It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Attach Hubble to the International Space Station?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 30 2004 @ 05:55 PM
link   
Was just sitting here thinking, and wondering if it would be possible to rig up some sort of swiveling arm and attach the Hubble to the ISS? That way they could save it and it would be very close for service and repairs.

Once the shuttle is back up we could just capture it and bring it back to ISS no?

Seems a lot better to save it in some fashion. Perhaps the orbit is not as good were the ISS is but wouldnt it still work very well from there?

In fact the other scopes going up wouldnt it be better to tie them to the ISS as well? Seems a lot cheaper to put everthing in one spot to keep it all running good.




posted on May, 30 2004 @ 05:59 PM
link   
It may not be possible(different functional orbiting heights) or would take too much fuel and manpower, time and money, for it too be realistic. It is a pretty good idea.



posted on May, 30 2004 @ 06:15 PM
link   
That idea shows some great thinking.

Sadly though it would just take to much money and time to manuever the hubble close to the ISS. The hubble was a great tool but is just getting too old to throw money at and risk lives for. There are newer are better space-based scopes in the works.

The hubble was groundbreaking and the first of its kind, but i think its just closing in on its end at this point.



posted on May, 31 2004 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xeven

Once the shuttle is back up we could just capture it and bring it back to ISS no?


Part of why so much talk on why Nasa is not willing to go and service the Hubble is due to the different orbits each has. Going to the Hubble and then the ISS would require more fuel than the shuttle carries as I understand it. As a secondary approach to repair it came from ROBOTS going to the Hubble and then service it! Now if we take that approach and move it to the ISS and the shuttle could service Both in one launch, or the old two Birds with one stone.

As for costing more than what it's worth, as long as it keeps sending the type of pictures is sends now, why discard it. I see it like the throw away razor's and the concept of making things simply to throw them away when newer items come out. Recycle seems to be something we are moving away from. Starship Earth needs the people to respect it for what it can do, but if we neglect it then our future will surely be one of hardships.

Nasa itself works under the use it once, with the external Tank, a great many people would like to attemp taking the tank into orbit and build onto that a space station, already 100 have been sent to the bottom of the ocean, when more use of them could be taken if they were in orbit, Nasa must think we all have deep pockets!

Michael



posted on May, 31 2004 @ 11:36 PM
link   
one thing i'm surprised no one else has mentioned is the vibrations that would be caused by attaching it to the ISS. those would no doubt ruin any deep space picture. if anything, that is what the biggest problem would be.



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 02:01 PM
link   
Well with Hubble slated for death. I thought I d ask again why not fly some rockets up to it and attach it to the Space Station. I mean it probably would not be as powerfull as it is now in its current orbit but doing this would make fixing it exteemly cheap since we go to ISS anyway.. Also this instrument is awesome to have.

X



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 02:18 PM
link   
I also have had that same thought, just attach it to the space station. If vibrations are going to interfere with visual, just tether the dang thing. Tethering it would not cause any vibration, and it could still move freely.

It is obvious that the people around the world have grown attached to the space scope. With good reason, we don't care that it is out dated and has worse resolution that what is made today. It is apart of our collective, shared by memories and first moments. It was our first crush and some peoples secret love. Perhaps a petition can be made, with signatures gathered and passed to the government it would be a shame or a sham. The one thing people willingly paid taxes for, and now they take it way...



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 02:24 PM
link   
Another thing is the ISS is a lot closer in orbit than the Hubble, so that would mean either moving the ISS out or the Hubble in. Neither can easily be done. The ISS needs to be close so supply ships can easily get there, while Hubble needs to be far so it can see around the Earth and just so the optics are just slighly better (among other reasons
).

Also, tethering them together would still share thier masses. That would mean more fuel needed to keep the crafts aloft.

EDIT: Some punctuation.

[edit on 2/10/2005 by cmdrkeenkid]


E_T

posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 03:10 PM
link   
There might be way of getting Hubble to ISS for repairs...
And even sending it back to higher orbit with little more work.

With chemical rockets it isn't possible but Skycorp suggest solar-electric "spacetug" using ion rockets which have much better specific impulse.
Same kind of system is developed by industry for rescuing and extensing lifetime of expensive satellites.
www.space.com...

If NASA is really going to Mars capability to move stuff between different orbits is mandatory.



