Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Space Tug to Save the Hubble?

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the yeah-that'll-work dept.

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."

33 of 325 comments (clear)

  1. Free Taco? by DrewBeavis · · Score: 3, Funny
    Look on the bright side. If they don't save Hubble, maybe taco bell will do their space junk promotion again like they did for Mir and we can win a free taco?

    Sometimes you have to look on the bright side.

  2. This is a great idea! by Thrymm · · Score: 3, Informative

    Since the US doesnt have a replacement planned to be sent up until 2010, and that by not servicing the HUbbell it may die by 2007.... Bringing it towards the ISS would allow it to be refitted and keep science moving forward!

    1. Re:This is a great idea! by TrueBuckeye · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm not going to discount the value of a manned mission to Mars, but if there's anyway that can be done without having it mandate the end of Hubble, then we need to do it. Hubble has not only been nothing less than an incredible boon to science, it is also very near the only positive PR that the space program has had in better than a decade. The value of that is almost immeasureable.

      --
      Was that night on the marge of Lake LaBarge I cremated Sam McGee...
    2. Re:This is a great idea! by forlornhope · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I dont think the idea is to attach it to the ISS. The general idea is to bring it into a close orbit with the ISS so it can be serviced then boost it into a higher orbit and just bring it back down whenever it needs more servicing.

      On a similar note, the ISS needs space tugs like this one and needs to prove its usefulness as a repair shop in space. If you could use the ISS in this fasion to repair the HST then you could easily retro fit the ISS to build the type of vehicles needed to send a manned mission to the moon and mars a lot easier than if you were to simply launch the vehicles whole or try to assemble them in open space with the space shuttle(or its replacement) as your only aid.

      An ISS with space tugs and large Saturn V style rockets could prove to be an excelent assembly area for any manned missions to the moon or mars. Without such a facility you need to send up the man power to assemble the vehicles along with a work platform each time you want to assemble a manned mission to mars. But with the ISS you have a permanent facility to do all the science and assembly work that the space program really needs. I think this kind of space tug is one of the very items that is nessicary to carry out space travel that is both cheap and useful for science and the common man. The other three items being the ISS, a heavy lift vehicle(such as the Saturn V in a modernized version), and cheap, reusable shuttles ala the X-Prize. If NASA had these four items then manned missions to mars and the moon would become so much cheaper and easier, and the added science that could be done would be emense.

      --
      "We Don't Need No Truthless Heros!" - Project 86
  3. Could we use it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...to find the Beagle?

  4. Private management by memmel2 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Maybe the Universities and goverments that use the Hubble can take over management of it. Nasa should give them a shot.

    1. Re:Private management by ChrisDolan · · Score: 4, Informative

      Hubble is operated and funded by NASA, but all science planning and data analysis is done by Space Telescope Science Institute on the Johns Hopkins University campus.

      The key is funding.

  5. Re:Um by Tirel · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  6. Doesn't NASA... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Doesn't NASA have a AAA card? They tow for free, you know...

  7. Wrong by rw2 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The correct answer is:

    Spend that money on ground based observatories with advanced systems that allow better than hubble imaging from earth.

    1. Re:Wrong by aborchers · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Spend that money on ground based observatories with advanced systems that allow better than hubble imaging from earth.


      Which of those advanced systems are going to allow for observing at wavelengths to which our atmosphere is opaque?

      --
      Trouble making decisions? Just flip for it.
    2. Re:Wrong by aborchers · · Score: 5, Informative
      Are there any? Doesn't atmospheric distortion limit the imaging ability of ground-based systems?


      Adaptive optics can do a lot to cancel atmospherics. The real problem is that the atmosphere just plain obstructs much of the spectrum.

      --
      Trouble making decisions? Just flip for it.
    3. Re:Wrong by rw2 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Which of those advanced systems are going to allow for observing at wavelengths to which our atmosphere is opaque?

      None.

      Which of the wavelengths that the hubble can shoot which ground based cannot will fail to be served far, far better by Webb?

      The fact is that most of the work being done by hubble can be done from the ground today and what cannot is being replaced by Webb with greatly improvments. This is by design.

    4. Re:Wrong by nadamsieee · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Which of the wavelengths that the hubble can shoot which ground based cannot will fail to be served far, far better by Webb?
      All of them, if Webb has a failure. That's the whole point of saving Hubble.
  8. My opinion by W32.Klez.A · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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?

