Now that would be cool. Let’s hope the study is a success.

This one involves Isaacman/Polaris right? It makes sense if you want to start training private astronauts to start with a customer who knows how to do it and can transfer you the required knowledge.

What's the lifespan on Hubble looking like?

Its hardware is already showing ware and some stuff has shut down entirely

I'd like to see its mission continue but at some point it's just going to die.

A refurbishment of some of its equipment would probably help if possible, like changing its Reaction Wheel systems that have broken

That would be so amazing. After it is not longer functioning, it could be boosted in a long-lived orbit where it could stay for as long as needed until we have the technological capability to recover it, or maybe even visit it for tourism. Imagine how cool that would be.

Hubble’s original operational timeline was 15 years, Hubble has far exceeded that goal.

Refurbing it would be fantastic! Astronomers being able to use both Hubble and Webb would be so cool.

Not much to lose by it, and it would be a valuable training ground.

Webb can never be serviced, so keeping Hubble up and running as backup makes sense.

I'm hoping that one day we will be able to service JWST, even though right now it is impossible.

Webb is in an interesting position regarding this topic.

The moment a service mission to Webb would actually make any economic sense, we would also have the ability to launch far greater telescopes without complicated folding mechanism for far less money.

[removed]

Not sure what data you are using to make that claim. Webb cost $10billion to build and launch to L2 on a 90s rocket that cost at most €139 million at the high end. Segmented mirrors are even better suited for orbital assembly than Hubble style single mirror (See the Webb successor now underway). The total cost to service Hubble the last time with the shuttle and crew of 7, was $900 million and greatly increased Hubble's capacity to take measurements/with greater sensitivity (See the initial Hubble deep field and compare it to the later ultra deep fields). Webb has a docking collar on it (though mainly used for the launch), and engineers made it strong enough to be used for servicing if such scope was added to the mission. The bus is simple, minimal servicing would require mainly topping off of the RCS tanks and possibly reaction wheel replacement. L2 is 1.5 million kilometers, relatively nearby, and even conserving every oz of fuel after launch only took it 29 days to reach it, decelerate, and park with 2-3x the minimum amount of fuel for a full mission. Artemis is rad hardened for that part of deep space (Sadly dragon is only designed assuming the protection of earth's magnetosphere in LEO), and well beyond the moon, and made it on a Block 1 SLS with a 26 ton TLI payload. The SLS Block 2 can get 46 tons to Heliocentric orbit, for $2billion would have the delta v for this, especially using Lunar or earth sling shots to conserve fuel, or if Starship design and TPS flow proves it can handle Lunar return velocity hypersonic reentry, possibly much less depending on the numbers.

>The SLS Block 2 can get 46 tons to Heliocentric orbit, for $2billion

Bold of you to assume SLS could achieve that "low" cost in its still in development Block 2 configuration...

And then you only have the rocket. You still have to buy the capsule, all the other hardware you need and then you have to pay for the mission support. No way such mission could cost less than $5B.

But SLS B2 could actually launch a Webb equivalent without the need of folding the segmented mirror. This would make development and manufacturing much less costly.

.

>if Starship design and TPS flow proves it can handle Lunar return velocity hypersonic reentry, possibly much less depending on the numbers.

For a repair mission, yes. That would be the most cost effective way to keep Webb in service. If Starship can be crew rated for such a trajectory.

However Starship could also push the double the mass as SLS B2 towards L2 without even the need of even being reusable for such a trajectory. This would mean a 100 ton telescope with a 8.5m diameter launched for less than what Ariane5 costs.

.

Imagine how many 8.5m telescopes we could launch into deep space for $10B if each could weigh 100 tons. No need for miniaturisation anymore, no exotic metals to keep it light... At least 10 I reckon.

For 20 years we could launch one Hubble or Webb equivalent telescope every other year.

Smelly stinky repost, rewritten. Here's the 10k /r/space post nine days ago, with link to NASA instead of a failing blog platform: https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/zwulb4/nasa_and_spacex_to_study_possibilities_of/

It has only three of six all-new gyros installed in 2009 still working (and one of those with some issues) - the minimum required for full operations.

They're very different telescopes, how can one be a backup for the other?

