Hubble Space Telescope is still producing science at 35 It was 35 years ago when the Hubble Space Telescope deployed into orbit, sent by a space agency facing an existential crisis. Thirty-five years on, not much seems to have changed. The Hubble Space Telescope, a NASA and ESA project, was launched on April 24, 1990, aboard Space Shuttle Discovery. The mission took place a few …
The sky is so big, that we need as many telescopes as possible to look in as many different directions at the same time, so, if NASA can, keeping Hubble going wold be great, as long as it does not prejudice a better telescope going into action.
But amazing longevity even considering the ability to service it in orbit. Well done to the designers, engineers and boffins!
I just watched a series on Hubble (and various other space efforts in the US) on Channel 5 in the UK. It was fascinating to see how they combined 4 CCDs to make one big image. Now if they upgraded those CCDs to even better ones, who knows what else we'd spot! :-)
Like you, I'm all for keeping the Hubble a while longer. :-)
While it might not be economically viable for a technical upgrade, it is still doing so much good work in its current form that at the very least I would like to see a mission that boosts Hubble's orbit so that has many more years of useful life left.
At the same time, I would also want the infrared Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope to be launched on time in 2027 and not be subject to NASA cuts from the current US political administration.
to a servicing mission is the amount of heavy stuff you'll need to take up, new solar arrays, another instrument, new batteries , gyros, and computers, plus the tools and a capture workstation and possibly a robotic arm to move stuff around.
The shuttle was ideal for this, sadly the shuttle isn't flying anymore.
Best you could hope for would be a payload + platform module launched by a falcon heavy, then sending up a dragon to dock with it and move upto hubble. while dragon can make it down, all the rest of the gear would have to be dumped.
2 years to build /train the crew plus a shedload of dollars anyone ?
If there's an opportunity to make the wrong decision, the politicians will (including the politically-adjacent, like appointed Administrators).
Hubble is an amazing, brilliant bit of kit. The servicing missions were incredible feats of human ingenuity and endeavour. No criticism of the astronauts, engineers or mission control.
But. Each servicing mission cost over a billion dollars - which would have been enough to build and launch an additional Hubble. Not withstanding the first - very necessary - corrective servicing mission, we could have had 4 more Hubbles instead of servicing missions 2; 3A; 3B & 4. Made use of those drawings we'd spent so much on (and the backup mirror Kodak had manufactured!).
Whilst this means the original HST would have been deorbited in 1999 when 4/6 gyros died, we would have had additional telescopes on station ~1997, ~1999, ~2002 and the mid-2000s. And yes, we would undoubtedly have lost more by now due to fuel depletion, gyro failure or other faults, but for a glorious period we would have had 3 or even 4 instruments on station, and we'd have collected much more data, for about the same dollar cost.
I don't doubt that politicos will now see "Keep Hubble going" as the "cheap" or "efficient" option over a "new" telescope - even though Roman is basically built and full of technology 20-35 years younger than that on Hubble. Hopefully the engineers will enforce sense.
However sentimental we are, sometimes the most dignified thing to do is give end-of-life instruments a Viking funeral that we can all raise a toast to from our backyards. Of course, that time has not come, and until that sad day I'll raise a beer to Hubble - Happy Birthday!
The current estimate, take this with more than a grain of salt, is $900 million dollars. Previous service missions using the shuttle of course were around $205 million.
The estimated cost of the Nancy Grace Roman telescope, see above caveat, is $4.3 billion.
The estimated cost of the Webb space telescope is $10 billion.
" The Hubble Space Telescope was originally estimated to cost about USD 400 million, but the total cost, adjusted for inflation and including the 1st servicing mission to correct the optics of the telescope was about $5.8 billion dollars"
So the assertions that "Each servicing mission cost over a billion dollars - which would have been enough to build and launch an additional Hubble" are more than a little bit off.
A new servicing mission to the Hubble would require new equipment that would have to be developed and tested as well as many months of astronaut training. As far as I know the "Starship" is probably the only space vehicle that could carry enough equipment and astronauts to do such a mission without requiring multiple launches and it is obviously several years away from being able to safely perform it. So any useful repair mission is probably not feasible and when it reaches the end of it's useful life it will be time to bring this wonderful astronomical instrument back to Earth in a blaze of glory. Hopefully the republicans in congress will grow a new set (Trump has the current set "safely" tucked away in a bathroom at Mar a Lardo) and fund the Nancy Grace Roman telescope. I will not be holding my breath.
[... "Starship" is probably the only space vehicle that could carry enough equipment and astronauts to do such a mission ... and it is obviously several years away from being able to safely perform it. ...]
