer a ground up design.. taking the existing system and hodgepodging a dark side observation base could be intersting though.
basic idea
Take a shuttle.. strip the heat shield (shuttle C concept), use the oldest flight certified SSME's, fly boosters in the cargo hold to be placed where the SSME's are on orbit ( SSME's either stay in orbit for a shuttle recovery flight or are burned up on re-entry ). only other cargo is an apollo cmd module ( already plans on the books for refurbing old ones or making new ones to original specs ) and a construction pod containing the base to attach hubble too. Park the cmd module in orbit ( at station ? ) for the ride home.. possibly the base pod as well, pick up Hubble and stow it in the cargo bay... Rig a frame to mount the base pod on top of Hubble once its in the bay ( doors stay open for the trip ). boosters kick you to lunar orbit... then land on the dark side and build the observation facility ( ???? )
laugh I know that last bit is the show stopper, I would imagine the issues of getting a heatshield stripped shuttle C to lunar orbit and back are surmountable. But landing would be a whale of a different story, not to mention the RMS likely could not manipulate significant enough loads in Lunar Gravity to unload the base pod and Hubble from the cargo bay if you could get the thing on the ground, not to mention any extra manipulation needs beyond its range on the surface... Lastly if you did the impossible, or actually designed an appropriate mission you would also need a couple relay sat's in lunar orbit to keep in contact with the dark side seeing as the moon is phase locked the 'dark side ' is a ZOE for any earth locked communication system... namely all communcation systems currently. THen if ou do park the return capsule there are timming and delta V issues on your return trip....
If you purpose built a stretch shuttle C ( heatshield, wing and tail less ) with the idea it would be the observational base and you put a boost stage on the apollo cmd module ( so it could sit in the cargo bay with hubble in a launch position ) the mission IDEA would be capture Hubble, land on the moon return striaght to earth in the apollo module without a rendezvous in LEO after returning from the moon... build the cargo bay to fit hubble on a mount system that can lift to the cargo lip and pan/tilt Hubble... also build into it the power supply etc ( RTG's or possibly the trashcan reactor)
I don't ask you to be me. I only ask you not expect me to be you.