 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Shuttle / January 2004Hubble Economics
So NASA cancels a shuttle maintance mission and says it's cheaper to (1) re-write the shuttle software program to work with three gyros operational instead of four; then probably with two instead of three (we don't even know this is POSSIBLE yet) (2) design, test, and built a new experiental robot spacecraft that when launched will rendezvous with the Hubble, attach to it, then guide it to splashdown in a remote part of the ocean (we don't know if this is POSSIBLE either) I find it hard to believe that a single shuttle trip to Hubble to do regular maintenance will be cheaper than these very risky, unproven elaborate programs. As far as that goes, what happens if Bush loses the election and the next President disagrees with his plans for NASA? Then several billion dollars will be spent, and many priceless missions canceled, for nothing at all. I'm as much of a fan of a mission to the moon and to Mars, but I believe that NASA should not act on what the President says. Changes in space policy of this magnitude must be approved by Congress, and officially written into law after lengthy public debate. Otherwise we're just chasing our tail like a dog. Bill Clark http://home.austin.rr.com/whcii/ > So NASA cancels a shuttle maintance mission and says it's cheaper to > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > regular maintenance will be cheaper than these very risky, unproven > elaborate programs. Yep. That's my impression as well... the current off-the-cuff guesses / rough estimates for a non-Shuttle Hubble mission works out to about the same cost. Launcher, development cost, mission cost, etc... appears to be in the ballpark of about $300M which is roughly a single Shuttle flight. Might as well as send the Shuttle up for a flight in which it is quite qualified and have already done so in the past, with qualified crew members and existing documentation and procedures, without having to reinvent the wheel at expense of time, unproven procedures, etc. Unfortunately, it appears as if the people calling the shots have a different mindset, which is kind of a shame... I'm not a big fan of the thinking that we must keep an orbiter ready for launch in case of a developing serious issue to another orbiter or that all subsequent Shuttle flights must be to the ISS. I feel that the people involved understands and accepts the inherent hazards and risks as well as potential negative outcomes for any given flight. Try telling that to people outside the program, though. I drive in Alaska including in certain places where if I get in an accident, I'm simply screwed and may die -- I accept the odds since I work hard to minimize it, but accept it if it should actually happen to me for real. I don't insist the state invests in some expensive and ridiculous scheme of very little ordinary use just in the *off* chance I could die the next time I'm on the road. Why can't politicians holding the purse strings see that for the space program? Sigh. -Dan P.S. Appreciated the correction from various people in the other Hubble thread -- I did indeed goof by incorrectly remembering it had any propulsive systems; has none, that is correct, so an extra mission is definitely required to deorbit it safely. Hopefully via the Shuttle, but... > > So NASA cancels a shuttle maintance mission and says it's cheaper to > > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Unfortunately, it appears as if the people calling the shots have a > different mindset, which is kind of a shame... The safety procedures demanded after the loss of the last shuttle are what killed the Hubble. No flights that don't include inspection from ISS. No capability to reach Hubble *and* ISS in a single flight. >The safety procedures demanded after the loss of the last shuttle are >what killed the Hubble. No flights that don't include inspection from >ISS. > >No capability to reach Hubble *and* ISS in a single flight. I thought the CAIB wanted a TPS inspection and repair capability that didn't involve ISS for solo Earth orbit Shuttle missions. If NASA has failed to come up with this, or doesn't want to bother I wish they'd flat out say it. -A.L. > >The safety procedures demanded after the loss of the last shuttle are > >what killed the Hubble. No flights that don't include inspection from [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I thought the CAIB wanted a TPS inspection and repair capability that didn't > involve ISS for solo Earth orbit Shuttle missions. The shuttle will need an inspection and repair capability whether it is destined for ISS or not, because any shuttle flight that goes to ISS has the possibility of an abort that puts it in orbit without enough energy to reach the station. I'm still trying to comprehend how this is any different than a planned mission to Hubble...each leaves the shuttle in an orbit where it doesn't reach ISS. For ISS flights, the ISS is the "lifeboat"...for the one HST mission the lifeboat would be a second orbiter. Seems like a matter of scheduling to me..... Reed  SignatureDr. Reed L. Riddle Associate Director of Whole Earth Telescope Operations Iowa State University Department of Physics & Astronomy Email: drriddle "at" qwest.net Homepage: http://wet.physics.iastate.edu/~riddle/ "This life has been a test. If this had been an actual life, you would have received instructions on where to go and what to do." Angela Chase, "My so-called life" Remove "DAMN SPAM" from my email address to reply..... > > I thought the CAIB wanted a TPS inspection and repair capability that > > didn't involve ISS for solo Earth orbit Shuttle missions. After the SM4 cancellation, there are no such missions planned, ergo no pressing need to develop such capability. > The shuttle will need an inspection and repair capability whether it is > destined for ISS or not, because any shuttle flight that goes to ISS has > the possibility of an abort that puts it in orbit without enough energy > to reach the station. That is actually a fairly unlike failure scenario - it would be an ATO with severe underspeed, and it seems likely to me you could compensate