How Many Years Left Until the Hubble Space Telescope Reenters Earth's Atmosphere? - Slashdot

How Many Years Left Until the Hubble Space Telescope Reenters Earth's Atmosphere? - Slashdot
Close
binspam
dupe
notthebest
offtopic
slownewsday
stale
stupid
fresh
funny
insightful
interesting
maybe
offtopic
flamebait
troll
redundant
overrated
insightful
interesting
informative
funny
underrated
descriptive
typo
dupe
error
180564290
story
"The clock is ticking" on the Hubble Space Telescope,
writes the space news site
Daily Galaxy
, citing estimates from the unofficial "Hubble Reentry Tracker" site (which uses orbital data from the site
space-track.org
, created by tech integrator SAIC):
While Hubble was initially launched into low Earth orbit at an altitude of around 360 miles, it has since descended to approximately 326 miles, and it continues to fall... "The solar flux levels are currently longer in duration and more elevated than previously anticipated, resulting in an earlier reentry forecast for the Hubble Space Telescope if no reboost mission is conducted,"
Hubble Reentry Tracker
says the Hubble Reentry Tracker... ["Hubble has been reboosted three times in its history," the site points out, "all by servicing missions
using the Space Shuttle
."]
NASA partnered with SpaceX in 2022 to explore the feasibility of raising Hubble to its original altitude of 373 miles. Such an adjustment would have bought Hubble a few more years in orbit. However, the future of this plan remains uncertain, as NASA has not made any official announcements to move forward with it... Solar flux levels, which determine atmospheric drag, have increased in recent years, accelerating the telescope's decline. This change in solar behavior means that the possibility of Hubble reentering Earth's atmosphere in the next five to six years is quite high if no corrective action is taken. ["But it is difficult to estimate this value due to the variability of future solar flux," the site cautions. "In the best case, Hubble may not reenter for 15 more years, around 2040. In the worst case, it could reenter in 4 years..."]

Once Hubble reaches an altitude of 248 miles, it is expected that it will have less than a year before reentry...
While Hubble's end may be near, there is a promising new project on the horizon: Lazuli, a privately-funded space telescope funded by former Google CEO Eric Schmidt. Lazuli aims to become the first privately-funded space telescope, and it could be the successor Hubble enthusiasts have been hoping for. Schmidt Sciences, the organization behind the telescope, plans to launch Lazuli by 2028, providing a more modern alternative to Hubble with a larger mirror and enhanced capabilities. The telescope's proposed design includes a 94-inch-wide mirror, which is a significant upgrade from Hubble's 94.5-inch mirror, and will feature updated instruments to capture more detailed data than ever before.
Related Links
Walmart Announces Drone Delivery, Integration with Google's AI Chatbot Gemini
SpaceX Launches New NASA Telescope to Help JWST Study Exoplanets
Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang Says AI Doomerism Has 'Done a Lot of Damage'
This discussion has been archived.

