Space Tug to Save the Hubble? 325
Aglassis writes "In an article at SpaceRef, the CTO of Orbital Recovery Corporation claims that his company will be able to develop a space tug that could save the Hubble Space Telescope (from becoming 'a ballisticly implanted reef in the Pacific') by either moving it into a much higher stable orbit, or by moving it to the ISS where it could be maintained and operated. Some of the reasons that he cites are that the Hubble's replacement, the James Webb Space Telescope, could be delayed or suffer some sort of failure. Since the JWST will be at the L2 point, servicing will be impossible."
Free Taco? (Score:3, Funny)
Sometimes you have to look on the bright side.
Re:Free Taco? (Score:2, Funny)
Before, or after you eat it?
This is a great idea! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:This is a great idea! (Score:2, Insightful)
I feel the IIS is just not very useful. Other than studying the long-term effects of microgravity on people, it doesn't do so much else. The massive loads of money spend on this thing could have gone to other, more useful, space projects. Instead it was built because we've always felt we needed a space station. Now we have one (partially, at
Re:This is a great idea! (Score:2)
That's far more of a priority than that Hubble or ISS crap.
Re:This is a great idea! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is a great idea! (Score:3, Interesting)
I know its unrealistic, but it sounds cool. Much better than making Hubble a "ballistically implanted reef" (got to love that phrase).
Re:This is a great idea! (Score:2, Interesting)
I believe Luna (the Moon) is a very important step toward manned exploration of other planetary bodies in our Solar System. The reason for this is that humans are designed to work with feet on ground, using hands to grapple and manipulate while legs handle heavy lifting/movement. This is difficult in a zero-G environment like orbit, requiring special tools and platforms in order to do any real construction work.
Meanwile, on Luna, you have a large stable platform on which to work using standard tools su
Re:This is a great idea! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is a great idea! (Score:3, Insightful)
On a similar note, the ISS needs space tugs like this one and needs to prove its usefulness as a repair shop in space. If you could use the ISS in this fasion to repair the HST then you could easily retro fit the ISS to build the type of vehicles needed to send a manned missio
Could we use it.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Could we use it.... (Score:2)
Private management (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Take it over. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Private management (Score:5, Informative)
The key is funding.
Doesn't NASA... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Doesn't NASA... (Score:2)
Wrong (Score:4, Interesting)
Spend that money on ground based observatories with advanced systems that allow better than hubble imaging from earth.
Re:Wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
Are there any? Doesn't atmospheric distortion limit the imaging ability of ground-based systems?
Re:Wrong (Score:5, Informative)
Adaptive optics can do a lot to cancel atmospherics. The real problem is that the atmosphere just plain obstructs much of the spectrum.
Re:Wrong (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Wrong (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Which of those advanced systems are going to allow for observing at wavelengths to which our atmosphere is opaque?
Re:Wrong (Score:5, Interesting)
None.
Which of the wavelengths that the hubble can shoot which ground based cannot will fail to be served far, far better by Webb?
The fact is that most of the work being done by hubble can be done from the ground today and what cannot is being replaced by Webb with greatly improvments. This is by design.
Re:Wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
Wrong and Wrong Again (Score:5, Informative)
The UV. Our atmosphere is opaque to the UV, and JWST, being an infrared optimised telescope, isn't going to be capable of observing the UV at all.
Its important to note that JWST is not a simple upgrade to HST. It has a very different mission and set of instruments. Its not just HST with a bigger mirror.
Why? (Score:5, Interesting)
The correct answer is:
Spend that money on ground based observatories with advanced systems that allow better than hubble imaging from earth.
Why is that the "correct" answer? It's a crime to deorbit large objects when they are potentially so much more valuable where they are.
Just off the top of my head:
- It could potentially be used for 24/7 monitoring of targets (which you can't do from earth)
- We could use it to watch for dinosaur killers
- Automate it for long term survey duty (Oort cloud, etc.)
- Even if the Hubble is never used as an observatory again, it does consist of a lot of parts / raw materials that could someday prove useful.
- It may be a future tourist attraction
If somebody actually spent some time on it, I'll bet they could come up with a dozen more good uses.Further, having a proven tug capability (tested in a situation that wasn't life threatening) would be very valuable in and of itself.
To me, this looks like the right answer.
