Can SpaceX save the Hubble Space Telescope from falling to Earth?

[@AbiGail-ok7fc]

It's sometimes hard to imagine that HST has been around for half of the space age: HST was launched 33 years ago. Sputnik 1 was launched 33 years before that.

[@mstorrboy]

And 33 years before that was the first round the world flight. Nearly 100 years to go from barely flying to leaving the solar system.

[@johnladuke6475]

@@mstorrboy And 33 years before that flight, most people answered to a king and figured internal combustion engines would never replace horses and steam locomotives. They couldn't receive a telegram without a wired connection and probably read it by candle light.

[@mstorrboy]

@@johnladuke6475 it's an interesting number

[@kernicterus1233]

@@mstorrboy Doubly interesting.

[@jerelull9629]

Good observation.

[@JPFeathe]

As someone who was just old enough to remember when Hubble launched and the early days with its lens issues, then when it first started churning out amazing images and incredible firsts for astronomy, I’ve literally grown up with this telescope! When it’s mission ends I almost feel like a stage of my life will end with it. I might actually get emotional. I’m actually gonna miss that old thing! 😢

[@Lamster66]

I'm old enough to remember SkyLab crashing back to earth. Actually I'm old enough to remember it launching. Come to think of it I watched Apollo11 launch live on TV sitting on my dad's lap.

[@JPFeathe]

@@Lamster66 what I would give to have been able to see Apollo 11 and that now famous landing. That’s awesome!

[@joakimlindblom8256]

Tossing my hat into the "old enough" competition: I'm old enough to remember Ed White's spacewalk in 1965 (I was 4 at the time). When Hubble launched, I was an astrophysics grad student at Stanford, and we were sorely disappointed when the first images from Hubble came in blurry. At first, we assumed that the optics had been knocked out of alignment in the launch and that further adjustment would fix things. We were incredulous to later find out that "most perfect mirror ever made" had been made very perfectly to exactly the wrong shape. The thinking then was that another shuttle would need to bring back Hubble to earth and be fitted with a new mirror and then relaunched, which would result in a 5 - 10 years delay before Hubble became operational (assuming the funds could be found to do this). The eventual in-orbit repair of Hubble counts as one of the top three saves of the space program, along with the saving of the Apollo 13 crew and the in-orbit repair of Skylab🙂

[@johnlarro6872]

I still sorely lament the end of the Shuttle era... Can't believe they came to an end...

[@Lamster66]

@@johnlarro6872 It was an aging program awith an increasing high$$$ maintainabce program I don't think NASA had the budget to maintain them the 2003 Columbia disaster brought that into context. I don't think they had the budget to maintain let alone renew and replace the shuttles and design new launch vehicles.

[@antonloof752]

Hi Becky, I study space technology in sweden and i love your videos. Its youtubers and other creators like you who made me choose this path and I'm loving it to bits! So thank you for inspiring me and getting me interested in space

[@stephenullman4534]

Thank you for explaining all this stuff on a level that we (regular folk) can understand. I really appreciate it. You're my favorite astrophysicist. Please don't ever stop. Us regular folk thank you!

[@bertpasquale5616]

Clarification: Atlantis serviced Hubble in 2009 (STS-125). Final flight of Atlantis was STS-135 in 2011, the final Shuttle Flight ever. I got to photograph the rollout, launch and landing.

[@bwmcelya]

Dr., if one day you find yourself near New Mexico, a visit to the Sunspot Solar Observatory might be interesting to you. While training at altitude for a bike race (9,000ft) I ducked in there one day to escape a shivering cold rain. They were kind enough to give me some cookies and hot coffee. As a photographer, I suggested they cool their film stage down with liquid nitrogen, in order to get sharper images. It worked, and I was promised free cookies forever. Went back a few more times. Cool place. Cool scientists. Enjoyed your talk about Hubble.

[@sillyjellyfish2421]

Damn, i remember being 18 and hearing that space shuttles are done after their last Hubble mission and i was DEVASTATED! I loved those things! I had a model, a lego set, for years my favourite movie was Armagedon!

[@skierpage]

Is crazy that the world has less capability for spaceships and astronauts to truck around in orbit fixing things than it did 40 years ago.

[@PaulMJohnson]

Well, while I knew Hubble (and the ISS and such like) were "dragged" back to earth because there is enough atmosphere at their altitude to gradually slow them down, I had no idea that solar storms dumped enough additional particles there to make the problem worse. I never fail to learn something interesting from your videos - thank you.

[@joey_after_midnight]

Thank you for this, I'm not an Astronomer.. but as an ordinary person.. Hubble has been a part of my life and connected us with the stars. It would be a terrible shame to loose it. Its a relic of the NASA space program, but it bridged a gap when literally everyone was Earthbound .. and now there's at least a chance to save it.

[@klepow]

I'd be sad for it's retirement, but we will all be waiting in line with baited breath, at the Smithsonian, with baited breath.

[@michaelmize1155]

I was part of the Ground Crew that worked on the 1990 Mission to Launch Hubble something for which I am very proud from my 22 years working on The Space Shuttle and Ares Programs. One thing I will never forget is that beyond wearing our nylon "Bunny Suits" to enter the Payload Bay we were required to maintain a level of "Cleanliness" 10 times that of a normal Shuttle Mission. One of the methods that was used was adhesive tape being applied to our "Eyebrows" so that there was very little chance to contaminate The Hubble. The result of entering and leaving for meals, breaks, and end of shift resulted in the loss of my eyebrows after 2 days. At least the Technicians did their part unlike the Engineers at the "Mirror Grinders" or the Quality Assurance side of NASA. ;-)

[@danilooliveira6580]

its hard to imagine a world without the HST and ISS, they have been there since before I was born (well, I was 6 when the first segment of the ISS was launched, but still).

[@gregorychaney7604]

Once again another brilliant and easily understandable video. Keep up the amazing work! Cheers from Alaska

[@hernancho007]

Becky as an engineer I may say that feasibility always comes down to timespan and budget... all the rest can be solved one way or another

[@BrianWardPlus]

1) I think they should keep it active for many more years if possible. 2) We should re-capture it, rather than let it burn up in the atmosphere. It belongs in a museum!

[@tobygreen7116]

America says they make the best products China half assed cheap as possible for max profit. America can catch a falling object from space. China Half assed Let’s it burn in the atmosphere. DO NOT BE CHINA!!!

[@joey_after_midnight]

I hope one day, 200 years from now.. the public and scientists will still be looking in on it from time to time in some sort of orbital space museum.. perhaps a new branch of the Smithsonian. Amused that people casually thought of it as disposable .. so long ago.