  9. Sounds fishy... by Stingr · · Score: 4, Funny

    "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."

    Sounds like some kind of extortion scam to me...

    Pay me to save Hubble or something could happen to your fancy schmancy new one.

    --
    Chaos reigns within.
    Reflect, repent, and reboot.
    Order shall return.
  10. Business a little slow? by CaptainAlbert · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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
  11. Letter sent to European astronomers by Aardpig · · Score: 5, Informative

    I attach below the text of a letter recently sent to European astronomers, regarding the demise of Hubble support:

    Dear colleague,

    As you may know, NASA has decided to cancel all further servicing missions to Hubble. Servicing Mission 4, originally scheduled for next Spring/Summer, was designed to refurbish HST and enable it to continue operating in the current efficient and successful way. NASA has decided that all future Shuttle missions will be devoted to the International Space Station. Hence, no upgrade in capability or maintenance is planned for HST. A direct consequence is, of course, the end of WFC3 and COS as HST instruments. A discussion is developing, however, on the possibility of launching one or both of these instruments as part of a "fast-track 2 meter class telescope" mission.

    Without the replacement of failed gyros there is a high probability that HST will have to be operated in a two-gyro mode relatively soon, with substantial restrictions on the science observations. A controlled de-orbit of the spacecraft will have to be achieved using a special robotic mission at some time in the future as yet unspecified.

    There is little we Europeans can do directly to change NASA's decision which, apparently, is final. We believe strongly, however, that it should be made known how universal the feeling of disappointment is within the scientific community. As European members of the Space Telescope Users Committee (STUC), we have asked the ST-ECF to open a web page where you can send comments on the fate of HST and on the loss for the scientific community. We encourage you to share your views with us, visiting the site and sending e-mails to the address given.

    The site is now available at http://www.stecf.org/SM_cancellation.html

    Best regards,

    Eric Emsellem and Monica Tosi

    --
    Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
    1. Re:Letter sent to European astronomers by alexpage · · Score: 5, Funny

      Dear Colleague,

      You may be surprised at my contacting you in this manner. I am DENNIS WINGO, chief technical officer of the ORBITAL RECOVERY CORPORATION, and you have been identified as a trustworthy person with whom I can do business.

      Recently, I have suffered due to instability in the Hubble Space Telescope, which contains a good deal of material worth, approximately 100 MILLION US DOLLARS. If this money is not quickly recovered then the value will be burned in the atmosphere and everybody will have lost. If you help me to recover this money, I will send you 10% of the value (10 MILLION US DOLLARS). Please reply with details of your bank account number, sort code, account name and date of birth and we can begin the process of saving the Hubble Space Telescope and the 100 MILLION US DOLLARS value within.

      Yours,

      Dennis Wingo
      Chief Technical Officer
      Orbital Recovery Corporation
      wingod@orbitalrecovery.com

  12. What we need is an orbital fix-it robot by kippy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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
  13. Re:Um by AKAImBatman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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
  14. Why? by MarkusQ · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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:

    1. It could potentially be used for 24/7 monitoring of targets (which you can't do from earth)
    2. We could use it to watch for dinosaur killers
    3. Automate it for long term survey duty (Oort cloud, etc.)
    4. 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.
    5. 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

    1. Re:Why? by Tackhead · · Score: 3, Insightful
      > Of course, they won't be able to test "advanced drilling technology" on the ISS. Here is part that is pure porky corporate welfare. They want taxpayer money to subsidize R&D for Bushy's crony CEOs

      "Horizontal drilling" increased continental Natural Gas reserves by huge amounts over the past decade or two. It's why you can still afford to waste the stuff heating your house, rather than just cooking with it.

      Just suppose that 20 years from now, laser drills are cutting exploration and production costs of natural gas by huge margins, enabling North American companies to burn the stuff to crack the oil out of the Alberta Tar Sands (which contain more oil than Saudi Arabia) and tell OPEC to go fuck themselves. North American energy independence.

      And we'll have a moonbase, where we'll be starting to mine Helium-3, or fuse all that silicate stuff into solar panels, and beam the power back to Earth. Planetary energy independence.

      Will we be saying "Bushy's corny CEOs", or will we be saying "Holy crap. That space programme we started in 2004 had some really awesome spinoffs!"