-- MarkusQ
Re:Why? (Score:2)
At the very least, Hubble should be boosted to a higher orbit. If the Webb telescope fails for some reason (blows up during launch) then we will have lost our "eyes in the sky".
Ground based telescopes are improving with adaptive optics. However, does anyone believe that they can ever correct 100% for atmospheric disturbance?? The deeper you look into space, the more pronounced those errors will be.
The old saying says that a bird in the hand is worth two in the Bush. Well, an orbiting, working
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
"Horizontal drilling" increased continental Natural Gas reserves by huge amounts over the past decade or two. It's why you can still afford to waste the stuff heating your house, rather than just cooking with it.
Just suppose that 20 years from now, laser drills are cutting exploration and production costs of natural gas by huge margins, enabling North American companies to burn the stuff to crack the oil out of the Alberta Tar Sands (which contain more oil than Saudi Arabia) and tell OPEC to go fuck themselves. North American energy independence.
And we'll have a moonbase, where we'll be starting to mine Helium-3, or fuse all that silicate stuff into solar panels, and beam the power back to Earth. Planetary energy independence.
Will we be saying "Bushy's corny CEOs", or will we be saying "Holy crap. That space programme we started in 2004 had some really awesome spinoffs!"
But you're right. All that rocketry stuff was just pork for Bell Labs and Raytheon. Transistors? Integrated circuits? Pah! Just subsidized R&D for Kennedy and Nixon's crony CEOs.
The only reason for those smaller, more expensive gadgets, is so that better guidance "computers" can be crammed into the spatial constraints of the nose cones of missiles. Nobody will ever benefit from those technologies, because vaccuum tubes are just fine for radios and televisions, and business can do all the "computing" it need with a room full of clerks and hand-operated mechanical calculators, thank you very much! We should never have gone to the moon in 1969.
Re:Why? (Score:3, Interesting)
My opinion (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:My opinion (Score:2, Funny)
Re:My opinion (Score:2)
Ahem, anyway, i agree with the parent on this one. We're literally torching a lot of history here. I mean, look what they did to the Enterprise...
Sounds fishy... (Score:4, Funny)
Sounds like some kind of extortion scam to me...
Pay me to save Hubble or something could happen to your fancy schmancy new one.
Re:Sounds fishy... (Score:3, Interesting)
Basically, they would design a spigot that fits into the back of the existing shuttles. NASA would launch one ore more simple orbiting "fuel pods" at various orbital heights. The fuel pod walls would be armored against orbital debris. It's mission is to sit happily in orbit until needed.
If the shuttle runs into a fuel problem during a mission. They would simply rendevouz with the
Business a little slow? (Score:5, Interesting)
Equally, no-one needs to run the risk of trying to repair things that are orbiting the Earth; it's guaranteed to be cheaper to junk it and build a new one.
Methinks this guy is playing on popular support for the "keep Hubble" campaign to raise the profile of an otherwise unviable business.
</devil's advocate>
Materials research (Score:2)
I hope that some of this space "junk" is being brought back, to see how the various things have faired.
Re:Business a little slow? (Score:3, Interesting)
No. There's some stupid treaty that says Hubble's too heavy to be deorbited, so it has to be brought back intact in the back of the Shuttle.
And the official reason Hubble's being canned is because it's "unsafe" - a damaged Shuttle on a Hubble repair mission (which NASA suddenly decided it cares about) cannot change inclination to dock with ISS.
So the ironic part is that it's "unsafe" to fly the Shuttle out there to save Hubble. But we're going to
Re:Business a little slow? (Score:3, Interesting)
Consider that a big comms bird runs upwards of a billion dollars
I'd dispute that. You can launch a ton into LEO for less than $25M. Let's inflate that to $100M to be on the safe side. Development cost, even including NREs un-amortized, isn't going to be remotely close to $900M. No way. Prove me wrong? :)
Think that e.g. Hughes might be interested in keeping one of those puppies running at end-of-life?
No, I don't. They put enough fuel in it that, when it runs out, the technology on-board is obso
Re:Guaranteed to be cheaper to junk it! (Score:2)
You assume there is no value to an object in orbit as opposed to the same item on the ground.
That's not exactly what I meant.
Commercial satellites are like this big time capsules of what technology was once like. They're designed to stay up there doing their job with very little intervention, for man
Letter sent to European astronomers (Score:5, Informative)
I attach below the text of a letter recently sent to European astronomers, regarding the demise of Hubble support:
Dear colleague,
As you may know, NASA has decided to cancel all further servicing missions to Hubble. Servicing Mission 4, originally scheduled for next Spring/Summer, was designed to refurbish HST and enable it to continue operating in the current efficient and successful way. NASA has decided that all future Shuttle missions will be devoted to the International Space Station. Hence, no upgrade in capability or maintenance is planned for HST. A direct consequence is, of course, the end of WFC3 and COS as HST instruments. A discussion is developing, however, on the possibility of launching one or both of these instruments as part of a "fast-track 2 meter class telescope" mission.
Without the replacement of failed gyros there is a high probability that HST will have to be operated in a two-gyro mode relatively soon, with substantial restrictions on the science observations. A controlled de-orbit of the spacecraft will have to be achieved using a special robotic mission at some time in the future as yet unspecified.
There is little we Europeans can do directly to change NASA's decision which, apparently, is final. We believe strongly, however, that it should be made known how universal the feeling of disappointment is within the scientific community. As European members of the Space Telescope Users Committee (STUC), we have asked the ST-ECF to open a web page where you can send comments on the fate of HST and on the loss for the scientific community. We encourage you to share your views with us, visiting the site and sending e-mails to the address given.
The site is now available at http://www.stecf.org/SM_cancellation.html [stecf.org]
Best regards,
Eric Emsellem and Monica Tosi
Re:Letter sent to European astronomers (Score:5, Funny)
You may be surprised at my contacting you in this manner. I am DENNIS WINGO, chief technical officer of the ORBITAL RECOVERY CORPORATION, and you have been identified as a trustworthy person with whom I can do business.
Recently, I have suffered due to instability in the Hubble Space Telescope, which contains a good deal of material worth, approximately 100 MILLION US DOLLARS. If this money is not quickly recovered then the value will be burned in the atmosphere and everybody will have lost. If you help me to recover this money, I will send you 10% of the value (10 MILLION US DOLLARS). Please reply with details of your bank account number, sort code, account name and date of birth and we can begin the process of saving the Hubble Space Telescope and the 100 MILLION US DOLLARS value within.
Yours,
Dennis Wingo
Chief Technical Officer
Orbital Recovery Corporation
wingod@orbitalrecovery.com
I'll be willing to bet... (Score:2, Interesting)
What we need is an orbital fix-it robot (Score:4, Interesting)
It would be a nice private venture. I could see a realistic market for it with all the telecommunications stuff up there.
Salvage Space Junk (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Salvage Space Junk (Score:2)
I think that it would be best just to design a "space tug" with a big cage on the front, with a eye to letting the whole mess burn up.
IANAL, but I believe that the "standard laws relating to
Re:Salvage Space Junk (Score:2)
Space is a place to be truly free to do what you want, which is both great and dangerous. Great, because most people won't bother to enforce
An ad for a tow truck (Score:2)
Just give it to 'em (Score:3, Interesting)
But why can't NASA just give the telescope to Wingo's company [orbitalrecovery.com] and be done with it? Just give them the keys and be done with it. Sign something requiring that they drop it in the Pacific (or in the Sun, or something) when they're done.
If Orbital Recovery can make a go selling science time to astronomers, then let them try it. Or they can sell time to people looking for the Face on Mars. Or they can fly up the next Survivor crew with some duct tape and an oxygen tank to play "voted off the Hubble". Whatever the free market wants.
I'm not usually one to say the "free market" is better at making decisions, but NASA has gotten its investment back. Instead of plowing it into the seabed, give it away -- think of it as the new-frontier version of salvage rights [ananova.com].
Re:Just give it to 'em (Score:5, Informative)
More significantly, there is the issue of orbital inclination (the angle between the orbit and the equator). Hubble is at a comfy 28.5 degrees, which is optimal for shuttle launches from KSC given the launch site's latitude. ISS is inclined at 51.6 degrees, which is more of a 'climb' from low-latitute launch sites like KSC, because of the need to launch materials from Russia. (Low latitute launch sites get an extra 'kick' from the earth's rotation, the more equitorial the orbit.)
Transferring in altitude and orbital plane is no easy trick, (http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/rocket_sci/s atellites/hohmann.html) but can be done (just check the math... a lot).
