Page 2 of 19 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 559

Thread: Moving Hubble near ISS for frequent maintenance?

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    15,531
    fresh from factory and perfect!
    Gotta love them perfect early shuttles shedding off half of their tiles (so to speak).
    With sufficient thrust, water towers fly just fine.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    10,448
    Quote Originally Posted by Count Zero View Post
    As a side note, when the Hubble was launched, the Russians weren't part of the Space Station project yet, so the station was planned for a ~28 degree orbit similar to the HST.
    I think that had less to do with orbital compatability between the station and the telescope than it did pure convenience for launches purely from Kennedy/Canaveral. The shuttles require quite a bit of extra effort to get to the station where it is now.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,531
    Quote Originally Posted by gaetanomarano View Post
    ...the Shuttles are old, have many new problems every day, the foam risk at every launch, etc. etc. etc.
    I'm sorry, but you're just pulling this "stuff" out of your "hat". The "foam risk" has been inherient in shuttle launches for quite a while...we were just unaware of it until it caused the loss of a shuttle.

    Precisely what are these "new" problems that you speak of??

    ...now, the risk of failure in higher than past.
    As the risk is assessed, (and contingencies are put into place to "counter" those risks) then overall risk for each flight becomes smaller. Why is it you seem to be ignoring that fact?

    Speculation is fine, but making "stuff" up to conform to your own ideas of how you "think" things are is not a reasonable way of approching this problem.
    The facts, gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching. Isaac Asimov

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,834
    Quote Originally Posted by Count Zero View Post
    As a side note, when the Hubble was launched, the Russians weren't part of the Space Station project yet, so the station was planned for a ~28 degree orbit similar to the HST.
    after your note, I think I've made a mistake in one of my previous posts, since (probably) not even a few astronauts sent to the Hubble can be saved with some Soyuz if the russian rescue ships aren't launched from KSC (to reach the right orbit with their own propellent)

    .

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,930
    IIRC, the environment around ISS is too contaminated with regular outgassing (from thrusters and whatnot) to be a good environment for a space telescope. It would have to keep its distance, and the farther the better. Eventually, the best distance would be too far to easily service. And juggling both orbits would only complicate a situation that's already a bear.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,834
    Quote Originally Posted by NEOWatcher View Post
    What are the orbital speeds of:ISS + 50 Miles
    I can't calculate it, but, as I've explained in my previous posts, the distance between the Hubble and the ISS is a minor problem (compared with the change of orbit and altitude!) since the Hubble don't need to be reboosted every day but only when it goes too away from ISS or needs some maintenance 8and that can be done with a Progress)

    ...the thrust needed for a shuttle to transfer from ISS orbit to the above orbits...
    I don't know, but this is not important, since, before a Shuttle/Hubble repair mission, the Hubble can be reboosted with a Progress to be at a reasonable/right distance from ISS

    .

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,834
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicolas View Post
    Gotta love them perfect early shuttles shedding off half of their tiles (so to speak).
    IIRC the Shuttles was designed for a safe reentry without part of the tiles

    .

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,834
    Quote Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
    Precisely what are these "new" problems that you speak of?
    to give a rational answer/evaluation we must "split" the problem:

    1. risks of the hubble mission

    2. advantages of have the Hubble near the ISS

    well... we can discuss years about the % of risks of a Shuttle mission to the Hubble but (clearly) and unmanned missions to move the Hubble near the ISS has ZERO RISKS

    why do NASA will use two Shuttles (mission + rescue) for the Hubble repair if the mission has no risks???

    you know, the reason is that, without an ISS near the Hubble, the risk of the mission is higher than all standard missions to ISS

    we can also "split" the Hubble repair mission in:

    1. main mission with 6-7 astronauts

    2. rescue mission with 2-3 astronauts

    the first point/launch has an "n" % of risk (that we can't know now) but the main risk for the astronauts in orbit comes from the 2nd point/launch!

    the Shuttle in orbit has only 16 days of life support, so, it has severe problems (like a too damaged wing or shield) the second Shuttle has two weeks max to fly for rescue ...and we have experienced Shuttles' delays MUCH LONGER than two weeks!!!

    the first Discovery launch this year has delayed six months (two of them to change a simple tank's sensor!) then...

    .