I agree Starship could do the job too, but we cannot say how much it would cost, so used what hard numbers we have for current tech. I started with JWST being a deep infra red observatory already out at L2, at a sunk cost of $9.2-9.7 billion dollar value. Ariane5 is EOL as of last year, and was bought for JWST's original launch schedule before SpaceX even had Falcon Heavy, and will be replaced with the Ariane6 this year for roughly the cost of a Falcon heavy per launch (~$70 million euro), usually for GEO/TLI/Deep space delta V/payload to orbit. Keep in mind these telescopes don't make revenue, they are pure science plays where once new technology is proven, they only change out the essentials needed to keep it operational. Economy of scale and reuse isn't helpful, typically only a few hundred million is spent on the upgrades to extend the life for RCS fuel/solar panels/CCD sensor/reaction wheels. Most of the hubble service missions cost was just the vehicle/crew/training and ops. Also remember 100 tons for starship just to LEO, not GEO, TLI, L2 or helio. You see i mentioned that in my comment above, but you seemed to imply practical examples of hardware that has flown today or where firm cost benifit analysis can be made concretely. Starship hasn't left the atmosphere, doesn't have a life support system, docking bay and hasn't been rad hardened. SLS will end after the lunar gateway is established and will be replaced with newer platforms, but my example was a worst case to show even with 2000 era shuttle spare parts a $1-2Billion service mission for webb could make sense from using proven tech that has already flown as of today. It is totally possible Starship will be cheaper and its TPS fastening system will be able to handle a full launch, but static fires seem to indicate each fire will have the same unexpected shuttle issues with turn around time at least based on how long it takes Starbase to repair starship tiles after each fire. The vast bulk of the cost of the missions was development of the cutting edge equipment that didn't exist for the most part until the telescope itself was proven, and delivery the heavy mirrors/vehicle bus/and fuel to its operational orbit. Look at hubble, 60% of it has been swapped out over the years, but most of it was the easiest to swap out light stuff that is already been successfully deployed. That is why Nasa is asking to see if we cannot use a second stage of a falcon to boost Hubble, even though its an ancient telescope compared to webb its still a hard science workhorse.

>That is why Nasa is asking to see if we cannot use a second stage of a falcon to boost Hubble,

Dragon + yet to develop hardware. And it wouldn't cost NASA a single Dollar. That's mostly why.

.

>Ariane6 this year for roughly the cost of a Falcon heavy per launch (~$70 million euro

Both are more like $140M.

.

>Starship will be cheaper and its TPS fastening system will be able to handle a full launch, but static fires seem to indicate each fire will have the same unexpected shuttle issues...

Remember when everyone was extremely concerned about the wrinkly tanks? Or the Raptor production rate? The TPS issue is just the most visual problem SpaceX is currently working on. In a year everyone will be concerned about the next big thing and the tiles will be forgotten.

.

It's illogical to NOT use rockets currently in development at least as rough reference points when planning future missions.

>Also remember 100 tons for starship just to LEO, not GEO, TLI, L2 or helio

Why do you think so?

I have tired to source as much of my data as possible, can you tell me how much you think a JWST replacement will cost, and how you are confident it is less than $2billion dollars with the same or better capabilities? I know since we have proven the massive amounts of new technology successfully, costs will come down, but even Hubble upgrades reusing most of the bus and infra still cost nearly $900 million to upgrade without trying to lift all the mirrors/shields/infra to orbit and assemble only the bare minimum. I just wanted to use the most conservative examples i could find to argue why servicing JWST was still less costly than another $9.7 Billion of space telescope as a ballpark, even if they could make and test in near zero degree vacuum chambers using gold, beryllium plates and near absolute zero actuators, near 0 kelvin acoustic refrigeration half as expensive to manufacture. So given I don't know what SpaceX is going to charge for a JWST servicing mission using a starship, i just wanted to call out the unknowns and that a human rated, rad hardened launch total to service was less clear than what SLS has shown for a journey roughly 1/4-1/5th the L2 distance with a 26-40 ton payload (SpaceX has not stated what the kg/GEO, kg/TLI or kg/Helio will be for starship yet). I am not saying Starship will not make it, and i never commented on wrinkly tanks or raptor production rate (I may have commented that given the replacement rate after test fires that SpaceX needs a new Raptor block to fix the copper oxidation and relight issues, which they did do with Raptor v2). Given that SpaceX is licensing the NASA shuttle patents for the current TPS system and bought the Shuttle tile factory from NASA the Tiles will work. Personally (and its possible i am wrong) i think the Starship tiles will wind up being reworked to prevent zippering/laminar flow issues and the post issue will be resolved with adhesive like the shuttle did when it faced similar issues with early test flights. That aside, we haven't seen Starship leave the atmosphere and re-enter yet with a full test payload even for LEO, so that can effect costs of kg to TLI/L2. As to what sources i am using for Starship capabilities for the next 6-10 years until engines that are much more efficient than raptor come online: Elon said Starship is aiming to get max 100 ton payload to LEO (with optimal apogee in tweets so may be less depending on LEO orbit), social media comments, and the official SpaceX website. https://www.spacex.com/vehicles/starship/

Nitpick here: Didn’t you say the last Hubble refit and boost mission cost a total of $900 million? We are talking large numbers but rounding up another $100 million is a bit unfair as a ballpark estimate for JWST, and argues against your point that refit is a value compared to another brand new telescope with proven current/2023 launch vehicles. Want to also point out that L2 orbital space is finite and without an easy way to gradually deorbit Sats there, is a highly valuable resource. This goes beyond a purely financial argument for refit.

