Neither one is a particularly good story - they're both End Of Life stories.
The long lead time story is about the Hubble Space Telescope
If we were to mention just the phrase "space telescope", my impression is that a fairly large percentage of the population would only know about the HST; it has been up there the longest and gotten the most press mentions over the years. Proportionally fewer people will know that the Hubble has been slowly getting superseded by the James Webb and now the Nancy Grace Roman telescopes.
If you've been aware of the HST since its launch, this story is even a redo of a similar story years ago, but NASA is now asking for ideas of how to save the HST and keep it doing science after its expected EOL. Something I suspect very few HST fans know is that the last time the telescope was lifted to a higher orbit to help delay its reentry into the atmosphere and destruction was by a Space Shuttle (Columbia) and not in 2011's last couple of shuttle flights. It was in 2002 - Columbia's disaster was in '03. The current estimates for when Hubble reenters and burns up are in "the early-to-mid-2030s". There are orbital dynamicists that currently predict probable reentry in 2033 or 2034, but solar activity can interfere with that prediction. In either case, it's not exactly really soon, but time to ask for ways to keep it running.
The space agency released a Request For Information (RFI) on Thursday (10/29) asking commercial companies for ideas on how to reboost, service, or conduct a controlled disposal of Hubble. Responses are due November 30. Specifically, NASA is looking for information about companies’ current and near-term capabilities for capturing Hubble and boosting it to an altitude of at least 373 miles (600 km), enhancing the telescope’s performance, or guiding Hubble to a controlled reentry.
“The requirement includes that the boost and/or servicing mission must not harm the HST and that this mission is expected to occur by 2032,” NASA wrote in the RFI. The contractor would be responsible for providing the launch vehicle, servicing spacecraft, mission operations, and “crew if applicable.”
This has to be bounded by reality and part of that has to be that HST was launched in 1990, so it's undoubtedly the best of mid-1980s technology (to be charitable) and just turned 36 years old. How much money is it worth spending on the HST? Being 36 years old implies that there's a better chance that they could drop a couple of hundred million on boosting its orbit higher and another important part then fails almost immediately.
Last year, on Hubble's 35th "birthday", I did a post that was a bit of overview of the 35 years including details on problems with Hubble's main mirror, the Corrective Optics fix (COSTAR) and more history.
The other mission will be over within weeks
The other mission is the SWIFT Gamma Ray observatory, which we spent a lot of time talking about back earlier in the year, because of the effort to send a rescue satellite up to SWIFT's orbit, grab onto it, and push it to a higher orbit. The mission, which was remarkable in many ways, eventually failed and NASA had no choice but to end the mission and prepare for SWIFT to reenter.
The telescope launched to Earth orbit in November 2004, tasked with studying gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) — the most powerful explosions in the cosmos. Swift was designed to operate for two years, but it continued studying the high-energy universe for more than two decades.
Launching in 2004 and making it to 2026 isn't as impressive as HST's 36 years (so far), but it's still a good performance from that satellite. IMO, the conversation about saving SWIFT got started too late, and a contract wasn't awarded until September 2025. Arizona-based Katalyst Space Technologies came up with a concept, a design, and launched it on July 3rd, a little over nine months after they won the $30 million contract.
NASA’s Neil Gehrels Swift Observatory, shown in this artist’s concept, has orbited Earth for more than 20 years, studying the ever-changing universe. Credit: NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center Conceptual Image Lab
Spaceweather.com adds:
NASA's Space Weather Operational Readiness Development Center predicts reentry on Nov. 3rd at 16:18 UTC +/- 12 hours. The Aerospace Corporation says Nov. 4th at 09:30 UTC +/- 26 hours. Uncontrolled reentries are hard to pin down, and the orbit is decaying fast. Only in the final hours will we know for sure when and where it will re-enter.
Hubble is an unused Keyhole satellite with altered optics, so its 1950-1970s technology launched in 1990. So its actually 50 year old technology. Should it saved: yes.
ReplyDeleteBeing an unused Keyhole sat doesn't really mean much. The optical design, is a Ritchey–Chrétien catadioptric telescope, and those were invented in the 19- teens - so hundred year old technology.
DeleteThe only things that 50s to 70s thing affects is the exact technology used. If the electronics designs call out an old part, they'll still use newly manufactured ones - or design in a different one. If there have been design changes to reduce the parts count or other do things like change ROM or RAM parts for more memory in the same space, those upgrades still happen. Obsolete parts that have to be replaced come up all the time. It's not like there's a fleet of space telescopes that have all their circuitry replaced if a part changes or goes obsolete.
Whist we have more commonality in satellite bus design, driven largely by the need to meet payload design characteristics within the orbital insertion stage of the delivery rocket, there is significant variation in the design characteristics of satellites, largely driven by their intended purpose. Orbital docking was very much driven initially by the Gemini and Apollo programs and refined via the ISS. Standardisation of the docking adaptor was essential for the required crew and re-supply missions. But satellite docking, not so much, at least in the public domain. You would have to look (if you can) at military technology for applications of satellite capture for offensive / defensive purposes. However, as we’ve seen with the attempted Katalyst Space mission this is hard to do in the rendezvous and capture phase, let alone trying to predict the effect of the torque induced by the thrusters of the rescue craft on the structural integrity, spin and new orbit insertion of the captured satellite.
ReplyDeleteWhat would be clearly ideal is a standardised capture component for satellites that are required to orbit for extensive periods in LEO and subject to variable atmospheric drag over time. This of course add further complexity and costs to satellite designers who will be struggling to keep mass to orbit a low as practically possible.
The upcoming commercial Starship capability will ease the mass to orbit burden to a great extent, but I think we’re a long way from standardised capture capability.
Somewhat off topic but thinking about mass constraints on mission designs, some years ago I was reading about the effect of Martian dust accumulation on the electrical output the solar panels of one of the earlier Mars rovers. The dust deposition was so great that it threatened the viability of the entire mission. Fortuitously, a Martian dust devil hit the rover and its winds blew off sufficient dust from the panels to restore functionality.
I recall thinking at the time just how lucky the mission team were given the thin Martian atmosphere. So, wouldn’t experience of this lead to the inclusion of wiper blades on the panels of future missions?
Apparently not. The rover design team had considered this in the context of operational life of the rover and yet, the old adversary, additional mass still precluded it.
Excellent comment, Will.
DeleteI remember that story of the rover getting some extra time due to the dust devil. It made me wonder if there were ways to get rid it of for future missions. Would wipers help, or just smear it out? Would wiping dust cause scratches in the glass - like you'll see on some older cars - and would that worsen performance of the panels by making the obstruction more permanent?