Hubble Upgrade
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
Hubble Upgrade
It appears that a few senior spaceflight officials, including John Grunsfeld, are blocking a private effort to reboost the Hubble Space Telescope and extend its lifetime.
https://www.npr.org/2024/05/16/12502...cope-nasa-foia
Private mission to save the Hubble Space Telescope raises concerns, NASA emails show
https://www.npr.org/2024/05/16/12502...cope-nasa-foia
Private mission to save the Hubble Space Telescope raises concerns, NASA emails show
Well that's nuts. Let them get on with it.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Near Stuttgart, Germany
Posts: 1,098
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The space telescope still works as it is now. It is owned by NASA and to a small degree the European Space Agency. They decide what to do about it, not some billionaires. If the owners of the telescope deem that the risk of a "Space Cowboys" style repair mission is too big then no such mission is performed. As easy as that, no further discussion necessary.
I also think that this would be a high risk mission. Not only for the astronauts, but also for the telescope. A space capsule and astronauts (some of which will have no or very little EVA experience) and tools and spare parts floating freely around one of the most delicate structures in orbit? That is a certain recipe for trouble. There are better ways for billionaires to show off without killing one of the most important scientific instruments ever built together with themselves.
I also think that this would be a high risk mission. Not only for the astronauts, but also for the telescope. A space capsule and astronauts (some of which will have no or very little EVA experience) and tools and spare parts floating freely around one of the most delicate structures in orbit? That is a certain recipe for trouble. There are better ways for billionaires to show off without killing one of the most important scientific instruments ever built together with themselves.
What’s being missed by some is that Hubble is very much old tech, has been limping along for a while with occasional scattered periods of not limping along at all and going into safe mode.
One of the things the two year study looked at was fundamentally cost/risk v benefit of trying to keep the thing going verses starting afresh with new tech, new platform.
A few people who were involved in the science/engineering study are a bit p”d off at how some in the media are trying to portray this whole story as being “big bad government verses dynamic entrepreneurs” and how some quotes have been lifted and used to support that POV…the quote below from one involved in the work and the link to their full comment on X.
https://x.com/rookisaacman/status/1791845941013569616
One of the things the two year study looked at was fundamentally cost/risk v benefit of trying to keep the thing going verses starting afresh with new tech, new platform.
A few people who were involved in the science/engineering study are a bit p”d off at how some in the media are trying to portray this whole story as being “big bad government verses dynamic entrepreneurs” and how some quotes have been lifted and used to support that POV…the quote below from one involved in the work and the link to their full comment on X.
On surface it looks like "billionaire wants to touch Hubble and NASA said hell no", but that is not what happened. There are three positions here, but only one that truly matters:
One of the things the two year study looked at was fundamentally cost/risk v benefit of trying to keep the thing going verses starting afresh with new tech, new platform.
Hubble can see things that JWST cannot and can be aimed at other features besides what JWST is tasked with.
The main problems are orbit and loss of the stabilizing gyros. It makes no sense to boost it higher if the gyros aren't replaced. For other satellites a general proposal has been made to add a separate guidance back-pack that would include orbit keeping and stabilization without having any modifications or replacements made of satellite hardware. On Hubble this would be attached to the same fitting the Shuttle arm used. In a more ideal world, the Space Shuttle would retrieve Hubble, return it to Earth for an overhaul; maybe fix the primary mirror properly, and then send it back into orbit. That appears to be no longer possible for the next many decades.
There may also be a science funding issue that continued operation of Hubble prevents the funding of a far more capable near-Earth telescope.
The main problems are orbit and loss of the stabilizing gyros. It makes no sense to boost it higher if the gyros aren't replaced. For other satellites a general proposal has been made to add a separate guidance back-pack that would include orbit keeping and stabilization without having any modifications or replacements made of satellite hardware. On Hubble this would be attached to the same fitting the Shuttle arm used. In a more ideal world, the Space Shuttle would retrieve Hubble, return it to Earth for an overhaul; maybe fix the primary mirror properly, and then send it back into orbit. That appears to be no longer possible for the next many decades.
There may also be a science funding issue that continued operation of Hubble prevents the funding of a far more capable near-Earth telescope.
Maybe, if Starship gets a cargo bay robotic arm. Hubble is 43.5 feet long and 14 feet in diameter and has a mass of 12,000kg, per NASA; that is smaller than the reported volume on Starship, but without a manipulator and an airlock, it would be risky to have people grabbing that mass to wrestle it into the cargo bay without a place to stand.
So far, Starship has had a terrible record and it's not clear that SpaceX will get to the point with Starship that such a mission will ever be possible. They are doing well enough with their Falcon series they may just stick with that.
So far, Starship has had a terrible record and it's not clear that SpaceX will get to the point with Starship that such a mission will ever be possible. They are doing well enough with their Falcon series they may just stick with that.
Agree with the above.
The Link provided by ORAC does mention some of the potential pitfalls in trying to use Starship in the near to medium term - no proven record at all when it comes to rendezvous, support of EVAs, and ATM no manipulator arm.
The Shuttle program ending (for good reason) meant an almost total loss of the ability to perform satellite capture and/or perform on-orbit repairs and it’s going to take some time to get that capability back.
Maybe if Hubble is still in orbit and still stable/controllable when Starship and all else that is needed has matured there will be a rethink.
The Link provided by ORAC does mention some of the potential pitfalls in trying to use Starship in the near to medium term - no proven record at all when it comes to rendezvous, support of EVAs, and ATM no manipulator arm.
The Shuttle program ending (for good reason) meant an almost total loss of the ability to perform satellite capture and/or perform on-orbit repairs and it’s going to take some time to get that capability back.
Maybe if Hubble is still in orbit and still stable/controllable when Starship and all else that is needed has matured there will be a rethink.