[@lasarith2]

Without the space shuttle and the cargo bay , there’s no way to bring it back to earth , unless someone wants to spend at lest $300-500 + million to retrieve it.

[@kevinrusch3627]

@@lasarith2 This is true. And launching a replacement would probably cost less. (pro tip - it's an obsolete spy satellite just looking the other direction)

[@lasarith2]

@@kevinrusch3627 oh the golf ball one with the 3 Gigapixel camera (I think)

[@stoffls]

Oh yes, please extend Hubble for another few decades. And maybe in the next 10 years they find a way to refuel JWST - that would be awesome, as it is already sending so much interesting data!

[@robertgutheridge9672]

Especially for the jwst Considering its cost and it was like a decade behind schedule for finally being launched it would be nice for the way to refuel it and get more use out of it

[@oneman2001]

JWST will never be refuelled. It will cheaper and easier to launch a replacement especially if Starship works.

[@burgercide]

@@oneman2001 will it be cheaper and easier though? How are the plans for replacement coming along?

[@oneman2001]

@@burgercide If you didn't have the design constraints of launching in smaller fairing you can make it simpler but you have 20 or 30 years of technology advancement.

[@NoNameAtAll2]

4:52 I think you meant instruments will overheat, but you said it in a way everyone will understand as "it will fall down into the Sun"

[@CliffordJohnstonVIP007]

As a civil engineer I believe it only not been done due to unfortunate circumstances. We have more hope than we did before spaceX but I hope we can honor the time it's spent in service to give it more attention after it's long service to give our future astronomers a shot two eyes in the sky sounds better than it just sitting in a museum. Although outdated we need another module out there like hubble before we return it for decades as a museum peice.

[@TimothyWhiteheadzm]

RE: fiery death in the sun for JWST. My understanding was that it is actually quite difficult to go to the sun and most object that leave earth orbit end up in an orbit around the sun unless very carefully pointed to achieve close passes to another planet/moon. Surely JWST would either end up in a relatively stable earth orbit or sun orbit if it escaped the LaGrange point.

[@josiahmanson]

Yes, her comment about falling into the sun bothered me also and I wanted to see if anyone remarked on it.

[@juliasophical]

It seems unlikely it would end up in a stable Earth orbit. It's currently all the way out at Sun-Earth L2, in what is essentially a heliocentric orbit that has a 1:1 resonance with Earth, due to the wonders that are LaGrange points. Once it drifts too far from L2, it'll loose that resonance, but still be on a heliocentric orbit. Since its orbital velocity is faster than Earth's, but it's further out (where it would need to be going slower to maintain a circular orbit), it'll end up in a more elliptical orbit. It probably won't stay in that orbit indefinitely, though -- an orbit that brings it that close to Earth every so often is going to be chaotic. Who knows where it'll eventually end up...

[@deltalima6703]

It will probably hit moscow, which will be deserted by then, since all the russians went to ukraine for no good reason and never came back.

[@darthrainbows]

I came to the comments section just for this. It's not going to fall into the Sun; it will just drift out of L2 and fall into another orbit that isn't synchronized with Earth's any more. What that would look like, I am not qualified to say, but maybe someone who is good with orbital mechanics can chime in.

[@robertbackhaus8911]

I would think it would enter a solar orbit. Either way, I see it continuing operating after propellant has been depleted, in a somewhat degraded way, pointing with its gyros and using carefully choosing targets that allow solar pressure on the sunshade to cancel built up momentum, and downloading what data they can using lower data rates and larger receiving dishes as it drifts way from the Earth.

[@whereswa11y]

Love the video. I was waiting for you to mention that the Dragon capsule has flown that high already too. Inspiration 4 went to around 500km of up. So SpaceX has the ability. Hope they can give it a boost.

[@jimsmith7212]

With all the problems starlink satellites are going to cause for Earth bound astronomy, Musk should fix it and boost it gratis.

[@chrisparrspacey_uk6917]

@@jimsmith7212 SpaceX and the Polaris Program led by Inspiration4's Jared Isaacman approached NASA, not the other way round. They are proactively trying to help. Science and Exploration is their end. Starlink is the means to pay for it.

[@mennovanlavieren3885]

@@jimsmith7212 But will everyone then shut up about the issue. If not, then why bother doing it for free. With a digital scope it it pretty easy to detect the stripes and filter them out. Assuming you take many shots of the same region, so you can just black out the stripes before superimposing the pictures. On the other hand, with Elon it is better to insinuate that he cannot do it, so he has to 'prove' they can do it.😄

[@sgodsellify]

Dragon could be used to move HST to a higher orbit, but Dragon could also be left attached to HST, and then continue, or even replace HST's existing maneuvering capabilities. In other words all of HST's gyroscopes and reaction wheels could failed, then Dragon could stay attached, and replace all of HST maneuvering capabilities. What would be even better is a smaller and cheaper space craft could attach itself to HST, and provide all of those maneuvering capabilities for HST.

[@WreckedRevival]

Hey Becky! Former Mechanical and Electrical engineering student also a huge astro-nerd, I found the "simple enough" comment pretty funny 😁. Just finding your channel and loving the content, I've been curious of the plan and any updates for Hubble..seems I've found a good source for that info. Thank you for sharing!

[@DrewNorthup]

Hmmm, yes… It is modestly frightening what turns out to be simple compared to what people think will be simple. Non-geofenced fully self-driving cars come to mind (if you truly know about airplane autopilot systems then you have a head start).

[@joshuacheung6518]

@@DrewNorthup only aircraft autopilot i worked on was basically your car's cruise control

[@DrewNorthup]

@@joshuacheung6518 Yep…many are. And even those periodically freak out and decide they have no idea what is going on. Pilots are good to have around.

[@Cybernatural]

If the Starship ends up working well I can not wait to see the kind of telescopes we can start to put up as mass and size constraints get a lot easier to deal with.

[@netyr4554]

IMO if starship is as reusable and cheap per launch as spacex want it to be we might start seeing constellations of cheaper telescopes rather than exhorbitantly expensive one offs, although personally I fancy a modular telescope, assemble it in a low orbit then boost it to wherever it needs to go.

[@EinzigfreierName]

6:37 Looking at how close the attachement ring is mounted to the body and how the nose cone of Dragon opens up (7:30) I wonder if this will work without modifications to Dragon?

