Slashdot Mirror
Space Tug to Save the Hubble?
Aglassis writes "In an article at SpaceRef, the CTO of Orbital Recovery Corporation claims that his company will be able to develop a space tug that could save the Hubble Space Telescope (from becoming 'a ballisticly implanted reef in the Pacific') by either moving it into a much higher stable orbit, or by moving it to the ISS where it could be maintained and operated. Some of the reasons that he cites are that the Hubble's replacement, the James Webb Space Telescope, could be delayed or suffer some sort of failure. Since the JWST will be at the L2 point, servicing will be impossible."
Maybe the Universities and goverments that use the Hubble can take over management of it. Nasa should give them a shot.
Modern telecommunications satellites are designed for a useful on-orbit life of 10-15 years. This limit is set by the total fuel load they can carry at launch - a constraint that stems from the maximum liftoff mass of today's launch vehicles. The costs associated with a telecommunications satellite's procurement, launch, insurance and operation can exceed $250 million - while such spacecraft typically generate revenues of more than $50 million per year.
At the end of these satellites' useful lifetimes - which is determined by the depletion of their on-board propellant - the spacecraft are boosted into a disposal orbit and junked. In the majority of these cases, the satellites' payloads (relay transponders and associated electronics) continue to function nominally at the time of their forced retirement.
Currently, there are no viable means of prolonging the useful life of telecommunications satellites, resulting in the wasteful loss of valuable assets every year.
The correct answer is:
Spend that money on ground based observatories with advanced systems that allow better than hubble imaging from earth.
I feel that we need to save the Hubble, even if it is just for nostalgic reasons. Perhaps it just seems absurd that we dump all of our old equipment into the ocean when we're done with them, but really, I think we need to preserve the things that have given us insight into the universe and remember them. Besides, how might Mr. Hubble (have) like(d) that we just dump this huge telescope named after him once it becomes slightly antiquated?
Is there actually a market for orbital recovery? Apart from Hubble, which it would be nice to have back for sentimental value, I can't think that there's much up there than needs recovering. Most satellites are so many years out of date that it makes no commercial sense to get them back again - you'd only have to re-launch them anyway, at which point you might as well have spent the money on new ones.
Equally, no-one needs to run the risk of trying to repair things that are orbiting the Earth; it's guaranteed to be cheaper to junk it and build a new one.
Methinks this guy is playing on popular support for the "keep Hubble" campaign to raise the profile of an otherwise unviable business.
</devil's advocate>
These sigs are more interesting tha
that this guy can do it faster better cheaper....
From excellent karma to terible karma with a single +5 funny post...
I think India is planning something like this. It's an ion drive powered robot. It would be able to tub things into the right orbit and perform some limited maintenence tasks. It wouldn't be a cure all but it would probably pick up a lot of slack on the cheap. I'm guessing it could be refueled with a tank of fuel launched up hear it.
It would be a nice private venture. I could see a realistic market for it with all the telecommunications stuff up there.
Blaze a trail to the New World
I know it takes millions of dollars to run the science behind Hubble, or any other space project. Apparently, it takes a whole team of rocket scientists just to keep the thing from crashing into Tucson or something.
But why can't NASA just give the telescope to Wingo's company and be done with it? Just give them the keys and be done with it. Sign something requiring that they drop it in the Pacific (or in the Sun, or something) when they're done.
If Orbital Recovery can make a go selling science time to astronomers, then let them try it. Or they can sell time to people looking for the Face on Mars. Or they can fly up the next Survivor crew with some duct tape and an oxygen tank to play "voted off the Hubble". Whatever the free market wants.
I'm not usually one to say the "free market" is better at making decisions, but NASA has gotten its investment back. Instead of plowing it into the seabed, give it away -- think of it as the new-frontier version of salvage rights.
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
Don't be so sure about valuable assets. NASA proposed a space tug when it was building the Space Shuttle. The idea was that a tug would pull satellites to a lower orbit where the Shuttle could reach them. At that point, the shuttle would be responsible for repairing, refueling and refurbishing. If necessary, even bring them back to Earth.
Here's the problem: No one wanted their satellites back. By the time their fuel was spent, they were old technology that would be replaced by a new satellite. The shuttle had bet the bank on the economic theory that people wanted their space-stuff back and lost.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
I disagree with the statement that the JWST won't be servicable.
