I guess this proves my ignorance (and inability to grasp time on a universal scale). I thought, “Near the end of its life. So that’s, what? 2-5 years, tops?”

But a million? He he!

Is it a sign?

Yup, I guess so. But still …

I know it costs a lot yet still surely with all the money thrown around elsewehere (Cough, Iraq war, cough, Corporate bail-outs, cough) you’d imagine they could spare a relative little for raising the HST’s orbit to give it a century or so longer… & in that time who knows how things may change.

Still I must agree with you when it comes to the Apollo 13 LEM too. Quite a different craft & significance but also a magnificent, historical piece of engineering genius.

“Would that have its advantages?”

Not really. Firstly, the amount of fuel needed to boost it from Earth orbit to near Earth escape velocity is considerable. Then you’d need more fuel to brake it into lunar orbit. Finally, orbits around the Moon are unstable, due to (IIRC) mass concentrations in the Moon itself, and interaction with the Earth. So we’d be unlikely to get much use of it before it created its own crater on the Moon rather than burning up in the Earth’s atmosphere.

“Like others here, I find the thought of the Hubble just burning up a waste and very saddening.”

I agree too. But I don’t think the alternatives are that practical.

“I’d like the HST saved and treasured when its scientific use ends – and I’d like its scientific use continued as long as possible.”

The problem is that Hubble servicing missions are very expensive (and I understand actually quite dangerous), and I doubt NASA would willingly take money from other worthy projects.

Theoretically Hubble could be boosted into a higher orbit. But in practical terms what would that achieve? How many people could be expected to visit it in the next century? I’d suggest the most likely answer is none. So it doesn’t really cut it as a museum exhibit.

On that basis, the only logical thing left to do is deorbit it as safely as possible. If that sounds uninspirational, remember that Jim Lovell was disappointed there was no way to save “Aquarius”, the LM which kept him and his crewmates alive on Apollo 13. If ever there was a spacecraft which deserved to be put in a museum for people to admire, it was “Aquarius”.

Phil Plait said : (April 21st, 2009 at 9:57 pm)

Oops! I fixed the date. That’ll learn me for writing too quickly.

Yup. I do that all the flippin’ time too.

Unfortunately I can’t correct my posts here like Phil can.

Please, oh please BA, when, o when, are we going to be able to edit and correct our posts here?

Or even just preview them beforehand?

I know I should learn to type better and check more carefully but somehow .. the mistakes always become apparent just after I’ve clicked ’submit’ & not before. *Sigh*

***

I know a few little typos aren’t that big a deal but still it just bugs me.

& if the typos don’t get you the italics or whatever html coding will.

PS. Could we get the italics, bold, & underline buttons to click on here instead of html coedes please? Could we also get a list here somewhere of how to do all these html-y things & emoticons etc ..?

I love your blog BA, <3 absolutely love it! But having all these things would make it justso-oo much better yet!

PS. StevoR = StevoRaine, I also use a couple of other tags occassionally (eg. ‘Plutonium being from Pluto’ for variety and when it best suits. Hope this is okay with everyone.

Oops! I fixed the date. That’ll learn me for writing too quickly.

Yup. I do that all the flippin’ time too.

Unfortunately I can’t correct my posts here like Phil can.

Plesae, oh please BA, when, o when, are we going tobe able to edit and corect our posts here? Or even just preview them beforehand?

I know I should learn to type better and check more carefully but somehow .. the mistakes always become apparent just after I’ve clicked ‘submit’ & not befroe. *Sigh*

Would that have its advantages?

Like others here, I find the thought of the Hubble just burning up a waste and very saddening.

I’d like the HST saved and treasured when its scientific use ends – and I’d like its scientific use continued as long as possible.

I’m sure there’s a way. How about this? wrapping it in a waterproof/heatproof sack. Strap on a box with basic guidance sensors, communication and 3 rockets. Give the box a parachute it can deploy. Then use the rockets to decelerate it and drop it in the ocean.

why to deorbit it at all ? Just boost it to orbit high enough to stay there, and leave it there till we come again and either repair it, or, with a better craft, we bring it safely to earth.

Phiiiiiiiiil… wheres the GLiese 581d post?

Seconded by me – I heard something on my local midday news about two more exoplanets round the star “Gliese” (they dropped the numerals) one the smallest earthlike planet abut tooclose and hot and another intherightzone but too masive. That it?

That’s meant to read :

[on the red supergiant going supernovae possibility]

True enough. Mind you, blue supergiants can ALSO be at the end of their lives & go supernova too.

Remember Supernova 1987 A in the Large Magellanic Cloud which came from the blue supergiant star Sanduleak (or Sk) -69 202? Other examples also exist incl. Wolf-Rayet stars being expected to detonate as supernovae and I think I recall reading about a reddish-yellow supergiant going supernova soon after SN1987 A too. So NOT all type II supernovae arise from red supergiants. Even if many do.

I’m looking forward to Eta Carinae, Betelgeux or Antares exploding myself!

@MadScientist: What’s the point in keeping junk anywhere (museums)? Space is pretty big. I’m sure there’s room for a few historically significant and popular museum pieces.

Museums are great for educating, informing and allowing us all to get in touch with a whole tonne of things. They are like art galleries in enabling everyone to appreciate, learn about and enjoy what they contain.

Personally, I love museums and wish more power to them!

“Junk” like beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Oh, one more thing: check out the top of that smaller image. See that one star that’s glowing an evil red? That’s probably an evolved star, a red supergiant. If it is, that means it may very well be the next star to go in this scene; red supergiants are stars at the very ends of their lives. It may have less than a million years before it detonates and becomes a supernova, and will outshine the combined light of the galaxies around it.

Ture enough but, mind you, blue supergiants can go be at theend of their lives & go supernova too.

Remember Supernova 1987 A in the Large Magellanic Cloud whuich came from the blue supergiant star Sanduleak (or Sk) -69 202?

I’m not sure about the politics of naming the space observatories though; how can Jim Webb be compared with Edwin Hubble? Regardless of the name, I hope they get the bird safely into orbit.

We probably can’t bring her back but why burn her up? Couldn’t we boost her to a higher stable orbit? She’d be there forever. Smithsonian in space so to speak.