ABOUT COSMIC LOG

Quantum fluctuations in space, science, exploration and other cosmic fields... served up regularly by MSNBC.com science editor Alan Boyle since 2002.

Alan Boyle covers the physical sciences, anthropology, technological innovation and space science and exploration for MSNBC.com. He is a winner of the AAAS Science Journalism Award, the NASW Science-in-Society Award and other honors; a contributor to "A Field Guide for Science Writers"; and a member of the board of the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing.

Check out Boyle's biography or send a message to Cosmic Log via cosmiclog@msnbc.com.



Hubble's ultimate fate

Posted: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 7:40 PM by Alan Boyle

NASA's decision to send a repair crew to the Hubble Space Telescope in 2008 is receiving seemingly universal praise. If all goes well, the world's best-known orbiting observatory should continue working until 2013, and perhaps even a few years longer than that. But then what? Hubble's ultimate fate is totally up in the air, so to speak.

Hubble is due to get fresh batteries, gyroscopes and observing instruments during the 2008 mission, but that's not all: The spacewalkers are also slated to install a "soft capture mechanism," so that future spacecraft will be able to use a straightforward docking maneuver to latch onto the telescope. Currently, Hubble has to be grappled by the shuttle's robotic arm and drawn onto a work platform in the open cargo bay. That procedure won't work once the shuttle fleet is retired in 2010.

The docking mechanism should allow for additional Hubble visits by NASA's Orion crew exploration vehicle, or by the private-sector spaceships being developed through NASA's Commercial Orbital Transportation Services program. Future crews could conceivably mount a sixth servicing mission, and a seventh, and so on. Or, less optimistically, an orbital disposal squad could attach a propulsion module that would push Hubble into a controlled plunge through the atmosphere. Such a plan would make sure the 12-ton telescope doesn't hurt anyone when it falls.

Several readers wondered whether that final, fiery trip would really be necessary. Here are a couple that encapsulate the two basic ideas:

William Bailey: "Heard yesterday that when Hubble dies, they are going to attach booster rockets to it and send it off into space. Well, use the booster rockets to get it to the space station. They could put two sets on - one to get it there, and one to stop or slow it way down to be 'lassoed' and tethered to the space station. Guess I just hate to give up and send it into deep space."

Unfortunately, changing Hubble's orbit from its current 28.5-degree inclination to the international space station's 51.6-degree inclination would take an incredible blast of rocket power. In this Space.com discussion thread, the required change in velocity is estimated to be as much as half the telescope's current orbital velocity - a speed-up that Hubble might not be able to weather, even if it were possible to attach a rocket that big. It's a lot easier to nudge Hubble down from its orbit, rather than pushing it sideways into an orbit to match the space station's.

Geoff: "Why not just load the Hubble into the shuttle bay and return it to Earth for the Smithsonian?"

"That was originally the plan," said Susan Hendrix, a spokeswoman for NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center. "But it's changed over the years."

In the beginning, Hubble was deployed from the space shuttle Discovery's cargo bay, but some of the parts that have been added since then - such as a new set of rigid solar panels and radiators - would have to be taken off the telescope before it could fit back in the shuttle, Hendrix said. Some estimate that the job would require three spacewalks, and the current thinking is that bringing Hubble back to Earth wouldn't be worth the risk.

"It wouldn't be safe," Hendrix told me. "It really wouldn't."

Of course, the 2008 servicing mission means that Hubble is likely to outlast the shuttle fleet. And once the shuttles are retired, it's not at all clear whether there'd be an orbital spacecraft big enough to bring Hubble back. The telescope is way too long to fit inside the European Space Agency's Automated Transfer Vehicle, for example.

Fortunately, there should be plenty of time to consider Hubble's ultimate fate. NASA's calculations indicate that if the telescope's batteries failed, the electronics would become irretrievably damaged in just two days - but even then, the telescope itself would likely remain in orbit until around 2021.

The Space Frontier Foundation's Rick Tumlinson, who was one of the leaders in the effort to save Russia's Mir space station, is very glad NASA Administrator Mike Griffin granted a reprieve for Hubble. "I applaud the administrator," he told me. "I give him great props."

In fact, Tumlinson sees no reason why Hubble should ever be sent down to its doom.

"I have a philosophical problem with the idea of deorbiting any large high-technology object from space," he said. "It's a frontier philosophy: You never throw out anything that you can repair, reuse or adapt for another use."

If there ever came a time when NASA was ready to hang up on Hubble, perhaps arrangements could be made for a public-private consortium to take charge of the telescope, Tumlinson said. Commercial orbital crews might well be in business sometime in the next decade or so - and willing to keep Hubble going as a profit-making venture or a public service.

Even a broken Hubble could have its uses. All that shiny hardware would be a gold mine for space-crazy collectors or orbital salvagers, circa 2020. Why let it go to waste?

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

Sending the hubble to the ISS sounded like a great idea if not for all the rocket power required! I sure hope this EXPENSIVE repair does not put the next generation space telescope in danger. It is very common for subcommittees to cancel projects already underway and with hubble repaired this might be just the reason to cancel it. Hubble was a great tool, but the next generation telescope will be ten times better and is far larger!

