$300M to destroy hubble

jadeheart · 2003-11-24 19:58:59

has anybody else seen this madness?

http://www.space.com/spacenews/business … 31124.html

(lead story on space.com nov. 24).

is it just me, or does this seem like a stupendous waste of money? i get the impression that this thing will be specifically developed just to deorbit HST. has anybody heard of any further use for it, or is it a one-shot deal? nasa practically has to be whipped to fund JIMO or Pluto express but will gladly spend much more on something like this. what the hell?

i smell serious corporate pork here. somebody please tell me i've misread this article. :angry:

Palomar · 2003-11-24 20:08:30

*I think you read it right, jadeheart. Looks like it's simply to deorbit Hubble.

"More said he expects the technological risk associated with the Hubble disposal mission..."

The mission specifically for that purpose, repeated throughout the text.

I'm glad to see Hubble will continue in operation until 2012, though! What fantastic photos and information it's provided us.

But criminy, what a lot of moolah. However:

"The price tag for the proposed Hubble disposal mission would be paid for by NASA?s Astronomical Search Origins program, which gets roughly $900 million a year to build and operate space telescopes." So this is coming from a specific fund of money set aside for a specific purpose. Still, it's a pity 1/3 of that money goes for this alone.

--Cindy

P.S.: "Hubble, unlike most satellites, has no onboard propulsion system, relying instead on control momentum gyroscopes and flywheels to point the telescope and maintain stability."

*Cool! I didn't know it had no propulsion system. Now I wish I knew exactly what gyroscopes and flywheels are and how they work. I'm curious, like always.

jadeheart · 2003-11-25 18:35:53

I didn't know it had no propulsion system. Now I wish I knew exactly what gyroscopes and flywheels are and how they work. I'm curious, like always.

they spin up the flywheels which exert a torque on the overall spacecraft, causing it to rotate. it's a feedback loop where the gyros are the (coarse) sensors, the wheels are the actuators. the pointing computer controls it all with further help from fine-tuning sensors which look thru the optics at guide stars. they didn't put propellant on it because when spent it tends to hang around & could mess up the optical surfaces.

i worked on the hubble project for a couple of years before the first servicing mission, so was kind of disappointed when they decided not to retrieve it when it retires. sentimental attachment, etc. but i think having to spend 300M just to burn it up is an outrage. there has to be a better way.

Christina · 2003-11-26 02:23:43

Well, after the Mir and Skylab catastrophes, you can understand them wanting to make sure nothing much re-enters the atmosphere...

sethmckiness · 2003-11-26 04:20:37

This may sound dumb, but how much would it cost to make a mount or umbilical of some kind to mount it to the ISS?

Palomar · 2003-11-26 06:58:52

i worked on the hubble project for a couple of years before the first servicing mission...

*Thanks for the explanations, jadeheart.

You worked on the Hubble project? May I ask in what capacity?

--Cindy

Rxke · 2003-11-26 09:14:01

This may sound dumb, but how much would it cost to make a mount or umbilical of some kind to mount it to the ISS?

Or buy it from NASA? Then, launch a cheap ion engine-powered sat (9.5 mil$ for a 60kg/132lbs sat in LEO for a SpaceDev launch today... Wonder what SpaceX will ask in the near future)

...dock (possible?) and send it in a 'storage orbit'... to retrieve it later, when we DO have the hardware to do that relatively cheap.

Hubble being an icon of modern day astronomy, it's a real shame o see it go down...

jadeheart · 2003-11-26 16:22:25

my thinking was that they could at least let the orbit decay enough to where it'll be in range of an antisatellite missile. a bunch of little hubble crumbs would be less likely to make it thru re-entry than a big chunk. surely this would be cheaper than $300M. you'll remember that they let compton burn up, and that was about the same size as HST. (it may have had some propellant to help control the reentry though, i can't remember.)

of course, salvage would be nice. HST, in my biased opinion, is probably one of the more ambitious science/engineering projects ever undertaken. but putting it in a parking orbit of some kind would require fitting a special propulsion unit to it. the article mentioned this as a way of deorbiting it but NASA decided it was too risky. (if the astronauts had to go up to fit this thing to it, they may as well go ahead and put it in the payload bay to bring it back). plus this doesn't let NASA give as big of a nice porky contract to the aerospace industry.

in answer to your question, cindy, i was the guy that screwed up the mirror (just kidding). i actually worked flight operations for 2 years at goddard. basically looked at telemetry and kept things running. i was one of the folks who monitored the pointing control system, which includes the gyros, reaction wheels & optical (star-based) pointing.

