How come they can’t bring the Hubble Space Telescope down and repair it?
Dennis C asked:
I was watching a documentary the other day and it said that the Hubble Space Telescope is in danger of falling apart and just drifting off into space (or crashing on Earth) because it has long past its due date. But besides the obvious “there’s not enough money” what’s preventing NASA from just retrieving the telescope and repairing it on Earth and sending it back up?
This entry was posted
on Thursday, July 23rd, 2009 at 12:00 am and is filed under Astronomy & Space.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
I was watching a documentary the other day and it said that the Hubble Space Telescope is in danger of falling apart and just drifting off into space (or crashing on Earth) because it has long past its due date. But besides the obvious “there’s not enough money” what’s preventing NASA from just retrieving the telescope and repairing it on Earth and sending it back up?
July 25th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
Two trips to repair by bringing it back, versus one trip to repair on site. Difference of $400 million. And the risks, as space flight is dangerous (hello, remember the two shuttles lost?)
July 25th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
And you thought a fighter jet on an aircraft carrier was a bitch to land…
July 27th, 2009 at 8:19 pm
Well, first things first: Hubble isn’t in danger of drifting away at all. In fact, sooner or later its orbit will decay and it will reenter and (mostly) burn up in the atmosphere, probably within our lifetimes. But it’s not in danger of doing that, either, in the near future.
I think what’s preventing what you describe is that it would cost too much to send up a shuttle to go get it and bring it down, then do work on it, then send it back up on another shuttle, and HOPE it doesn’t get damaged on the way up. It’s much more cost-effective to repair it in place, like we just did. And considering the age of its computers and other equipment, it’s more cost-effective to replace than to return it to Earth, refurbish, and replace in orbit.
July 28th, 2009 at 9:31 am
The reason is money.
July 30th, 2009 at 9:32 pm
There is no need to.
The Hubble telescope has recently been refurbished while sill in space. Astronauts went to it in the shuttle and replaced the worn out and broken parts. The result is that it is now better than it was when it was new.
Eventually parts will wear out again, but hopefully by that time, the new Ares rocket will be ready to support another repair mission.
August 1st, 2009 at 5:20 am
Strictly cost.
August 1st, 2009 at 5:03 pm
first of all,i am really sad to inform you that the documentary that you saw was old and hubble telescope is no more. It has already been destroyed by NASA this february.the reason for its destroyment were:-
1.it was not possible for Nasa to repair it in Space due to inpresence of gravitational force in space which is unsuitable for vital equipments to work in space.
2.It was so huge that it can’t be loaded on space shuttle and brought to earth.
3.reparing cost was so huge that it was unbearable.
August 2nd, 2009 at 5:20 pm
cost, and limited resources. the remaining shuttle flights are already fully committed.
the original plan was in fact to retrieve hubble and put it in the smithsonian. a shuttle can do this, though it is right at the limit for permissible landing weights. this would cost over half a billion dollars. do you want to pay for this?
hubble is 1970s technology with flawed optics. even if we did bring it back, it would be far more useful scintifically to build a new telescope and launch it. which is what we’re doing.
August 5th, 2009 at 10:00 pm
If we bring it down, fix it and then put it back up you risk more damage by moving it around. Rocket launches aren’t exactly smooth. Also, remember that Hubble is in zero G. That means that those huge lenses carry little weight, so the fixing may be easier in zero G. The Hubble might also not be able to support its own weight here on Earth anymore. I’m interested in the metallurgical changes to Hubbles’ outer hull for these years in orbit. The constant cold temperature, zero gravity and solar radiation could have affected Hubbles’ structural integrity.
You also may have some wiring and electronic components that could impacted by being brought back down too.
August 7th, 2009 at 1:53 am
there is technically nothing preventing NASA from bringing the telescope down to earth and repair it, then send it back up. however, it costs about $1.5 million US to launch a shuttle into orbit. to make two trips, one to bring the hubble down and the other to send it back up will cost NASA over $3 million US.
August 8th, 2009 at 8:06 pm
It is much more than just an issue of just costs. Logistics would be practically impossible. The Hubble is very large. In order to “bring it down” Astronauts would have to disassemble it. It would take several missions with space walks that would be very difficult. People don’t understand that a space walk is the most difficult task that astronauts undertake. Unfortunately when the Hubble comes down, it is going to have to be through the atmosphere.
August 10th, 2009 at 12:51 am
Are you aware that they already repaired it in May, 2009? They decided it was worth the cost and risk after all.
Hubble was designed to be serviced in space. And the shuttle cargo bay makes a perfect garage, with a robot arm to hold the Hubble and all the tools needed.
And as others said, bringing it down to repair it would take two shuttle flights, one to bring it down and and another to put it back in orbit. That is twice the cost and twice the risk of one flight.
August 11th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
Costs would be as astronomical as the pictures it takes.
The cost to retrieve something that delicate and large would be far greater than the cost of a typical pair of launches and landings. It would probably have to be disassembled and sent back in large pieces, since I believe that is how it was constructed - as a series of major subassemblies.
August 15th, 2009 at 3:57 am
they should have run a tether from the hubble to earth, and they could have simply reeled it in to fix it, and afterwards let it go back up
lack of foresight, it would seem