As the editor of the space-crazy collectors' website, I would hope that by 2020-2025, if we cannot service the Hubble, we could find the means to return it — intact — to Earth. At that point the telescope could begin its second and third missions: first, as a research tool for scientists studying the effects on hardware from long duration exposure to space (which could lead to improved designs for any future Hubble 2.0); and then secondly, as a means to educate and inspire, replacing the mock-up currently in place at the National Air and Space Museum.

Based on its popularity and contributions to science, Hubble deserves the same spotlight provided to the United States' other pivotal space missions, from Freedom and Friendship 7 to Apollo 11's Columbia and even SpaceShipOne. These artifacts serve to motivate our next generation of scientists, engineers and explorers. Perhaps there could be a future X Prize or Centennial Challenge to devise a payload canister large enough to safely bring Hubble home. There are a few small pieces of flown Hubble components in public and private collections today:

http://collectspace.com/ubb/Forum14/HTML/000465.html

It would be a shame if that is all there will ever be.

Best decision NASA has made in a long time. Rick Tumlinson is correct to point out the waste in throwing away Hubble. It should be continually upgraded as technology allows. Turn it over to a public-private consortium if the government won't fund it.
It needn't be expensive to move Hubble to ISS, if you are willing to take your time in doing it. Yes, you could use rockets and lots of fuel to change the orbits, but Hubble is also equipped with gyrodynes as well. One could launch a fairly inexpensive module (launched with an existing Atlas, Delta, Titan, ESA, or Russian booster, or even with a retired Peacekeeper or SS-21 ICBM) with both rockets and additional gyrodynes to Hubble. Use the rockets to give the 'scope its initial kick, then use both the 'scope's and the new 'dynes for additional manuvering. In fact, to keep costs REALLY low for this kind of rescue mission, turn Hubble and this rescue mission proposal over to some private group who might be willing to take some risks (by 2013, the mission doesn't HAVE to work, so cost cutting measures can be taken because not everything has to be 100% successful).
Once no longer practical for earth use, why not park in orbit around the moon for later retrieval. A moon base would appreciate an eye on the sky.
Ms. Hendrix's comments about bringing Hubble back to Earth are incorrect. It was designed so that in one spacewalk astronauts could remove the solar arrays (as they have done once already), while the aperture cover and antenna are closed by computer or ground command. But it has to be grappled and secured for re-entry and landing - but in what? After the shuttles' demise, there is nothing designed to bring it back in - nothing! And that is the rub- we can maintain it in service, but how to bring it home?
I don't think returning it to the earth to hang in the Air&Space museum is a good idea. I prefer Bigelow's suggestion - bring the museum to Hubble. Given his success with Genesis I, I think it could work.
Devise attachments for future service and/or movements that would allow for: worker, gyroscope, solar-wind balloon sails, push point (to move by a motor / vehicle)
The real question shouldn't be "what will we do with Hubble when it's at the end of its life." We should be focusing on what technologies will replace Hubble to continue to expand our vision of the universe. Hubble is the technological equivalent of the pinhole camera. Imagine what we'll discover when we move to the next generation ...
I think some of the people here have the right idea, but everybody seems to want it brought back to the Smithsonian - I think that Hubble is something that we should go _to_ instead, once we wish to view it. Once it has been retired, a booster module could be added on that could slowly alter the orbit of the telescope until it was in a gravitationally "cheap" enough location to do a final boost for permanent parking in an Earth-Luna LaGrange point. Since time is not a factor, an ion propulsion system may be ideal for this first part of the orbital maneuvering; with a bit of hypergolic thrusters for any "big" burns. If one of the stable L points was used, versus the metastable ones, the telescope could both be a museum piece _and_ to continue to contribute to our long term knowledge of materials science as it relates to astronautics. No need to retire Hubble completely just because we've got better telescopes at that point - when we can continue monitoring the radiation effects on materials, etc. for little or no cost.

Crews are willing to take the risk (of not being able to stay at ISS, if damage making re-entry impossible is found) to service HST and maintain its operability, but it's not as clear that they'd do so only to return it to Earth as a museum piece, interesting though that would be.

However, I have to assume the particular orbital altitude and inclination of HST was chosen for definite observational reasons. I can't find an exact reference for them, but this will help:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Hubble_Space_Telescope#Observation_scheduling

...and co-orbiting with ISS may not satisfy those needs, no matter how easy relocating it might become. In any case, its likely successor (for infrared observations), the James Webb Space Telescope, will be located well away from Earth, at one of the Earth-Sun Lagrange points, far beyond the reach of any existing, or near-term servecing capability:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki
/James_Webb_Space_Telescope

 

I think it's silly to spend nearly $1 billion to extend the life of the Hubble telescope by a mere four years. Wouldn't be better to spend that money on Hubble's replacement?
One contributor compared Hubble to a pinhole camera, and given its great age -- nearly two decades in space is one heckuva tour of duty! (but, then, the two Pioneers are still chugging along after far longer) - that's a very fair analogy. But I would say, if someone has a "pinhole camera" AKA "Hubble" sitting around unwanted -- give me a call!  It does seem wasteful to have such an expensive piece of equipment (especially adding on the costs of replacement and improvement parts, plus the missions to get to it) then just let it burn up on re-entry. Would it add all that much to the mission total cost -- I'm asking generally, and genuinely (since I simply don't know about these matters) -- to make the device itself recoverable?  Of course, if it wouldn't be usable on the ground, in terms of working then it would be a waste to spend any money to make it recoverable.


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=10383

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

Add Cosmic Log to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google