...and mount it to the International Space Station? Seems like it would make maintenance a lot easier, and would solve the problem of having to de-orbit Hubble in the next decade or so.
Why Not Take Hubble...
- Thread starter USS Triumphant
- Start date
Wrong orbit: Seems like pointed in a new direction would still be better than de-orbiting.
Inhibits tracking: Probably a good point.
Station Jiggling: Also probably a good point, but it seems like there should really be a way around this one....
By wrong orbit, it is meant that Hubble is too high up (about 150 miles higher) in orbit than the ISS orbits at. Since Hubble cannot move itself, and the shuttle cannot change Hubble's orbit precisely enough, it cannot make a controlled descent to a lower orbit.
Rob+
You would have to de-orbit it to mate it to the ISS. The orbits are too different to swap in one go. So you'd already be paying for the equivalent of two servicing missions.
All Seeing Eye
Admiral
I say we sling it into the outer solar system just for the hell of it.
Hubble has already paid for itself.
Also...as mentioned, you'd have to add two shuttle missions for this. 1 to retreive Hubble and another to sent it back up to the ISS. Since this last mission cost about a billion dollars, double that...and add another couple of years and billion to retrofit Hubble to fit on the station.
You'd also have to try and figure out how to squeeze two more shuttle missions in. As of now the fleet will retire in Q4, 2010/ Q1 2011. I think the last External Tank has already been manufactured and that contractor has already begun to switch over to Ares/Constellation Manufacturing.
Then there's that. While you're sending up these shuttles to get and send Hubble, Ares is on hold. NASA can't afford both. There's already a 4-6 year STS-Ares gap and extending the shuttle out extends that gap.
Yada yada yada.
On the subject of orbits:
It's not just the altitude, the ISS has a quite different orbital plane than the Hubble telescope. The plane of the ISS is at so much of an angle to the Equator that during night launches on the way to ISS I can see the shuttle main engine cutoff from my front yard in Virginia!
It's not just the altitude, the ISS has a quite different orbital plane than the Hubble telescope. The plane of the ISS is at so much of an angle to the Equator that during night launches on the way to ISS I can see the shuttle main engine cutoff from my front yard in Virginia!
The difference in the orbital inclination is the killer.
It takes a lot of fuel to make a significant change to your orbital inclination, way more than the shuttle's OMS engines can carry. Unless you can carry a lot of extra fuel into orbit with you, you're stuck with the inclination you launched into.
The Hubble telescope's inclination is about 28 degrees and the ISS is 51 degrees. I read somewhere the maximum inclination change the shuttle can make is about 1.5 degrees
The thing about space launches is that the easiest way to get into orbit is to launch directly east. If you say, launch mortheast, it'll take more fuel to get into orbit. So if you launch directly east of the Kennedy Space Center, your orbital inclination is the same as the KSC's latitude location; 28.5 degrees. That's why the Hubble is at that inclination; to make it easier for the shuttle to reach it since it's at the maximum altitude the shuttle can reach.
The ISS is at a higher inc. because the Baikonur Cosmodrome is at a higher latitude, the ISS inc. is a compromise so that it's reachable from both KSC and Baikonur.
Robert
It takes a lot of fuel to make a significant change to your orbital inclination, way more than the shuttle's OMS engines can carry. Unless you can carry a lot of extra fuel into orbit with you, you're stuck with the inclination you launched into.
The Hubble telescope's inclination is about 28 degrees and the ISS is 51 degrees. I read somewhere the maximum inclination change the shuttle can make is about 1.5 degrees
The thing about space launches is that the easiest way to get into orbit is to launch directly east. If you say, launch mortheast, it'll take more fuel to get into orbit. So if you launch directly east of the Kennedy Space Center, your orbital inclination is the same as the KSC's latitude location; 28.5 degrees. That's why the Hubble is at that inclination; to make it easier for the shuttle to reach it since it's at the maximum altitude the shuttle can reach.
The ISS is at a higher inc. because the Baikonur Cosmodrome is at a higher latitude, the ISS inc. is a compromise so that it's reachable from both KSC and Baikonur.
Robert
Just wanted to add that you don't want telescopes like the Hubble anywhere near human habitats.
The ISS and other stations are constantly venting various gasses and that's the whole reason we got the Hubble out of the atmosphere to begin with!!
The ISS and other stations are constantly venting various gasses and that's the whole reason we got the Hubble out of the atmosphere to begin with!!
Vibration is also a priority with Hubble. What's the easiest way to avoid that vibration? Not attaching it to the ISS to begin with. Attaching it to the station serves no real purpose to begin with. Hubble is designed to be serviced from outside, so in the end astronauts would still have to suit up.
Gases and other waste from ISS would also be a contamination risk.
Even if you could get it to a lower orbit to match the ISS you now have the problem the ISS has, atmospheric interference decaying it's orbit. ISS gets frequent boosts to maintain orbit. Which gets us back to that whole vibration thing again.
Gases and other waste from ISS would also be a contamination risk.
Even if you could get it to a lower orbit to match the ISS you now have the problem the ISS has, atmospheric interference decaying it's orbit. ISS gets frequent boosts to maintain orbit. Which gets us back to that whole vibration thing again.
Stick it at the L2 point with the Herchel Observatory.
With what to move it?
It would be pointless to move Hubble to the ISS. In addition to all of the points already made, Hubble is 19 years old. Granted, the upgrades made this last mission have extended its life quite a bit, but there is only so much retro fitting that can be done realistically. Something else to keep in mind is the fact that Hubble was designed as a stand alone platform. It would lose most of it's ability to function if mated to the ISS.
new pix, released after Hubble repair
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/multimedia/ero/
check them out
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/multimedia/ero/
check them out
Well, if we can't move it cross-range in low earth orbit...
Similar threads