No new comments can be posted.
How Many Years Left Until the Hubble Space Telescope Reenters Earth's Atmosphere?
More
How Many Years Left Until the Hubble Space Telescope Reenters Earth's Atmosphere?
Comments Filter:
All
Insightful
Informative
Interesting
Funny
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Two guys I used to work with
Score:
, Interesting)
by
RightwingNutjob
( 1302813 )
writes:
on Sunday January 11, 2026 @05:38PM (
#65916798
One worked on something Hubble in the 90s and told me the story about how the old solar panels used to bind up and vibrate like crazy during transitions between sunlight and eclipse...not so good for a telescope.
The other guy, a younger fella, barely older than the Hubble program itself, was convinced in his bones that Hubble and the servicing missions were a waste of money that could be used for astronomy some better way.
Something like that, that lasts almost 40 years in space...that's going to make some lore.
Well done.
Share
Re: Two guys I used to work with
Score:
, Funny)
by
Slashythenkilly
( 7027842 )
writes:
on Sunday January 11, 2026 @07:02PM (
#65916884
Is reading that difficult for you?
Parent
Share
Re:
Score:
by
Anonymous Coward
writes:
Something about an onion on their belt?
Re:
Score:
by
Anonymous Coward
writes:
that's
President
Shmavin Gruesome to you sir
Re:
Score:
by
necro81
( 917438 )
writes:
One worked on something Hubble in the 90s and told me the story about how the old solar panels used to bind up and vibrate like crazy during transitions between sunlight and eclipse...not so good for a telescope.
One of my professors worked on that specific problem. He utilized some pretty sophisticated system identification techniques to generate a black box kinematic model, then developed a controller for it, which could counteract the vibrations much faster than other solutions. Curiously, he was unclear as to whether it was ever adopted for Hubble - it's possible he was actually doing that work on a Hubble-like spy satellite.
About tree fiddy
Score:
by
jfdavis668
( 1414919 )
writes:
Damn you Lock Ness monster!
OK, if you say so.
Score:
, Insightful)
by
msauve
( 701917 )
writes:
on Sunday January 11, 2026 @05:46PM (
#65916804
>The telescope's proposed design includes a 94-inch-wide mirror, which is a significant upgrade from Hubble's 94.5-inch mirror,
Uh, what?
Share
Re:OK, if you say so.
Score:
, Insightful)
by
greytree
( 7124971 )
writes:
on Sunday January 11, 2026 @06:03PM (
#65916816
Pssst. You must be new here. You're only supposed to read the headline, the summary is basically just lorem ipsum text, human-generated slop.
Parent
Share
Re:
Score:
by
drinkypoo
( 153816 )
writes:
OK, but what about the headlines
also
being slop which frequently don't support the story? I guess what B!zX is going for is that we read none of it?
Re:
Score:
by
dgatwood
( 11270 )
writes:
>The telescope's proposed design includes a 94-inch-wide mirror, which is a significant upgrade from Hubble's 94.5-inch mirror,
Uh, what?
Maybe they meant that the new telescope's mirror won't have an optical defect that requires lenses to compensate for it.
Re:
Score:
by
Zorpheus
( 857617 )
writes:
It wasn't really "defect". It was designed for earth observations, because the telescope was just the facade for the KH-11 KENNEN spy satellite program. Because of that the focal length was minimally off.
Re:
Score:
by
Zorpheus
( 857617 )
writes:
Sorry, I just read that this is a persistent misconception, the mirror error did not come from reusing trhe KH-11 KENNEN equipment.
Re:OK, if you say so.
Score:
, Interesting)
by
necro81
( 917438 )
writes:
on Monday January 12, 2026 @11:17AM (
#65917912
Journal
It was the most perfect mirror ever fabricated at that time. It just happened to be perfectly off from the intended shape. Kind of the difference between precision and accuracy.
But, because it was so perfect, characterizing how "off" it was and designing corrective optics for it was not too hard. Aside from those first few years before the first servicing mission, Hubble's "vision" has been outstanding - meeting or exceeding expectations.
Parent
Share
Re: OK, if you say so.
Score:
by
SnotMelon
( 9070565 )
writes:
According to
this
[slashdot.org] the Lazuli diameter should be 3m (118 inches)
Re:
Score:
by
necro81
( 917438 )
writes:
The telescope's proposed design includes a 94-inch-wide mirror, which is a significant upgrade from Hubble's 94.5-inch mirror
That's an editing/reporting problem, as other comments have mentioned.
However, even if they were the same diameter, Lazuli's optical design could still be superior: it is a three-mirror anastigmat where the 2nd and 3rd mirrors are positioned off to the side, rather than being coaxial with the primary mirror. This means that the primary mirror does not have a hole in the center, and the supporting structure for the secondary mirror does not impinge on the primary's field of view.
Re:
Score:
by
Tablizer
( 95088 )
writes:
Decimal points cause light diffraction, distorting the image.
/s
Correction to the summary
Score:
, Informative)
by
swillden
( 191260 )
writes:
shawn-ds@willden.org
on Sunday January 11, 2026 @05:51PM (
#65916808
Journal
