NASA's Decision on Hubble's Fate: To Crash or Preserve?

  • Thread starter Sorry!
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Hubble
In summary, NASA has decided not to save the Hubble telescope due to the Columbia incident. Instead, they have fitted it with a circular attachment for a rocket to latch onto and safely bring it down to Earth away from inhabited areas. The cost of retrieving the telescope is deemed too high and it will likely be discarded after its life ends. Suggestions for an unmanned mission or adjusting its orbit to prolong its lifespan are considered but deemed not cost-effective. The most recent mission has attached an adapter for Ares to dock and service the telescope. There were previous considerations of bringing it back for servicing, but the lack of a spare mirror and potential risks led to the decision to leave it in orbit. The Hubble's exposure to radiation may exceed regulatory limits
  • #1
Sorry!
418
0
I never knew this before today but apparently NASA decided not to save Hubble because of the Columbia incident?

Instead they are fitting it with a circular 'thing' that a rocket can latch onto to make Hubbles decent into Earth safe and away from inhabitated areas. I always thought that they would go back up there and get the telecope and bring it back down...

the telescope was quite a feat in my opinion.

I'm assuming you guys already know about this but what's your thoughts on the matter? Should Hubble just crash into Earth or be put into a museum..
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #2
Your information is out of date. STS-125, the HST servicing mission, landed two months ago.
 
  • #3
Vanadium 50 said:
Your information is out of date. STS-125, the HST servicing mission, landed two months ago.

I don't think that makes my question moot though...
 
  • #4
Yes, the Hubble is just going to be discarded after its life ends. Though it might be nice to have it in the Smithsonian, it isn't worth a half a billion dollars to put it there.
 
  • #5
russ_watters said:
Yes, the Hubble is just going to be discarded after its life ends. Though it might be nice to have it in the Smithsonian, it isn't worth a half a billion dollars to put it there.

Would it be possible for an unmanned mission to bring Hubble down safely? Or maybe adjust it's orbits decay every now and then so it doesn't get destroyed until it's more practical to retrieve it?
 
  • #6
Sorry! said:
Would it be possible for an unmanned mission to bring Hubble down safely?
Perhaps - it would probably still cost about half a billion dollars. The space shuttle is the only vehicle we have that could bring it back. It is fairly well automated - it can fly an entire mission by itself - but I'm not sure if it could retrieve a satellite by itself.
Or maybe adjust it's orbits decay every now and then so it doesn't get destroyed until it's more practical to retrieve it?
...at maybe a few tens of millions of dollars a year. Not much cheaper in the long run.
 
  • #7
How much did building Hubble (minus placing it in orbit) cost anyhow? Maybe we could build another and put it in the Smithsonian and just pretend we went up and retrieved it :rofl: It's not like Hubble got rusty or damaged up there! :biggrin:
 
  • #8
THe most recent mission attached an adapter so that Ares will be able to dock and service the telescope.
 
  • #9
russ_watters said:
Though it might be nice to have it in the Smithsonian,
Probably wouldn't be allowed - what radiation background would Hubble have by now?
 
  • #10
flatmaster said:
THe most recent mission attached an adapter so that Ares will be able to dock and service the telescope.

I'm pretty sure it's so it can dock and bring it down to Earth without crashing into a inhabited area. I guess they COULD build a replica... but would it be the same? I guess russ is right though the economics as well as the safety of humans just isn't there to bring back the telescope.
 
  • #11
mgb_phys said:
Probably wouldn't be allowed - what radiation background would Hubble have by now?

Are you saying it has absorbed radiation to the level that it may be dangerous?
 
  • #12
Blenton said:
Are you saying it has absorbed radiation to the level that it may be dangerous?
Dangerous no, exceeding regulatory limits for something on public display in a federal building - probably.
 
  • #13
I would be very surprised if the Hubble were activated. Exposed to radiation, sure. But I doubt very much that it's been activated, which usually takes very high energies and very high fluxes.

The Space Shuttle has about a 98% success rate. That means the expectation number of astronauts who die per mission is 0.14. Is that worth bringing it back so it can go in a museum?
 
  • #14
There was a consideration of bringing it back to Earth for servicing after the original mirror cock-up.
IIRC the shuttle can (in theory) land with about 22,000kg of payload, the HST weighs 11,000kg. But I don't think there has been a landing with a significant payload.

The objection at the time was that since a spare mirror wasn't available if it landed and had to wait 3years for a replacement the whole project would probably just die.

HST isn't the biggest object to re-enter but the mirror is likely to survive intact and would make a mess of anything it landed on if it wasn't aimed at the right bit of ocean.
 
  • #15
The Space Shuttle has about a 98% success rate. That means the expectation number of astronauts who die per mission is 0.14. Is that worth bringing it back so it can go in a museum?

Well can't they just do it on the way to some other mission? :D
 
  • #16
Blenton said:
Well can't they just do it on the way to some other mission? :D
No other vehicle is capable of bringing it down.
 
  • #17
russ_watters said:
No other vehicle is capable of bringing it down.

I think he means if it's possible for the shuttle, on say a resupply mission to the ISS, could have a side trip to Hubble.
 
  • #18
Oh... well that doesn't make any sense either. It's like saying on your way from New York to London, you could stop in Sydney to pick up some opera tickets. It isn't on the way.
 
  • #19
Doesn't the Hubble have some thrusters on it? If its not on the way, make it so.
 
  • #20
The James Webb will be a fitting replacement for the Hubble. Bringing down the Hubble is an expensive proposition, as noted by others. There is no easy way to refold and load it into a shuttle. I prefer we spend that money launching a better instrument.
\
 

1. What is Hubble and why is NASA making a decision about its fate?

Hubble is a space telescope that has been in orbit since 1990. It has provided us with incredible images and data of the universe, but it is now reaching the end of its lifespan. NASA is deciding whether to extend its mission or let it crash back to Earth.

2. What are the potential consequences of letting Hubble crash back to Earth?

If Hubble is allowed to crash back to Earth, it will burn up in the atmosphere and any remaining debris will fall into the ocean. This could potentially harm marine life and also risk the safety of any ships or planes in the area.

3. What factors are being considered in NASA's decision?

NASA is considering the scientific benefits of extending Hubble's mission, the safety risks of letting it crash back to Earth, and the cost and feasibility of either option. They are also taking into account public interest and support for preserving Hubble.

4. What are the arguments for preserving Hubble?

Many scientists and members of the public argue that preserving Hubble would allow us to continue gathering valuable data and images from the universe. It could also serve as a backup for other telescopes if they experience technical issues. Additionally, Hubble has become a cultural icon and a source of inspiration for future generations.

5. What are the arguments for letting Hubble crash back to Earth?

Some argue that the risks and costs of extending Hubble's mission outweigh the potential benefits. It would also allow NASA to focus on other projects and advancements in space exploration. Additionally, the controlled deorbit of Hubble would ensure that it does not pose a threat to human life or the environment.

Similar threads

Will NASA's Hubble Servicing Mission Save the Telescope?
    • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
2
Views
2K
What should we do with the retired Hubble?
    • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
18
Views
5K
NASA NASA Chief: 'Let's Go Save the Hubble'
    • Aerospace Engineering
Replies
2
Views
2K
Big Bang Big Schmang, astronomical redshift is an artifact of distance
    • Cosmology
Replies
1
Views
2K
Schools Difficult decision - transferring to another university
    • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
10
Views
3K
Civilization of millions of rings.
    • Earth Sciences
Replies
3
Views
3K
Common subconscious force?
    • General Discussion
Replies
3
Views
3K
Mathematica This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 242)
    • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
1
Views
2K
At a crossroads (drop out? chase a dream? time out?)
    • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
13
Views
4K
News Obama Inaugural Address: Summary & Analysis
    • General Discussion
Replies
33
Views
5K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top