Even if it's done though, NASA would have to commit to service the HST for a few more years. And, although their "official" reason for canceling the HST Service Flight is "safety," the real reason is funding. It may be cliche, but as the line goes, "No Bucks, no Buck Rogers."
I would bet there are gaggles of astronauts who would volunteer to fly a HST service flight with these risks and I'd much rather spend $500 million (most of which is already spent on the hardware and training) to support HST for another 5-7 years than on anything else, including ISS or Pluto-Kupier. Otherwise, we're left with a HST which is one failure away from becoming an orbital paperweight (if there is such a thing) and $200 worth of already-built flight hardware sitting in a warehouse somewhere.
Re:Just give it to 'em (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Just give it to 'em (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Just give it to 'em (Score:2)
It seems to me that they should be required to idemnify against potential damage, essentially to take out an insurance policy that would pay off the victims in case of a bad outcome. Something that looks economically viable now may not be at all if the companies involved are forced to
"a ballisticly implanted reef in the Pacific" (Score:2)
Ok, 'splain this to me... (Score:2)
Why, if something is put into a LaGrange point (L2 in this case) would it be unserviceable?
Re:Ok, 'splain this to me... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Ok, 'splain this to me... (Score:2)
Re:Ok, 'splain this to me... (Score:2)
Reminds me of Salvage I (Score:2)
What happens though if NASA decides Hubble is scrap and proceeds to deorbit. Can this guy go up and snag it and then sell it to the highest bidder?
Holy Cow! (Score:2)
<self back patting>
I suggested [slashdot.org] this option once before, but one person said [slashdot.org], "Nah, the attitude/orbital requirements for the scope and the station are just too different." Is this true?
</self back patting>
The politics of it all.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Let me get this straight. They are going to abandon a working spacecraft, that continues to revolutionize deep space imaging, on the whim of a politician spewing typical election year rhetoric?
I think anything and everything should be done to maintain the Hubble for as long as possible, or until it truely becomes obsolete. I could understand the decision if they had a far superior telescope already in space and functioning, but this seems a bit off the wall.
Not sure if I interpreted the article correctly, but it seems they won't have a superior telescope in space for 1 or 2 years after the Hubble has been abandoned?
Also, the tree hugger in me has to ask. Why are we willing to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to colonize other planets, when we are slowly destroying our own. Seems like our priorities are just a bit out of whack.
Re:The politics of it all.... (Score:2)
Junking it when other competent people could still make good use of it just seems like throwing the toys out of the pram, and completely contrary to the spirit of international co-operation most of these space agencies claim to believe in.
Re:The politics of it all.... (Score:2, Informative)
Actually, since I must now defend myself, I read this article the other day.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3982359/
And my OPINION, is that the President's new space initiative is election year rhetoric.
L2 unservicable? No (Score:2, Informative)
You can still service it there. What that should have said is it will be impossible ***with the shuttle***.
JWST a compliment, not a replacement (Score:2, Informative)
Tow it to ISS! (Score:4, Interesting)
Tow the HST to the ISS. Once there, maybe some equipment/raw material can be salvaged (at least) -- if the HST cannot continue to be used and maintained by the ISS crew (MUCH preferd). If we are 'serious' about using the ISS for a while, why not give them something worthwhile to do? hell, is there a reason why you wouldnt (all things being equal) line up all the rest of the hubble-like space ships near the ISS? If nothing else, this will establish a "destination" in space that acts as a central hub for work in space....
Hell, arent the panels on the HST worthwhile? If they can tow it over to the IIS, maybe something on the HST might find itself usefull, either now or in the future. Spare parts? Sheet metal? Something.
I know someone will say "the panels are old/different voltage/designed for another purpose" or "its cheaper just to launch whatever you need than tow the HST" but my response is simple, if we are going to try and make this a permanent behabviour of man (off-world habitat) then we have to learn to be more nimble, adaptable and less dependant on MASSIVE planning efforts for every screw, bolt and hammer that gets into space.
We have to learn to utilize resources *AROUND THEM* and Make It Work. Hell, the ISS could be the 'hotel' for HST repairmen at least....
Re:Tow it to ISS! (Score:4, Funny)
Crikey! Just imagine what McGuyver could do with even just a few of HST's parts!