Rxke · 2003-11-27 10:33:11

...fitting a deorbit engine... Nasa... too risky...

Sigh, they really have become whiners, don't they?

Too bad it hasn't got a standard docking ring, like most sats...

otherwise this Dutch firm could've been the solution: A real Spacetug is being developed, at last.

(Edited: Great, looks like i'm not the only one thinking along these lines... Very nice article about Orbital Recovery Corporation, and if you do the maths, a lot cheaper, to boot. Spaceref Article Go, ORC! Save this pretty piece of hardware for posterity! )

Rxke · 2003-11-27 16:20:16

Hmmm my first link in previous post mentions "Orbital Recovery Ltd." in the article, and the second "Orbital Recovery Corporation..." Confusing...

jadeheart · 2003-11-28 13:57:35

hey, great links there. that spaceref article had some good ideas. and i definitely agree that it would be good to extend hubble's life beyond the advent of the Webb telescope for insurance in case Webb has a catastrophic malfunction.

unfortunately, both of those articles were a little vague as to timeframe and expense. (spaceref mentioned '06). and, i don't think the dutch tug would be compatible w/ HST unless they designed some kind of custom attachment. i got the impression it plans on docking to telecom satellites using the fitting that mated them to their ariane launcher. since HST wasn't launched by an ariane it won't have the fitting that the tug will have.

note that HST would be a juggernaut of astronomical science if it were moved to geostationary orbit. it was put in LEO initially to allow servicing, but once the last servicing mission is over there's no need for it to be there. HST's residence in LEO has been a huge impediment to its output; the earth tends to get in the way of what it's observing as it goes 'round. also (this may have been fixed since '92), the day/night transition caused vibrations in the solar panels that necessitated a suspension of observations; so any observation lasting more than half an earth orbit always got interrupted. but higher up in geo orbit it would have an almost unencumbered field of view, no day/night transition to deal with, and would be much more efficient in generating observational data until accumulating system failures finally doom it.

let's hope nasa becomes aware of the space tug option and takes it into consideration!

SpaceNut · 2004-10-06 08:18:59

This appears to be the best topic to post this information with in.

Lockheed Martin's Jefferson County Jeffco plant lands $330 million deal to help design, build craft to fix Hubble. NASA contract to help design and build a robotic spacecraft to repair the Hubble Space Telescope, so the Hubble can keep running up to seven more years.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn....00.html

NASA has yet to firmly decide on whether it will deploy a robotic mission to fix Hubble. But the agency needs to begin work now so the mission could proceed before Hubble's batteries die in 2007 or 2008 and the space telescope conks out.

So what happens to Hubble if it does become a dead telescope with regards to the repair mission can the mission still be done or is it just not worth it if this happens?

edit more stuff:
MDA Receives Authorization From NASA To Begin Work On Hubble Rescue
http://www.cnw.ca/fr/releases/archive/O … c7395.html

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2003-11-24 19:58:59

Re: $300M to destroy hubble

#2 2003-11-24 20:08:30

Re: $300M to destroy hubble

#3 2003-11-25 18:35:53

Re: $300M to destroy hubble

#4 2003-11-26 02:23:43

Re: $300M to destroy hubble

#5 2003-11-26 04:20:37

Re: $300M to destroy hubble

#6 2003-11-26 06:58:52

Re: $300M to destroy hubble

#7 2003-11-26 09:14:01

Re: $300M to destroy hubble

#8 2003-11-26 16:22:25

Re: $300M to destroy hubble

#9 2003-11-27 10:33:11

Re: $300M to destroy hubble

#10 2003-11-27 16:20:16

Re: $300M to destroy hubble

#11 2003-11-28 13:57:35

Re: $300M to destroy hubble

#12 2004-10-06 08:18:59

Re: $300M to destroy hubble

Board footer