If the James Webb Space Telescope will be at the L2 point won't it be within range of the new "exploration" craft that GW proposed. It should therefore be safely within range for repair if the lens or whatever is damaged.
Only a launch failure should be a problem. Therefore Hubble will be outdated and the new telescope will be far superior for imaging due to it's position in the legrange point.
The correct answer is:
Spend that money on ground based observatories with advanced systems that allow better than hubble imaging from earth.
Why is that the "correct" answer? It's a crime to deorbit large objects when they are potentially so much more valuable where they are.
Just off the top of my head:
- It could potentially be used for 24/7 monitoring of targets (which you can't do from earth)
- We could use it to watch for dinosaur killers
- Automate it for long term survey duty (Oort cloud, etc.)
- Even if the Hubble is never used as an observatory again, it does consist of a lot of parts / raw materials that could someday prove useful.
- It may be a future tourist attraction
If somebody actually spent some time on it, I'll bet they could come up with a dozen more good uses.Further, having a proven tug capability (tested in a situation that wasn't life threatening) would be very valuable in and of itself.
To me, this looks like the right answer.
-- MarkusQ
I can't believe that NASA is even considering abandoning the Hubble.
Let me get this straight. They are going to abandon a working spacecraft, that continues to revolutionize deep space imaging, on the whim of a politician spewing typical election year rhetoric?
I think anything and everything should be done to maintain the Hubble for as long as possible, or until it truely becomes obsolete. I could understand the decision if they had a far superior telescope already in space and functioning, but this seems a bit off the wall.
Not sure if I interpreted the article correctly, but it seems they won't have a superior telescope in space for 1 or 2 years after the Hubble has been abandoned?
Also, the tree hugger in me has to ask. Why are we willing to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to colonize other planets, when we are slowly destroying our own. Seems like our priorities are just a bit out of whack.
Having a bookmark to Google does not make you an expert on everything.
The HST is a big piece of equipment -- we all know that it is expensive to put *anything* in orbit, why let it burn up into the atmosphere/crash into ocean?
Tow the HST to the ISS. Once there, maybe some equipment/raw material can be salvaged (at least) -- if the HST cannot continue to be used and maintained by the ISS crew (MUCH preferd). If we are 'serious' about using the ISS for a while, why not give them something worthwhile to do? hell, is there a reason why you wouldnt (all things being equal) line up all the rest of the hubble-like space ships near the ISS? If nothing else, this will establish a "destination" in space that acts as a central hub for work in space....
Hell, arent the panels on the HST worthwhile? If they can tow it over to the IIS, maybe something on the HST might find itself usefull, either now or in the future. Spare parts? Sheet metal? Something.
I know someone will say "the panels are old/different voltage/designed for another purpose" or "its cheaper just to launch whatever you need than tow the HST" but my response is simple, if we are going to try and make this a permanent behabviour of man (off-world habitat) then we have to learn to be more nimble, adaptable and less dependant on MASSIVE planning efforts for every screw, bolt and hammer that gets into space.
We have to learn to utilize resources *AROUND THEM* and Make It Work. Hell, the ISS could be the 'hotel' for HST repairmen at least....
How about we put Hubble on the Moon? It might make a nice little observatory and you don't have to worry about its failing gyros... assuming you could land it without crashing AND figure out how to make it work on the ground.
I know its unrealistic, but it sounds cool. Much better than making Hubble a "ballistically implanted reef" (got to love that phrase).
"These laws they're passing won't even compile anymore, let alone execute." - anon
Are there enforcable requirements that satelites be disposed of responsibly? What is to keep a company that goes bankrupt to allow their satelites to crash into terra firma any-old where?
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
This whole "can't reach the space station" issue is all trumped up. All NASA need do is design an orbital fuel pod system.
Basically, they would design a spigot that fits into the back of the existing shuttles. NASA would launch one ore more simple orbiting "fuel pods" at various orbital heights. The fuel pod walls would be armored against orbital debris. It's mission is to sit happily in orbit until needed.
If the shuttle runs into a fuel problem during a mission. They would simply rendevouz with the fuel container and refuel. At that point they could move up into ISS orbit.
A fuel pod in low earth orbit shouldn't be a problem. If it de-orbits, it will simply explode since it would be 90% fuel. There would be no risk of flying debris hitting the earth.
These things shouldn't be that expensive to develop. They are a good idea for ANY future manned NASA program. They would be good for the future "commuter" space vehicles as well.