      But you're right. All that rocketry stuff was just pork for Bell Labs and Raytheon. Transistors? Integrated circuits? Pah! Just subsidized R&D for Kennedy and Nixon's crony CEOs.

      The only reason for those smaller, more expensive gadgets, is so that better guidance "computers" can be crammed into the spatial constraints of the nose cones of missiles. Nobody will ever benefit from those technologies, because vaccuum tubes are just fine for radios and televisions, and business can do all the "computing" it need with a room full of clerks and hand-operated mechanical calculators, thank you very much! We should never have gone to the moon in 1969.

  15. The politics of it all.... by Mazzie · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
  16. Re:Take it over. by A55M0NKEY · · Score: 3, Funny

    Once the telescope becomes useless, it seems to me that it should be considered Junk, and ripe for salvage. A private company could take it over and sell online time on it to those who want to peep into other people's windows.

    --

    Eat at Joe's.

  17. Re:Just give it to 'em by applemasker · · Score: 4, Informative
    Technically, this would mean a transfer of the Hubble from a 570km orbit to something more in the area of the ISS, which is approximately 370km. At that altitude, there is still the issue of atmospheric drag, which is why ISS is periodically re-boosted by Shuttles (when/if they fly again). Moving Hubble to a lower orbit doesn't make sense, it too would need periodic re-boosting.

    More significantly, there is the issue of orbital inclination (the angle between the orbit and the equator). Hubble is at a comfy 28.5 degrees, which is optimal for shuttle launches from KSC given the launch site's latitude. ISS is inclined at 51.6 degrees, which is more of a 'climb' from low-latitute launch sites like KSC, because of the need to launch materials from Russia. (Low latitute launch sites get an extra 'kick' from the earth's rotation, the more equitorial the orbit.)

    Transferring in altitude and orbital plane is no easy trick, (http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/rocket_sci/s atellites/hohmann.html) but can be done (just check the math... a lot).

    Even if it's done though, NASA would have to commit to service the HST for a few more years. And, although their "official" reason for canceling the HST Service Flight is "safety," the real reason is funding. It may be cliche, but as the line goes, "No Bucks, no Buck Rogers."

    I would bet there are gaggles of astronauts who would volunteer to fly a HST service flight with these risks and I'd much rather spend $500 million (most of which is already spent on the hardware and training) to support HST for another 5-7 years than on anything else, including ISS or Pluto-Kupier. Otherwise, we're left with a HST which is one failure away from becoming an orbital paperweight (if there is such a thing) and $200 worth of already-built flight hardware sitting in a warehouse somewhere.

    --
    Bush Lies On the Record.
  18. Re:Um by H8X55 · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

    What is it about this comment that make me think of commercials for eBay?

    ::cue music:: For a lawnmower blade to cut your grass or a satellite that's out of gas, use eBay! Use eBay! For a Beagle that has missed his mark or a spark plug wire that wouldn't spark - Use eBay! ::/cue music::

  19. Re:Just give it to 'em by Blob+Pet · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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..."
  20. Re:L2 Issues? by coolmacdude · · Score: 3, Informative

    The L2 point is beyond the moon. We currently do not have the capabilities to launch manned missions that far out.

    --

    -You may license this sig for only $6.99.
  21. Tow it to ISS! by SubtleNuance · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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....

    1. Re:Tow it to ISS! by jhoffoss · · Score: 3, Funny
      " Tow the HST to the ISS. Once there, maybe some equipment/raw material can be salvaged (at least)..."

      Crikey! Just imagine what McGuyver could do with even just a few of HST's parts!

      --
      Linux: The world's best text-adventure game.
  22. Wrong and Wrong Again by davecl · · Score: 5, Informative

    Which of the wavelengths that the hubble can shoot which ground based cannot will fail to be served far, far better by Webb?

    The UV. Our atmosphere is opaque to the UV, and JWST, being an infrared optimised telescope, isn't going to be capable of observing the UV at all.

    Its important to note that JWST is not a simple upgrade to HST. It has a very different mission and set of instruments. Its not just HST with a bigger mirror.

  23. Re:Um by corebreech · · Score: 4, Funny

    The reason we won't put the Hubble at the L2 point is because Bush can't pronounce Lagrange. Ergo, no announcement. Thus, no funding.

    --
    Is this truly the only Earth I can live on?