NASA, SpaceX weigh invoking Dragon to take Hubble higher

Though it may have been eclipsed by the launch of its successor, the James Webb Space Telescope, long-lived Hubble continues to gaze deep into the universe. JWST specializes in infrared, versus optical and ultraviolet wavelengths, so the telescope functions complement each other rather than overlap. To that end, NASA has …

[StrangerHereMyself]

Insufficicent

Merely boosting the orbit of Hubble will not be sufficient to keep it going. It needs to be serviced and its electronics, computers and batteries must be replaced. In addition, its all-important reaction wheels that point and stabilize the telescope need to be replaced. Without replacing them, Hubble may fail at any time.

[Gene Cash]

Re: Insufficicent

Sadly, the only spacecraft capable of that are now gutted museum pieces.

"Starship" might be able to do something, if kitted with an arm of some sort, but it's on "Musk time" so there's no idea when it'll be operational.

NASA is making do with what's available.

[Robert Grant]

Re: Insufficicent

> but it's on "Musk time"

Anything's better than "SLS time".

[John Brown (no body)]

Re: Insufficicent

Or the entirely unpredictable Microsoft time. Something almost, but not entirely unlike real time.

[Spherical Cow]

Re: Insufficicent

Time is an illusion. Lunchtime, doubly so.

[John Robson]

Re: Insufficicent

And by the time starship is flying it might make more sense to simply build a new hubble... with a larger mirror (correctly shaped to start with) and modern sensors.

[Tom 7]

Re: Insufficicent

Be nicer to get some form of 1km interferometer.

[John Robson]

Re: Insufficicent

Why not both? If starship end up as cheap as it could be then a fleet of "superhubbles" could be launched.

[MachDiamond]

Re: Insufficicent

"If starship end up as cheap as it could be....."

Breathe John, you're turning blue.

With the advent of adaptive optics, a lot more of only what Hubble could do is now possible from Earth. That makes having a fleet of space telescopes too big of an expense. The most valuable projects are the ones for IR and UV where Earth's atmosphere acts as a filter.

If anybody wants a fun night out in Southern California with some friends, the 60" telescope on Mt Wilson can be rented and when I visited some years ago, the docent told us that the 100" Hooker telescope might be available to the public soon. I haven't been back so I don't know if it is, but even the 60" is pretty incredible. At the time a full night with operator was $1,800. Probably more now, but amongst 10 people, it would be far less expensive than tickets to a Rammstein concert.

[hammarbtyp]

Re: Insufficicent

Yes modern earth based telescopes are incredible beasts and adaptive optics have certainly reduced some of the space based advantages, and can now achieve a sharpness as good as a orbiting device.

Saying that, there are still some advantages on having a telescope above our atmospheric blanket. Firstly the most obvious one is that it can capture a wider spectrum so it can be used to take not only visible, but UV and near IR wavelengths at the same time.

Secondly while adaptive optics retain sharpness, they cannot do anything about the atmosphere reducing the amount of light getting to the scope, so ground based ones require longer observing times. Which brings us to the next advantage. Space based telescopes can observer for longer since they are less restricted by daylight and can therefore be bought on station faster if an event occurs.

They can also be placed where they get a wider view of the night sky. Ground based ones by there nature can only see a subset of the night sky, meaning some areas especially the lower southern and northern skies do not get examined in high detail

But it should not be a either/or scenario. As the Sagittarius A balck hole image showed we are in the world of optical interferometry. Space based telescopes working with earth based ones would allow fantastic increase in resolution of targets by combining telescopes together. At present the limitation is on the size of the earth, but space based telescopes would allow that to be increased

[druck]

Re: Insufficicent

Plus a space telescope is above all the LEO satellites ruining the sky to ground observatories, particularly the ones owned by a certain Mr Musk.

[John Robson]

Re: Insufficicent

I'm not turning blue at all...

There are advantages to being outside the atmosphere beyond sharpness, adaptive optics are utterly ridiculous (that's a compliment) in both concept and execution, and make for excellent observations.

But being outside the atmosphere still offers better seeing and a wider availability of spectrum... The better seeing is probably wiped out by the sheer scale of mirrors that can be dealt with on the ground - though even the LBT mirrors are smaller than a starship fairing - and we've seen how well JWST managed to handle aligning segmented mirrors if we want to go even larger.

The real benefit is the availability of spectrum either side of the visible.