[@geoswan4984]

Thanks! I sure hope they do boost Hubble to a safe orbit. I've always felt it should be boosted to an orbit high enough that it could become the first satellite in a space-based history museum. Maybe the ISS too... A decade ago an Astronomer gave a talk at a nearby library on how great the James Webb telescope would be. But, I thought, those infrared images would not be as interesting to the public as Hubble's beautiful visible light images... and since the public is paying for both of these telescopes, some of that funding should continue to flow to keeping Hubble operational, to give the public who is paying for all this, additional new beautiful pictures.

[@Bob-of-Zoid]

I love Hubble! It gave us the most mind blowing images ever at the time and still does, and has more than outdone expectations! So glad to hear it is getting an extension of use!

[@JohnVance]

Great video! I vaguely recall there was some kind of feature similar to the Soft Capture Rendezvous system installed on JWST. Maybe just a maintenance port or something? Not expected to be used, but the possibility may be there.

[@TysonJensen]

In high school physics you learn that it's impossible for an object to pick an orientation in space due to conservation of angular momentum. If you have a good high school physics teacher they'll point out that the "rigid" word in the textbook is super important, and that non-rigid objects like cats can totally change their orientation without pushing on anything. It's neat to think of Hubble as a giant space cat, ready to land feet-first at any moment.

[@hagerty1952]

Yes, the HST's mirror is fairly sizeable, but remember that it (the HST) is a civilianized version of the KH-11 spy satellite, and those were de-orbited routinely at the end of their missions. The big difference, though, is that they had a built-in propulsion system that could do a controlled deorbit into the Pacific ocean near Johnston Island (there are a WHOLE BUNCH of semi-melted mirrors and other junk there, assuming the NRO doesn't "harvest" them after they settle to the bottom). They were also starting from a much lower altitude. I can't imagine that it would be that difficult to have a deorbit module attached to that universal docking connector at the end of the HST's life using a robotic spacecraft.

[@JohnHarris-BluesaltsAuthor]

They call that place "Point Nemo" and it's used by most spacefaring countries as a target for de-orbiting large items. The video on it showed divers moving from what is obviously a Russian-made piece of debris (the docking port is distinctive) to an equally large American-made one. It's quite interesting, really...

[@reed-young]

That could just be failure of imagination on your part.

[@Veptis]

Do we have any confirmed KH-11 that reentered?

[@hagerty1952]

@@reed-young - My imagination is supported by several decades of experience in design engineering, one of which was in aerospace with GE and Lockheed. Since they put the docking point on there, a small PAM (Payload Assist Module) with some guidance would do the job.

[@hagerty1952]

@@Veptis - I don't personally since I never worked on KH-11, but I did work on KH-8 and KH-9. Both of those were film-based vehicles and had very short lifetimes (a few months to a year). I do know that the first KH-11's were launched in the 1980's and would be defunct by now, and that the NRO would never leave something that sensitive hanging around to come down uncontrolled.

[@witchdoctor6502]

I think the issues with Dragon are mostly a) it needs to open nose to dock and b) it using the draco thrusters might not be enough as those aren't that powerful. I think SpaceX will anyway find some way to make it work, if nothing else just for the PR that mission would receive.

[@bigsportsman]

Another little known fact is that NASA has asked SpaceX , ULA and Boeing to study refueling JWST in about 15 years, which JPL says is technically possible!

[@vigilantcosmicpenguin8721]

Technically possible, the best kind of possible.

[@stargazer7644]

JWST was not designed to be refueled, and even if it had been, it would be cheaper and less risky to simply launch a new telescope. JWST cannot be serviced on orbit, and by the time it needs fuel, it'll need a lot of other things swapped out, and the state of the art will be much farther along. It doesn't make sense.

[@bigsportsman]

@@stargazer7644sure it wasn't DESIGNED to be serviced. However, just because something wasn't designed to do something doesn't mean it can't. Further, it is not going to be cheaper to launch another $10 billion telescope. Both HabEx and LUVOIR will be well in excess of $10 BILLION, some estimates say each will cost somewhere around $20-30 billion EACH! Additionally the same was said about Hubble being outdated and practically useless after about 10 years....well that was wrong too. Just because something doesn't have all the most up-to-date or even have degraded capabilities doesn't mean it doesn't have scientific value anymore. By the time it needs to be refueled I'm quite sure that some of the most brilliant engineers and space tech companies will find a way to service and refuel in an economical way....probably with a long duration test flight in preparation for a Mars mission! Just saying 2 birds, 1 stone thing here!

[@stargazer7644]

@@bigsportsman You don't seem to understand the extreme challenges of working on something in spacesuits on orbit. If it wasn't designed that way, it basically can't be done. There are no handholds on the exterior, the fasteners aren't captive, there are no fixtures to attach robot arms to. You can't just open a panel and slide out components. You can't crawl inside to get to things. These were all problems that had to have solutions designed in to make Hubble serviceable in orbit. This isn't an 89 Chevy broken down by the side of the road.

[@bigsportsman]

@@stargazer7644 I do understand those challenges. I never said it would be easy. I said it would make a great training and test platform for a Mars mission that would also have a decided scientific and technical Mars mission capable crossover. From both an engineering and mission management platform it could serve as an analog for working on long duration deep space manned missions while being close enough for timely communication with earth based personnel. What I dont think you understand is that all of these trainings are going to cost a lot of money. If they are just done in space without a secondary benefit then we lose a perfect opportunity. JPL seems to think it could be done and are looking at feasibility currently. Further NASA is also looking into this for the deep space training mission. The training is going to done wht not get something out of it. The "easy" part (I say that in purely relative terms and NOT in absolute terms as all of this is EXTREMELY difficult) would be the capture.

[@davidniemi4051]

You were over thinking things with some of your bloopers, I hate it when I do something similar. Thank you for the great info filled video with considerations.

[@RealRed2675]

Just came across your channel, brilliant content highly informative and enthusiastic presentation that keeps my mind engaged, keep up the great work 🛰️👍

[@bowenwalker2087]

Thank you from Australia, for the no hype no bull information. look forward to seeing more now I have subbed

[@tarmaque]

Note also that Starship and Superheavy could also launch a very nearly JWST size mirrored telescope without folding (except the solar arrays) in a single launch. I think someone needs to get working on that design soonest. Imagine an optical telescope three times the size of Hubble. Imagine _multiple_ optical telescopes three times the size of Hubble. All with the ability to be serviced by Starship or a derivative. I'm not a Musk fanboy, but I'm absolutely excited about the possibilities SpaceX is developing.

[@plugplagiate1564]

i would be delighted if spacex would manage this job. i think hubble is still worth it. maybe as part of a resupply mission. or if crews are changed. would be something new, and a good training for saving other expensive satellite systems, or space based telescopes.