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,834
    Quote Originally Posted by Romanus View Post
    ...to be a good environment for a space telescope...
    that may be true, but it's not important that Hubble is too near the ISS, it can be 100-200 km. away but in the same orbit where, one or more Shuttles, one or more Soyuz, one or more Progress, one or more ATV, one or more COTS vehicles, can easy go for repair/maintenance/upgrade/rescue missions
    in other words, if a Shuttle will go 200 km. away from ISS to repair the Hubble and has some problems to come back to the ISS, a Soyuz docked to the ISS can rescue the Shuttle's crew in a few, brief, travels, while, with the Shuttle in another orbit/altitide, the ISS/Soyuz duo can't save them (and that risk will happen everytime the Hubble will need a repair mission!)

    .

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    842
    You speak much of just building things and putting them to use...do you realize/appreciate the design work that goes into spacecraft? How will you attach things to the Hubble? It was designed to use the shuttle's cradel to hold it firm for maintenence and reboost. You need to incorporate this cradel into the Progress or whatever for the missions (again, lengthy design and fab work). Then (I need a space math guy here) you need something that will impart many thousands of feet per second Dv to get the Hubble to the ISS inclination, nevermind the altitude change Dv (minimal by comparison).

    You make your proposals sound simple...they're not.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,834
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave J View Post
    ...do you realize/appreciate the design work...you need something that will impart many thousands of feet per second Dv to get the Hubble to the ISS inclination...
    if we are scared by "problems" we must STOP NOW to fly in space...

    however, I think that, to keep the Hubble and move it to the ISS, a smart, but temporary, solution must be developed, while, when the Hubble will be near the ISS, that hardware must be changed with a fixed device/adaptor (sent with the first Shuttle/Hubble-near-ISS mission) ready to dock with a standard Progress port for reboost (for servicing and maintenace it's sufficient the canadarm or a similar device)

    about Dv... move the Hubble may need many Progress' missions, it doesn't matter, compared with the BIG advandages...

    .

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    10,448
    Quote Originally Posted by Romanus View Post
    IIRC, the environment around ISS is too contaminated with regular outgassing (from thrusters and whatnot) to be a good environment for a space telescope. It would have to keep its distance, and the farther the better. Eventually, the best distance would be too far to easily service. And juggling both orbits would only complicate a situation that's already a bear.
    Outgassing is nothing. If the Hubble is anywhere near the station, then the risks from dropped screws, tools, and other detrius is increased substantially.

    Think they'd do the golf shot with the Hubble in a parallel orbit? Don't think so.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,834
    Quote Originally Posted by Doodler View Post
    ...risks from dropped screws, tools, and other detrius is increased substantially...
    but it's small, since they will fly at similar relative speeds
    ...golf shot...
    it's best to avoid to do so stupid things... however a golf ball is very little, while the space is infinite... so, the probability to hit the hubble is near zero

    last... the Hubble-near-ISS will be easy to repair if damaged by a micrometeorite (or a golf ball...)

    .

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    10,448
    Your concept of easy repair is fascinating. Even if the impact damage is minimal, a screw resting on the mirror represents quite a serious problem. Scratch that bad boy, and you ARE buying a new telescope for the cost of replacing the optics.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,834
    Quote Originally Posted by Doodler View Post
    Your concept of easy repair is fascinating.
    not easy as repaoir a car, of course... but much easier than use (everytime) two Shuttles for a very risky mission...
    ...Scratch that bad boy, and you ARE buying a new telescope for the cost of replacing the optics.
    we can throw in the space-trash-can the Hubble and all new telescopes everytime they have a small damage... the only problem is to find the MONEY to do that...

    .

  16. #46
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    1,132
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave J View Post
    Then (I need a space math guy here) you need something that will impart many thousands of feet per second Dv to get the Hubble to the ISS inclination, nevermind the altitude change Dv (minimal by comparison).

    You make your proposals sound simple...they're not.
    The Hubble orbits at about 566 km at an orbital inclination of 28.5 degrees. ISS is at about 340 km at an orbital inclination of 51.6 degrees. Plugging these values into this calculator, shows the required delta-V to move Hubble from its current orbit to that of the ISS is a little more than 3000 m/s.

    According to this source, the total delta-V for a Progress is 200 m/s. We would need more than 15 Progress rockets to do the job. There is no way this makes any type of logistical or economic sense.

    The Shuttle mission is the only one that makes sense, even with a bit of additional risk.

