Slashdot Mirror
NASA Announces De-Orbit Mission For Hubble
maglor_83 writes "NASA has announced the end for Hubble. It plans on performing a "robotic de-orbit mission", and apparently its not due to the monetary costs associated with fixing it, but rather the risks involved. NASA's new goals are now manned missions to the moon, as a platform for Mars."
You can learn why a fourth servicing mission is necessary by reading my article. I say: "several components of Hubble, most probably its batteries, are expected to stop operating in the next 2-4 years" and "HST was designed to be maintained with servicing missions operated from space shuttles every few years" (i.e. it is impossible to keep Hubble there without launching servicing missions, we need to fix its orbit and replace components every few years). In addition, the gyroscopes will also stop working, but I think the most important problem will be its batteries (Hubble can work with just 2 or 3 gyroscopes, but not with dead batteries).
The gyroscopes are wearing out. They've done so before and been replaced, but they're going again and the batteries are fading. Without at least 3 gyroscopes Hubble can't be pointed accurately, and with less it starts having trouble maintaining attitude control and could potentially start to tumble and deorbit.
Article wasn't speaking platform in the metaphorical sense, but actually a platform in the literal sense, as in, to launch missions from there to mars, and refuel, etc.
It doesn't need repairing today, but it will in a couple of years. The batteries and gyroscopes have limited lifetimes and must be replaced every so often. These cyclic repair missions, which have been performed in the past, were cancelled after the Columbia accident
While they could restart the repair cycle, NASA no longer feels that repair flights are safe, because, unlike when the Shuttle visits ISS, there are no good rescue options given Hubble's orbit.
The NASA James Webb Space Telescope" is "on the way". I've heard the
images it can obtain will make the Hubble images look like
junk. Let's move on to the future rather than dwell on the past!
What's past is NOT ALWAYS prologue for the future!
http://www.space.com/news/nasa_budget_050207.html
:-(
This is a big loss in my opinion
The moon would be a good place for a prototype space elevator.
No, it wouldn't be. Basic space elevator is essentially just a tower to geostationary orbit. Earth, rotating just over once every day (!), that's an orbit radius of 42,000 km. The Moon's equivalent orbit with it rotating once a month (albeit with lower gravity) is about 90 million km, assuming this back-of-the-envelope calculation is right.
The best place for a prototype space elevator would be a small asteroid with a fairly high rotation rate - you could probably get away with a few tens of kilometres if chosen carefully...
Tedious Bloggy Stuff - hooray?
JWST is not a full replacement for Hubble - it is primarily an IR scope, with some visible capability - it lacks certain wavelengths Hubble covers, like UV, which is one of the primary benefits of launching a space scope in the first place. The band in question, covered by Hubble but not JWST, is the 110nm-600nm band. JWST has significantly more infrared extension than Hubble, but infrared is one of the more usable windows from Earth, especially as adaptive optics techniques improve.
Basically, JWST is not a full Hubble replacement. A good thing to launch? Yes. But we'll definitely lose some capabilities in the bargain.
---
Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
(I read with sigs off.)
It might be in itself, but you're forgetting something important: Lagrange points. The link below explains how a lunar space elevator can be done.
http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/lunar_spa
Not only would it be possible, the entire cable could weigh just 6,800 kg according to the article's calculations.
(It's been a slashdot story, but the usual searches wouldn't find it)
I worked for NASA in the late 1970's. In that period they raped science for the manned program, and accomplished nothing but killing two crews. It is happening again. We get about 10 times the bang for the buck with robots as with manned probes. That is not an opinion - that's a fact!
I live in Houston, but JPL is the most effective organization in NASA. Unless NASA can define a coherent manned mission, they should keep the folks on the ground and use robots.
1. Pointing an object that has as much mass as the hubble is expensive enough as it is. To create a robot that would attach, and have enough energy (via solar cells, I suppose you expect?) to rotate both itself and Hubble would be cost-prohibitive, even if it could be developed, tested, and built in time to save the Hubble in time.
2. There is more equipment on the Hubble that is failed or will soon fail than just the Gyros. The batteries, some of the subsystems, and probably the gas canisters used to boost the hubble back into orbit occasionally are all items which need maintenance. It is unlikely that a robot could be developed in the time-frame and budget given that would not only point the hubble, but interface to its failing systems and supply the needed resources (batteries, especially).
No time frame has been given. This announcement is simply describing the current budget allocation.
Please remember that a controlled de-orbit while the hubble is still retrievable by a robot is much preferable to an uncrontrolled de-orbit where the hubble may take on an orbit, spin, or fall that would make it impossible to attach to once out of our control. It is likely that the robot must be attached before the last three gryos fail if a robot is going to be attached at all. This means it needs to be done soon.
It is unlikely that even given a large budget a reliable robot for fixing the Hubble could be developed in time to attach to the Hubble before it becomes uncontrolled.
-Adam
4 years later? Wha...?
:(
I first saw this Taco Bell hit-the-target-win-a-prize thing this past year during the baseball playoffs. Game 3 of the NLCS (Cardinals vs. Astros) had one of these targets in Homer's Landing in Busch Stadium. Nobody hit it.
Hate to break it to you, but Florida's economy is not driven by NASA. Cape Canaveral and its suburbs house only a tiny fraction of the population there. Saying that NASA is their "key reason for existence" is simply retarded.
After all, I am strangely colored.
Hubble was scheduled to be brought down and put in the smithsonian. In fact, the display mount is already in the air & space museum (or was a couple years ago when I visited). The problem is that the Colombia was the only shuttle decked out to down mass the Hubble. All the other orbiters are setup with an airlock and docking port for the ISS. Hubble won't fit in the cargo hold of those orbiters now.
"You never know when some crazed rodent with cold feet might be running loose in your pants."
-Calvin
It wasn't "sheer dumb luck". NASA knew about the problem and gave it a great deal of study in order to quantify the risks. The solar flares of the magnitude that could have killed the astronauts are very rare events.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Unforch, there is no "Dark side of the moon" in terms of a permanent dark side. Its day, and its night, are each nominally 2 weeks long. Yes, it maintains the same face toward the earth, but thats not the same else we wouldn't have the phases of the moon as the 'dark side' rotates around the moon as it rotates around the earth.
--
Cheers, Gene
I think you are refering to one of these two articles
Lunar Space Elevator Instead?
Space Elevator Prototype Climbs MIT Building
-William
God is everything science has yet to explain.