Well if we start the planning now, maybe we'll be ready about the same time as Starship.
Not that I'm necessarily convinced that the company which builds Starship will survive many more failed demonstrations of orbital capability.
"Not that I'm necessarily convinced that the company which builds Starship will survive many more failed demonstrations of orbital capability."
To be fair to SpaceX (not Musk!) they have successfully put more into orbit than every other launch provider combined and successfully reused many, many 1st stages many times each. Was it the 19th Falcon launch that was the first to be successfully recovered? I forget, it's just a commonplace occurrence these days :-)
As for Starship, so far they've not tried to get to orbit, but they manage to successfully catch a flying 23-story building. Twice! Shame about the Ship itself blowing up, but I like to think they will get there in the end. I think they are likely to have full reusability before Blue Origin, but BI will be significant competition for them. And there are at least two, maybe three Chinese companies snapping at their heels too (at least two are at what could be described as advanced StarHopper stage currently).
Starship might be the best option for a manned servicing mission, but the most portant part of keeping Hubble orbiting is boosting it plus keeping it stable
An ion tug would do for that task - it's been done at GEO already and there are already a few more in orbit
Docking would be easier than for most satellites as Hubble was designed to be serviced.
The current estimate, take this with more than a grain of salt, is $900 million dollars.
For what?
Previous service missions using the shuttle of course were around $205 million.
This all depends on how you want to divide the costs. The base servicing/fuel cost to prep and launch the shuttle was $400-500m, plus mission costs/hardware (which I presume is the $205m you refer to). The total lifetime costs of the shuttle programme came out at >$1Bn/launch in 2010 dollars.
" The Hubble Space Telescope was originally estimated to cost about USD 400 million, but the total cost, adjusted for inflation and including the 1st servicing mission to correct the optics of the telescope was about $5.8 billion dollars"
HST cost-to-launch was $4.7Bn in FY2010 dollars. Which - from your numbers - puts SM1 at $1.1Bn.
In any case... maybe use that R&D and software package more than once? Halve/third/quarter your fixed overhead R&D cost. Make use of the backup mirror you'd commissioned...
Let's not forget that the NRO was lobbing up multiple Keyhole satellites, which were extremely similar to HST (2.4m primary mirror) - just pointing down. The more you make, the cheaper they get. Even if the first one cost $4Bn, I'll bet the last one didn't. Batch production introduces efficiencies. Building a second HST would have reduced the accounting cost of HST (by consuming the second mirror) and would have reused a substantial portion of the engineering and codebase for the platform (allowing for new instrument software, etc).
HST's $4.7Bn also included ~$6m/month to store the HST in a clean room environment after the Challenger disaster (something, something, shuttle programme costs), which delayed launch from 1986 to 1990 (albeit there were issues with the ground software which may have delayed launch anyway). A second HST would not have incurred an additional quarter-billion dollars in storage fees!
Really do cut funding for final testing and launch of the Nancy Grace Roman telescope, I hope the EU offers to take it off Trump's hands for $1 million. He would either see it as a "great deal" to sell something that would otherwise be worthless to the US sitting in a warehouse at NASA to some suckers for $1 million, or that offer would cause enough pressure on him from people who see it as a sign of America's decline under him to insist that congress fund it after all.
That's correct, and that's one of the arguments in favor of keeping Hubble flying. Hubble looks at visual wavelengths, while the new telescopes like James Webb look at infrared. There is valuable data and science to get from all parts of the spectrum. The service mission cost would be minor compared to designing/developing something new to look in the visual range. That said, there are practical concerns that should drive the decision. The primary one already discussed above is we no longer have a shuttle that can launch a bus-sized payload with the manipulator arm inside to grapple the telescope with. I'm not up to speed on the details of the new vehicles or capabilities having left JSC in 95. But whether a mission can take the needed servicing parts, and whether it can handle the rendezvous and reboost is simply one question than is primary. If the telescope needs 4 new gyros, but current launch capabilities can only carry 2, then that is another area of tradeoffs to consider.
All that said, if the stars align and the servicing is doable, then personally, the benefit that instrument provides to science makes the assessment worthwhile.
It will be a shame to let it go after all the effort and result from the machine but if it has been superceeded then it probably makes sense to let it go.
It was my understanding that ground based telescopes had advanced to the point where the could match or exceed the Hubble's resolution now.
Would be happy to see the beast being given seciond life if it can be made to make sense
Hubble's mirror was constrained by the dimensions of payload fairings
with 7 and 9 metre diameters now available. much bigger mirrors are possible
Replicating this on the ground needs MUCH bigger mirrors and ground based instruments are blind at several critical wavelengths thanks to the atmosphere
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
