RIP Hubble?

[KRSESQ]

Bad news on the space telescope front:

Hubble funding cut (MSNBC)

Now I realize that nothing lasts forever and all good things must end and all that crap, but there must be a better alternative to simply destroying it.

It would be fine poetic justice if the last mission of the last space shuttle flight were to be the retrieval of Hubble for the Smithsonian Institution.

This isn't as complicated as it sounds. The launch/service cradle for HST is still in storage, in Huntsville, Alabama, IIRC (those space geeks never throw anything away). HST is well within the reentry weight limit for the shuttle--it would have to be, in order to have been safely launched in the first place. Such a mission would not be signifigantly more expensive than a normal maintainence mission, and maybe a bit cheaper. It wouldn't be signifigantly more complicated than a normal servicing mission. The hard part would be securing it in the cargo bay.

Studying Hubble after retrieval might give engineers new insights in designing and building vehicles for long-term space endurance. The mission itself would fire the enthusiasm of a new generation as they watch astronauts (a skeleton crew of volunteers) do something REALLY exciting instead of flying aimlessly in a circle watching ants sort screws in zero-g.

Dangerous? Sure. Anything worth doing is inherently dangerous on some level. The more dangerous, the better. Pointless? Who can say? Chances are that our grandchildren or great-grandchildren won't think it's so pointless when they see THE Hubble Space Telescope hanging in the Air and Space Museum instead of some cheezy copy. It's like the difference between THE Spirit of Saint Louis and a convincing reproduction.

In fact, I'm going to write a letter to Senator Barbara Mikulski right now! Who's with me?

Kevin

[Jon P. Inghram]

The shuttles landing weight limit is much lower than it's launch capacity: between the extra stress during reentry and landing speed / AoA limits it's just not going to happen.

I say chuck the damn thing in some ocean when it craps out and build a better one with the money we save.

And I'm not being bitter because someone stole my telescope.

[Wombat]

That's the thing, they can't even chuck it in the ocean. The last (cancelled) mission was to equip it for re-entry, which it currently can't do.

But you're also correct in that it is too heavy to retrieve via shuttle. They ruled that out a while ago.

KRSESQ, you have to remember that during liftoff the shuttle has friggin' huge rockets attached to it. On reentry it's a glider that's practically an aerodynamic version of a brick.

[KvHagedorn]

Attach it to the space station and have an orbiting museum..

[schmosef]

Let it out into space for some aliens to discover.

[Jon P. Inghram]

I thought they were thinking of a robotic mission to attach a rocket to deorbit it?

If they do deorbit it, it'll be in good company, Magellan and Galileo both had the honor of a firey death.

[KRSESQ]

The shuttles landing weight limit is much lower than it's launch capacity: between the extra stress during reentry and landing speed / AoA limits it's just not going to happen.

Actually doable. The shuttle's maximum landing weight is 256,000 lbs. When it landed with Spacelab in the cargo bay, the landing weight was 227,400 lbs. Spacelab weighs something over 23,000 lbs, and Hubble weighs 24,500 lbs. Even allowing for an extra 20,000 lbs for the cradle and extra hardware, it would still, at just under 250,000 lbs, be reasonably within the landing weight limit.

In fact this was all taken into account when Hubble was designed. Engineers knew that in an emergency the shuttle might have to land without deploying Hubble and so they had to keep their design within those landing limits.

Kevin

[K6-III]

Here's another idea:

Use a space tug to tow it to a lagrange point.

Hell, if I had the money, I wouldn't mind using a space tug from Orbital Recovery to simply steal the Hubble...

[Dr Mordrid]

Hubble has done wonders with its imagry, but many of the new ground based 'scopes can actually do better by way of using multiple mirrors tied together as an interferometer. This plus the new scopes mirrors can automatically reshape themselves to compensate for atmospheric disturbances, making Hubbble pretty much obsolete plus its maintanence costs are, well, astronomic

As for a NEW space telescope; that comes in a few years with the JWST (James Webb Space Telescope). James Webb was the director or NASA during the 60's. The JWST will be put at a Lagrange point (I believe L2 with ion thrusters for stabilization & maneuvers) 1.5 million KM/1 million miles out and is designed mainly to observe in the infrared band with limited optical capabilities.

One of the problems with current deep-space imaging, both from the ground and from space, is that the light from > ~10 billion years ago has redshifted into the infrared, making it impossible for current deep sky telescopes to see into these "dark ages" of the universe. Since this is when galaxy formation took place the astrophysics guys are itching to see into this zone. The JWST is geared to do exactly this mission using a 6.5 meter (20 foot) cryogenic mirror (35° K/-220° C/-430° F).

Even if Hubble were to get an IR imaging instrument by way of a maintenance mission its 1.5 meter (8.125 foot) mirror is tiny compared to what the JWST will have and not primarily designed for IR (not cryogenic, a major factor for doing IR observations), so why bother?

http://www.jwst.nasa.gov/

As for bringing Hubble down, presumably for display in the Smithsonian, I'm not in favor of it. It would cost well over $150 million to mount a shuttle mission to do it, making it the most expensive museum piece in history. IMO that money would be better spent on the VASIMR engine and other exploration projects.

IMO they should just send up a small robotic mission to steer it into the Pacific.

Dr. Mordrid

[KRSESQ]

It would cost well over $150 million to mount a shuttle mission to do it, making it the most expensive museum piece in history.

More like $400 million for the average cost of a shuttle mission. My point is, there is going to be a "final" space shuttle mission eventually, at some point down the road. That final mission is going to cost, no matter what the mission profile is. My simple proposal is to make the mission profile the retrieval of Hubble. Hell, if everyone who likes looking at the pictures it sends back kicked in $5 it would be covered.

At close to $5 Billion to build and maintain over the years, another $400 mil is relatively inconsequential.

Kevin

[schmosef]

I'm glad it's not my tax dollars that will have to pay for it.

[KRSESQ]

Hell, I don't care about that, considering what the Penagon throws away on any given day.

Kevin

[Umfriend]

At close to $5 Billion to build and maintain over the years, another $400 mil is relatively inconsequential.

$400 mln is hardly ever relatively inconsequential IMO. Those 5 bln, supposedly, gained us a lot. What would that 400mln yield us? Think it is an investment with a similar return?

[KRSESQ]

A question for all: What was the mission profile for Columbia when it fell down? Anyone? I recall hearing something about nematodes. What else? Aside from the fact that seven of our best died, What does anyone remember about the last mission of Columbia?

Now, what do we want to remember about the last mission of the space shuttle fleet? Do we want the last mission to be yet another immediately forgettable jaunt to ISS or do we want the final mission to be something that people will remember for centuries to come (succeed or fail)?

THIS is what space exploration is supposed to be about: doing big bold dangerous (and often expensive) things that folks will remember forever. Or have we become too jaded or timid? If that's the case maybe we should just chuck the whole thing and crawl under our beds.

Kevin

[Dr Mordrid]

Research into sprites and red jets (high altitude discharges of enormous power). Some think that in the ultimate of ironies additional damage beyond that done by the foam was done to it by a positive lightning strike as it reentered. Positive lightning CAN bring down aircraft.

Dr. Mordrid