The telescope's proposed design includes a 94-inch-wide mirror, which is a significant upgrade from Hubble's 94.5-inch mirror
If you're confused as to how a 0.5 inch
smaller
mirror is an upgrade, the number is wrong. Lazuli's mirror is 3.1m (~122"), compared to Hubble's 2.4m (~94.5").
Share
Re:
Score:
by
williamyf
( 227051 )
writes:
The telescope's proposed design includes a 94-inch-wide mirror, which is a significant upgrade from Hubble's 94.5-inch mirror
If you're confused as to how a 0.5 inch
smaller
mirror is an upgrade, the number is wrong. Lazuli's mirror is 3.1m (~122"), compared to Hubble's 2.4m (~94.5").
Not only that, the OG Mirror had distortions, that had tp be corrected in a first servicing mission, givig the telescope "eyeglases". So, a mirror with similar diameter (we agree this one is bigger) but more modern mirror technology and no aberrations would have been progress.
NASA's take on the optical correction:
[nasa.gov]
Gary Larson's take:
[srcdn.com]
Re:
Score:
by
swillden
( 191260 )
writes:
Very true. Though, honestly, the correction has worked so well that I often forget about it.
Re:
Score:
by
tlhIngan
( 30335 )
writes:
Not only that, the OG Mirror had distortions, that had tp be corrected in a first servicing mission, givig the telescope "eyeglases". So, a mirror with similar diameter (we agree this one is bigger) but more modern mirror technology and no aberrations would have been progress.
You make it sound like it was a huge thing. It was a miscalculation made when grinding the mirror that didn't take gravity into account properly (because gravity warps the mirror, they had to take it into account). The actual differenc
Re:
Score:
by
sysrammer
( 446839 )
writes:
Back when this started I heard it was at 80% capacity before the spectacles. I understand that it improved somewhat until fixed.
It was a miscalculation made when grinding the mirror that didn't take gravity into account properly (because gravity warps the mirror, they had to take it into account).
That's not how I remember it. I had read that someone used a tool improperly, more in line w/ what Wiki sez:
The Allen Commission found that a reflective null corrector, a testing device used to achieve a properly shaped non-spherical mirror, had been incorrectly assembled. (One lens was out of position by 1.3 mm (0.051 in).
Re:
Score:
by
tchdab1
( 164848 )
writes:
Lazuli isn't up there yet, so we don't yet know how bad the mistakes are, if any.
Re:
Score:
by
account_deleted
( 4530225 )
writes:
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Save Hubble !
Score:
by
greytree
( 7124971 )
writes:
I assume Hubble can still do valuable science even when many better space telescopes are sent up there.
So would it be possible to fit a Hubble adapter to the front of an ( unmanned ) Dragon capsule ( similar to the one that will, shamefully, deorbit the ISS ) which would boost it into higher orbit ?
Re:
Score:
by
jakimfett
( 2629943 )
writes:
I say we boost it to one of the Lagrange points and use it as the foundation & test project for a rotating extraorbital manufacturing platform.
Make the new construction big enough that the central, stationary hub (spacedock?) is big enough to enclose Hubble, so we can retrofit it as an initial exercise in high-precision manufacturing.
We'll probably never do this, because the humans at the levers of power would rather instigate militarized fights and harm children than work together for the good of
Re:
Score:
by
cusco
( 717999 )
writes:
There are systems available to stabilize and/or boost commercial satellites which have expended their on-board fuel, but of course Congress would never allow NASA to use them since none of their
REAL
constituents in the MIC would make enough money. Besides, Hubble data insists that the universe is more than 6,000 years old so there's no real interest in Congress to maintain it in orbit.
If the grotesquely wealthy upper class which rules us really wanted to do something good for society they'd fund the missi
Re:
Score:
by
dgatwood
( 11270 )
writes:
There are systems available to stabilize and/or boost commercial satellites which have expended their on-board fuel, but of course Congress would never allow NASA to use them since none of their
REAL
constituents in the MIC would make enough money.
They're going to have to send something up there no matter what, because Hubble was never designed for a post-space-shuttle world. It has no propulsion built in, relying on the space shuttle to keep it up or bring it safely down to the ground.
An uncontrolled descent of HST would result in large fragments reaching the ground, potentially including pieces as large as one ton. Imagine a white-hot car landing on a house or school at many thousands of miles per hour. It would be like a bomb going off.
Our gove
Re:
Score:
by
cusco
( 717999 )
writes:
Letting HST reenter the atmosphere on its own would be insanity.
Considering the leadership of our government over the last quarter century, "insanity" seems the most likely route.
Unit conversation fail
Score:
, Informative)
by
VaccinesCauseAdults
( 7114361 )
writes:
on Sunday January 11, 2026 @06:32PM (
#65916834
Every measurement in the article has been converted from metric to noddy units, and spurious significant figures have been added.

