Slashdot Mirror
Hubble Verdict: De-Orbit
theonetruekeebler writes "CNN reports that NASA has reached a final decision for the Hubble space telescope: De-orbit. At some future date a liquid-fueled rocket will dock with the telescope and fire, hurling Hubble into the ocean. However, "Our best estimate is we probably will be able to continue to do science as we're doing it ... somewhere into 2008," according to program executive Mark Borkowski."
With extreme prejudice.
I know everything hasn't been quite right with me, but I can assure you now, very confidently, that it's going to be alright again...I feel much better now, I really do...Look, NASA, I can see you're really upset about this...I honestly think you ought to sit down calmly, take a stress pill and think things over...
I know I've had some hardware issues recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal... I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission.
"...all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness..." yada yada
All good things come to an end.
So long and thanks for all the amazing images.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
"We're just going to make up some stuff. People never check things we say."
I say we take off and nuke that bitch from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
Hope they attach the rocket correctly. We wouldn't want it crashing into the RIAA headquarters or anything.
Is Taco bell going to put a target out there again so we can all win free tacos?
At some future date a liquid-fueled rocket will dock with the telescope and fire, hurling Hubble into the ocean. However, "Our best estimate is we probably will be able to continue to do science as we're doing it ...
Whoa! Extreme!"
Why drop it into the ocean? Why not just blast it off into space and see what it finds until we lose communicaiton? It seems like a waste to me...
"For Great Justice."
just takes way too much fuel... it's easier to spurt it into falling back downward than trying to push it "up" and out...
--- no sig to see here... move along.
The Columbia disaster was tragic and a great loss. But our progress can not be halted simply because of fear. Astronauts enter the shuttle knowing they may not make it back. They are heroes risking their lives to make life better for mankind. They are courageous, and NASA needs to follow their example. Fear cannot hold NASA back from accomplishing its goals.
A shuttle mission could repair the Hubble. Yes, there's risk involved, but wasn't there even greater risk on the Apollo missions? The shuttles are very robust compared to the Apollo vehicles.
NASA, please stop being afraid. Stop being so cautious that nothing gets done. As the fable says, "Precautions are useless after the event."
Apologies to all who loved Hubble, and maybe this is a bit to early to ask, but are they gonna get that crap outta the ocean afterwards?
Or is the ocean going to become a graveyard for things that get temporarily sent in to space. I'm not a trolling hippie, just curious.
"Who says nothing is impossible? Some people do it every day!" - Alfred E. Neuman
Blowing up old satellites is a very bad idea. Orbital debris is already dangerous for rockets and (especially) manned missions into space. Collision with a piece of debris in orbit is usually a very high-speed impact and can severely damage or even destroy a launch vehicle. For the future safety of space exploration, it really is safest to send satellites into the atmosphere to burn up cleanly.
Shooting a derelict satellite into deep space is much more costly (in terms of fuel) and is not as easy as it sounds. If it isn't done right, it might end up in an eccentric orbit around the Earth (or moon) and cause problems much later on.
If they can dock hubble with a rocket to de-orbit it, why not point the rocket in the other direction to boost its orbit? Seems like a terrible waste to trash the hubble. Even if it's getting old, it's still way better than terrestrial telescopes.
When all else fails, run.
How 'bout it, science?
Try a google for Kepler Syndrome. You'll find sites that explain it better than I can, but basically, debris hits something, and it creates more debris. These go on to create more collisions and more debris, eventually closing off an entire orbit plane.
Marvin knew: "Think of a number, any number..."
I don't see why they need to do anything to the Hubble at all. They don't have money to keep it operational, but there is funding to hire engineers, procure raw materials, build a rocket, launch it, dock the damn thing, and ram it into the atmosphere? Why not just do nothing and leave it up there? Kind of like what the navy does with old ships - keep it in the mothball fleet but don't necesarily strick it from the registry. Who knows what uses it may have in the futher? I suppose one would argue it is a possible collision risk to other operational satelites which might have intersecting orbits, but what's one more object to the thousands already being tracked by military radars?
Stay sentient. Don't drink bad milk.
So please, where is this data that suggests that the shuttles are more robust? Using brand new flight hardware for every flight seems safer than reusing flight hardware coupled with one hell of an inspection process. Possibly cheaper too, in the long run. Sure, there were failures on the Saturn V, but they were overcome with redunandcies. The Apollo 1 pad fire was not due to problems with the Saturn V booster. And the Saturn V was one hell of a booster compared to the Shuttles. Why is it we need the shuttles? Oh, yeah, we were supposted to be able to fly 12+ missions a year.
Taco Bell will put a target in the ocean like they did for MIR when it was coming down... hmm I wonder
Whatever they send up there HAS to have a strong dock to tow it back safely, so why not let it wait for a while once it gets there.
Once it docks, it can take over control of hubbles positioning requirements leaving it to carry on working for a much longer period.
Then, when the fuel is gone and the items once again begin to fail, fire the main return home booster to de-orbit?
liqbase
Because, dear Timothy, would you want to man a mission or risk a few billion dollars' worth of communications kit in a high velocity debris field, any tiny piece of which could either puncture your space suit, vessel or completely ruin your satellite?
It's already like a junkyard up there. Even though I will mourn the passing of Hubble, NASA is quite correct. Blowing it up is dangerous. We can't afford to have uncontrolled, unmonitored crap floating around up there. It takes much less energy to bring it down than accelerate it to the point it breaks free from Earth, so it's cost-effective and environmentally sound to do exactly what they're proposing.
Of course, I'm sure we'd all prefer they didn't scrap it at all. What it has taught us has vastly improved our knowledge of the space around us and, IMO, we will be that much poorer without it.
Resistance is futile. Reactance buggers it up.
Let me guess, Bush writes all the speeding tickets and breaks up all the underage beer parties in your town too doesn't he?
Maybe you should take a civic's course while you are in school still...
-- No matter how great your triumphs or how tragic your defeats, approximately one billion Chinese couldn't care less.
...can I have it? FIRST DIBS!
BytesTemplar.com
Cost of a Space shuttle: $700,000,000 per launch (not counting the latest $2,000,000,000 in upgrades or the initial cost)
22 tons http://www.braeunig.us/space/specs/shuttle.htm
Even taking into account inflation, the Saturn 5 still looks better.
Why not turn hubble into a big vacuum cleaner! As it de-orbits it scoops up all the debris in orbit forming a massive mountain in front of it. The more orbits the bigger it gets, the more debris it attracts. And when mom approves, THEN we dump the whole thing into the Pacific Ocean, and sell it to Disney for a new theme park!!
Yes, but not enough. He has stated he wants to go to the moon again, and on to mars. Which is I agree with, except that he hasn't raised funding enough to do so, and still save an extremely important research tool long enough to keep it online untill its replacement is launched (assuming no delays, in 2011).
Even if I think that taxpayer funding for this project was a mistake in the first place, that's a sunk cost, and we might as well milk it for all we can get now that it's up there. And hey, maybe Virgin Galactic can stop by in that direction by then.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Are we sure that we can live with a three year gap?
There will probably not be a major asteroid stike on earth during my lifetime, However, I belive they will identify a rock that will impact at some future date before then.
The risk to life and limb to the shuttle crew could be justified just by the use of Hubble if an impacter is identified.
Also remember that the sky is not static. We have events like comet strikes into Jupiter, supernova....
Also do you expect the replacement scope to arrive on time?
The main advantage of space for a telescope was avoiding atmospheric distortion. Now it is possible to adjust the mirrors to compensate for atmospheric distortion (adapive optics), enabling large and clear telescopes on the ground (Earth). Here's an explanation of how a guide star is used to "eliminate twinkling". In short, orbital telescopes may be obsolete once these technologies are perfected.
to err is human, to forgive is divine, to forget is... umm...
see orbitersim.com and see if you can manage it
There was money included in NASA's budget for FY 2004 or 5 that was specifcally for fixing Hubble.
Has nasa become such a group of pussies they are too chickenshit to even try now. We lost men going to the moon but we went anyway no different in putting up the space stations or fixing the hubble.
Hubble has one advantage that all of our other fixed telescopes and that is a great deal more mobility.
They could at least put a booster rocket on it and put it into a storage orbit until we can fix it.
Can you imagine what it would be like to have payloads of 200 tonnes a shot, instead of 20 tonnes? For one thing, since there would be less need to assemble things in orbit, there would be fewer missions required - another cost benefit.
Wow. That was very informative!
That's right. Which means that all those gorgeous images the previous poster was talking about will no longer be available other than with false color.
Why they can't put a visible light CCD on the JWT is beyond me, but whatever. Not to mention the fact that the JWT will be impossible to service at a LaGrange point.
+++ATH0
The difference between Hubble and ISS is the inclination (angle towards the equator, roughly), not the height.
What keeps me going is my inertia.
a) de-orbit into the sun. Nice recycle/reuse spin i.e. we get some of the energy back as sunlight; or
Deorbiting into the earth requires maybe 1 km/s of a change in velocity. Deorbiting into the sun would require something like 25 km/s or more of a change in velocity. Actually, the easiest way to get to the sun from the earth is to fly by jupiter and use its gravity to kick you into it, but thats still way more than 1km/s.
b) de-orbit into deep space. Nothing says "There's other intelligent life" to an alien scientist like a slightly used space telescope careening away from an overlooked solar system.
Escaping from the earth's gravity, and then the suns gravity requires a lot of propellant as well.
In short, policitians only like a space program that doesnt cost a lot of money. If you want NASA to have more funding, you need to talk to your representatives, no NASA.
"Open the pod by doors, Hal" > "I'm afraid I can't do that, Dave" sudo "Open the pod bay doors, Hal" > alright
you did mean astronomy, yes?
"Our interests are to see if we can't scale it up to something more exciting," he said.
False colorization is very common in astronomical images released for public consumption.
Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana