Hubble end of life

[Roger Feeley]

I know the Hubble space telescope has performed well past it expected life but it’s still doing valuable work. It’s my understanding that NASA is going to abandon it or bring it down. Wouldn’t it make sense for SpaceX or someone to go up there, hook on a booster and move it to a low orbit near ISS? Are the optics still good?

Why was Hubble placed in a higher orbit? Debris maybe?

[Tom M King]

I haven't heard any talk of it lately.

https://hubblesite.org/

https://www.nasa.gov/content/news-latest-hubble-news

[Mel Fulks]

They wanted to get info from higher up and it was approved by the guys higher up. And the insurance company wanted to make sure it
burned up coming down instead of landing in a busy intersection.

[Lee DeRaud]

I know the Hubble space telescope has performed well past it expected life but it’s still doing valuable work. It’s my understanding that NASA is going to abandon it or bring it down. Wouldn’t it make sense for SpaceX or someone to go up there, hook on a booster and move it to a low orbit near ISS? Are the optics still good?No plans to decommission it, according to NASA:
https://www.newsweek.com/hubble-remains-nasa-primary-visible-light-telescope-james-webb-launch-1661707
There have been some recent computer glitches but they have largely been worked out. The optics are still fine, AFAIK, and it operates in portions of the spectrum that Webb can't "see".

I don't know the actual delta-V involved. but moving it to a radically new orbit probably involves loads the structure simply isn't designed to handle. Plus "hook on a booster" isn't exactly a "toss it in the back of the truck and tie it down" operation. Remember, it got there in the cargo bay of the shuttle, resting on a cradle that probably cost more than some countries' GDP.

[Roger Feeley]

No plans to decommission it, according to NASA:
https://www.newsweek.com/hubble-remains-nasa-primary-visible-light-telescope-james-webb-launch-1661707
There have been some recent computer glitches but they have largely been worked out. The optics are still fine, AFAIK, and it operates in portions of the spectrum that Webb can't "see".

I don't know the actual delta-V involved. but moving it to a radically new orbit probably involves loads the structure simply isn't designed to handle. Plus "hook on a booster" isn't exactly a "toss it in the back of the truck and tie it down" operation. Remember, it got there in the cargo bay of the shuttle, resting on a cradle that probably cost more than some countries' GDP.
I would agree, Lee, if they were to use a traditional rocket thruster. But what about an ion thruster that would deliver the same result but over a very long time?

[Lee DeRaud]

I would agree, Lee, if they were to use a traditional rocket thruster. But what about an ion thruster that would deliver the same result but over a very long time?Depends on your definition of "very long", given that the device will be out of service for the duration. Months? Years? It's not just a question of altitude: the ISS and Hubble have radically different orbital inclinations.

In any case, I'm not sure what having it close to the ISS accomplishes beyond making all concerned very nervous.

[Roger Feeley]

Depends on your definition of "very long", given that the device will be out of service for the duration. Months? Years? It's not just a question of altitude: the ISS and Hubble have radically different orbital inclinations.

In any case, I'm not sure what having it close to the ISS accomplishes beyond making all concerned very nervous.

Close proximity makes it repairable. Without the shuttle, we don’t have the means to visit it. But maybe a robotic mission to bring it down to a lower orbit is possible.

[Lee DeRaud]

Close proximity makes it repairable. Without the shuttle, we don’t have the means to visit it. But maybe a robotic mission to bring it down to a lower orbit is possible.The problem is, "orbiting at the same altitude" and "close proximity" are not remotely the same thing: there's also a 20+ degree difference in orbital inclination to deal with. I'm pretty sure we have (or will soon have) the capability to visit it, but it would be vastly easier to launch a mission from Earth into the current Hubble orbit than to transition from the ISS orbit.

Actually ISS and Hubble already get relatively close (~100 miles) on occasion*, but the relative velocity at those times is something in the 1-2 miles/second range.
(*Much hand-waving...no, I have no idea how often. There's about a 100 mile altitude difference, and each crosses the other's orbit every 45 minutes or so. But the math for when the crossings sync up is profoundly ugly.)

[Roger Feeley]

Thanks to all. I knew I could get a dose of reality for my, “Why don’t they just…” question. My daughter is a lawyer at the Office of Legal Council and my sil is a VP at the CATO Institute. I ask them hair-brained questions all the time. My perspective is always about justice and unencumbered by such trifles as law.

[Alex Zeller]

I remember when NASA realized that the optics in Hubble were ground wrong. I wonder if they even want it back. My guess is they will keep using it as long as it's operational. I'm sure the new Webb telescope is booked up for the next 10 years already.

[Lee DeRaud]

I remember when NASA realized that the optics in Hubble were ground wrong. I wonder if they even want it back. My guess is they will keep using it as long as it's operational. I'm sure the new Webb telescope is booked up for the next 10 years already.
Maybe this will help: https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/content/about/comparisonWebbVsHubble.html


This is the other reason that Webb is not a replacement for Hubble; its capabilities are not identical. Webb will primarily look at the Universe in the infrared, while Hubble studies it primarily at optical and ultraviolet wavelengths (though it has some infrared capability)

[Michael Schuch]

I know the Hubble space telescope has performed well past it expected life but it’s still doing valuable work. It’s my understanding that NASA is going to abandon it or bring it down. Wouldn’t it make sense for SpaceX or someone to go up there, hook on a booster and move it to a low orbit near ISS? Are the optics still good?

Why was Hubble placed in a higher orbit? Debris maybe?

I'll take it! I'll add it to the junk pile and figure out what to do with it some day. I wonder how I would arrange for delivery?

[Roger Feeley]

What Lee said.

on the other hand, there have been big improvements in earthbound telescopes. I think Hubble still has the upper ground but the difference isn’t what it once was. As far as I know,Hubble is still booked solid.

[Myk Rian]

The problem with bringing Hubble down is the mirror. That is one big piece of glass. I can imagine it skipping all over the place coming down. Like a frizby.

[Malcolm McLeod]

I'll take it! ... I wonder how I would arrange for delivery?

NORAD and USSTRATCOM specialize in this type of targe... ahh, delivery. I'd recommend a short vacation on delivery day.

And double-check your homeowner's policy.

[Lee DeRaud]

NORAD and USSTRATCOM specialize in this type of targe... ahh, delivery. I'd recommend a short vacation on delivery day.

And double-check your homeowner's policy.
"CURBSIDE?!? How the heck am I supposed to get it into the back yard?"

[Lee DeRaud]

The problem with bringing Hubble down is the mirror. That is one big piece of glass. I can imagine it skipping all over the place coming down. Like a frizby.
I know you're kidding, but that mirror is more like the last chip in a 13-ton can of Pringles.

[Myk Rian]

Not kidding. It's 7.2 feet dia and weighs 1825 lbs.
I can't imagine it burning up/melting as it comes racing through the atmosphere.
Obviously aiming for the Pacific ocean, who knows what that mirror will do.

[Lee DeRaud]

Not kidding. It's 7.2 feet dia and weighs 1825 lbs.
I can't imagine it burning up/melting as it comes racing through the atmosphere.
Obviously aiming for the Pacific ocean, who knows what that mirror will do.
Burn and/or melt: possibly not.
Survive in one piece: definitely not.

I'm not sure you comprehend the aero forces involved. It's not like Hubble would disassemble itself gracefully, and there's another 12 tons of various alloy bits surrounding it. A good analogy would be putting a pair of glasses and a couple pounds of miscellaneous hardware into a gallon paint can, and running it through a mixer for a few minutes...think those lenses would survive?

[Myk Rian]

I understand aero forces.

[Bill Dufour]

I can not imagine hooking up a refueling hose wearing gloves and a spacesuit. At least there would not be any bug nests blocking the flow.
Bill D

[Lee DeRaud]

on the other hand, there have been big improvements in earthbound telescopes. I think Hubble still has the upper ground but the difference isn’t what it once was. As far as I know, Hubble is still booked solid.
One big issue for ground-based telescopes is the huge number of Bright Shiny Things getting shoved into low-earth orbit by Musk and his cronies.
https://www.space.com/megaconstellations-disruption-astronomy-like-light-pollution
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2022-01-16/astronomers-night-sky-space-telescope-satellites