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 04:59 PM
link   
I think it would be a very good idea to attach the Hubble to the ISS but there is one thing that is posing a problem in my way of thinking: that is that they will need to surpress any vibration(s) from the ISS in order to keep vibrational distortion down to a min. In order to do this is simple. All the have to use is a type of synthetic grommet(s) positioned around the mounting points when attached to the ISS. Rubber would be of no use because it will wear out due to the high heat and cold stress'. I'd sure like to see this rather than all of the $ and manpower go down the hole. I feel that the Hubble still has a lot of life in it and by having it with the ISS would cut down sharply on the extra resources needed to do any reg. maint. while still sending us them cool pictures.



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 05:09 PM
link   
Haven't we designed Earthbound telescopes that have better resolution than ol' Hubbie? I swear I've read that somewhere. Anyway, if it's true, then I hate to say it, but just let the Hubble burn up as planned. It was good while it lasted, but sometimes you gotta move on.



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 05:13 PM
link   
Another point is, why are they so willing to spend more money on sinking it in the ocean? What did the Hubble do wrong, see some thing it shouldn't have. Bad Hubble BAD!




posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 05:21 PM
link   
I knwo the shuttle doesn't have much fuel for delta V while in orbit. But couldn't they use the cargo bay and rig some kind of disposable boosters? or at least extra fuel?

IMHO the hubble is getting old, and like the Voyager probes, and evetually the Mars rovers they will out live thier useful ness.

I bet sometime in the future there will be another space telescope, or even moon telescope before Halleys comet comes by again



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 11:07 PM
link   
For one thing I really doubt there traveling on identical orbital paths, and they're definitely not on the same orbital plane, so moving it would be a herculean task, maybe the most expensive and complicated task:

For example [and btw these numbers are certainly no where near reality, but they show the KIND of numbers we're dealing with here]:

Hubble is moving on a Vector 0 at 20k mph, 250 km high.
ISS is moving Vector 45 at 19k mph, 315 km high.

So, we're gonna turn this thing 45 degrees, slow it down 1k mph, and raise it's orbit 65km? Well first you'd have to speed it up to raise the orbit, then slow it down again, then intersect with ISS.

A plan like this could not just be whipped up over night: It would take many months if not years of planning. Add to that the fact that a malfunction could mean tons of metal space junk raining on the earth and well...you see what I mean. It would undoubtedly be many times cheaper just to send a manned mission to fix the thing.

The reason it's being scuttled is because we already have ground-based scopes now that are nearly comparable to Hubble, and in a few years we'll have scopes that surpass Hubble. We're sending her into the ocean under a controlled descent so that she doesn't fall on any populated area and hurt people.

I love Hubble too, but when you love something, you have to set it free.

[edit on 10-2-2005 by zamphir66]



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 12:12 AM
link   
This is a great idea. It may not be feasible to attach the HST, but an obseratory module to the ISS would be awesome. They could service both the ISS and the space telescope in one mission.



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 03:43 AM
link   
If they throw money at it, it can be done, the thing is that the pentagon calls the shots at nasa now, most of nasa budget is reprogrammed for millitary and dual purposes. Hubble can watch the stars, but spy satellites can watch oilfields and guide missiles.

What would be nice if for example the Japanese or the European space agency) would be given exclusive ownership of Hubble for free (if they would be interested, this saves Nasa money for a mission bringing the Hubble down)), I suppose that the new Ariane 5 ECA has more than enough horsepower to deliver some sort of huge tugboat with spare materials and servicerobot on board.

Hell, even giive ESA a few millions if they take over Hubble, would still be cheaper than a decommissioning flight for Nasa. Have the Japanese and Esa put in the additional millions and we would be shootin glossy pics of the stars for years to come...


[edit on 12-2-2005 by Countermeasures]



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 10:57 PM
link   
Nasa was planning on sending a robotic unit to bring it down, and we just launched a new heavy delta vehicle, purhaps using this with robotic unit to move the hubble in the direction of ISS, either way they were going to send up a robot to bring it down.
Nasa has a bad habit of throwing things away, Heck I still have my old Commodore 128, oops did I say that.

Michael



posted on Feb, 19 2005 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
Another thing is the ISS is a lot closer in orbit than the Hubble, so that would mean either moving the ISS out or the Hubble in.
(among other reasons
).

[edit on 2/10/2005 by cmdrkeenkid]


If Nasa is going to send up a robotic unit to safely bring it down could they move Hubble instead to align above ISS in it's current orbit? Then a service mission to Hubble would have a stop off at ISS before taking the plunge back to Earth?

Michael



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join