  17. #47
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    842
    Thanks Hamlet....and that calculator is now in my favorites section.

  18. #48
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,834
    Quote Originally Posted by Hamlet View Post
    The Hubble orbits at about 566 km at an orbital inclination of 28.5 degrees. ISS is at about 340 km at an orbital inclination of 51.6 degrees. Plugging these values into this calculator, shows the required delta-V to move Hubble from its current orbit to that of the ISS is a little more than 3000 m/s.

    According to this source, the total delta-V for a Progress is 200 m/s. We would need more than 15 Progress rockets to do the job. There is no way this makes any type of logistical or economic sense.

    The Shuttle mission is the only one that makes sense, even with a bit of additional risk.
    thank you very very much for your calculation that is very close to my evaluation of "a dozen of Progress" and (clearly) demonstrates that Hubble can be moved near the ISS at reasonable costs!

    in fact, move the Hubble near the ISS costs only: 15 (unmanned!) Progress x $22M each = $330M ...that is (about) HALF the price of a single (manned and risky!) Shuttle launch!

    .

  19. #49
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    1,132
    Quote Originally Posted by gaetanomarano View Post
    thank you very very much for your calculation that is very close to my evaluation of "a dozen of Progress" and (clearly) demonstrates that Hubble can be moved near the ISS at reasonable costs!

    in fact, move the Hubble near the ISS costs only: 15 (unmanned!) Progress x $22M each = $330M ...that is (about) HALF the price of a single (manned and risky!) Shuttle launch!

    .
    You haven't figured in the cost of adapting a Progress to mate with the Hubble. You don't think 15+ attempted dockings to a relatively small target has its own inherent risks? How gently can a Progress dock with its target? Is it anywhere near as gentle as using the Shuttle RMS?

    You also haven't considered what 15+ matings/dematings plus being accelerated 15+ times would do to Hubble itself. You may very well shorten its lifetime due to repeated stress on the structure and/or the instruments.

    You also haven't considered the downtime in observing for each instance the HST has to be safed before docking and reactivated afterwards. How much of a reduction do you get in observing time each orbit because of the lower altitude?

    The Shuttle, by any reckoning, is the spacecraft for the job. The current plan to have a Shuttle on standby seems reasonable. You're also wrong about the amount of time the Shuttle has before consumables are used up. This was explained at the press conference when the Hubble mission was given the green light. The plan goes as follows: Damage assesment is completed within 3 days of launch. If a problem is detected, the Shuttle goes into a rationing mode that can extend its time to 26 days. Subtract the 3 days from 26 leaves 23 days to mount a rescue. It takes 14 days to ready the other Shuttle for launch. This gives you a cushion of about 9 days to make the rescue.

    You can't just make a simplistic financial calclations of launch costs. There are way more factors involved. Let the Shuttle do the job it was designed to do.

  20. #50
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,834
    Quote Originally Posted by Hamlet View Post
    You haven't figured in the cost of adapting a Progress to mate with the Hubble.
    the price of the Hubble-Progress-adapter may vary depending of the country that develops and build it... maybe $100M in USA... $50M in Europe... $20M in Russia (that has a great experience with automated vehicles)... $10M in China... $5M in India...

    You don't think 15+ attempted dockings to a relatively small target has its own inherent risks? How gently can a Progress dock with its target?
    if the Prorgess is so gentle and safe to dock the (manned) ISS it can be equally gentle to dock the Hubble
    also, the real target of the Progress is NOT the (big) ISS but its (small) docking port (very much smaller than Hubble!!!)

    You also haven't considered what 15+ matings/dematings plus being accelerated 15+ times would do to Hubble itself. You may very well shorten its lifetime due to repeated stress on the structure and/or the instruments.
    if the Hubble (built with space-grade technologies) survived the very high stress and acceleration of the lanunch, can easy survive some gentle moving with the Progress (like the much complex ISS does!)

    You also haven't considered the downtime in observing for each instance the HST has to be safed before docking and reactivated afterwards. How much of a reduction do you get in observing time each orbit because of the lower altitude?
    near the ISS Hubble can be repaired and ugraded many times, so, its operational life (and the total time of observation) will be INCREASED VERY MUCH

    You're also wrong about the amount of time the Shuttle has before consumables are used up...This gives you a cushion of about 9 days to make the rescue.
    the "cushion" you quote is very close to a (medium) weather delay and is very much smaller than recent (medium) Shuttle flights' delays...