[@brokenacoustic]

Considering what this telescope has done for us, I think the least we could do is bring it back home and put it in a museum when its run its course.

[@annmoore6678]

We enjoyed today's presentation on the importance of keeping the HST going as long as possible. As a couple of philologists, we can actually get a sense of what's going on in your exciting field, thanks to your clear explanations.

[@davidanderson_surrey_bc]

So, you study guys named Phil?

[@DrewNorthup]

@@davidanderson_surrey_bc Somehow I doubt that's what their ology ologies…

[@hanschristianben505]

Hi Dr. Becky! small correction, Space Shuttle Atlantis’ last flight was not STS-125… while it was the final HST servicing mission, Atlantis went on to fly three more missions, which were all ISS assembly and resupply flights: STS-129, STS-132, and STS-135 - which is also the final flight of the entire Shuttle Program

[@DrBecky]

Thanks for the correction! I’ll make sure to flag it with KZbin’s new correction feature

[@wouterdevlieger1002]

And not 'because of the commercialization of the space industry', but because it was just a question of time before another Shuttle disaster happened. Putting the orbiter on the side of the rocket turned out to be a bad idea

[@hanschristianben505]

@@DrBecky always a pleasure doc’!

[@reasonerenlightened2456]

@@DrBecky Why scientists do not Unionise? If you have beef with contamination of space by the Capitalists then Organise yourselves.

[@rustythecrown9317]

@@reasonerenlightened2456 pretty sure the''capatalists'' aren't the only ones putting sh!t into space. Don't forget the terrorist nations like russia and china put shite into space all the time.

[@MaryAnnNytowl]

I want some company to get up there, stabilize it, and make it a museum people can visit IN SPACE! I would LOVE that idea! REALLY?? They want to bring it down INTACT?? I'm surprised that it's not just being allowed to fall into some ocean or another. That would make me cry! 🥺😭🥺 I sure hope they do! I always love your content, Dr. Becky. ❤️❤️

[@stargazer7644]

The original plan was to bring it back in the Shuttle. But the new plan is to have a robot spacecraft dock with it and bring it down to burn up over the Pacific ocean.

[@MarkDibley]

Installing the soft capture mechanism on HST was brilliant forward planning. Less so the position of the docking point of the Dragon capsule. Putting it behind a door that opens forward only 100 degrees means it can't dock with a flat surface. I imagine a solution will be a dedicated satellite, launched on a Falcon 9, that will dock and boost the HST, rather than modifying Dragon. Perhaps the dedicated satellite will include a second docking point for a Dragon so that crew can also do maintenance on the HST before it is boosted. Great vid, Dr. Becky.

[@TysonJensen]

Wait, the dragon docking point has a door that only opens 100 degrees? Sounds like it's not meant to dock with *anything* never mind whether the surface is technically flat. I suspect the engineers didn't really anticipate Dragon docking with things and just had to put something that could fool Elon Musk into believing it could since they had other design priorities like making sure Dragon wouldn't explode, and could possibly do things like land.

[@GreenEnvy]

They most likely would put a docking port in the trunk of dragon, and dock with it backwards. The thrusters you would want to use are all in the nose anyway, so this would work out well. The big question, is if they could also work in an EVA to replace those failed gyros. Dragon doesn't have an airlock, but they plan on doing a test later this year where they depressurize the entire capsule and go outside, that would be a good test for if they could do the gyros.

[@NeuroRando]

@@TysonJensen what is bro talking about 💀

[@NeuroRando]

All they have to do is jettison the nosecone… it’s not hard. The only reason it’s there in the first place is to protect dragon’s forward thrusters and docking port from avoidable damage so it’s easier to achieve its goal of reusability. Just foot a slightly larger refurbishment bill and you’re golden

[@stargazer7644]

@@TysonJensen It docks with ISS just fine. And I suspect they'll either doc with it using an adapter on the trunk, or they'll just jettison the hatch cover.

[@jasonsumma1530]

I wonder if they will try to fix\upgrade the Hubble when they attempt to push it up higher.

[@JohnHarris-BluesaltsAuthor]

The main problem with using a Dragon to boost Hubble is that Dragon's main thrusters are at the nose, surrounding the docking port. I doubt Hubble would appreciate having four large engines firing into it's backside...

[@menachemsalomon]

Also, Dragon is used to going to the ISS, orbiting at ~260 miles, whereas Hubble is a bit higher, orbiting at ~330 miles. The extra altitude does need a good feasibility study, as it may require (for example) a Falcon booster to be expended for the mission.

[@stargazer7644]

I suspect ISS doesn't appreciate it much either. They don't use the thrusters on the nose when close to another spacecraft. They use thrusters in the back that are only slightly tilted forward. The Space Shuttle did the same thing.

[@JohnHarris-BluesaltsAuthor]

@Star Gazer This is true, but those thrusters are very low power, basically rcs thrusters. To boost Hubble, more powerful thrusters are needed, and those are in the Dragon's nose.

[@Jatheus]

Sounds "easy" enough to me as well, but then, I'm no rocket scientist. I'm just enthusiastic. Nice hand-eye coordination in the bloopers. :0)

[@loughkb]

How about an autonomous service module drone of sorts with engines on it. Launched into a similar orbit, it could fly to the hubble and dock itself. Then use it's inbuilt boosters to push hubble up. With enough fuel on board, it could then go into standby until it's needed for the next boost. When it's fuel is exhausted, it undocks and falls back, burning up. We just launch another drone booster to redock and take the next shift.

[@devjaxvid]

I was thinking the same thing. If it was large enough it could have fuel for multiple boosts but I would think because of added mass, it would have to detach between boosts and fly ‘behind’ Hubble. Don’t want to work those gyros more then necessary… or maybe it could also have gyros and stay attached? I’m not a steely-eyed-missleman.

[@markcohen7991]

You really are totally awesome. Thank you for your videos. We love you. Live long and prosper 🖖

[@sailingonasummerbreeze7892]

Great video! Hoping they can maybe do a space walk (or multiple) to replace some of those reaction wheels as well!

[@Scanner9631]

How many Hubble duplicates could one Starship launch put up. How much would a Hubble cost to build now?

[@hamjudo]

Those reaction wheels were designed to be swapped with the robotic arm on the shuttle. They are big, too big for the existing hatch on the dragon. I suggest building a module with gyros, its own solar panels, and communications, that has two docking rings. One to permanently attach to the Hubble, and the other would be available for future maintenance missions. A Dragon could dock that to the Hubble, even without a space walk. Then they could do a space walk to directly connect the module's power and data to the Hubble. If those connections didn't work for some reason, they could relay commands through the radio links.