Re:Tow it to ISS! (Score:2, Informative)
Just take the Hubble? (Score:2)
Is there a market in after launch boosting? (Score:2)
Another opportunity that I would think could have even more possibilities would be simple refueling. Some oth
Do it and save money (Score:2)
Who's responsible for the junk? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Who's responsible for the junk? (Score:2)
Since we're talking 'disposible telescopes'... (Score:2)
ISS? Pshaw. (Score:2)
These sats aren't going to live long... (Score:2)
Pour some on the block for HST. (Score:2)
Sensible (Score:2)
This seems like a reasonable proposal for several reasons.
First, one way or another, NASA has no option but to visit HST one more time, either to fix it, or to prepare to de-orbit it. They are committed to that.
Since they're going to have to visit it anyway, they might as well let the mission have a positive or at least a less negative value. That sounds a lot better than spending half a billion dollars for the sole purpose of making sure a hew hundred million dollars burn up. If a space tug can get hub
"Impossible" only for now (Score:2)
Save it for the Future (Score:3, Interesting)
All seem to agree that the risk of letting Hubble fall out of orbit without some additional guidance is too high. (I have read figures stating that it'd be about a 1 in 700 chance of a fatality from the debris.) Apparently we're going to send a robot tug to move it.
but if we go to all the trouble of developing a robot tug to move Hubble, why are we moving it down?
It's going to be decommissioned eventually, but we can save it for future historians. We just need to put it in a high and stable enough orbit, and eventually someone will recover it. (Hopefully for history, possibly for salvage.) Don't know who, don't know when, but if humanity continues to climb into space it will happen eventually.
I realize it will take a more robust tug to do this, but it's not like we're in a hurry. We can put an ion thruster on the tug and let it boost for months if we need to. Heck, let's take it all the way to a Lagrange point.
History will thank us if we do.
Not going to ISS (Score:3, Insightful)
You might see them reboost HST into a high orbit, but it's NOT going to ISS.
How about a FLEET of tugs! (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, if a satellite is good for 10-15 years before it would need a "tug", why not just give it a "tug" right at the start?
Here's my idea... lets build a fleet of space tugs and store them at the ISS. Whenever a satellite is launched, launch it with a small amount of propellant... just enough to do some basic maneuvering to get the orbital situation correct immediately after launch. Then, via a standard adapter that would be built on all new satellites, a tug would be sent from the ISS to mate with the satellite. From there on out, the tug would take care of the satellite's propulsion and perhaps even provide the satellite with back-up solar power.
Think of the possibilities of this system... sattelites would be lighter due to the decreased amount of propellant onboard, thus, cheaper to launch. The space tugs themselves could be fairly cheap to build and launch, especially in quantity. Space engineers would also gain a standard system for propulsion, so it's likely that the same set of ground controls could be utilized for every satellite fit with a standard space tug.
There might be more benefits, and I'm sure there are a few draw-backs, but I can't think of any at the moment.
Re:Um (Score:3, Interesting)
At the end of these satellites' useful lifetimes - whi
Re:Um (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's the problem: No one wanted their satellites back. By the time their fuel was spent, they were old technology that would be replaced by a new satellite. The shuttle had bet the bank on the economic theory that people wanted their space-stuff back and lost.
Re:Um (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Um (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Um (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Um (Score:2)
The trouble with adding general mission capability is that sometimes, for one reason or another, some missions prove to be less than worthwhile. Meanwhile, the extra equipment larded on to this general purpose space vehicle just increases the cost.
Re:Um (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Um (Score:5, Funny)
What is it about this comment that make me think of commercials for eBay?
Re:Um (Score:2, Insightful)
No one wanted their satellites repaired at NASA prices. It's cheaper to launch a new satellite.
Re:Um: (High cost or refueling) (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is that a refueling mission would probably cost as much as a new satellite (not to mention reducing the fuel capacity of the orginal satellite by allocating precious mass budget to a refueling port and subsystems). Which is better: spending $250 million every 8 years to refuel an aging commsat (a mission that might bork the commsat
Re:Um (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hubble is now like BSD (Score:2)
Re:Yay! L2 point! (Score:2)
Re:Yay! L2 point! (Score:2, Informative)
Earth-Sun L2 and shadows [nasa.gov]
Re:Great! (Score:2)
Re:L2 Issues? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Point of Space exploration? (Score:2)
So, in order, how about: Eliminate poverty, then eliminate hunger, then eliminate money, then eliminate disease, then eliminate age, then populate other worlds, if we've got nothing
Re:Keep Hubble away from ISS (Score:2)