    You can't just make a simplistic financial calclations of launch costs. There are way more factors involved. Let the Shuttle do the job it was designed to do.
    true... we must add other costs to the ($330M) 15-Progress' price, but, also with at $500M or $800M, move the Hubble near the ISS and multiply its operational life WORTH THE PRICE

    .

  21. #51
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    4,031
    The Hubble orbits at about 566 km at an orbital inclination of 28.5 degrees. ISS is at about 340 km at an orbital inclination of 51.6 degrees. Plugging these values into this calculator, shows the required delta-V to move Hubble from its current orbit to that of the ISS is a little more than 3000 m/s.

    According to this source, the total delta-V for a Progress is 200 m/s. We would need more than 15 Progress rockets to do the job. There is no way this makes any type of logistical or economic sense.


    The situation is worse than that. Going to Celestrak for the NORAD elsets for the ISS and HST, we get the following:

    ISS (ZARYA)
    1 25544U 98067A 06349.34630203 .00024035 00000-0 15209-3 0 2620
    2 25544 51.6388 333.5341 0023308 337.5700 165.6396 15.76071765461749

    HST
    1 20580U 90037B 06348.19685447 .00000681 00000-0 40286-4 0 7604
    2 20580 28.4692 316.3418 0003614 291.9999 68.0206 15.00155718712157

    The critical numbers are on line 2 of each elset (in degrees) [This probably won't line up properly]
    - Inclination - HST: 28.4692 ISS: 51.6388
    - RAAN - HST: 316.3418 ISS: 333.5341
    - Arg of Peri - HST: 291.9999 ISS: 337.5700

    Changing the altitude and inclination aren't enough - you have to get the Right Ascension of Ascending Node (RAAN) and Argument of Perigee values to match as well. These numbers help define the plane of the orbit. You can have two orbits with the same altitude and inclination parameters that are in completely different orbital planes. That calculator doesn't match the energy required to shift an orbital plane (it's a lot), so offhand I'd say that its delta-V calculation comes up way short.

    So, not only would you have to come up with a lot of Progress vehicles and Soyuz boosters, you'd need to engineer some new form of docking equipment to allow the Progress to dock with the HST. Since the current Progress launch location can't achieve orbits with a 28 degree inclination, you'd have to wait until the new facilities in Guiana are ready. Since they weren't planning on launching Progress resupply ships from that location, you'd need to create the necessary processing equipment and facilities there as well. You'd then need to repeatedly launch the missions, manage to dock with the HST without damaging it, and fire the Progress until its tanks only had enough propellant for the deorbit burn without damaging the HST. All of that to put an old (1990) instrument into an orbit that could be reachable from the ISS without being comtaiminated by it. Oh, and you'd need to update or modify the HST flight control software to account for the different orbit.

    Or, you could put that money into new ground and space-based telescopes that would do far more in the long run. Nostalgia makes for lousy policy and shouldn't be used to guide future missions. Sooner or later, all good things come to an end. That day is approaching for the HST.

    For those unfamiliar with orbital elements, here's a pretty good primer.

  22. #52
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,331
    I'm confused.

    Gaetano, in this comment, on the "expendable SRB" thread, you characterize the Shuttle as offering "easy moving from orbit to orbit".

    But here in this thread, you're insisting that as many as fifteen separate Progress vehicles to should be launched, each to successively mate with Hubble, and each to incrementally move Hubble from one orbit to another; and you're presenting this fifteen-launch circus as an easier, cheaper alternative to a single Shuttle mission.

    Make up your mind, Gaetano: either we keep the Shuttle around for "easy moving from orbit to orbit", or we scrap it immediately as too difficult and dangerous, and start relying on multiple "dumb" vehicles to move things around in orbit. Which is it?

    (And don't get me started on your argument from a few months back, than any mission that relied on multiple launches in rapid succession was unacceptably risky. How does that reconcile with your "fifteen Progress launches should do the trick!" solution here? ... Oops, I guess I got started after all.)

  23. #53
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    10,448
    Quote Originally Posted by stutefish View Post
    I'm confused.

    Gaetano, in this comment, on the "expendable SRB" thread, you characterize the Shuttle as offering "easy moving from orbit to orbit".

