🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1990Jan28.012650.19697@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:

[ Talking about not putting Hubble into geostationary orbit ]

>The reason is economic: a low orbit maximizes payload with a given launcher.
>HST is just too big for the boost up to Clarke (geostationary) orbit.

[ I presume you mean STS in this case. ]

Something I have been meaning to mention for quite a long time:

I know that it is often said not to give ideas to NASA because they all ready
thought of them, but would it not be practical idea to launch a booster package
(say a couple of Inertial Upper Stages stacked together) using an Expendable
Launch Vehicle, (Titan IV) Then using the shuttle launch the main payload, (see
below) mate it to the booster, and fire it?

Specifically, this applies to Galileo, and to Hubble. Galileo will take 5+ years
to reach Jupiter, because NASA no longer likes the idea of lanching a shuttle
with a large liquid fuel booster (Centaur?) in the payload bay. It must use
three Gravity assist passes to attain sufficent speed to reach Jupiter
escape velocity. If it had been directed towards Jupiter with a large,
seperately launched booster attached, then there would be a much better chance
of its arriving sooner.

In Hubble's case, the telescope fills the entire bay. Thus there can be no
booster to send it to geostationary orbit. If, however, the telescope was mated
to a seperately launched booster, then it could attain a higher orbit without
to much difficulty.

I recognize that it is to late for this method to be applied to either mission,
but this could probably be a workable alternative for future missions. It would
also provide practice for astronuats in *real* orbital assembly.

Comments?

--
Andrew F. Cowie at TVC Enterprises, Toronto, Canada.
uunet!mnetor!lethe!tvcent!andrew  andrew@tvcent.uucp