It's a logical question. After all, it would be handy if every time the Hubble Space Telescope went on the fritz, an astronaut could reach out the window of the space station and give it a whack. Unfortunately, not only is that setup nearly impossible, being docked to the ISS would impair Hubble's performance.
Hubble's orbit is 350 miles above Earth and set at a 28.5-degree angle relative to the equator. Just bringing the scope to the ISS's 52-degree orientation would require a tremendous amount of rocket power, but getting it to the station's orbit 150 miles below would kill it. The descent would generate enough atmospheric drag to damage the scope's solar panels. Worse, the space around the ISS is full of gases, liquids and other debris jettisoned from the station that could gum up Hubble's optics.
Assuming that it could survive the trip, attaching it to the station would make it almost unusable, says chief Hubble engineer John Grunsfeld. It captures such highly detailed images because it's free from any disturbances, atmospheric or otherwise. It's designed to stay very, very still. "Once its camera locks onto an object, it's unflinchable," Grunsfeld says. The vibrations of gear on the ISS would make such observations impossible.
For now, Hubble will stay right where it is. As Space Telescope Science Institute news director Ray Villard puts it, "they just weren't made for each other."
Then Why don't we take the station up to it?
06/14/10 at 1:28 pm
Then Why don't we take the station up to it?
"the space around the ISS is full of gases, liquids and other debris jettisoned from the station that could gum up Hubble’s optics"
Also, the amount of power to move the ISS would be far more than to move Hubble. "Some truths we hold to be self-evident."
If freedom means anything, it is the liberty to tell others what they do not want to hear.
That would be incredibly unwise to bring the ISS up to Hubble. For one, the article clearly states why they should not be mated together, gases and debris surrounding ISS AND the fact that Hubble has to be perfectly still to capture its beautiful photos. Lets also consider this, If the sole purpose of bringing Hubble to the ISS is for easier,cheaper repairs, then bringing up the ISS to Hubbles orbit would be even more costly in the long run(not to mention the incredible amount of power it would take to bring up the mass of the ISS 150 more miles). Now instead of every few years making one trip to Hubbles orbit, we would have to spend the extra money on a much more regualr basis just bringing astronauts and supplies to that same orbit. Very counterintuitive.
why not attach them? because they are really in a studio in Hollywood lol (kidding)
So howabout a spacecraft docked to the ISS that the crew could use to service other spacecraft, so we dont have to do a shuttle launch to service them?
OOOOOO yeah I almost forgot we soon wont have a space shuttle, or any other way to get to space THANKS OMBAMA!
I wouldn't blame Obama for killing the space shuttle. It has been dying for a long time. They have been pouring.... er I mean wasting money trying to build a new one for 30 years. Plenty of people have screwed up and pulled the plug on possible viable replacements. NASA is awful about budgeting their money. They were already 30% over budget and not even closed to finish. Obama didn't burn that cash, NASA did. Dont get me wrong I want to see a new shuttle in Space too, I just dont think its all Obamas fault. I hate to say it but we are learning a LOT more from unmanned missions at a mere fraction of the cost. Obama plan will actually increase scientific discoveries. But yes it more than a scientific discovery to put man back on the moon or mars. It is a testimony to the American people and human race that we can do such a thing.
We should use a shuttle stationed at the ISS. Construct the necessary support infrastructure such as a fuel station that could be refueled by automated vehicles with the technology developed through the European Space Agency (something as simple as a tank that could float at a safe distance from the ISS). Then the crew of the ISS wouldn't be too limited and could conduct missions with the station as a base. The shuttle would also serve as a great life boat. I wonder what the cost of such a task would be? Let's give them a shuttle!
A more reasonable question would be: Why not keep the HST at its design altitude, but move it into the same orbital plane as the ISS? The 13 deg. plane change maneuver might be accomplished over several months with an electrodynamic tether. (The electrodynamic tether would be reeled in after use. ) It would then be relatively easy to transfer from the ISS to the HST and back for routine or emergency purposes. I fear, however, that the HST may be hardwired to a 28 deg inclination and wouldn't be able to function at 51 deg. I also fear a bureaucratic "not invented here" put-off response to any such suggestions. It might still be worth asking however. --GDN
The space around the ISS is a junk yard in the sky. That being the case the bigger question is the sustainability of this rotting junk itself. The premise here is that mankind and the US in particular along with others just junk and dump all kinds of garbage with reckless abandon and impunity and the sky is not the only place.
The ocean bed is far more cluttered with hundreds of millions of tons of such discarded equipment and other stuff that is cheaper to left down there or up in the sky then retrieved and
transported to some where on earth to be left and rot.
The Gulf of Mexico with close to over 5000 oil wells and rigs just under the US control is a tip of the iceberg . The impetus is out of sight out of mind.
You can't bring the ISS up to Hubble orbit because it's a longer jump back to Earth in case of emergency.
Well that just gives them more panic time lol