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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sorry!
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Hubble
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around NASA's decision regarding the future of the Hubble Space Telescope, specifically whether it should be safely deorbited or preserved in some form, such as a museum exhibit. Participants explore the implications of the Columbia incident, the costs associated with retrieval, and the feasibility of unmanned missions to manage Hubble's descent.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express surprise that NASA decided not to retrieve Hubble, attributing this to the Columbia incident and discussing the safety measures being implemented for its descent.
  • Others point out that the STS-125 servicing mission has already occurred, suggesting that the initial information is outdated but still relevant to the question of Hubble's fate.
  • There are discussions about the economic implications of retrieving Hubble versus leaving it to crash, with some arguing that the cost of retrieval is not justified.
  • Participants propose the possibility of an unmanned mission to safely bring Hubble down, although they acknowledge that this would still be expensive.
  • Concerns are raised about the potential radiation exposure of Hubble and whether it could be safely displayed in a museum.
  • Some participants mention the technical challenges of bringing Hubble back, including the limitations of current spacecraft and the risks involved in such a mission.
  • There is a suggestion that the James Webb Space Telescope could serve as a suitable replacement for Hubble, making the case for not investing in Hubble's retrieval.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on whether Hubble should be retrieved or left to crash. Multiple competing views are presented regarding the feasibility, costs, and safety of various options.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty regarding the technical capabilities of current spacecraft to retrieve Hubble and the implications of its potential radiation exposure. The discussion reflects a range of assumptions about costs and safety that remain unresolved.

Sorry!
Messages
416
Reaction score
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
Your information is out of date. STS-125, the HST servicing mission, landed two months ago.
 
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...
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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 :smile: It's not like Hubble got rusty or damaged up there! :biggrin:
 
THe most recent mission attached an adapter so that Ares will be able to dock and service the telescope.
 
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.
\
 

Similar threads

Will NASA's Hubble Servicing Mission Save the Telescope?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
What should we do with the retired Hubble?
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
5K
NASA NASA Chief: 'Let's Go Save the Hubble'
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Graduate Big Bang Big Schmang, astronomical redshift is an artifact of distance
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Schools Difficult decision - transferring to another university
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
Civilization of millions of rings.
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
Is Our Reality Shaped by a Collective Subconscious Force?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Mathematica This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 242)
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
At a crossroads (drop out? chase a dream? time out?)
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
5K
News Obama Inaugural Address: Summary & Analysis
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
7K