-
#40
by
as58
on 14 Sep, 2014 06:03
-
Yet another point--the low-inclination orbit made the original Hubble Deep Field possible, as the telescope cound stare at a single place in space near the north celestial pole for days straight without worry of occultation by the Earth during an orbit. I'm almost certain that the Deep Fields, among HST's greatest achievements, would have been impossible from a high-inclination orbit.
I think that at least some of the newer Deep Fields are not in the Continuous Viewing Zone.
-
#41
by
Jim
on 14 Sep, 2014 12:30
-
Yet another point--the low-inclination orbit made the original Hubble Deep Field possible, as the telescope cound stare at a single place in space near the north celestial pole for days straight without worry of occultation by the Earth during an orbit. I'm almost certain that the Deep Fields, among HST's greatest achievements, would have been impossible from a high-inclination orbit.
Actually, L2 would have been the proper orbit and not LEO
-
#42
by
RonM
on 14 Sep, 2014 12:58
-
Yet another point--the low-inclination orbit made the original Hubble Deep Field possible, as the telescope cound stare at a single place in space near the north celestial pole for days straight without worry of occultation by the Earth during an orbit. I'm almost certain that the Deep Fields, among HST's greatest achievements, would have been impossible from a high-inclination orbit.
Actually, L2 would have been the proper orbit and not LEO
Then it would have been impossible for a shuttle to reach Hubble for repairs. Since the primary mirror was figured incorrectly, Hubble would have been a useless piece of junk. The only fix would have been a replacement space telescope.
-
#43
by
Hog
on 14 Sep, 2014 14:10
-
Thank you all.
Appears to be no advantage of ISS and HST sharing inclinations.
-
#44
by
Jim
on 14 Sep, 2014 15:42
-
Then it would have been impossible for a shuttle to reach Hubble for repairs. Since the primary mirror was figured incorrectly, Hubble would have been a useless piece of junk. The only fix would have been a replacement space telescope.
Which would be cheaper in the first place since it wouldn't have to be manrated or EVA and can be launched by a less expensive launch vehicle.
Four new equivalent ELV launched HST would be cheaper than 4 repair missions.
-
#45
by
RonM
on 14 Sep, 2014 15:58
-
Then it would have been impossible for a shuttle to reach Hubble for repairs. Since the primary mirror was figured incorrectly, Hubble would have been a useless piece of junk. The only fix would have been a replacement space telescope.
Which would be cheaper in the first place since it wouldn't have to be manrated or EVA and can be launched by a less expensive launch vehicle.
Four new equivalent ELV launched HST would be cheaper than 4 repair missions.
In hindsight, yes. But would Congress have funded replacements, especially since the first one would have been a failure?
-
#46
by
Jim
on 14 Sep, 2014 16:01
-
In hindsight, yes. But would Congress have funded replacements, especially since the first one would have been a failure?
It wouldn't have been as expensive. And, multiple spacecraft is not out of the question.
HST had many compromises due to LEO and Shuttle serviceability.
-
#47
by
gin455res
on 26 Oct, 2014 12:52
-
Any idea if there is a black astronomy budget?
What value is physics/astronomy research to the military/intelligence sector?
[I'm wondering what 15years of research with a 3-4m hubble could have already revealed]
-
#48
by
Jim
on 26 Oct, 2014 13:05
-
Any idea if there is a black astronomy budget?
What value is physics/astronomy research to the military/intelligence sector?
There isn't one
Near zero, and nothing that would have be done covertly.
-
#49
by
kevin-rf
on 27 Oct, 2014 11:18
-
New discoveries and science have come out of black programs.
1. Gamma Ray Bursts (GRB's) where first detected by the Vela program (designed to look for evidence of nuclear explosions).
2. The early warning satellite systems (DSP, SBIRS) have and continue to observe and record large meteors/small asteroids that explode in the upper atmosphere. Turning the data over to scientists have not been a smooth process over the years.
3. Some of the KH-9 color film data was used for counting whales.
4. Part of the reason (during the Clinton Admin) for declassifying the KH-1/2/3/4/4a/4b/5/6 data sets was to help researchers better understand climate change.
