When Hubble is finally obsolete and no longer useful..

FYI
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7164139.stm

I love these
news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/0...st_images/html/1.stm .

I can't wait to my webcam .

Burn baby BURN!

Spend the mula on something worthwhile.
Actually, I think there is something rather noble in sending
it to a fiery death.

Like Mir back in, was it 2001. Except, we won't get to see that fiery display either...

Hubble still has this fascination, like Mir did, and Shuttle still does. It's kind of hard to let go I guess. If you were a longtime project manager for any of them, you's not want to see your foster child taken away from you. But there is a point to live and let burn - and use that otherwise redundant money (I mean, look at the whole adaptive optics issue already mentioned) to better use.

Seanie.

Sorry for resurrecting this thread, but thought it ok, as I started it anyway!

Just reading in Sky at Night the article from Sir patrick Moore regarding hubble. He presented a terriffic idea. Rather than letting it burn up in a controlled re-entry, why not push it into a stable orbit where it can rest in silence until we have the technology to bring it back.

Chances are in the next 20-40 years we will have spacecraft with the ability to retrieve it if not, then it will happilly wait for us to do so.

I know its just a machine, but like the model of the first telephone, or the first attempts at computers, or rory gallaghars stratocaster, we do become attached and awe inspired by inanimate objects. I still think it would be a great shame to burn hubble, as it was one of the greatest instruments that man made to help us understand the universe better. im sure nasa wont listen to Patrick though and it will burn.

Interesting concept Fintan, the idea of it being left in a higher orbit until it is time to 'resurrect' it. What first comes to my mind as a problem might be the orbit's decay. Even if left in a geostationary orbit far out, many satellites already there I THINK have their own engines to make minor corrections from time to time. Hubble, as far as I know, has no engines whatsoever. Prior missions for repairs and upgrades always coincided with a need to boost its decaying orbit to a new height. Atmospheric drag always gets in the way over time, but some satellites have onboard thrusters for long life ability to correct itself.

I could be wrong about the engines...

Seanie.

hmm, forgot it doesnt have thrusters. in the likely event that they wont be fitted at the next servicing mission, are there any way the gyros could be used to stablize its orbit.

I cant find any specs describing how the gyro's do their job, but if they can rotate the craft, then surely theres a way to covert their movement into forward thrust. even if its miniscule, it might do the trick.