If, and it's a big if at this point, Starship really does get the cost down to Musk levels of optimism... then the cost stops being a significant issue (you're paying a pretty penny for a mirror, at that point the transport costs are high to basically anywhere you really want it, starship might not be the most expensive option).

[MachDiamond]

Re: Insufficicent

"If, and it's a big if at this point, Starship really does get the cost down to Musk levels of optimism... then the cost stops being a significant issue"

The cost of the rocket is usually a minor line item on a big space project. Falcon 9 isn't anywhere near the prices that Gwynn was on about some years ago after they got the reuse thing going well. Starship is a huge shiny vaporware mirage at this point. They've got to get the Raptor engine sorted out so it doesn't go boom on the test stand and then really work on taking the upper stage from a shell to a complete space craft. They'll also need to figure out how to deploy from clamshell doors as every other rocket discards the fairing when out of the atmosphere so it's not an issue. They then need to make sure they can securely close the clamshell so the rocket can come back without burning up and tearing itself apart. That's a whole bunch of stuff to do and Elon has the tendency to just blow things up rather than launching less and doing more work on the front end. The trouble is that if he detonates a full stack at the Boca Chica site, the government might pull his permit. It's already amazing that they've let him continue after all of the lies he's been feeding them.

Anything going to space now should be something that extends what can be done on the ground. If a new visible light telescope is going to be a good thing, there is no point in spending the money to keep Hubble going. The thing is a couple of decades old and built using even older tech. It will be sad to see it go. I spent a lot of time watching those servicing missions and lost a lot of sleep but it might be time to see a new thing come to light.

[John Robson]

Re: Insufficicent

Starship isn't vapourware. You're thinking of New Glenn.

Raptors are blowing up when they test them beyond previous limits - that's what test stands are for.

They have already flown a number of raptors quite successfully, so I'd not suggest that the raptors are the biggest issue.

SpaceX have a different philosophy from some of the more traditional rocket companies, but that has resulted in significantly cheaper launches, and in getting manned launches back to the western hemisphere whilst the traditional "we do all the work up front" company is still to launch, despite taking huge amounts more money to develop their system.

If a full stack fails then it won't detonate, it will be one heck of a fireball, but there won't be the mix for a detonation.

[MachDiamond]

Re: Insufficicent

"Raptors are blowing up when they test them beyond previous limits"

Word has leaked out from several sources that state the Raptor isn't performing at the level it needs to for it to be used on Starship. Whether that means they are asking more from the engine or not, it won't work for the intended purpose.

[John Robson]

Re: Insufficicent

"Raptor isn't performing at the level it needs to for it to be used on Starship"

Well, it's already comfortably over 300 bar pressure, and they've dropped the count of engines on the booster from earlier specs, so I'd take any rumours of serious underperformance with a grain of salt or two.

One thing we can be sure of... they'll always want more performance. When they start recovery they'll have to look at the performance/reliability trade off, and the more raw performance is available the better that tradeoff will be.

33 engines at about 225 tons of thrust is ~7000-7500 tons of thrust, for a vehicle that masses ~5000 tons.

That's a healthy TWR of 1.4.

[MachDiamond]

Re: Insufficicent

"But being outside the atmosphere still offers better seeing and a wider availability of spectrum... "

Yep, that's true. I said that a 'fleet' of Hubble type telescopes wouldn't be a good idea and that IR/UV telescopes would be. A space telescope is very expensive and getting time on Hubble is very difficult. A fleet of ground based telescopes opens up a whole bunch more availability for the same cost for the sort of observations that can be done from surface. Ground based telescopes can also be serviced and completely replaced if necessary.

[Killing Time]

Re: Insufficicent

'it would be far less expensive than tickets to a Rammstein concert.'

Maybe, but unless they have upped their game you don't get to be toasted, have your eardrums blown out and covered in foam for your money.

[MachDiamond]

Re: Insufficicent

"Maybe, but unless they have upped their game you don't get to be toasted, have your eardrums blown out and covered in foam for your money."

yeah, that's good value for money, that is.

[MachDiamond]

Re: Insufficicent

""Starship" might be able to do something,"

Very doubtful. With the Shuttle, the telescope could be captured and astronauts could lock in and out to perform the work. For Starship to do that would mean getting it to work in the first place, getting it human rated and then engineering a package to allow being able to do many of the things that could be done with the Shuttle. Even if it looked like it could be done, it would take years to bring the system up to a Technical Readiness Level (TRL) to launch the mission. Given the age of Hubble, why not build something new? Even a Hubble 2.0 could be a far more advanced platform given what's been learned in building and modifying the current one. One would hope that the primary mirror would get manufactured correctly this time if they stayed with the same optical design.

