The Hubble Space Telescope, orbiting roughly 300 miles above Earth, is gradually losing altitude as atmospheric drag slowly pulls it toward eventual reentry in the coming years. A technical memorandum by the NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC) examines how continued orbit decay could affect the observatory’s ability to conduct science, maintain pointing control, and, ultimately, its reentry risk. With aging gyroscopes already forcing the observatory into a degraded operating mode, the gap between Hubble’s scientific productivity and its operational margins is narrowing.
NESC Study Charts a Grim Reentry Timeline
The technical memorandum on orbit decay, cataloged as NASA/TM-20250010561, lays out the results of an independent assessment conducted by the NASA Engineering and Safety Center. The study models when Hubble’s orbit will decay to the point that science operations and pointing control are no longer possible, and it frames the public risk associated with an uncontrolled reentry of a spacecraft weighing more than 24,000 pounds. While the full probabilistic risk models are not presented in detail in the publicly available memorandum, the document shows NESC analyzing orbit-decay scenarios and reentry risk as part of NASA’s technical report process.
As of March 2024, Hubble sat at an altitude of approximately 300 miles, according to NASA’s own mission statistics. That number has been dropping steadily since the last Space Shuttle servicing mission in 2009, with no propulsion system on board to counteract atmospheric drag. The NESC analysis describes the trajectory from that baseline altitude toward a point where the telescope can no longer maintain stable orientation for observations, a threshold that arrives well before the spacecraft actually reenters the atmosphere. The distinction matters: Hubble could become scientifically useless months or even years before it burns up, meaning the window for a rescue or controlled disposal is shorter than the reentry date alone suggests.
Gyroscope Failures Compound the Orbital Problem
Hubble’s hardware troubles are not limited to gravity. Earlier in 2024, the telescope entered safe mode after one of its gyroscopes began producing faulty readings, halting all science operations until engineers could diagnose and work around the problem. Gyroscopes are essential for pointing the telescope at distant targets with the precision astronomers require, and Hubble has been burning through its supply for decades. NASA officials said in June 2024 that the equipment issue would result in fewer observations; the Associated Press reported comments from Hubble project manager Patrick Crouse and Astrophysics Division Director Mark Clampin.
The agency’s response has been to shift Hubble toward one-gyro operations, a contingency mode that uses substitute sensors such as star trackers to compensate for failed gyroscopes. This keeps the telescope functional but at a cost: slews between targets become slower, scheduling flexibility shrinks, and some observations become impossible. The practical effect is that even if Hubble’s orbit held steady, its scientific output would decline as more gyroscopes fail. Combined with the orbital decay documented by the NESC, the telescope faces a compounding problem where hardware degradation and altitude loss reinforce each other, tightening the schedule for any mission that might attempt to intervene.
Rescue Options Stall at the Study Phase
NASA has not been entirely passive. The agency signed an unfunded Space Act Agreement with SpaceX and the Polaris program to study a reboost using a Dragon spacecraft that could push Hubble into a higher, safer orbit. NASA also issued a Request for Information to solicit ideas from other commercial providers. The agency’s own language acknowledged that Hubble’s orbit is “slowly decaying,” a measured phrase that nonetheless confirmed the core problem and put commercial partners on notice that time is a factor. Yet the agreement carried no funding, and the feasibility work has not produced publicly available results that would indicate a mission is moving beyond the concept stage.
NASA’s official posture, as stated through project manager Patrick Crouse, was that the agency is not pursuing a reboost “for now.” That phrase captures the tension at the heart of the situation: the agency recognizes the problem, has explored commercial partnerships, but has not committed resources to a fix. The gap between studying a reboost and actually performing one involves spacecraft modifications, mission planning, risk assessment, and budget allocation, none of which move quickly in the federal procurement system. Every month of delay means Hubble drops lower, the atmosphere grows thicker at its altitude, and the energy required for a successful reboost increases, potentially pricing out lower-cost commercial options that might have been viable earlier.
The Soft Capture Mechanism and End-of-Life Planning
Engineers anticipated this scenario as far back as 2009, when astronauts on Servicing Mission 4 installed the Soft Capture Mechanism on Hubble’s aft end. The ring-shaped device was designed so that a future robotic mission could grapple the telescope and guide it to a controlled de-orbit, preventing debris from an uncontrolled reentry from reaching populated areas. That foresight now looks prescient, but the robotic mission the mechanism was designed for has never been funded or built. The hardware exists on the telescope; the spacecraft to use it does not, leaving a critical piece of the safety architecture unpaired with the rest of the system it was meant to support.
The NESC study’s discussion of public risk associated with an uncontrolled reentry adds urgency to this gap. Hubble is one of the largest civilian spacecraft in low Earth orbit, and an uncontrolled reentry can carry a risk that debris survives to the ground. Without a controlled de-orbit, NASA and its partners would have to rely on standard tracking and risk-assessment practices used for reentering space hardware. The presence of a ready-made capture ring underscores that the agency once expected to shoulder this responsibility directly; the current reliance on unfunded studies and commercial interest stands in sharp contrast to the more proactive planning that accompanied the shuttle-era servicing missions.
What the Clock and the Paper Trail Are Really Saying
The emerging paper trail around Hubble’s fate is as revealing as the technical details. The orbit-decay memorandum appears in NASA’s broader ecosystem of technical reports, which are typically used to capture engineering judgments, risk assessments, and lessons learned that may not make it into high-level policy documents. Its focus on the timing of science loss, pointing degradation, and reentry risk effectively defines the boundary conditions within which any rescue, reboost, or controlled-disposal mission would have to operate. In other words, it is a clock, and the numbers on that clock are now part of the agency’s official record.
At the same time, NASA’s public messaging continues to emphasize Hubble’s ongoing scientific productivity, its partnership with the James Webb Space Telescope, and the ingenuity of operating in reduced-gyro modes. All of that remains true, but the combination of falling altitude, aging hardware, and unfunded mitigation concepts points toward a future in which the telescope’s end-of-life is dictated more by budget lines than by engineering possibilities. The existence of a soft capture ring, a commercial interest in reboost concepts, and a detailed NESC decay analysis suggests that technical pathways to a safer outcome do exist. Whether any of them are pursued before Hubble crosses the thresholds outlined by its own engineers will determine if one of humanity’s most celebrated observatories ends its life as a managed descent or as another piece of uncontrolled space debris.
More from Morning Overview
*This article was researched with the help of AI, with human editors creating the final content.
