HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE PROGRAM Sixth European Conference on Space Debris 1 Goddard Space Flight Center mk_overview.ppt Space Shuttle STS- 31 Deployment of HST on April 25, 1990 AN EARLY STUDY OF DISPOSAL OPTIONS FOR THE HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE Thomas Griffin, Scott Hull, Joy Bretthauer, Stephen Leete NASA Goddard Space Flight Center

HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE PROGRAM Sixth European Conference on Space Debris 2 Goddard Space Flight Center mk_overview.ppt Purpose for the Study Known Reentry Risk –HST has no propulsion system; orbit is constantly decaying –Uncontrolled reentry in /- ~10 years –Risk to the ground population is ~ (about 1:250) Disposal Options –Controlled reentry is one obvious option to study –Are there other disposal options available? Study Topics –Are there practical options to controlled reentry for the disposal of HST, and what are the costs and benefits to each in terms of risk to both the public and the shared orbital environment? –What is the necessary schedule for successful disposal of HST?

HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE PROGRAM Sixth European Conference on Space Debris 3 Goddard Space Flight Center mk_overview.ppt Wide Field Planetary Camera 2 COSTAR Gyros Solar Arrays Launch! Imaging Spectrograph Near Infrared Camera Fine Guidance Sensor Gyros Advanced Computer Fine Guidance Sensor Advanced Camera Solar Arrays Power Control Unit NICMOS Cooling System Gyros Wide Field Camera 3 Cosmic Origins Spectrograph Batteries Fine Guidance Sensor STIS Repair ACS Repair New Outer Blanket Layer Soft Capture Mechanism SM1 SM2 SM3A SM3B SM4 Disposal Mission Hubble Servicing Missions ~2024 3

HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE PROGRAM Sixth European Conference on Space Debris 4 Goddard Space Flight Center mk_overview.ppt NASA / ESA Partnership NASA and ESA have been partners in HST for over 30 years Together, ESA and NASA have forged a four decade long Partnership that has revolutionized the Astronomy Community. Original ESA/NASA HST Memorandum of Understanding was signed in 1977 This relationship will continue through the Disposal of the Observatory

HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE PROGRAM Sixth European Conference on Space Debris 5 Goddard Space Flight Center mk_overview.ppt HRSDM Foundations and Lessons In March 2004, a design effort was undertaken to perform the Hubble Robotic Servicing and De-orbit Mission (HRSDM) Within one year, a full mission was designed through PDR –Rendezvous and capture HST –Change out two science instruments and spacecraft bus hardware –Detach Servicing Module, leaving the Deorbit Module on HST –Controlled reentry some years later Much of the background research and planning is still applicable –Tumble rates –Rendezvous and capture techniques –Propulsion system sizing This effort spawned the current Satellite Servicing efforts at GSFC

HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE PROGRAM Sixth European Conference on Space Debris 6 Goddard Space Flight Center mk_overview.ppt Orbit Decay Profile for HST HST tumble rates are acceptable above 500 km Earliest credible date for reaching 500 km is 2024 Disposal decisions do not need to be made immediately

HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE PROGRAM Sixth European Conference on Space Debris 7 Goddard Space Flight Center mk_overview.ppt Orbit Change Options Considered Drag Enhancement –Can accelerate the reentry of HST –Insufficient control to positively determine the reentry location –Methods included balloon, mist, sail, tether Laser Nudging –Insufficient thrust to make substantial orbit changes Intentional Breakup –Makes the reentry risk worse unless all resulting particles are very small Propulsion –Chemical propulsion – monopropellant and bipropellant –Electric propulsion –Electrodynamic tether –All are feasible, and have potential applications for HST disposal

HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE PROGRAM Sixth European Conference on Space Debris 8 Goddard Space Flight Center mk_overview.ppt Disposal Options Considered Option 1: Controlled Reentry –Bipropellant propulsion to 50 km perigee and ocean reentry –Removal from orbit at least 6-10 years before natural decay –High profile event, with great consequences for anomalies Option 2: Boost to 1200 km –Highest practical altitude for chemical propulsion –Very low existing debris density –Long-term stable orbit –Incompatible with existing guidelines Option 3: Boost to 2000 km –Electric propulsion or electrodynamic tether –Longer time to reach the final orbit –Naturally circular resulting orbit, meets existing guidelines

HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE PROGRAM Sixth European Conference on Space Debris 9 Goddard Space Flight Center mk_overview.ppt Feasible Options Identified

HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE PROGRAM Sixth European Conference on Space Debris 10 Goddard Space Flight Center mk_overview.ppt Collision Risks (>10 cm) Inherent Collision Risks –Since launch, HST has accumulated ~ –By 2024, risk estimated as Option 1: Controlled Reentry –Additional large object risk is zero Option 2: Boost to 1200 km –Risk during orbit raising is near zero, including conjunction assessment –Collision risk during storage estimated as ~ per year Option 3: Boost to 2000 km –Risk during orbit raising is near zero, including conjunction assessment –Collision risk during storage estimated as ~ per year Collision risks estimated using DAS (ORDEM2000)

HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE PROGRAM Sixth European Conference on Space Debris 11 Goddard Space Flight Center mk_overview.ppt Reentry Risks Do Nothing: Uncontrolled Reentry –Reentry risk is estimated as for reentry in 2031 (1:230) Option 1: Controlled Reentry –If successful, reentry risk is zero –End-to-end risk is (1:9000), 39X reduction in overall risk Option 2: Boost to 1200 km –If successful, reentry risk is zero –End-to-end risk is (1:9000), 39X reduction in overall risk Option 3: Boost to 2000 km –If successful, reentry risk is zero –End-to-end risk is (1:2650), 11.5X reduction in overall risk End-to-end risks include the reliability of the launch, rendezvous, and orbit change

HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE PROGRAM Sixth European Conference on Space Debris 12 Goddard Space Flight Center mk_overview.ppt Conclusions There are feasible disposal options for HST, in addition to controlled reentry Each of the disposal options carries a different set of advantages, disadvantages, and challenges Drag enhancement, intentional breakup, and laser nudging were all found to be impractical approaches for the disposal of HST A decision on the ultimate HST disposal method and design can be delayed at least five years without reducing its success Disposal OptionAdvantagesDisadvantages Uncontrolled ReentryZero costUnacceptable public risk 1) Controlled Reentry Lowest cost, Short time Meets all disposal requirements Mature technology Accepted approach Sensitive to errors High visibility 2) Boost to 1200 km Short time Low cost Insensitive to errors Violates NASA requirements and International agreements Higher collision risk 3) Boost to 2000 kmMeets all disposal requirements Insensitive to errors Longest time Highest cost Technology maturity

HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE PROGRAM Sixth European Conference on Space Debris 13 Goddard Space Flight Center mk_overview.ppt Questions Please feel free to questions to