[imanidiot]

Re: Insufficicent

Cost. It's all about money. Keep in mind NASA is basically going to be spending nothing on this. If it happens it'll be funded by Isaacman, not NASA, so it won't take anything out of their budget for other missions. At worst if they can make it happen NASA will probably pay for the components and tools, which will be comparatively cheap.

The next scope in the line for NASA is the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope. Which will be a sort of Hubble 2.0 (based on a keyhole satellite bus, very similar to Hubble but with a wider field of view) Outside of that NASA has very little budget to be building another space telescope right now. What they have is being wasted on the Artemis and SLS boondoggle.

[MachDiamond]

Re: Insufficicent

"What they have is being wasted on the Artemis and SLS boondoggle."

Those projects were foisted on them by politicians needing job programs in their states. They even put Mr Ballast in as the head of NASA. The guy is a tool. I liked it when Charlie Bolden was in that post. He seemed pretty cool when I got to meet him.

[druck]

Re: Insufficicent

It doesn't need the Starship, only a rocket capable of getting a manned capsule to Hubble's orbit, has a docking adaptor to attach to the capture ring, and is capable of allowing space walks. I'm pretty sure that a Falcon Heavy plus Dragon capsule could be made suitable with a few modifications.

[John Robson]

Re: Insufficicent

Doesn't even need the heavy variant.

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: Insufficicent

Boosting it would at least mean not worrying for a few years.

You could also for a finite amount of money add a module to the docking ring with a self contained pointing system, with its own reaction wheels - the mechanical parts that are failing on Hubble. That could be done easily by a remote pod, like the auto iss cargo pods

[John Brown (no body)]

Re: Insufficicent

"Boosting it would at least mean not worrying for a few years."

It's taken 13 years to drop 60Km, so I guess it's not really a worry for a few more years yet. Another 10 years might be more of an issue though.

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: Insufficicent

Unfortunately it's a bit nonlinear. NASA guestimates somewhere 2030-2040, depends on 'space weather' ie. how exciting the sun gets.

[Lars]

Re: Insufficicent

Yes but JWST could also fail at any time sadly.

[Excellentsword]

Re: Insufficicent

As much is said in the article.

[Stoneshop]

32-year old hardware

"Since there's no expectation of 32-year-old hardware working that well on Earth, let alone in orbit,"

Most of the problems that beset computer systems are caused by people fiddling with them. Witness the walled-in Novell server just chugging along for years, and b0rkage dropping to surprisingly low numbers during a change freeze.

[DS999]

Re: 32-year old hardware

I wonder what repairability rating iFixit would give it? Its modularity and lack of glued in parts is a big plus, but the difficulty and expense of getting there to service it has to be a huge strike against it.

[Agamemnon]

Re: 32-year old hardware

*Roaring Laughter*

-- Friday Beer for you.

[that one in the corner]

Re: 32-year old hardware

Can even iFixit sell you a space-rated spudger?

[DS999]

Re: 32-year old hardware

Well probably not given that there would be a need for only one. Come to think of it, even if parts are modular the complete unavailability of spares will be another huge knock against repairability.

[Agamemnon]

Re: 32-year old hardware

That tale, if I'm correct after the decades and lots of weed ...

Was an AT&T Sys V PBX that got walled in at a university.

* Side note: I despise Novell.

[stiine]

why stop there?

As was mentioned above, attach a module to the docking adapter. My suggestion is to launch a tug on a Falcon 9 and have it dock with Hubble. Then it can lower its orbit to dock with the ISS. Then SpaceX can launch a 2nd Falcon 9 with 3 technicians in a Dragon and a separate Falcon 9 with fuel and parts. Once the two have rendezvoused with ISS, they can EVA from the ISS and refuel the tug, make repairs to Hubble, and then return to earth.

The tug could then undock and raise the Hubble to the desired orbit, and return to ISS, its new home.

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: why stop there?

At that point just launch a new telescope.

If you have SpaceX launch costs then building a dozen 2m class missions with a single instrument doesn't look as crazy

[Marty McFly]

Re: why stop there?

Uhhhh.... Less Hollywood & more reality is needed. Orbital mechanics are not that simple. The amount of fuel needed to change Hubble's orbit to match ISS would be impractical.

George Clooney jumping around to different space stations in the movie Gravity is not an accurate representation of how things work.