Fair point, will fix. $900M was just what i could find via google, and looks like it was already rounding up all externalities anyway so will edit. Forgot that to the other posters point around how many cheaper systems will start certifying for human rated/heavy lift deep space payloads, this year will see 3-4 L2 capable heavy launch systems debut with Starship, Vulcan, New Glenn and Ariane 6 (Starship and New Glenn have more risk of being bumped to Q1 2024), so that also makes the case for repair/refit even stronger. Will look into how NASA/ESA manage the L2 decommissioning, you have a point that de-orbiting around an L2 frame much further away from a gravity well is more complicated especially if a satellite runs out of fuel to keep the L2 frame orbit stable. Shouldn't there be a parking orbit established like some now used for very extreme orbit (GEO/Helio)? Likely L2 would want to have 1 type of each highly sensitive observatories (Deep infrared (JWST), Hubble replacement for visible light/UV, High energy, and or LIGO/Radar) for data link throughput and cost reasons given the goals for the new Decadal Science survey that initially proposed JWST, and leave the rest of the workload to the much cheaper ground based telescopes using laser correction. https://www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/planetary-science-and-astrobiology-decadal-survey-2023-2032

>can you tell me how much you think a JWST replacement will cost, and how you are confident it is less than $2billion dollars with the same or better capabilities?

To be fair, that wasn't a conservative estimate. More like optimistic spitballing.

I based that on the fact that we now already have the tech needed for Webb. A new telescope wouldn't need to be folded due to larger launch vehicles.

And the rule of thumb (as per my aerospace prof) is that if you can double the mass you can cut development and manufacturing cost by a factor of four.

Webb is like 6,500kg. A new telescope could weigh 15 times as much. Obviously the rule of thumb can't be extrapolated linearly by that much. But I'm relatively certain that we could develop and build a similar telescope for $1B if you practically don't have to look at the mass of your components.

>SpaceX has not stated what the kg/GEO, kg/TLI or kg/Helio will be for starship yet

It's 100 tons at minimum to everywhere in the solar system.

Can you share which of the space telescope proposals are you talking about? Several of them are 4-8x the mass of JWST, and up to 2-4x times the length of JWST's minimum payload faring even folded up.

Space assembly is going to be required even for a number of the proposals components i mentioned above, or at least multiple heavy lift launches in the star-shield senario.

In engineering space launch systems/vehicles, it isn't just 100 tons everywhere in the solar system, its 100 tons to a specific apogee/orbital altitude/delta V target. That is why Falcon heavy can only get 17.637 tons to Mars (assuming the least fuel consumptive Holman transfer window), but can get 69.4 tons to LEO. https://www.spacex.com/vehicles/falcon-heavy/ This is why Falcon Heavy missed bids on a number of deep space missions as it had to reserve fuel mass to hit the orbital targets and could only hit those numbers in non-re-useable mode (Another reason Ariane 6 was designed to hit SpaceX's disposable price per kg numbers for the Falcon Heavy).

Worth mentioning, re-entry velocity from high LEO/GEO/TLI/L2 is very different compared to re-entry from LEO. Typical low earth orbit re-entry speeds are near 17,500 mph and the Mach number M 24-25 for the lower end of LEO orbits. For Artemis/Apollo/L2 return in days/weeks, it is 24,500 mph (Mach 32). This is another reason why L2/TLI/Helio is a different ballgame when it comes to human rated craft payload and mission price per kg. The asteroid sample return mission this year is i think going to be a record breaker, but coming from another solar orbit entirely would be the high end for re-entry velocity/heat abatement. Stardust sample return re-entry from a deep space location with 28,856 mph (Mach 38, 12.9 km/sec) holds the record for the fastest reentry of any human made object, but would be the upper end of a human based refit mission.

Starship is aiming to get 100 tons of payload (Payload includes mission Life support, deep space shielding, mission/fuel/food/water/air/etc), in 1,000 cubic meters of payload volume to a optimal 98.9° orbital inclination(less optimal inclinations means much less payload to LEO), with an altitude of 310 mi (500km), traveling at a minimum of 11 orbits a day of velocity. Space X has said it will not invest in hypersonic testing facilities, so i want to add that may mean more payload lost as starship will need to move to tiles the same thickness as the space shuttle's as the Hubble servicing missions were at the extreme limit of the LEO orbital band and speed. [It used to be 150 tons but it was reduced as the real performance of the raptors became known, and SpaceX completely scrapped active cooling in exchange for buying the shuttle TPS system from NASA about 2 years ago.] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/Comparison_satellite_navigation_orbits.svg

Illusory fantasy. Never happen. Essential, non-scientific hardware is unavailable to fix it.