[@Scanner9631]

@@hamjudo It need not be in the capsule proper it could be in the "trunk" used to carry cargo.

[@Scanner9631]

@Smee Self Today true. Next year probably not true.

[@matthewkantar5583]

The gyros can fit in Dragon’s trunk.

[@sbergman123]

Being a yank, it's fun to listen to you. You are an effective teacher. You make complicated topics easy to understand.

[@ivolol]

I wonder why the SM4 servicing mission didn't give it much of an orbit boost at all?

[@adsfsadfasdfadsf]

Saw your book 'A Brief History of Black Holes' in the background. Ordered it, and just finished it. Very enjoyable read! Black holes are so cool...

[@Dularr]

I could imagine turning the Starship upper stage into a standalone space telescope.

[@jordanhenshaw]

Exactly.

[@TraditionalAnglican]

Meanwhile, Starship can be used to bring Hubble back to earth.

[@paullangford8179]

Don't need a segmented mirror: it would easily handle an eight-metre one.

[@mennovanlavieren3885]

@@TraditionalAnglican For safekeeping purposes.

[@powpowvideos]

Me: Watches for the cool science. Also Me: Stays for Dr. Becky's Bloopers 🤣

[@planetsec9]

Feels like the least SpaceX can do to make up for that is reboost Hubble above the Starlink constellation altitude so no more streaked images. I wonder if NASA selects SpaceX and moves forward with the plan if they will just reboost first or attempt a more daring repair and refit too, I think they should reboost first imo to prove they can reach Hubble and prevent delays

[@ronjon7942]

Wait, really?? The constellation is in a higher or it than the HST? Didn’t know that.

[@jimrodarmel8512]

Thanks for "the CLAW" 6:56. Made me LOL.

[@patreekotime4578]

It does seem like SpaceX might have the capability to bring back Hubble one day, but we still dont even know what a crewed StarShip will look like, or indeed if a variant of StarShip with both a crew and a huge cargo area is even possible with current designs. It seems like a totally different use case than the one SpaceX is currently designing for, which is going to the moon. It seems like you need a variant of StarShip that only has enough fuel for manuevers and the landing burn, and replaces the area with a cargo berth, but structurally, we dont even know how big of an opening can safely be put into StarShip, or how cargo doors would operate. Either way, it really feels like an entirely new kind of StarShip would have to be designed around essentially SpaceShuttle design requirements to bring back Hubble. 🤷

[@mennovanlavieren3885]

They are developing the technology to land on the moon and Mars. But in the mean time to make it sustainable they need to make profit. So they probably make many versions according to customer demand. Just like they made a version dedicated to launch Starlink satellites. Making a big door is not easy though, because of the forces at launch that try to rip it apart. It is not impossible, but it will require reinforcements which take from your cargo weight budget. The Space Shuttle was able to return 16 ton of cargo, so a Starship would likely be able to match that.

[@andrewparker318]

As someone currently getting a degree in astronomy I actually could not disagree more with your viewpoint on the commercialization of space, which will hugely benefit the future of space exploration, and open up new possibilities for deep space observations that we never thought were possible before

[@bofblog]

This asset needs to be saved... working with the JWST its a superb combination

[@samuela-aegisdottir]

I have just discovered that Hubble Telescope is the same age as me. It is amazing that it still functions and continue to do the great job it does.

[@rustythecrown9317]

While you are crumbling and falling back to earth.

[@YULspotter2]

Very interesting video. I often wondered, with the SST being retired, how NASA was going to bring the HST back down to Earth. So it seems, until there is a spacecraft that will have a large enough cargo bay to fit the HST into, NASA will need to find spacecraft which can keep boosting it's orbit so it doesn't fall back to Earth and God forbit, it's mirror falls on a populated area.

[@stargazer7644]

The current plan is for Hubble to be de-orbited in a controlled fashion with a robot spacecraft and allowed to burn up over the Pacific ocean.

[@NomadUniverse]

I mentioned a while ago I'd love to see SpaceX bring back the ISS when it's time. They should do the same with Hubble too. Two of the most significant pieces of equipment of space exploration and certainly the two most famous. Not to mention the impact on global unity the ISS has had. Both of them should be preserved at all cost. It's only money. These two iconic symbols have changed us as a species. They deserve it. The people who have dedicated their lives to keeping them in service deserve it. Letting these things be destroyed is simply wrong. We owe it to humanity. Bringing them back would be an achievement all of itself for the history books too, and it can also be a global effort like the ISS is and renew and strengthen ties in a time when its most needed.

[@NomadUniverse]

@DrBecky_S how bout noooooo.

[@RovingPunster]

This seems like perfect opportunity for AdAstra to subcontract SpaceX to launch their VX200 solar electric thruster, and use it to boost Hubble into a higher orbit.

[@Fred-yq3fs]

The VX200 has run a 88h test on Earth in 2021 (which is great), but it has never run in space, let alone be proved as reliable in space. So it won't be ready in time.

[@RovingPunster]

@@Fred-yq3fs You're not seeing the forest thru the trees. Yes, its current CLR status is that it has NOT YET been tested and certified in space ... but doing exactly THAT is the ENTIRE PLANNED PURPOSE OF THE DESIGN, and how it could advance to its next level of CLR. Bystander1: Hand me that socket wrench. Bystander2: Uh, it's a new brand and still in shrink wrap. Bystander1: It's not a collectible vintage action figure, dumbass .... gimme. Watch and learn.

[@mennovanlavieren3885]

@@Fred-yq3fs An irreplaceable historic billion dollar satellite is the perfect subject to test your new toys on. What are you talking about.🙃

[@RovingPunster]

@@mennovanlavieren3885This is a waste of my time, but i'll bite one last time .... 1) Irreplaceable ? DUDE, it already HAS been replaced by the JWST ! Try to keep up. 2) As for the wisdom of using Hubble as a test bed for Ocelot .... as opposed to letting Hubble burn up when its orbit decays ? Duh. DUDE, feel free to try explaining why an opportunity to fast track The Ocelot to RESCUE HUBBLE from it's inevitable date with a firery demise would in some way be bad. You cant. Hubble is already near the end of its service life ... all but one of its spare gyros have long since died, it's maneuvering thrusters that control its orientation are running low and have been for a long time, and there are exactly ZERO servicing missions scheduled in the NASA budget, so HUBBLE IS ALREADY ON BORROWED TIME ! Theyre trying to get as much done with it as they can in the time left. Meanwhile, a space-tug with super-efficient solar-Ion Drive propulsion (read: like Ocelot) is already poised to become THE critical centerpiece of Earth-Lunar Transit infratructure ... they just need to crack the whip, and it's game on. Anyway, say hello to MUTE/Ignore. If you'd had something cogent and constructive to offer, you'd have done so already.

