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
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
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
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.
I'd give it to the europeans or the chinese (who ware trying to get their own program off the ground) if they want it....or even sell it to them. It might save NASA some money and help the scientific community.
"...today consumers have been conditioned to think of beer when they see a bullfrog..."
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....