    But here in this thread, you're insisting that as many as fifteen separate Progress vehicles to should be launched, each to successively mate with Hubble, and each to incrementally move Hubble from one orbit to another; and you're presenting this fifteen-launch circus as an easier, cheaper alternative to a single Shuttle mission.

    Make up your mind, Gaetano: either we keep the Shuttle around for "easy moving from orbit to orbit", or we scrap it immediately as too difficult and dangerous, and start relying on multiple "dumb" vehicles to move things around in orbit. Which is it?

    (And don't get me started on your argument from a few months back, than any mission that relied on multiple launches in rapid succession was unacceptably risky. How does that reconcile with your "fifteen Progress launches should do the trick!" solution here? ... Oops, I guess I got started after all.)
    Anything NASA does, he thinks Europe can do better. I wrung that out of him in his first post here about Orion using a redesigned SRB instead of the "readily available Arianne".

    This guy's notorious for cooking up whatever he needs to support his arguement, factual basis need not apply.

  24. #54
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    49,158
    On top of the points made about the difficulty of moving the Hubble to near the ISS, why do we think having the Hubble near the ISS would make servicing it any easier? Do we have any means to get astonauts and equipment from the ISS to the Hubble? Once at the Hubble, the shuttle also offered a "work platform" - what is your work platform if you operate out of the ISS? It is even unclear to me (might be my ignorance) how we are going to move significant amounts of crew and supplies to the ISS once the shuttle is gone. Are we going to keep using the Russians to move 3 people at a time. It would seem to me that a 3 person ISS crew is barely enough to work on the ISS, let alone take a road trip over to the Hubble.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  25. #55
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    30,024
    Quote Originally Posted by gaetanomarano View Post
    it's a too optimistic (then, risky) evaluation of the problem
    it's true that the 25 years experience gives only a 2% of accidents, but this figures includes the flights of the full fleet and the early launches done with the Shuttles young, fresh from factory and perfect!
    now, the Shuttles are old, have many new problems every day, the foam risk at every launch, etc. etc. etc.
    There have been no "new" problems, just old problems that they failed to account for, like the detaching foam. The shuttles are most likely the safest they've ever been right now: all the issues are understood, and everyone working on the shuttles is very aware that one more major failure could mean the end of the manned space program.

    just imagine this scenario: the first Shuttle launch goes ok, it reaches the Hubble and repair it, but, at the end of the mission, it doesn't work or can't come back safely (your choice of the problem... tiles, OMS, energy, etc.)
    the second Shuttle must be launched within a few days (until the life support of the first Shuttle ends!) but it can't fly in time due to one or more (small or big) delais (again, your choice of the problem: foam, weather. tank sensors, SSME, etc.) and the astronauts in orbit will die
    .
    Almost all of the catastrophic problems would be evident early on, and with suitable procedures a crew can survive for up to 30 days in the shuttle before needing rescue. So there's a reasonable margin there.

    And please note that this mission you find horribly dangerous is one that the shuttle was designed for and has done about a hundred times previously (i.e., flying to an orbit without a "safe harbor").
    Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

  26. #56
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    842
    Quote Originally Posted by gaetanomarano View Post
    thank you very very much for your calculation that is very close to my evaluation of "a dozen of Progress" and (clearly) demonstrates that Hubble can be moved near the ISS at reasonable costs!

    in fact, move the Hubble near the ISS costs only: 15 (unmanned!) Progress x $22M each = $330M ...that is (about) HALF the price of a single (manned and risky!) Shuttle launch!

    .
    Remember, the Progress is launching into a high inclination orbit from Russia...it will use all it's fuel getting to the low inclination orbit of the HST...if it's even possible for it to do. Do we want to build a Progress launching infrastructure at the Cape? (edit: just catching up, saw Larry Jack's excellent synopsis of this part of the problem...)

  27. #57
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    138
    Quote Originally Posted by stutefish View Post
    I'm confused.

    Gaetano, in this comment, on the "expendable SRB" thread, you characterize the Shuttle as offering "easy moving from orbit to orbit".

    But here in this thread, you're insisting that as many as fifteen separate Progress vehicles to should be launched, each to successively mate with Hubble, and each to incrementally move Hubble from one orbit to another; and you're presenting this fifteen-launch circus as an easier, cheaper alternative to a single Shuttle mission.