[@garanceadrosehn9691]

This reminded me of the movie titled _"Mystery Science Theater 3000: This Island Earth"_ -- which includes a little skit where Mike (who is on the Satellite of Love) breaks the Hubble, and two of the robots who are with him start chanting about his mistake. 🙂

[@mikemcfadden8652]

I've heard it said telescopes should be designed to fit inside the 9 meter size of the SpaceX Starship and then instead of hiring Starship to take the telescope to space, they just buy the Starship and and turn it into a telescope and send it to space that way. Sounds like an intriguing idea.

[@LordSesshaku]

Sounds like a weird idea. If it fits in the cargo bay, it's pointless to add mass to the telescope reaction wheels, just drop it and let Starship return. If what you meant is replacing the whole Starship with an actual telescope and launching that way, then it's also kind of weird because it lacks the protection+fuel+vaccuum engines that are needed for establishing an actual LE orbit.

[@witext]

I mean, it's an intriguing idea but the problem is you'd want the mirror to be protected from the vibrations of Starship, plus this would mean you'd have to "waste" a whole starship. The reaction wheels would also have to struggle trying to point the whole starship when in orbit. I do think tho that maybe you could make a starship orbiter that ditches its prop tanks and engine section, then you could build a telescope into the fairing. at this point however I think building the luvoir is almost easier

[@Thros1]

Maybe whenever they start retiring the starships they could be repurposed as whatever.

[@mikemcfadden8652]

Here Frasier Cain talks about it. Its the first topic, so you don't have to search for it. kzbin.info/www/bejne/a5XTi3-fpcagiKc

[@MCsCreations]

Well... Today we had the 33 engine burn from... Whatever is the name of the Spaceship's rocket, I just forgot it. 😬 So, the orbital launch seems to be getting very close! Anyway, thanks, dr. Becky! 😊 Stay safe there with your family! 🖖😊

[@MCsCreations]

@smeeself Their video says 33.

[@spiritusinfinitus]

@@MCsCreations One engine was shut down prior to firing and another shut down upon firing. 31 raptors is enough to get it to orbit though (and back home to Earth again for reuse)

[@spiritusinfinitus]

"Super Heavy" Booster 7 which will eventually take Starship 24(? I think.. They keep rolling out new ones!) for a ride

[@MCsCreations]

@@spiritusinfinitus Oh, I see!

[@jordanhenshaw]

Starship!

[@stargazer7644]

A few corrections for this episode: 1:51 It isn't the solar particles impacting with spacecraft that cause the orbit to decay faster. The high energy X-rays and UV rays put energy into the upper atmosphere and cause it to puff up after a solar flare. This increases the density of the atmosphere in low orbit. So it is Earth's atmosphere that causes the increased drag on spacecraft as a result of solar flares. Particles from Coronal Mass Ejections (what causes northern lights) don't do it. 4:21 the reaction wheels aren't tipped and tilted. There are 4 reaction wheels that are fixed in 4 nearly orthogonal directions to the spacecraft frame and only the speed of the spinning wheel is varied to apply a torque to the spacecraft in the desired axis. 4:52 JWST is in solar orbit. When it leaves the vicinity of L2, it will still be in solar orbit where it will remain for a very long time. 6:37 I'm not sure why you call this a failsafe device. By itself, it does nothing. The docking ring was attached so that a future robotic satellite mission could attach to Hubble to de-orbit it in a controlled fashion as a risk reduction measure.

[@MeerkatADV]

I have every reason to think there could be a mission to boost Hubble back up. Hell they use the Dragon capsules to boost the ISS periodically as well. Put an adapter on the docking port of Dragon, dock the Hubble and boost it as high as possible. Wouldn't necessarily need to be a crewed mission but it would make sense to be able to upgrade various bits.

[@nightonfir3]

They don't use dragon to boost the ISS. They were looking into the feasibility of it when Russia was threatening to leave the ISS (Russia currently does the boosting). The problem with dragon is its engines are pointed at an angle so its not as efficient at doing burns in space. That said Hubble is a lot smaller than the ISS so efficiency probably wont be as big a deal.

[@1224chrisng]

technically they don't use Dragon, they use Cygnus, but Dragon is capable yes

[@stargazer7644]

Without a robot arm, you're going to have quite a bit of trouble replacing anything on Hubble.

[@MeerkatADV]

@@stargazer7644 Hubble has a universal docking fixture on it now.

[@stargazer7644]

@@MeerkatADV A docking fixture doesn't give you a platform for astronauts to anchor to and work from, nor give you a way to move around instrument modules that mass as much as half a ton.

[@andyguy0610]

I like the fact that NASA is expecting the company the carries out the orbit boost of HST to do the mission for free.

[@lackinggravitas6751]

That's because the reboost was initially proposed by SpaceX/Jared Isaacman, and doing it free of charge to NASA (presumably with Isaacman paying) was part of that proposal. The request for information seems like procurement bureaucracy ass-covering to me, since the rest of the industry's never going to do it for free but could potentially raise a stink if NASA doesn't do things by the book.

[@crowguy506]

Dr.Becky: Posting video in doubt of SpaceX …10 Minutes later: Elon fires the worlds strongest ever rocket for the first time.

[@dionysus2006]

The Crew Dragon or Cargo Dragon would have to mount a docking adapter in the trunk section due to the thrusters they use to change orbit and deorbit being on the front of the capsule. It could be either an automated docking to just boost the Hubble or a manned mission to replace the gyros and other maintenance as well as a boost. Just a matter of time and money. SpaceX is pretty busy

[@neoanderson7]

While I have no doubt a way could be configured for Dragon to provide the small boost needed to place Hubble back into proper orbit, the long game is trying to preserve the Hubble. The ratio is still very crazy high for time allotment on HST. Here comes the good news though. Spacex is a few weeks away from launching Starship. This will ultimately be the savior for HST. Starship is the future for anything space related. Even getting from 1 side of the planet to another. The goal is to use Starship as much as possible before the end game. Sending it to Mars. 🙂 I've got faith Spacex will come to the rescue of HST. 👍

[@DarkVoidIII]

I like your theory, but as with any spaceship, they have to spend a lot of time working out all of the kinks before they can certify it to be safe to use. Being that it's untested and hasn't been properly verified to work, because it hasn't had much, if any, launches, they have to be certain that it won't crash into HST and bring both spacecraft and telescope crashing down to Earth. It's bad enough that HST might crash, nobody would want to see a pair of metal objects hurtling towards their inevitable doom in the upper atmosphere! if they can get it tested and proven to work properly and as intended, we may yet see it rescue HST. I sincerely hope they can do so!😊👍

[@neoanderson7]

@@DarkVoidIII I'm working with the time frame we have for Hubble before it's too late. We're thinking it might start to fall down by 27 or 28. I'm keeping everything crossed that Startship would have lots of flight time before those dates. Speaking of which, 33 engines static fire happened 20min's ago... 🙂

[@stargazer7644]

It isn't a "small boost". Hubble weighs 30% more than Dragon does.

