Issues with your account? Bug us in the Discord!
NASA retiring Hubble...
Rick
Sector 14 Studios
in Zocalo v2.0
A sad day, indeed. It seems that NASA is retiring the Hubble as a consequence of Bush's new space initiative. Apparently all of the shuttle flights between now and 2010 (Shuttle's retirement date) need to be taken to support finishing ISS; consequently, needed maintenance won't happen to Hubble, and her orbit will degrade.
A replacement is planned for the early 201x's.
[url]http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/16/tech/main593826.shtml[/url]
-R.
A replacement is planned for the early 201x's.
[url]http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/16/tech/main593826.shtml[/url]
-R.
Comments
Hubble would be retired if Bush is reelected and Congress goes along with his plans (neither of which is a sure bet at this point). If neither or only one of those conditions is met then there might be a chance that the cancelled servicing missions could take place anyway. Of course, we could end up with a Democratic President who might not give a damn about Hubble or NASA in general (in which case the above would be moot; needless to say, I hope that isn't what happens).
We shall see...
surely they could add some juice to a tank stored in the cargo bay area
not much a space Ute if it cant carry a 44 of petrol in the back along with the dog and the fencing wire..:D
[B]eh... thats what droptanks are for..:D
surely they could add some juice to a tank stored in the cargo bay area[/B][/QUOTE]
So that it could use fuel in cargo bay's extra tank to get near Hubble and then drop it and there would still have full internal tanks when grabbing Hubble?
Interesting.
I think that main engines (which use LH and LOX) are used only when shuttle is rising to orbit.
(LH and LOX are also cryogenic fuels which cannot be stored long time without isolated tanks and high pressure)
Orbital maneuvering rockets use hypergolic propellants (monomethyl hydratzine as fuel and nitrogen tetroxide as oxidiser) which are very toxic and corrosive. (and ignite immediately when contacting each other)
So those would be also security risk.
[url]http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/missile/basics.htm[/url]
[url]http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/nasafact/count2.htm[/url]
If I remember right after Challenger destruction safety instructions were changed also in that way that it's prohibited to take cargo with rockets using LH and LOX propellants.
That was also reason for Galileo's long detour (and tripled flight time) for getting to Jupiter orbit.
Bacause of solid propellant rockets have smaller efficiency and power than rockets using liquid propellants.
(and from liquid propellants LH and LOX are most efficient, most power per weight)
and the hubble wont be done till around 2011 anyway, they arent going to service it anymore.
[B]and the hubble wont be done till around 2011 anyway, they arent going to service it anymore. [/B][/QUOTE]
What if something starts failing, like gyroscopes controlling attitude, after that it becames useless.
In fact one service mission was moved forward because those gyroscopes were failing. (only one of them was working before that mission)
[B]and the hubble wont be done till around 2011 anyway, they arent going to service it anymore. [/B][/QUOTE]
It was due for decommisioning in 2010, and that was with a servicing mission in 2006. That servicing mission has been canceled, so it's unlikely it'll get to 2010 now.
lets let it die, so we can get an even bigger one up there!!! MUAHAHAHA!!!!!
[B]JWST with 6,5-meter primary mirror made of beryllium will be a worthy replacement.[/B][/QUOTE]
Downside of this telescope is that it can't be serviced so if anything breaks, it can't be fixed.
(because it won't be positioned to earth orbit)
[B]Downside of this telescope is that it can't be serviced so if anything breaks, it can't be fixed.
(because it won't be positioned to earth orbit) [/B][/QUOTE]
Correct. It'll be positioned to the Langrange point 1.5 million kilometers from Earth, where gravitational forces of the Sun and Earth cancel each other out.
[B]I really wish they weren't so much for dropping it into the ocean. I would give so much to see it in person, on display at the Smithsonian Air and Space museum... [/B][/QUOTE]
So would a very large number of other people, including myself.
[B]I really wish they weren't so much for dropping it into the ocean. I would give so much to see it in person, on display at the Smithsonian Air and Space museum... [/B][/QUOTE]
Until you died from the toxic space microbes it brought back... :p
;) :D
[B]And the latest one that went online just over a month ago, who's name escapes me. [/B][/QUOTE]
Setzer, which is trailing the Earth's orbit a few million miles (can't remember how far). It also happens to be an infrared telescope, so it has to be kept near absolute zero using liquid helium. The coolant will run out in five years or so, at which point it basically just becomes a floating piece of space junk.
somebody should experiment with such things
[B]I'd like to see the shuttle with some solar sails.... massive sheets of monomer a few microns thick... to catch the solar winds...[/B][/QUOTE]
I don't want to spoil your joy but there's only one "little" problem:
Solar sails work only to away from sun, so it would be one way ticket.