Hubble's ultimate fate

Chris Eldridge — Thu, 02 Nov 2006 07:01:36 GMT

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!

Hubble's ultimate fate

Robert Pearlman, Houston, TX — Thu, 02 Nov 2006 13:40:49 GMT

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.

Hubble's ultimate fate

Sid Goldstein, North East, PA — Thu, 02 Nov 2006 15:30:09 GMT

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.

Hubble's ultimate fate

Alan Sheets, Loveland CO — Thu, 02 Nov 2006 15:55:27 GMT

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).

Hubble's ultimate fate

Gary Peterson, Dickinson North, Dakota — Thu, 02 Nov 2006 16:36:30 GMT

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.

Hubble's ultimate fate

James M. Busby, Mojave, California — Thu, 02 Nov 2006 16:49:50 GMT

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?

Hubble's ultimate fate

Aaron Oesterle — Thu, 02 Nov 2006 17:33:19 GMT

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.

Hubble's ultimate fate

Rob, K. C. Kansas — Thu, 02 Nov 2006 20:42:15 GMT

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)

Hubble's ultimate fate

Steve Lynch, Havertown, PA — Thu, 02 Nov 2006 23:56:20 GMT

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 ...

Hubble's ultimate fate

Chris House, Twin Cities, MN — Thu, 02 Nov 2006 23:58:59 GMT

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.

Hubble's ultimate fate

Frank Glover — Fri, 03 Nov 2006 01:18:14 GMT

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

Hubble's ultimate fate

William Cousert, Murrieta, California — Fri, 03 Nov 2006 21:21:19 GMT

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?

Hubble's ultimate fate

Mekhong Kurt, Bangkok, Thailand — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 12:04:07 GMT

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.