You are not logged in.
That also assumed that the unit was still functional while doing the drag to cause the appropriate de-orbit slope. Which may not be the case for Hubble due to the gryo failure and battery condition of expected life remaining.
I agree that a controlled drag will satisfy the condition for safe return.
why is it that the only solution to satelite decommissioning is to allow it to burn up in the atmosphere. An article on spacedaily says that Japan agrees to end TRMM mission, Scientists have argued against the plan, noting that the spacecraft is healthy and has enough propellant onboard to continue operations for up to two more years and still permit a controlled reentry.
I guess the question I have would be can it be put with a controled burn on a path to orbit the moon. I am sure even though the crafts available instruments are not ideal for lunar exploration, that they still could be of some value.
Sending the TRMM gets the mapping ability to the moon long before the 2008 date of the LRO.
Granted it won't be as capable as the one probe does all but it is a start. This probably qualifies more for the robotic booster attachment than does hubble if it would be capable of the mapping mission.
News release from Nasa http://www.msfc.nasa.gov/news/news/rele … 4-192.html
"NASA will officially open its Propulsion Research Laboratory July 29 at the Marshall Center with a ribbon-cutting ceremony. The facility is a state-of-the-art laboratory for cutting-edge research into advanced propulsion systems — systems that could enable more ambitious exploration of our Solar System. The 108,000-square-foot facility has 26 labs for large- and small-scale experiments."
I wonder if they will be working on Variable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket propulsion or some other nuclear based system.
I agree that Bush needs to step up to the plate but he also must be more vocal to the vision so as to end the speculation of where this is a political stunt or for real.
Nasa also must do some belt tightening in order to ring in the budget requirements for operation some how.
That would all depend on if in orbit assembly of smaller pieces are ruled out. If in orbit assembly is done it would be better to have a new place to do this at. I feel that the Iss is the wrong place to do this subassembly at.
The funding is not the only problem though it is a huge one for space exploration. The bigger problem is all of the regulatory hurtles that anyone but Nasa and the Military must jump though in order to achieve space flight. That is the fence that must come down if private industry is going to prosper and grow.
Changing the height to diameter of a stage such that you increase the diameter and decrease the over height would this not be better for reducing the mass of a given stage.
I agree that settlement is preferable more so than to exploration by a select few. You are also right about size does matter when it comes to a colony of people.
The problem with size is that it will require heavy lift capability if it is done in a one shot mode rather than in small pieces that are later assembled.
The biggest problem with Hubble is not the repair but is when. The actual reason that anything is being done in the first place is that it will come down on our little heads if nothing is done. Building a Hubble 2 does not fix this problem.
With Nasa's budget constantly being stripped or lowered it makes it very hard to do anything but to maintain those programs that are already in the pipe line.
Hubble is definitely worth saving but there must be a limit to the cost probably no more than a shuttles cost. Also Nasa must always design into any probe that circles where ever. The ability for a clean deorbit if it wishes to have safety, or no contamination to the environments that these probes circle to not be impacted.
Further more there are limits to any robotic mission and to what it can or can not do. This still means a manned mission sometime in the future to finish the job that a robotic mission can not do.
As far as reusing the ISS at the L1 or L2 or even in lunar orbit. It makes more sense to break it apart and move pieces rather than the whole station at one time. Rockets then used to change and to reposition it to any of those point then would be smaller.
Besides using lunar mined water, we must think outside of the box in ways to save this precious comodity. Launching vehicles by other means from the lunar surface is a must. Ideas such as the space elevator and magnetic pulsed rail gun system that are solar powered are a few that come to mind.
Great Idea for reuse of the shuttle only need a smooth landing strip at the end of the flight to Mars.
Maybe it is time to think of non oxygen oxidizer fuels source. Such as the story that ran last month on fuels for Mars which used magnesuim oxide rich soil and carbon dioxide with an iodione catylst.
The biggest problem with Hubble is not the repair but is when. The actual reason that anything is being done in the first place is that it will come down on our little heads if nothing is done.
With Nasa's budget constantly being stripped or lowered it makes it very hard to do anything but to maintain those programs that are already in the pipe line.
Hubble is definitely worth saving but there must be a limit to the cost. Also Nasa must always design into any probe that circles where ever. The ability for a clean deorbit if it wishes to have safety, or no contamination to the environments that these probes circle to not be impacted.