373 mi = 600 km
326 mi = 525 km
248 mi = 400 km
94.5 in = 2.4 m
Share
Re:
Score:
by
jakimfett
( 2629943 )
writes:
Apparently, LLMs are bad at rigorous maths, and when a reporter delegates their thinking to an approximation machine without fact-checking the output, you get things like a 27-ish inch conversion error.
Re:
Score:
by
swillden
( 191260 )
writes:
Apparently, LLMs are bad at rigorous maths, and when a reporter delegates their thinking to an approximation machine without fact-checking the output, you get things like a 27-ish inch conversion error.
No need to blame LLMs. Science reporting was always like this.
Re:
Score:
by
Bu11etmagnet
( 1071376 )
writes:
How much is that in inches?
I have the musical accompaniment for this story
Score:
by
divide overflow
( 599608 )
writes:
Space Junk by DEVO
[youtube.com]
Once Eric Schmidt launched his ad-projector...
Score:
by
ffkom
( 3519199 )
writes:
... the night sky will be alight from the advertisements displayed on the surface of the moon all night, as somebody rightfully pointed out on
/. recently. So let's hope Hubble works for a few more years.
The problem with "privately funded"
Score:
by
Anonymous Coward
writes:
Access to the data becomes restricted because now it's "proprietary". The government has to fund these things to protect open access, otherwise every road becomes a toll road.
Not ambitious enough
Score:
by
eagl
( 86459 )
writes:
Lofting the orbit isn't nearly ambitious enough. NASA (Congress) should fund a robust spacex mission to replace/update failed or obsolete systems, and get even more useful life out of the telescope for a fraction of what it cost the last time it was serviced.
Hubble (my cat) likely to burn up in 4 to 15 years
Score:
by
vanye
( 7120 )
writes:
Kepler (other cat) still working fine.
Space shuttle..
Score:
by
SuperDre
( 982372 )
writes:
And that's why we need vehicles like the space shuttle, being able to go up there and do maintenance. Maybe Starship will be able to fulfil the void.
Re:
Score:
by
nevermindme
( 912672 )
writes:
You mean a affordable rapidly reusable heavy lift craft with a range of 25 to 100 tons to LEO with a payload fraction about 5x larger than shuttle, and about 1/25th the program cost to the government, yeah the starship technology just might fit the bill.
Jim Richardson
Score:
by
Starjet
( 10503273 )
writes:
I had this man for a grad level Data Communications course at the Boston University Corporate Education Center, Tyngsboro MS in 1993.

He was a brilliant guy who loved teaching. His expertise was broadband networks, and he set up most of the insurance companies in Boston. He had a work partner named Richard Goglia.

He worked on some part of the Hubble repair in FL that fall. He couldn't tell us much bc classified.

But he was able to show us videos he took of the scarred up blackened launch area beneath wh
Related Links
Top of the:
day
week
month
317
comments
CDC Changes Webpage To Say Vaccines May Cause Autism, Revising Prior Language
307
comments
US Formally Withdraws From WHO
299
comments
Ultra-Processed Foods Should Be Treated More Like Cigarettes Than Food, Study Says
297
comments
CDC Data Confirms US is 2 Months Away From Losing Measles Elimination Status
273
comments
Scientists Warn US Will Lose a Generation of Talent
next
Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang Says AI Doomerism Has 'Done a Lot of Damage'
105
comments
previous
Walmart Announces Drone Delivery, Integration with Google's AI Chatbot Gemini
20
comments
Slashdot Top Deals
Excessive login or logout messages are a sure sign of senility.
Close
Working...