On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 02:46:18 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3128@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Rather than let it de-orbit and mostly burn up. This scope is arguably more important than many of the vintage ground based scopes, it's history so it should be preserved. Better yet, upgraded and fixed, as they proposed in 2017.

Well, considering all of the real science that could be done with the
billions that would cost, I'd opt for letting it burn up.

On 24/03/2022 19:15, RichA wrote:
> On Thursday, 24 March 2022 at 09:27:25 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 02:46:18 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Rather than let it de-orbit and mostly burn up. This scope is arguably more important than many of the vintage ground based scopes, it's history so it should be preserved. Better yet, upgraded and fixed, as they proposed in 2017.
>> Well, considering all of the real science that could be done with the
>> billions that would cost, I'd opt for letting it burn up.
>
> "Billions?" Why? To fix it, or bring it back? Besides; they squandered $200B on the ISS to see...if mice would mate in zero G!!!! What's a couple billion more?
>
There is no vehicle available at present that could possibly bring it
down with a soft landing. Multiple billions would be needed to develop
one and even then it might not work first time. I doubt if the space
shuttle could have landed with the additional mass of the HST on it.

ISTR it could deploy and/or bring some smaller spy satellites back down
intact (though its capabilities in this regime were classified).

Turning it around this offer looks promising although I wonder about the
mirror figure for an Earth reconnaissance satellite vs an astronomical
one with the target truly at infinity.

https://www.space.com/16000-spy-satellites-space-telescopes-nasa.html

Any news on that? They should be ready just about now...

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 12:15:46 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3128@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Thursday, 24 March 2022 at 09:27:25 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 02:46:18 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >Rather than let it de-orbit and mostly burn up. This scope is arguably more important than many of the vintage ground based scopes, it's history so it should be preserved. Better yet, upgraded and fixed, as they proposed in 2017.
>> Well, considering all of the real science that could be done with the
>> billions that would cost, I'd opt for letting it burn up.
>
>"Billions?" Why? To fix it, or bring it back? Besides; they squandered $200B on the ISS to see...if mice would mate in zero G!!!! What's a couple billion more?

The real boondoggle was the Space Shuttle. Every HST repair mission
cost more than launching a new telescope would have cost.

Yes, a billion or more, at the very least.

On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 8:47:38 PM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 12:15:46 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, 24 March 2022 at 09:27:25 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> >> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 02:46:18 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >Rather than let it de-orbit and mostly burn up. This scope is arguably more important than many of the vintage ground based scopes, it's history so it should be preserved. Better yet, upgraded and fixed, as they proposed in 2017.
> >> Well, considering all of the real science that could be done with the
> >> billions that would cost, I'd opt for letting it burn up.
> >
> >"Billions?" Why? To fix it, or bring it back? Besides; they squandered $200B on the ISS to see...if mice would mate in zero G!!!! What's a couple billion more?
> The real boondoggle was the Space Shuttle. Every HST repair mission
> cost more than launching a new telescope would have cost.
>
> Yes, a billion or more, at the very least.

That's why NASA got rid of it, it was a white elephant.

On 25/03/2022 03:47, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 12:15:46 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3128@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, 24 March 2022 at 09:27:25 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 02:46:18 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Rather than let it de-orbit and mostly burn up. This scope is arguably more important than many of the vintage ground based scopes, it's history so it should be preserved. Better yet, upgraded and fixed, as they proposed in 2017.
>>> Well, considering all of the real science that could be done with the
>>> billions that would cost, I'd opt for letting it burn up.
>>
>> "Billions?" Why? To fix it, or bring it back? Besides; they squandered $200B on the ISS to see...if mice would mate in zero G!!!! What's a couple billion more?
>
> The real boondoggle was the Space Shuttle. Every HST repair mission
> cost more than launching a new telescope would have cost.

The space shuttle was an impressive piece of technology for the day and
reusable. It had a few too many single point failure modes though.
>
> Yes, a billion or more, at the very least.

I don't think there are any re-entry vehicles at present that could
accommodate the HST and bring it down in one piece so you would have to
factor in that additional development cost as well as launching it.

The unflown spare is entirely adequate for museum display purposes.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 15:07:28 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

>On 25/03/2022 03:47, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 12:15:46 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3128@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday, 24 March 2022 at 09:27:25 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 02:46:18 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Rather than let it de-orbit and mostly burn up. This scope is arguably more important than many of the vintage ground based scopes, it's history so it should be preserved. Better yet, upgraded and fixed, as they proposed in 2017.
>>>> Well, considering all of the real science that could be done with the
>>>> billions that would cost, I'd opt for letting it burn up.
>>>
>>> "Billions?" Why? To fix it, or bring it back? Besides; they squandered $200B on the ISS to see...if mice would mate in zero G!!!! What's a couple billion more?
>>
>> The real boondoggle was the Space Shuttle. Every HST repair mission
>> cost more than launching a new telescope would have cost.
>
>The space shuttle was an impressive piece of technology for the day and
>reusable. It had a few too many single point failure modes though.
>>
>> Yes, a billion or more, at the very least.
>
>I don't think there are any re-entry vehicles at present that could
>accommodate the HST and bring it down in one piece so you would have to
>factor in that additional development cost as well as launching it.
>
>The unflown spare is entirely adequate for museum display purposes.

The least expensive option I've seen is to utilize a robotic mission
to boost the HST into a much higher orbit, where it could be retrieved
decades from now by much less expensive technology. But that's still
an expensive mission that seems very hard to justify.

On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 8:30:35 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

> The least expensive option I've seen is to utilize a robotic mission
> to boost the HST into a much higher orbit, where it could be retrieved
> decades from now by much less expensive technology. But that's still
> an expensive mission that seems very hard to justify.

Yes, I would have to regrettably agree. Space launches are incredibly expensive,
and so they can't really be undertaken for sentimental reasons. Of course, if
companies like SpaceX could do it for a relatively low price (under, say, $10 million)
I might think differently.

John Savard