[@DarkVoidIII]

@@stargazer7644 As Yoda said: "Judge me by my size, do you?" The weight of the spaceship compared to the Hubble Space Telescope isn't the issue here, it's whether one can assist the other. It would boil down to a fuel and propulsion cost, which is what the real issue here would be. If they can get around the fuel cost problem, anything could in theory be done. Putting theory into practice will be up to those who know the Dragon well enough to see if it could actually do that.

[@stargazer7644]

@@DarkVoidIII The mass of the telescope has a direct impact on how much fuel would be required to usefully boost it. Dragon doesn't have an unlimited delta-v budget.

[@donjones4719]

Mr Pedantic here: The docking mechanism isn't a ring-like shape, it's ring shaped. It's not a universal mechanism any spacecraft can dock with. It does conform to the International Docking System Standard, which is a move toward a universal mechanism, but that's been implemented on only 3 spacecraft so far, the SpaceX Crew Dragon and Cargo Dragon 2, and the Boeing Starliner.* The Cygnus cargo spacecraft mates to an older style docking port on the ISS. The Russians use their own system on their Soyuz crewed spacecraft and its Progress cargo version. At this time Crew Dragon is the only craft that can perform this mission, Starliner hasn't flown with a crew yet. *The Orion spacecraft has the IDSS but the production rate is extremely low, they can only be used for Artemis missions.

[@micjotar]

SpaceX should ask for an apology from astronomers before doing this ;P

[@sugarfrosted2005]

No, they're still terrible.

[@SwordQuake2]

spacex can go fuck themselves

[@michaelsommers2356]

@@sugarfrosted2005 They'd be even worse if they refused to do the mission because their feelings were hurt.

[@micjotar]

@@SwordQuake2 Woah triggered much?

[@micjotar]

@@sugarfrosted2005 How short-sighted

[@quillaja]

Besides the orbit, aren't the aging electronics on Hubble a problem too? I could swear it was only maybe a year ago that some computer system failed.

[@MdGuardian1032]

Thrust power wise, I'm sure Starship could definitely do it.

[@MdGuardian1032]

@Smee Self oh there will be.

[@silverXnoise]

Maybe if SpaceX wants to make up for the damage inflicted on ground-based astronomy with their dumb internet satellites.

[@WazigeWotse]

Scott Manley has a great video on this with a simulation in Kerbal Space Program and more technical information called: "Can SpaceX's Dragon Give Hubble New Life?"

[@ChristopherSadlowski]

It's crazy how well built all our space stuff is! Equipment that was built for missions that was expected to run for, say, 2 years runs for 15, for example. Especially when you consider that the equipment was being built without the benefit of future discoveries in materials science and such. I get annoyed when people say space programs get too much money and that money is a big waste. I try to explain to those people that there is a direct line between our space programs and the comfort and efficiency of how we live or modern lives. We owe so much to the advances our space programs have made. Hell, I probably wouldn't be typing this message on a computer I can put in my pocket and connect directly to half the human species if I wanted to without the various space programs around the globe getting funded!

[@zounds010]

2:05 as I understand it, spacecraft aren't slowed down by impacts from solar wind particles. Instead, those particles put extra energy into our atmosphere, which heats up and expands, making it denser at the altitude of the HST.

[@stargazer7644]

The x-rays from the flares are what put the energy into the atmosphere. The charged particles from the corona mass ejections don't have anything to do with it.

[@_TeXoN_]

Just a correction: Cold gas is currently the most accurate way of pointing a spacecraft. Usually engineers avoid doing this, because it sets a time limit on the telescope, so JWST and Hubble have accurate enough reaction wheels. Gaia really needs this accuracy and relies on cold gas which runs out in 2025.

[@mitseraffej5812]

I always thought it was the heating of the upper atmosphere by the solar winds, causing it to expand outwards that drags on low earth orbit objects, not the solar winds themselves.

[@ericthompson3982]

Hubble has been the best friend of my incredibly nerdy brain since I was a kid. I'd fly up there and save it myself, if I could.

[@rogerstone3068]

The last dodo was stuffed and became a museum exhibit. After many years it was getting a bit scruffy, slightly smelly and mouldy, so they... THREW IT AWAY. Really. Now, can you imagine the verdict of current evolutionary biologists, geneticists, archaeologists? And then, can you imagine the reactions of astronomers 100 or 200 years (only!) from now, to the idea that we let Hubble go? Some things are just inconceivable.

[@landofahhs_1]

I would imagine the limits of the hardness of the telescopes electronic components may be approaching also.

[@stargazer7644]

The main objects of concern are the mirror, its mount, and the reaction wheels. About 17% of Hubble is expected to make it to the ground.

[@jasmijnariel]

Imagine the space shuttle picked it up again and brought it back home❤ Oh that would have been amazing😢😢

[@beautifulsmall]

ring motor as gyro. free floating momentum with 3 axis control

[@jimsteele9261]

I've always wondered if they could send something up to dock with it, then push it over to the ISS's orbit. Then if there were problems, there'd be a crew on hand to do the repairs.

[@joshuacheung6518]

Would be terrible to do that. You would have them basically tethered or otherwise integrated to each other for the ISS crew to do that... and that's discounting the tons on tons of fuel to change the orbit. That fuel could instead boost hubble up into a graveyard orbit and left there for all eternity.

[@stargazer7644]

HST is in a 28 degree inclination orbit, ISS is in a 52 degree inclination orbit. It would take a ridiculous amount of fuel to do that.

[@kennethng8346]

In addition to reaction wheels, HST also has magnetic torquers to do some of the turning by reactions with the earth's magnetic field.

[@stargazer7644]

The magnetorquers are used to unload the spinning reaction wheels when they get going too fast.