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
Actually, moving a vehicle in orbital inclination from the standard 32 degrees for a US-launched vehicle (Hubble) to the ISS inclination of 57 degrees would take a LOT of fuel. I don't have the exact numbers in front of me, but to change by 90 degrees in low earth orbit takes more fuel than the launch of the vehicle from Earth! This change of roughly 25 degrees would probably take an ion drive system half the mass of the Hubble itself, and a LOT of time.
If we go with a "simple" orbital boost, you are gambling a LOT that the reboost can be done before any major systems fail and render the reboost a waste of time. The process should be done as a demo of reboost technology. Even though a tug is not economically viable, the existence of one, even a simple one, would prove handy with these science satellites. We've already lost one great observatory too soon, and this will be a second. The same vehicle could reboost the space station on occasion as well.
I believe Luna (the Moon) is a very important step toward manned exploration of other planetary bodies in our Solar System. The reason for this is that humans are designed to work with feet on ground, using hands to grapple and manipulate while legs handle heavy lifting/movement. This is difficult in a zero-G environment like orbit, requiring special tools and platforms in order to do any real construction work.
Meanwile, on Luna, you have a large stable platform on which to work using standard tools such as could be found on Earth. Because the platform is huge compared to orbital workstations, many people could work simultaneously to produce large vehicles (such as the types required to transport humans safely to other planetary bodies).
Once the suitable vehicle is built, launching from Luna is much easier than from Earth due to the drastically decreased gravity and complete lack of drag from air friction. This allows for larger, non-streamlined (which necessarily constrains design choices) vehicles to be built and launched.
This does not even begin to take into account the possibility of obtaining raw material resources from Luna, removing the requirement to transport those materials from Earth.
I have something in common with Stephen Hawking...
In 2090, on the 100th anneversary of the launching of Hubble, where will it be? Will history forgive us for dropping such a significant artifact in the ocean?
All seem to agree that the risk of letting Hubble fall out of orbit without some additional guidance is too high. (I have read figures stating that it'd be about a 1 in 700 chance of a fatality from the debris.) Apparently we're going to send a robot tug to move it.
but if we go to all the trouble of developing a robot tug to move Hubble, why are we moving it down?
It's going to be decommissioned eventually, but we can save it for future historians. We just need to put it in a high and stable enough orbit, and eventually someone will recover it. (Hopefully for history, possibly for salvage.) Don't know who, don't know when, but if humanity continues to climb into space it will happen eventually.
I realize it will take a more robust tug to do this, but it's not like we're in a hurry. We can put an ion thruster on the tug and let it boost for months if we need to. Heck, let's take it all the way to a Lagrange point.
History will thank us if we do.
With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
Im sure someone has already said it, but moving the hubble anywhere near the ISS is not a smart move.
The ISS leaks gasses and fluids into space. It has its very own orbiting space junk.
Because of this the hubble would never be able to get a clear shot of deep space. It would be suffering from the same things as earth bound scopes, thus defeating the purpose and taking away the justification to spend any money on it.
A higher orbit would be the way to go here IMO. Better yet tow the thing out to L1. Then you dont even need to worry about orbit corrections and all that fuel could be used for pointing the hubble and it would last a lot longer. At least that MHO.
Ok, this is a great idea... attach a "tug" to a satellite once it's used up it's propellant.
Well, if a satellite is good for 10-15 years before it would need a "tug", why not just give it a "tug" right at the start?
Here's my idea... lets build a fleet of space tugs and store them at the ISS. Whenever a satellite is launched, launch it with a small amount of propellant... just enough to do some basic maneuvering to get the orbital situation correct immediately after launch. Then, via a standard adapter that would be built on all new satellites, a tug would be sent from the ISS to mate with the satellite. From there on out, the tug would take care of the satellite's propulsion and perhaps even provide the satellite with back-up solar power.
Think of the possibilities of this system... sattelites would be lighter due to the decreased amount of propellant onboard, thus, cheaper to launch. The space tugs themselves could be fairly cheap to build and launch, especially in quantity. Space engineers would also gain a standard system for propulsion, so it's likely that the same set of ground controls could be utilized for every satellite fit with a standard space tug.
There might be more benefits, and I'm sure there are a few draw-backs, but I can't think of any at the moment.
Skiers and Riders -- http://www.snowjournal.com