posted 05-20-2009 06:44 AM               

Particularly I noticed that the newspapers strongly emphasize "the fact" that "this is the last time a human touched the Hubble," or "this is the last mission to Hubble" etc.

Well, I have a certain problem with this. First of all, as I understand it, there will be no more servicing missions and I'm okay with that. I understand the need for something newer/better than the aging Hubble Space Telescope (HST). After all, it is getting rather old. A new generation should eventually take its place. What I don't like is the idea of pushing the HST deeper into the atmosphere until it eventually burns/explodes into pieces.

Why is it so important to burn it after all? Do you burn you grandparents when they can't provide and more help? I somehow doubt that.

So, I was thinking about it before I went to sleep and here are some of my ideas. Even if they are highly improbable or costly, I'd still like to present it here. The only assumption I make is that HST is effectively dead after 2014-2015 and its dead body that I'd like to be taken care of.

1. Let's send an engine module that will attach to the HST and push it into the atmosphere. In other words, lets burn it (I'm guessing this is the simplest and cheapest solution and that's why we will eventually have to live with the fact it came true).

2. Let's send an engine module that will attach to the HST and push it into a higher orbit instead, one that will keep Hubble flying for decades or even millennia in such safe orbit. (As I said, I care very little about the fact that it will be long dead by that time.)

3. Let's send an engine module (possibly some high-efficiency, reliable ion-engine module) and send HST to one of the L points. Let it stay there, where it's safer to avoid any debris and where it does not cost to monitor it's status. (As I understand L points are quite stable and an object once put there can't simply fly away into space or return to Earth.)

4. Let's just bring it home, you still have some operational shuttles, don't you? Nah, I can hardly believe it will ever come true, too costly and to dangerous they will say.

5. It's a long shot now. Let's change the orbit of the HST so that it could be attached to the ISS. Why not? With some super efficient ion-engines a small orbit adjustments should be possible?

6. This will be a very long-shot but why not to send it deep into space, far far beyond our solar system. Okay, I know, it will cost and has no scientific benefit so it won't ever happen. But imagine how nice it would be for future generations to play with this astro-archeology. In hundreds of years one could go and bring it back to Earth, just like they will do with Voyagers, Pioneers, etc. (assuming it will not be morally questionable to stop them on their completely pointless journey... [this the statement that I'm making assuming that the mankind will already have some much faster means of transportation]).

By the way, has anyone ever thought about some kind of a graveyard for historically important satellites?

posted 05-20-2009 07:04 AM               

Bringing it home with a shuttle ("D") is not possible. Hubble will no longer fit in the shuttle's payload bay and would require a full servicing mission just to remove equipment added since 1993 to make it fit (and that realization was not something that the HST managers accepted without regret).

Sending it to the ISS ("E"), for all intents and purposes, is impossible. Too much fuel is needed for the orbit and plane change, and assuming for the moment you could get around that, there's too high a chance of irreparably damaging Hubble's optics in the process, making the whole effort worthless.

Scenarios "C" (Lagrange orbit) and "F" (solar system departure) seem wasteful at best. There's really no advantage (for a dead satellite) between "B" and "C", and if future retrieval is a goal, then a high Earth orbit is far preferable and more realistic than chasing down a solar system-escaping piece of space junk.

posted 05-20-2009 07:21 AM               

Obviously A and B are the only scenarios that make sense, but still it's nice to exercise the brain with some wild scenarios as well.

posted 05-20-2009 08:30 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Sending it to the ISS ("E"), for all intents and purposes, is impossible. Too much fuel is needed for the orbit and plane change...

---

posted 10-31-2009 03:48 PM               

During Servicing Mission 4, HST got the Soft Capture and Rendezvous System (SCRS) at the instrument end of the 16 m long Space Telescope... just curious to know if that probe with de-orbit engine already exists?

posted 11-01-2009 05:01 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Philip:
...just curious to know if that probe with de-orbit engine already exists?

---

posted 02-21-2018 09:49 AM               

With the retirement of NASA's space shuttle fleet in 2011, there are no spacecraft currently in operation that could collect Hubble and return it to Earth. Hubble's orbit is relatively stable, so it will not be immediately de-orbited when it stops working. However it will eventually need to be brought down in a controlled re-entry to ensure that any debris does not land in inhabited areas — Hubble is too big to fully burn up in the atmosphere.

During the final servicing mission in 2009, a docking device was fitted onto the base of the telescope so that a rocket can easily attach and safely de-orbit the telescope once its mission is complete.

What is the expected lifespan of Hubble?

The last, and final, servicing mission for Hubble took place in 2009, and the space telescope is still doing very well. As such, there is no set date for Hubble’s retirement. Hubble will continue to work for as long as its components operate and it provides a good service to the scientific community.