    Make up your mind, Gaetano: either we keep the Shuttle around for "easy moving from orbit to orbit", or we scrap it immediately as too difficult and dangerous, and start relying on multiple "dumb" vehicles to move things around in orbit. Which is it?

    (And don't get me started on your argument from a few months back, than any mission that relied on multiple launches in rapid succession was unacceptably risky. How does that reconcile with your "fifteen Progress launches should do the trick!" solution here? ... Oops, I guess I got started after all.)
    Don't hold your breath. He will flip-flop from whatever idea he can come up with at the moment, regardless of what he said just a few posts ago. He's still suggesting over in the SRB thread that we keep the shuttle rather than focus on Orion just so the US can still put something up into space. In this thread the Shuttle is too risky to fly to the HST. Not to mention his "just build a few factory, they build factories all the time, they are cheap and take no time to build."

    Anyway, in regard to this thread, the HST was a great telescope for it's time. But aside from using the Shuttle to put the final equipment developed for it and keep it in working order for the next few years, it's really time to develop a new one. The HST was developed in the 80s with 70s and 80s technology. Sure, it's been upgraded since then, but we'd be far better off building a new orbital telescope that is not reliant upon the Shuttle and with today's technology. There is absolutely no reason to waste time and money to move the HST to a different orbit that could be better spent on building a new optical telescope.

  28. #58
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    30,024
    Quote Originally Posted by DOOMMaster View Post
    The HST was developed in the 80s with 70s and 80s technology. Sure, it's been upgraded since then, but we'd be far better off building a new orbital telescope that is not reliant upon the Shuttle and with today's technology. There is absolutely no reason to waste time and money to move the HST to a different orbit that could be better spent on building a new optical telescope.
    James Webb Space Telescope - not optical, but the next marquee space-based observatory. But if the servicing mission comes off successfully, Hubble should be around for another ten years or so.
    Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

  29. #59
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    138
    Quote Originally Posted by ToSeek View Post
    James Webb Space Telescope - not optical, but the next marquee space-based observatory. But if the servicing mission comes off successfully, Hubble should be around for another ten years or so.
    I knew about the James Webb Telescope, and I agree that it is an excellent advancement in orbital telescopes. However, it does not have any optical capability, as Hubble does.

    If the next Shuttle service mission does go off without a hitch, we should be able to use Hubble until a suitable replacement can be built. But there does need to be a replacement built, as the Hubble was designed with the Shuttle in mind, and in a few years the Shuttle will be retired. However, I have still not heard anything about building a Hubble replacement. The JWT will certainly help, and will probably take some load off the Hubble, but without a replacement for the optical range, it seems like we might miss out on some good events after Hubble finally gives up.

  30. #60
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    10,448
    Quote Originally Posted by DOOMMaster View Post
    I knew about the James Webb Telescope, and I agree that it is an excellent advancement in orbital telescopes. However, it does not have any optical capability, as Hubble does.

    If the next Shuttle service mission does go off without a hitch, we should be able to use Hubble until a suitable replacement can be built. But there does need to be a replacement built, as the Hubble was designed with the Shuttle in mind, and in a few years the Shuttle will be retired. However, I have still not heard anything about building a Hubble replacement. The JWT will certainly help, and will probably take some load off the Hubble, but without a replacement for the optical range, it seems like we might miss out on some good events after Hubble finally gives up.
    While Hubble has some unique capabilities because of its perch in orbit, a lot of its capabilities which did not exist on the ground at the time it was launched have since been developed. When it finally goes, it will be a loss, don't get me wrong, but far from a total loss of what it offers.

    If y'all don't mind my throwing $.02 up for ante, if you REALLY want to know where the next generation space 'scopes ought to go, some of those eternally dark craters on the Moon where there isn't any ice might be nice. No direct Sun to contend with at all, and probably a scoche more easily repaired than Hubble.

Similar Threads

  1. PC World (Frequent or avoid)
    By Sticks in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 2008-Nov-28, 04:28 PM
  2. How Many Bulletin Boards Do You Frequent?
    By Hugh Jass in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 2005-Dec-02, 07:24 PM
  3. Other forums you frequent
    By mickal555 in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 2005-Mar-23, 05:12 AM
  4. Web Maintenance
    By Chook in forum Universe Today
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 2004-Jan-16, 10:49 PM
  5. Moving Hubble
    By xbck1 in forum Space Exploration
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 2003-Dec-16, 03:51 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •