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."

Comments

Deorbit

[Anonymous Coward]

With extreme prejudice.

Re:Deorbit

[SeventyBang]

There is a reason NASA wants to trash Hubble. With Hubble gone, it'll be easier to justify the next scope. Right now, it's easy to say, "What's wrong with what we've got?" Yes, compare|contrast images have been shown - comparing "regular" tv to HDTV - and there is a difference. But when you see the pricetag, it's still easy to say, we have one right now turning out pretty nice pictures. Get rid of the status quo, then say, "oooooh. look at the pretty pictures." and people will go along with it - new posters for office walls, Timmy's bedroom ceiling (to stair at whilst he's falling asleep - until he gets to be ten or eleven, then something else will be up there).
It's just like a kid wanting a new computer, bike, skateboard, baseball glove, or anything else. "Well, son. Doesn't the one you have right now work?" "Well, yeah, but...."

NASA's just trying to eliminate the the status quo works and is cheaper argument.

Re:Deorbit

[L0C0loco]

Umm... now for a clue. The next scope has already been justified. It is the James Webb Telescope. It is huge and will be orbited around the Earth-Moon L2 point. The last schedule I saw had it launching in 2010 (But I hope someone can provide more recent info). The Hubble has been wonderful. Its replacement is on the way. We can live with a 2 or 3 year gap. The universe will wait. ... And NASA needs the money for other stuff. Now if we could only get Babs Mikulski (Senator from Md) to stop forcing NASA to spend its money where she wants it, maybe we can do a few other amazing/needed things with NASA funding.

Re:Deorbit

[pomakis]

It is the James Webb Telescope. It is huge and will be orbited around the Earth-Moon L2 point.

Actually, the James Webb Telescope will orbit the Sun-Earth L2 point.

But NASA...

[SYFer]

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.

Re:But NASA...

[Anonymous Coward]

or any other NASA astrology project

What a waste of taxpayer's $$$s your education was. I demand a refund!

Re:But NASA...

[Fnkmaster]

Hopefully you're just trolling. But as an entrepreneur and businessperson, in addition to being educated as a scientist, I can say without a shadow of a doubt that understanding our universe is one of the highest motivations we can have as a species. So should taxpayers fund cosmology and astrology research? God damn right they should. It's a tiny fucking fraction of a percent of our country's budget, and it goes to benefitting all humanity.

Furthermore, you think that there aren't lots of American companies that manfactured, serviced, and maintained the Hubble and related systems? You don't realize that NASA spending benefits lots of businesses? What is wrong with having government dollars back a mission that we collectively as a people believe is important but that otherwise has no direct free market incentive to pursue it? If that wasn't what taxpayer dollars were *meant* to be spent on, then I must misunderstand the entire purpose of organizing people into social units and governments.

Guess I've been thoroughly trolled.

Its true then

[Timesprout]

All good things come to an end.

So long and thanks for all the amazing images.

I say...

[Anonymous Coward]

I say we take off and nuke that bitch from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

Rocket?

[pythro]

Hope they attach the rocket correctly. We wouldn't want it crashing into the RIAA headquarters or anything.

Tacobell?

[SirDrinksAlot]

Is Taco bell going to put a target out there again so we can all win free tacos?

Whoa!

[The Amazing Fish Boy]

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!"

Ocean?

[AAeyers]

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...

Re:Ocean?

[Jozer99]

Hubble is meant to run mainly off solar power. Shooting it out of the solar system would make it useless after it got a short distance from the sun. Its communication system is not made to broadcast very far, and giving it a high velocity would drastically decrease its ability to take clear pictures. Also, it isn't really made for "extra-terrestrial contact". It doesn't have any greeting plaque, just some dirty pictures written on it by astronauts and the various labels and warnings on the parts.

Re:Ocean?

[imsabbel]

hehe. and i guess what bad impressions hubble would make with the aliens... "Oh what a low civilisation, they actually put a wrong mirror into that telescope..."

Re:Ocean?

[pnewhook]

Up in space theres this thing called gravity which makes it slightly difficult to break from orbit in the "up" direction and it takes quite a bit of fuel (however "down" is very easy.)

Actually this is a very common misconception.

Any satellite in a stable orbit is in freefall and expending none of its own energy to stay in that state. To change orbits, either up OR down requires a change in velocity, and that change in velocity requires fuel. So up is just as difficult as down energy wise.

The only free ride you get in the down direction is when you get low enough so that atmospheric drag begins to slow you down.

Re:Ocean?

[ceejayoz]

Purely science fiction?

The Russians built and launched one (which failed due to technical problems). The concept is certainly within our reach.

Also, solar sails would work in low earth orbit. Photons of light impart force, not just the solar wind. That's how (as another example) those laser propelled spacecraft ideas would work, as well.

Re:Ocean?

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that Hubble is already low enough that atmospheric drag slows it down. It already expends fuel on a regular basis to update its orbit. IN fact, there isn't a need to fire the engines to bring Hubble back in. It will come down on its own eventually. The reason to save some fuel and bring it down on its own power is for timing...so that it does land in the ocean and not a highly populated area, just in case it doesn't all burn up in the atmosphere. Also, this applies to low earth orbit. Those geosynchronous satellites are far enough out there that from an energy view its easier to break from orbit "up" (escape Earth into solar orbit) than to come back to Earth

Re:Ocean?

[pnewhook]

Everything you said is correct except Hubble has no engines to fire - it has no thrusters. It depends on boosts from the Shuttle to keep it from deorbiting just like the space station does.

Hubble is so high up that it would take years for atmospheric drag to cause a de-orbit. To cause a controlled de-orbit means flying up and attaching a thruster. Since they had (still have) to do this anyway, trying to repair it wasn't that much more expensive.

Fear

[drivinghighway61]

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."

Re:Fear

[maxume]

Blah, blah, blah. It is nothing but a good thing that the space shuttle is losing focus. Sure, it is currently the best launch vehicle that the U.S has, but so what? The whole program is a debacle.

You need to stop being afraid that the end of the shuttle program means the end of the manned space program. If congress can point at the shuttle and say 'It works fine', they will never fund a next-generation vehicle. And Yay! for the Ansari prize, but until they actually reach even a low orbit, it is just a stunt.

Re:Fear

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, these days we have ground-based observatories that rival Hubble. Those can hold us awhile while the ESA or JAXA work out the next big space observatory... ;-)

That's the claim anyway. But even if the resolution rivals Hubble, Hubble is still sensitive to wavelengths that are blocked by the atmosphere. Moreover the observatory in the article I found from your reference is in Chile; so it's only useful for astrological objects visible south of the equator, whereas Hubble has a full 360 view.

But aside from that, you might have a point.

Re:Fear

[orthogonal]

"A shuttle mission could repair the Hubble."

I wish we had the money

"Report Says Pentagon Spending on Weapons to Soar"

to save Hubble

"The government is readying a plan to spend more than $2 billion on a routine 10-year overhaul to extend the life of the aging warheads. At the same time, some weapons scientists say the warheads have a fundamental design flaw...."

but I guess basic science

"The shift away from basic research is alarming many leading computer scientists and electrical engineers, who warn that there will be long-term consequences for the nation's economy."

never did

"The voice of science is being stifled in the Bush administration"

us any

"Led by twenty Nobel laureates, the scientists say Bush's government has systematically distorted and undermined scientific information in pursuit of political objectives."

good.

"For Bush, science is a dirty word"

Re:Fear

[Jivecat]

I'm reminded of an editorial cartoon that appeared after the Challenger accident in 1986. It had a picture of a Conestoga wagon crossing the prairie with no one at the reins, along with a caption saying "Alarmed by the many dangers, the early pioneers abandoned further exploration except for a few unmanned probes."

Re:If its been decided...

[kebes]

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.

Why not bring the thing back intact?

[Douglas Simmons]

I realize it would cost a lot of cash money (if even possible) and would probably require more than one shuttle mission, but the Hubble is in the top ten of NASA's items of greatest symbolic value in our history. The thing belongs in a museum, not the ocean. It'd be a bitch to retrieve and we'd be risking lives, but you gotta respect the Hubble and figure out how to get that puppy back without disintigrating it too much.

How 'bout it, science?

Re:Why not bring the thing back intact?

[arodland]

I don't know how serious you're actually trying to be, but let me add a word or two. Back in 1962, Kennedy promised that the exploration of space would be the "most hazardous and dangerous and greatest adventure on which man has ever embarked." The fact that we've come through it with so little lost is partly the result of a great attention to safety and detail, and partly the result of the fact that it hasn't been much of an adventure for the past 32 years.

