Stunning Imagery from Hubble
Celestial Fireworks Celebrate Hubble’s 25th Anniversary (With Amazing Video)
“This glittering tapestry of young stars exploding into life in a dramatic fireworks display has been released today to celebrate 25 incredible years of the Hubble Space Telescope. The NASA/ESA Hubble was launched into orbit by the Space Shuttle on 24 April 1990. It was the first space telescope of its kind, and has surpassed all expectations, providing a quarter of a century of discoveries, stunning images and outstanding science.”
Sure hope SpaceX runs a salvage mission on their own dime and keeps it operational for many decades to come.
Or
Nasa pays for Dragon plus Boeing tug to do the mission. More opportunity to use Hubble to create in space capability and help get the commercial show on the road!!!
That’s road as in building the inner solar system economic highway/foundation that is. Go to the places in space where money is!!
Leo geo salvage is one of them!!!
But we all know the forces of the dark/pork side will want to dump Hubble in the drink.
Oh well
Cool pictures 🙂
Here’s a SMART idea!!!
http://spacenews.com/op-ed-…
Much to precious to throw away. But notice WFIRST will cover some of the ground, so it should be as complementary as possible to that (& vice versa.)
Move it up to Earth-Moon/L4 or L5, where it would be stable forever. I think the way to do that would be with a service module docked to its rear, with propulsion plus new (and reparable) spacecraft systems.
I gather it uses magnetic torque coils now, which would not be useful in high orbit, so we need CMGs or small ion thrusters, or some such. Better communications to handle the larger distance to ground — optical? Etc.
Sending a crew up there in Orion (or a Dragon2) would be a far better “deep space” exercise than sending SLS to L2, it seems to me (though Dragon2 would need a beefed up heat shield.)
Could a modified Dragon 1 or 2 Be docked to Hubble permanently and become its repair platform/safety airlock/boost thruster?
Likely not. The gyros aren’t designed for the new mass/moment the assembly would have, and the gyros’ response would have to be recalibrated to maintain fine pointing. That’s a lot of extra work, especially where there’s no need to permanently attach a capsule/booster.
Would it make more sense to place Hubble in Geo instead of an L point so a robotic/man platform could roam around Geo and have crew capsules/ships dock with it to do salvage/repair maintenance missions on many satellites?
How stable are Geo orbits? And do many Geo satellites need a little boost?
Do we need a fuel depot in Geo?
A geosynchronous orbit would complicate manned service missions and wouldn’t offer anything new in terms of astronomy.
Are there other satellites in Geo that are worth salvaging if it could be done economically enough?
Why wait on the future???
The future is NOW!!!
“It was the first space telescope of its kind…”
Well, the first space telescope actually pointing outwards, towards space — wink wink, nudge nudge. Just kidding, Keith. I am being cheeky.
I think you are correct. The accomplishments of HST are as great as those of early astronomer, such as Hiparcus and Archimedes. Their accomplishments are still remembered after a hundred centuries, and I think HST will be remered in the same way (and, I hope, for as long.)
But when it come to returning HST to Earth, and putting it in a museum, I have to disaggree for practical reasons. This was the original plan, but we no longer have the ability to return such a larger satellite to the ground.
Hubble 25 dinner was very nice … many standing ovations to retiring Sen. Mukulski. Fun chatting to several astronauts present, and to see old acquaintances from the Institute. Nice video presence by Riccardo Giacconi ends with him stumped by question “will we ever understand the Universe?” Hubble’s birthday cake awaiting consumption. Only 2 ft long for so many people …
HST is arguably one of the greatest scientific tools of all time.
Understanding the universe requires studying all of it. There are far too many interesting objects for one or even two telescopes to ever image. There have been proposals for instruments which would be much less expensive if they were a little smaller, based on evolution of the Hubble design and built as multiples rather than one-off productions, but SFAIK they have not gotten funding.
I don’t think a space telescope operating over a similar spectrum with smaller primary would be as useful as some astronomers would desire. The Giant Magellan Telescope, under construction, will have adaptive optics and effectively a primary with a 24.5 meter diameter (a primary made up of 7 8.4m mirrors) and will offer resolution 10 times better than HST. If TMT survives the protests and is built, it’s 30m primary and AO will offer even better resolution. Together those two telescopes would cover a large portion of Earth’s sky.
The best replacement for HST would be either a telescope with a larger primary operating over a similar spectrum. Short of that, the best option for studies in the UV and VIS is to find a way to extend HST’s life.
Let’s realistically compare the cost of manufacture vs servicing. The Hubble servicing missions were very expensive, particularly when the cost of adapting new technology to an older piece of hardware is considered,and although the results were excellent there was considerable risk since there was no way to test the complete modifications before flight. With the improving resolution of adaptive optics, the primary value of space-based astronomy is now in UV and far IR where atmospheric absorption is excessive. There is a lot that can be done at these wavelengths with medium apertures, as witness the fight over Sophia funding.
True, but a large space telescope operating in the VIS could very well have benefits over terrestrial telescopes given that AOs don’t null all atmospheric aberrations.
I think there could be great value in a repair mission if it can be done in such a way that got reusable tools up there.
If you only replaced failing parts and didn’t up grad, do the specs for those parts exist. Can they be easily made? Could NASA put together a salvage package for whoever wanted to Salvage it? Someone has to deorbit it anyway right?
I found the sort of mission described in the link below to be attractive and practical.
As to the desirability of equipping Hubble for another 25 years, let’s recall that telescopes generally have long useful lives. There are telescopes designed in the 19th century which are still doing useful work. The reason is pretty straightforward; the universe is a big place, there is much to learn, and telescope time is a scarce commodity.
In another 25 years, Hubble might not be Earth’s flagship telescope, but it could still be doing groundbreaking research.
I say it’s worth investing in another maintenance mission or two.
http://spacenews.com/op-ed-…