[@prakash_77]

Amazing video. Thanks Dr. Becky

[@mattp1337]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: we should be launching multiple copies of every generation of space telescope, so more science can be done but also so failure of one is not disastrous. Right now we are over-engineering against all possible failure, multiplying costs and development times. But absolutely we should extend Hubble's service life and eventually preserve it as a uniquely important historic artifact if we possibly can.

[@ofdlttwo]

Please do a video dedicated to your bloopers. They are awesome like your content.

[@GraemePayne1967Marine]

I remember standing in my back garden at age 7 to watch Sputnik fly overhead. I also hate just throwing expensive things away. My opinion is that HST should be repaired and upgraded for as long as possible. Commercial space transportation can do it, so all NASA needs to do is send out a request for quotes, evaluate them, select the best technically qualified bid, and set the date for the mission. The usual government contracting stuff. Replace the bad gyros and other misbehaving equipment, replace the batteries & recharge the fuel cells, add on some extras, then boost it to a MUCH higher orbit for another 33+ years. Sure, it will cost something. But I am sure that cost will be much less than the cost of replacing it; and likely less than the cost of bringing it back to hang in a museum. It's a high-value science tool! Let's keep using it! Don't just throw it away. Use the Voyager spacecraft as inspiration: they are doing more science and traveling further than was ever thought possible when they were launched. And they are STILL going. Keep the dreams alive!

[@jonathancamp7190]

I grew up in the era where the major observatory was the 200-inch Mt. Palmer observatory. As a child I marveled at the images created with it. Those, of course, pale in comparison to the Hubble and JWST images today. Like the Hale, I'm getting old, and I envy you younger folks who will get to view the images forthcoming with things like the LOVOIR A & B observatories. I wish that I could see them now. FYI: Becky, I bought your sticker of a galaxy, I think that the sticker is called Becky's Eye, with your name, Dr. Becky under it, and placed it on my 114mm reflector and named it after you. It's my Dr. Becky Observatory. Your inspiration exceeds even the gathering power of the JWST, even to old men like me. Thank you.

[@pmr1049]

The deleted scenes was amazing * Physichubble* XD

[@ljfinger]

Hubble’s reaction wheels don't "tip and tilt" like control moment gyros do. They just accelerate and decelerate.

[@Rorschach1024]

As I understand it Jared Issaicson also intends to also install new reaction wheels and new computers as well as possibly new upgraded instruments as part of the Polaris program.

[@lukeskywalker7457]

I am probably wrong but star links are designed for a life of six years. If we make enough noise Maybe they will let us integrate instruments for astronomy on the back side of the replacement satellites. The potential of combining images and getting an effective lens the size of the earth perhaps! Let me know what you think 🤔

[@thething4763]

Likely to use SX Dragon to safely deorbit rather than boost. However if Dragon has enough fuel it could do both.

[@jamesgreenler8225]

I keep hearing the question , DO ALIENS EXIST ? Its interesting to note that new testimonials from pilots involved in the Gimbal incident have clarified that there were 5 other craft involved in the incident and the pilots saw that they were flying in a V formation at slightly different altitudes and that these craft were simply cubes inside of clear spheres and that the corners of the cubes which were touching the inside of the spheres. They had no visible signs of propulsion even tho they were moving against the wind at hundreds of miles per hour. So my answer is that they figured out how to get here and the tecnology we are seeing and unable to explain or duplicate makes our most advanced stuff like SpaceX obsolete by millenia. They are already here .

[@kenh9508]

Love the cover photo!

[@Mrdibzahab]

Pushing it up only seem to make sense if you can also replace failing parts somehow...

[@pueblodove]

This was interesting and informative, thank you, my husband worked on the Hubble telescope. It looks like that might be him in the photo @ 3:43 with his arms crossed. But I can't be sure.

[@robdyck1187]

We need HST. Before the last service mission, some astronomers argued against repairing the Space Telescope Imaging Spectrometer (STIS). This is the only instrument in space capable of focusing on an asteroid with our solar system, and providing a image with a spectrum of each pixel of the image, and including ultraviolet (UV). That capability is the only way to tell the difference between a true metal asteroid vs enstatite chondrite. Metal asteroids are made of primarily iron with some nickel and trace amounts of other metals, like meteorites that fall to Earth. Enstatite is a magnesium silicate mineral. For the purpose of asteroid mining, metal asteroids are incredibly easy to process, and consist of very useful metals. Trace metals include gold, silver, platinum, and other platinum group metals. Very valuable. Enstatite is an oxide ore that must be smelted, so hard to process, and magnesium is not very useful nor valuable. If you're interested in asteroid defence then a metal asteroid behaves quite differently than enstatite chondrite. The word "chondrite" means pebbles of a hard mineral embedded in something softer. So it's very important to determine which is which. But using a telescope, the only way to determine the difference is with short wavelength spectra. That means UV light; specifically the frequencies blocked by Earth's ozone layer. The STIS instrument on Hubble can do the job, but James Webb is just not able. Look at the other proposed telescopes at the end of this video: the last telescope which isn't scheduled to launch until 2039 and probably won't launch until some time in the 2040s is the only one able. And it will be called upon to do a lot of work. Bottom line: we need Hubble. I wrote a letter to NASA arguing to repair the STIS instrument on Hubble. Turned out there's a professional astronomer who works for my alma mater who argued to sacrifice that instrument in favour of the Galactic Origins Spectrometer (GOS). The GOS instrument is designed to focus on other galaxies, it's not capable of focusing on anything within our solar system. I'm not an astronomer, my focus is on technology including asteroid mining. It was a shock to learn the two of us are from the same university. NASA chose to both repair STIS and install GOS, so we got both. Yea! I won one. I'm also an active member of the Mars Society, and that society is effectively lobbying US Congress to support NASA's budget. Probably why they listened to me. Yea, I don't like the constellations of satellites in Low Earth Orbit (LEO). As a technology guy, a very useful technique for a spacecraft to return from Mars is aerocapture. That means dipping into Earth's atmosphere for an aerobraking manoeuvre to slow down and enter Earth orbit. No spacecraft can do this with all those satellites in LEO. Visualize a snow plow at highway speed encountering a patch of road with multiple cars parked in the snow. Really not good! However, a SpaceX Dragon spacecraft should be able to boost Hubble into a higher orbit. Could the Starliner spacecraft built by Boeing do the job? That spacecraft has multiple problems with fuel valves that control it's thrusters, so it isn't able to precisely control where it's going. NASA is not going to trust it for anything until Boeing solves that problem.