And that's the real pity of the space shuttle program. It's still space, and it kills people on occasion. Considering that the technology is ancient, it probably kills more people than it really should. And yet, we use it to go nowhere, and do nothing really interesting. If it was actually "shuttling" someone on the first leg of a longer voyage, maybe it would have a purpose. But we don't have any intent of doing that; everyone knows the space station will never get any real use either, so together they're just massive wastes of money and life. I'm not crying at the grounding of the shuttle.

Re:If its been decided...

[rpj1288]

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.

Re:why not stablize its orbit?

[imsabbel]

Fact is its not better anymore. At least in the visible range the VLTI is better.
But of course there is no alternative to a space based telescopy in the UV and IR (which is now done by the pfitser), but the main problem is that keeping it up there isnt the problem, but the fact that its getting OLD. Nearly everything needs an overhaul.

Re:why not stablize its orbit?

[Profane MuthaFucka]

It's not just getting old, it's getting BROKE. After about 2008, it's going to be useless. It won't be able to aim at anything because of the failing gyroscopes. We don't want that in orbit for even longer, we want it de-orbited.

I wonder if....

[banuk]

Taco Bell will put a target in the ocean like they did for MIR when it was coming down... hmm I wonder

Send rocket up with its own gyros and stabilisers.

[LiquidCoooled]

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?

From the why-not-just-blow-it-up dept?

[Epsillon]

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.

Troll?

[Whyte]

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...

Re:Well, the Saturn V had a 100% safety flight rec

[tomhudson]

Cost of a Saturn 5 booster (capable of lobbing shit "to teh moon ... and back") : $740,000,000 - 120 tons into orbit http://www.braeunig.us/space/specs/saturn.htm

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.

Just a thought

[lmahan]

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!!

Re:why not stablize its orbit?

[tuxgeek]

This is not a new story. They could refit Hubble with new gyros, faster computer hardware and better cameras, but they would rather throw billions of dollars more than what would repair Hubble, at the next-gen space telescope (NGST). They have this brilliant idea that they can locate this thing at Lagrangian point L2, or about 4 times the distance to the moon from earth. This way when it breaks or just doesn't work, there is no easy way anyone can get to it for repairs. What they should do, instead of chasing fanciful dreams, is concentrate on repairing and upgrading the shuttle fleet so they don't blow up on lift off or landing. And keep the Hubble in service which is a reliable and working technology, and can be repaired and upgraded when necessary.

Re:why not stablize its orbit?

[Profane MuthaFucka]

NASA as a commercial enterprise would be just a shadow of what it is now. A huge part of what it does is research, and that is a cost, not an asset.

Research doesn't pay off now, it pays off years from now. When we see our laboratories attached to companies becoming gutted shells, like Bell Labs became, it's because bean counters in industry did that.

When you criticise NASA for not looking ahead and blame it on being non-commercial, it ignores the basic science that NASA does for possible future benefit, and it ignores the short-sighted behavior that we have seen too often on business.

Planned obsolescense is an entirely different thing. It's not about making a better product, it's about making crappy products that break so they can sell you a replacement that doesn't do anything better than the old one.

Adaptive Optics

[drjzzz]

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.

Re:why do anything at all?

[bill_mcgonigle]

Why not just do nothing and leave it up there?

It's falling out of orbit (slowly) and there's a 1 in 700 chance it'll hit people when it lands. They want to bring it down into an ocean under control.

It only has enough battery and gyroscope life left to be useful for another couple years without service so at that point it's just a danger and they've deemed it too risky to fix.

Yep.

[StarKruzr]

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.

Re:Yep.

[Andy Gardner]

Which means that all those gorgeous images the previous poster was talking about will no longer be available other than with false color.

Umm all those gorgeous images currently available are, false colour.

from Hubblesite.org
Taking color pictures with the Hubble Space Telescope is much more complex than taking color pictures with a traditional camera. For one thing, Hubble doesn't use color film -- in fact, it doesn't use film at all. Rather, its cameras record light from the universe with special electronic detectors. These detectors produce images of the cosmos not in color, but in shades of black and white.
Finished color images are actually combinations of two or more black-and-white exposures to which color has been added during image processing. The colors in Hubble images, which are assigned for various reasons, aren't always what we'd see if we were able to visit the imaged objects in a spacecraft.

Re:2-3 gap

[Kymermosst]

Are we sure that we can live with a three year gap?

Gee, how did we live all these many, many thousands of years without a space telescope?

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.

Suppose we do... what exactly do you think we can do about it? Half the population will have wiped itself out in mass panic before they could even get a shuttle launched with little hope of success at changing things (with modern technology).