With no servicing mission, Hubble will probably die in 2009 or 2010 from battery or gyro failure. At that point it will tumble and no servicing will be possible.

With the 2008 shuttle servicing mission, Hubble will definitely last until 2013, and probably much longer. The most failure-prone elements (gyros and batteries) will be totally replaced, which was not done on the previous mission. The limiting factor would then probably be orbital decay, which is governed by solar activity and amount of reboost given by the servicing mission. It could easily last until 2015 or even 2020.

The difference in operating life between the "repair" and "no repair" options is probably at least 10 years. We know this because given no repair, it will last about 9-10 years from the prior 1999 servicing mission. The much more robust servicing mission in 2008 should allow more life extension than the prior servicing mission. NASA's conservative numbers state 2013, but this is similar to the Mars rovers having a stated 90 day mission life.

By the time Hubble requires yet another servicing mission (2015-2020), ISS possibly may not exist. NASA only plans on operating ISS until roughly that time frame.

everything needed to repair/upgrade the Hubble, will be sent with the Orion/Soyuz Hubble-repair-toolbox and, after the last (near or away from ISS) Shuttle repair mission, there is plenty of time to design, build and launch that "toolbox"
.

__________________
gaetanomarano.it
ghostNASA.com

I agree it's a (not easy to win) political challenge... but, here, I only want to explain WHY it's NOT a "too complex" TECHNICAL challenge
.

__________________
gaetanomarano.it
ghostNASA.com

So now we have to have an Orion and a Soyuz in order to pull this off? You also want to spend money on building a one-off "Hubble repair toolbox" that contains an RMS and a work platform. You also need a separate launch to get this "toolbox" into orbit. How much is this going to cost?

So with this new "plan" we need to launch the following:

1. An Orion
2. A Soyuz - Although you haven't described its role in this "plan".
3. A Hubble Toolbox

This "plan" is rapidly evolving into a complex and costly venture.

__________________
"A mystic is a person who is puzzled before the obvious but who understands the nonexistent." -- Elbert Hubbard

NASA's "three years" figure for the results of the Hubble servicing is along the lines of the "90 days" figure for the Mars rovers, i.e., the length of time that survival is virtually certain. As with the Mars rovers, it's not unreasonable to expect that the time will actually be much longer.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

maybe, the theoretical resolution is 90 m. while the (real observations) is 400 m. (however, both are too much to be useful for the lunar job)
never suggested to change the mirror ...better and sharper images may come from better sensors/electronics/computers/image-processing/etc. ...advanced interpolations, compensation of mirror's distortions, new image-processing techniques like those used for crime investigations, etc. ...using mixed hardware/software, I believe a 10x increase (or more!) may be possible in the near future (10+ years) to put Hubble (again and for the next 20+ years) at the (absolute!) TOP of ALL telescopes ...without launch a new telescopes (...to be exact: "without find the $5B+ to build a new telescopes"...)
.

__________________
gaetanomarano.it
ghostNASA.com

personal attacks and insults are useless and have zero effect on me
you may like or hate it... but my idea CAN work (it only need funds and political decisions)
.

__________________
gaetanomarano.it
ghostNASA.com

Nope...it's your approach to this subject which dictates my response. Also, observation of your single-minded determination that you can not be wrong, when you so obviously are.

Which is why I don't understand what you think continued posting will accomplish. If you really believe this to be that important, then why not share these ideas with the actual people who might make a difference??

You have insulted many people here by ignoring the accurate, scientific, fact based contributions they have made as if they are nothing. THAT is insulting. THAT is frankly, outragous considering how often you are demonstrating a fundamental lack of understanding of ANY of the spheres of knowledge required in this 'debate'.

Yes - Hubble 'could' be moved to the ISS. But it would be idiotic to do, and impossible the way you describe.

Doug

assuming your (very optimistic) prediction as true... have a working Hubble until 2020 but WITHOUT 2020's technologies' upgrade and surpassed by earth's telescopes is a NONSENSE so, the last reapir mission is USELESS ...that if it survive until 2020 ...WORST if it last in 2013...!
DON'T REPAIR IT (saving time and money) MAKE SENSE
MOVE IT near the ISS (before or after repair it) to UPGRADE and use it 20+ years, MAKE SENSE
LOSE TIME, SPEND MONEY and TAKE RISKS to have a (soon surpassed and, 3-5 years later, DEAD) telescopes (substantially) "AS IS" doesn't make ANY SENSE (at least, in my opinion)
I remember you that ISS is an "INTERNATIONAL" Space Station with a dozen of partners, so, if NASA will withdraw from it, ISS will still live 20+ years...
.

__________________
gaetanomarano.it
ghostNASA.com

Orion OR Soyuz ...however, I think that Soyuz is better for that job since it costs a (small) fraction of Orion and already has an airlock (its Orbital Module) ...of course (both) Orion and Soyuz can be used for joined missions (e.g. an ISS crew rotation + Hubble repair with the same vehicle/launch) saving very much money
all Shuttles will be retired in 2010, but, assuming they will live 20 more years and still used to repair Hubble (with an SM5, SM6, etc.) ...each servicing/upgrade mission may cost $1-2B... send a "toolbox" and repair it with a capsule have a "price" (of course) but it will be very cheap compared with a Shuttle repair mission! ...clearly, repair and upgrade Hubble will have a cost, but you can't do that COMPLETELY FREE...!
.

__________________
gaetanomarano.it
ghostNASA.com

but we need to talk around a "finite" figure... it can survive "only two years from now" (to say that "we can't move it in time") and "ten years after the last repair mission" (to say that "it not even needs to be moved AFTER repaired"...)
.

__________________
gaetanomarano.it
ghostNASA.com

no, I just support my idea posting my opinions about its various aspect (moving, upgrade, costs, etc.)
THIS is ONLY your (wrong) opinion
I doubt they'll take attention to me... I can only write articles on my website and posts on space forums
.

__________________
gaetanomarano.it
ghostNASA.com

support my opinions NEVER can be an "insult" ...your "idiotic" (against me and my proposal) actually IS an INSULT
I agree
.

__________________
gaetanomarano.it
ghostNASA.com

This thread has ceased to serve any useful purpose. Closed.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

please don't close the thread, I've other interesting things to post about this argument (graph, drawings, suggestions, etc.)

__________________
gaetanomarano.it
ghostNASA.com

Then be ready to acknowledge when someone who's understanding exceeds your own shoots your flawed ideas down.

.

this thread is open or closed?

.

__________________
gaetanomarano.it
ghostNASA.com