The Hubble Space Telescope could get an new repair mission.

[tater]

Though they are much shorter focal length, they are still telescopes, just suitable for wide field astronomically. Wide field is valuable for astronomy minus the atmosphere (any telescope with the infinitely better seeing in space is valuable) if cheap enough. If it is indeed just the optics, and not the entire spacecraft, then it's not terribly cheap, however.

I was (wrongly) under the impression that the "telescopes" given were in fact complete spacecraft, not just partial optics. That changes everything. If it's a matter of slapping new detectors in an otherwise complete craft, and using it for whatever it might be used for (survey work, sans atmospheric distortion, for example), then it's fine. If it requires building a spacecraft around it, then it would be better to design the optics for the desired wavelength/task from scratch.

Edited March 5, 2017 by tater

[DerekL1963]

2 hours ago, tater said:

Though they are much shorter focal length, they are still telescopes, just suitable for wide field astronomically. Wide field is valuable for astronomy minus the atmosphere (any telescope with the infinitely better seeing in space is valuable) if cheap enough. If it is indeed just the optics, and not the entire spacecraft, then it's not terribly cheap, however.

It's not even the entire optics, it's just the primary mirror.

[Teilnehmer]

14 hours ago, wumpus said:

Hiring Soyuz and managing to get to that plane is even worse (there is a reason that ISS isn't anywhere near Hubble, and it isn't to protect Hubble).

Cargo Soyuz rockets are launched from Kourou.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_at_the_Guiana_Space_Centre

Is it possible to launch a crewed Soyuz spaceship from there?

Edited March 5, 2017 by Teilnehmer

[DerekL1963]

2 hours ago, Teilnehmer said:

Is it possible to launch a crewed Soyuz spaceship from there?

No.  There's no pad infrastructure to support manned launches.

[wumpus]

20 hours ago, tater said:

HST is a modified Keyhole. That's why the mirror is the size it is, and not the size of the initial design that was proposed.

Keyhole drove the size of the cargo bay of the shuttle, and the cargo bay size determined the size of Hubble.  Any similarity is based on the similar mission profiles.  There was at least one claim that the NSA (possibly NRO) tried to warn NASA about vibrations due to warming, but it was so subtle and without explanation that NASA saw no reason to follow it up (NSA was still "Never Say Anything" at the time).

I'd be surprised if NASA (or APL) would be all that interested in a primary mirror with "the wrong" focal length.  I'd also wonder how much NSA/NRO had to massage the thing to erase any active optics from it (they aren't *quite* so secret anymore, but I doubt anyone has bothered to declassify enough to simply hand it over).

About the only advantage I could think about having a primary mirror in hand would be that Hubble's had a long lead time.  Getting a NASA mission off the ground as fast as possible is likely a huge key to success: if the political winds of Washington DC change, you could easily have your project canceled.  Missions already in space are harder to cancel.

[Reusables]

I'm sure that this news is just a scam. There is no need for HST, since the visible region could be covered by ground telescopes with adaptive optics now.(Obviously cheaper&better) This is why JWST is going to be near-infrared telescope.

Hubble can work with near ultraviolet and near infrared wavelengths, but it shouldn't be effective compared to the visible light. I think it isn't worth the maintenance cost.

[wumpus]

7 hours ago, Abastro said:

I'm sure that this news is just a scam. There is no need for HST, since the visible region could be covered by ground telescopes with adaptive optics now.(Obviously cheaper&better) This is why JWST is going to be near-infrared telescope.

Hubble can work with near ultraviolet and near infrared wavelengths, but it shouldn't be effective compared to the visible light. I think it isn't worth the maintenance cost.

Which would make the keyhole mirrors make a lot more sense.  They were designed with active optics in mind (although I still expect as much scrubbed away as possible) so would work well on the ground.  Presumably with two (or however many available) optically linked.  Keep them on the ground and your telescope is just as good and vastly cheaper.

[TheKorbinjer]

On 2/16/2017 at 8:59 PM, Bill Phil said:

Good lucking moving it.

1. Launch a shuttle to grab it.

2. adjust inc so it matches ISS

3. wait for closest approach

4. get close to ISS

5. Detatch HST, let ISS Arm grab and dock it

6. dock shuttle (where else would you put it)

7. when repairs are finished, undo everything from step 2 to 6

I mean, let's spend 300 million dollars doing this, i have the money right here...

[Teilnehmer]

3 hours ago, TheKorbinger said:

adjust inc so it matches ISS
…
undo everything

Δv > 6 km/s.

Sending it to an orbit around Phobos takes less Δv

Edited March 6, 2017 by Teilnehmer

[TheKorbinjer]

12 minutes ago, Teilnehmer said:

Δv > 6 km/s.

Sending it to an orbit around Phobos takes less Δv

Wow. Impressive. 

 

SpaceX can do it!

kappa

[Ten Key]

[cantab]

It would be great if Hubble stays working as long as possible. It has capability JWST will not, being able to see the full visible spectrum and into the UV. Also if Hubble and JWST are operating together this allows their observations to be combined better than if Hubble is shut down sooner. And ground-based telescopes can't match Hubble's sharpness over its field - adaptive optics only sharpens a narrow part of the view - or its lack of skyglow.

That said, servicing it will not be easy, and Dream Chaser is the last thing I expect to do it. Best chance is probably to work out a servicing mission using Orion. Maybe an Orion to carry crew and EVA from could be combined with a separately launched Dragon to carry the needed cargo?

[wumpus]

On 3/6/2017 at 0:42 PM, Teilnehmer said:

Δv > 6 km/s.

Sending it to an orbit around Phobos takes less Δv

But sending your gyroscopes out to Phobos is harder.  Also you can use ion-thrusters in LEO without issue (not so true for LEO-Phobos).  But even for the huge delta-vs of ions, Hubble is a lot of mass to move 6km/s.

[JetJaguar]

Do you have a source for the donated telescopes being only mirrors?  Everything I've ever seen said that it was two complete telescopes, minus the cameras and electronics, and the primary mirror assembly for a third.  One of the scopes is being used for WFIRST, and as I understand it, financially it was about a wash.  The scope is bigger than originally planned, which required larger cameras and a bigger launch vehicle, and that ate up any savings.