They are not the primary data from the missions, but it is secondary data that is obtained as a byproduct.
-
#50
by
Rabit
on 19 Mar, 2019 14:26
-
For example in case of failure next gyroscope can we send small / cheap satellite with gyroscopes and attach itself to Hubble via Soft Capture Mechanism (SCM) ?
-
#51
by
Tomness
on 19 Mar, 2019 16:00
-
It would cost less in the long run, compete & launch James Web Telescope, WFIRST, & true successor to Hubble. 8 meter optical telescope Super Hubble.
-
#52
by
libra
on 19 Mar, 2019 16:29
-
For example in case of failure next gyroscope can we send small / cheap satellite with gyroscopes and attach itself to Hubble via Soft Capture Mechanism (SCM) ?
there was a study circa 2004-2005, when the Shuttle was grounded post STS-107, and STS-125 (May 2009) was threatened.
The National Academies made a detailed report about robotically servicing Hubble - no Shuttle, no humans.
https://www.nap.edu/read/11169/chapter/7
-
#53
by
Rabit
on 20 Mar, 2019 09:01
-
It would cost less in the long run, compete & launch James Web Telescope, WFIRST, & true successor to Hubble. 8 meter optical telescope Super Hubble.
But always better have two operational telescopes in space
Cheap satellite from off the shelf parts launched as secondary payload on Falcon 9 or heavy will cost fraction of Hubble
-
#54
by
Rabit
on 20 Mar, 2019 09:05
-
For example in case of failure next gyroscope can we send small / cheap satellite with gyroscopes and attach itself to Hubble via Soft Capture Mechanism (SCM) ?
there was a study circa 2004-2005, when the Shuttle was grounded post STS-107, and STS-125 (May 2009) was threatened.
The National Academies made a detailed report about robotically servicing Hubble - no Shuttle, no humans.
https://www.nap.edu/read/11169/chapter/7
I not mention servicing simply attach cheap Satellite to humble to serve ass gyros do not require this level of complexity.
-
#55
by
Hobbes-22
on 20 Mar, 2019 12:12
-
Cheap satellite from off the shelf parts launched as secondary payload on Falcon 9 or heavy will cost fraction of Hubble
There are no off-the-shelf telescope systems anywhere near as good as Hubble, so you'd end up with a far less capable system.
-
#56
by
Rabit
on 20 Mar, 2019 13:48
-
Cheap satellite from off the shelf parts launched as secondary payload on Falcon 9 or heavy will cost fraction of Hubble
There are no off-the-shelf telescope systems anywhere near as good as Hubble, so you'd end up with a far less capable system.
To prolong Hubble life not to send new one.
-
#57
by
Jim
on 20 Mar, 2019 16:06
-
Cheap satellite from off the shelf parts launched as secondary payload on Falcon 9 or heavy will cost fraction of Hubble
Why does the type of launch vehicle have to enter the picture. There are many ways to get a satellite into orbit and SpaceX is not the first choice.
Also, cheap satellite and off the shelf parts is not going to work for HST pointing requirements.
-
#58
by
Patchouli
on 22 Mar, 2019 15:35
-
Since it just needs new gyros why not send up one of the commercial crew vehicles with a Strela crane to perform the servicing?
-
#59
by
rayleighscatter
on 23 Mar, 2019 13:19
-
For example in case of failure next gyroscope can we send small / cheap satellite with gyroscopes and attach itself to Hubble via Soft Capture Mechanism (SCM) ?
Soft capture mechanism may not be strong/rigid enough to translate the precision of movement Hubble needs for pointing.
Since it just needs new gyros why not send up one of the commercial crew vehicles with a Strela crane to perform the servicing?
Many of those options really start to get into the realm of economics. No commercial crew option has the standalone capacity for crew plus parts plus robotics. So it would be a minimum of two launches just to extend certain mechanical parts. With further launches if there's a desire to get the electronics and instruments back to peak condition. Then something has to boost its orbit.