[that one in the corner]

Re: why stop there?

> the movie Gravity is not an accurate representation of how things work

Very true; never have understood why Clooney's character, supposedly the most experienced astronaut on that flight, decided to commit suicide.

Hmm, if physics really did run on drama like that, would we have more countdowns safely ending at 1 or more explosions for no apparent reason? Probably need to watch a few more historical documents and keep count.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: why stop there?

"Then it can lower its orbit to dock with the ISS."

There more to it than just changing the height of the orbit. Hubble is at about 540 km with an inclination of 28.47°. The ISS is at about 420km with an inclination of 51.64°.

I don't own a copy of KSP, but I'm guessing the inclination change could be more expensive than the altitude change.

[Vulch]

Re: why stop there?

Which would involve a plane change from the Hubble orbit inclined at 28.5 degrees to the ISS orbit of 51.6 degrees as well as the altitude adjustment. You'll be needing multiple Falcon 9 launches just to get the fuel into orbit for each leg of the journey.

[Anonymous Coward]

Expanding on the NASA press release

The press conference following the announcement had Jessica Jensen, vice president of customer operations and integration at SpaceX, expanding on the possibilities:

"We want to benefit Hubble. And if benefiting Hubble means not just boosting it but also providing some servicing, and that can be done with a human spaceflight mission, all the better. So, it's all on the table."

Also Jared Isaacman of Polaris Program proposed this as the second Polaris mission.

Ars Technica also reported:

The study will also look at potential servicing options, although nothing like the detailed instrument replacements and major upgrades performed during Hubble servicing missions with NASA's space shuttle. Rather, engineers from NASA and SpaceX will assess the feasibility of replacing the gyroscopes that control the pointing of the telescope. Only three of the spacecraft's six gyroscopes remain in working order.

[Boris the Cockroach]

The big

thing is dragon does not have an airlock, nor is set up to de-pressurise the entire thing so that someone can crawl out of the hatch '60s style.

And I doubt it has the capacity to take up enough spares to make the trip worthwhile.

So it would at best be 2 falcon 9 launches, one to take up a specialised cargo carrier/airlock module that can latch onto hubble , followed by the crew dragon to dock with that and fly the whole lot upto hubble's orbit.

Then fix hubble and get back.... not sure what speed the dragon's heat shield is rated to, but coming down from 500km means you'll be going lot faster than coming down from 300km......

As for docking hubble with the ISS..... 30 degree plane change... plus dropping the orbit 200km...... not going to happen.... a quick run in KSP proves that.

[dave 76]

Re: The big

Jared Isaacman and the Polaris Program have already planned to do an EVA from a Dragon next year.

In their previous mission they tested the Dragon going high enough to be able to reach Hubble.

So yes, there is lots of complexity to be worked through but planning is already underway.

[Fruit and Nutcase]

Where is

the *cough* X-37B *cough*?

Could that (also) assist?

[Binraider]

Re: Where is

It can get there, and probably grab the satellite. But then what?

75kg of human plus a toolkit can adapt to a lot more problems than any robot.

[Ken Hagan]

Re: Where is

"75kg of human plus a toolkit can adapt to a lot more problems than any robot"

This is Earth orbit we're talking about. Comms latency is measured in milliseconds. The lard-arsed human can stay on the ground and we only need to send the toolkit up there.

[MachDiamond]

Re: Where is

"the *cough* X-37B *cough*?

Could that (also) assist?"

I think it would take a new model. The X-37 was built as a sensor platform to bolt on various types of cameras and antennas. Given the lengths of the missions it's done and how often it's changed orbits while on those missions, it's a good guess there is a fair amount of internal space dedicated to fuel storage.

[Binraider]

As I understand it the major headaches for Hubble at the minute are the systems that let it point where it’s going. Lob a dragon up full of reaction wheels and mono prop, bolt onto the tail of the telescope and voila?

[DevOpsTimothyC]

at no cost to the US government

I'm guessing that little snippet includes "at no cost to NASA". I'm just wondering how they will convince anyone to shell out millions to do this on their own dime

[rcxb]

Lyrics by Hubble...

If I told you I was down, I was down, would you lift me up?

Lift me up above this

The flames and the ashes

Lift me up and help me to fly away

Lift me up above this

So when you see me crashing

And there's nowhere left to fall

Will you lift me even higher

To rise above this all?

Take me up higher, reach for the top

Higher and higher, don't ever wanna stop