in part using the OMS engines. In addition, this means you're planning for a double-failure scenario. They're having enough problems solving the single-failure scenarios... Jan > Yep. That's my impression as well... the current off-the-cuff guesses / > rough estimates for a non-Shuttle Hubble mission works out to about the > same cost. Launcher, development cost, mission cost, etc... appears to be > in the ballpark of about $300M which is roughly a single Shuttle flight. Single Shuttle flight to attach deorbit mechanism HST -- $300M Research, develop, fly, and deorbit HST with autonomous vehicle -- $300M Reusing autonomous vehicle technology in many other situations -- Priceless You guys are thinking *much* too narrowly. Think about the application and the extrapolation of the technology of such an autonomous vehicle to other orbital situations... *that* is where a big payoff will come. Roger SignatureRoger Balettie former Flight Dynamics Officer Space Shuttle Mission Control http://www.balettie.com/ >> Yep. That's my impression as well... the current off-the-cuff guesses / >> rough estimates for a non-Shuttle Hubble mission works out to about the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Reusing autonomous vehicle technology in many other situations -- Priceless That's a fair point. I was actually thinking along these lines for had we further developed the Shuttle-C. -Dan >> Yep. That's my impression as well... the current off-the-cuff guesses / >> rough estimates for a non-Shuttle Hubble mission works out to about the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >the extrapolation of the technology of such an autonomous vehicle to other >orbital situations... *that* is where a big payoff will come. But haven't autonomous repair vehicles been considered as part of the Space Transportation System from the very beginning, if not before? And they've never got off the drawing board, even for the lucrative comsat market. SignatureRabbit arithmetic - 1 plus 1 equals 10 Remove spam and invalid from address to reply. > >Single Shuttle flight to attach deorbit mechanism HST -- $300M > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > they've never got off the drawing board, even for the lucrative comsat > market. Fully autonomous vehicles are hard. This is because robots are relatively stupid. Teleoperated vehicles are much easier to deal with, but even so, we have no technology that matches the repair capabilities of human hands. For Hubble, a simple teleoperated vehicle would work fine. Launch it on any one of the same rockets used for satellites. It doesn't have to "dock" with Hubble - all it has to do is attach itself. No need to be gentle because you don't have to worry about leaving Hubble in working condition. The mission would be "grab hard and hold on". "Jonathan Silverlight" <jsilverlight@spam.merseia.fsnet.co.uk.invalid> wrote: > But haven't autonomous repair vehicles been considered as part of the > Space Transportation System from the very beginning, if not before? Considered? Sure... Executed? Nope. > And > they've never got off the drawing board, even for the lucrative comsat > market. But, if it's *available* after having been developed, I would think the usage would be actualized. Roger SignatureRoger Balettie former Flight Dynamics Officer Space Shuttle Mission Control http://www.balettie.com/ >Single Shuttle flight to attach deorbit mechanism HST -- $300M > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Roger YTeah BUT the pres plan doesnt call for anothewr service mission to attach a grabble spot. Just abandon and somehow grab and deorbit later. What do we do if it maklfunctions and brings the hubble ointo someones head? Besides which Hubble is a IDEAL long duration test instrument for study.... >>Single Shuttle flight to attach deorbit mechanism HST -- $300M >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > What do we do if it maklfunctions and brings the hubble ointo > someones head? Duck? > Besides which Hubble is a IDEAL long duration test instrument > for study.... For studying what and how is it ideal? Signaturerk, Just an OldEngineer "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." -- R. Feynman, Appendix F. >> What do we do if it maklfunctions and brings the hubble ointo >> someones head? > >Duck? seriously that grapple better be good hubble was never designed for such a operation. >> Besides which Hubble is a IDEAL long duration test instrument >> for study.... > >For studying what and how is it ideal? long term effects of being in space. the last long term experiment was the long duraton test sat and it was exposed for 4 years or so. hubble is magnitudes more builduing a moon base you want to build long lasting modules, some of that research info is presently in orbit, its called hubble > long term effects of being in space. the last long term experiment was the long > duraton test sat and it was exposed for 4 years or so. hubble is magnitudes > more HST is at a far higher altitude than LDEF was. The environment is greatly different. > builduing a moon base you want to build long lasting modules, some of that > research info is presently in orbit, its called hubble Um... no. You're comparing, without any basis of understanding of the mechanics involved, zero-gravity apples and space-born oranges. Roger SignatureRoger Balettie former Flight Dynamics Officer Space Shuttle Mission Control http://www.balettie.com/ >> long term effects of being in space. the last long term experiment was the > long [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > HST is at a far higher altitude than LDEF was. The environment is greatly > different. In that respect, it's gathering different information. LDEF and Hubble would thus complement each other, in terms of duration exposure data. Hubble would also be better for interplanetary data than LDEF. Obviously neither would be as good as a mission designed and orbited for the purpose. How well will we be able to study the vehicle itself that returns the comet sample? Dale Pontius > In that respect, it's gathering different information. LDEF and Hubble > would thus complement each other, in terms of duration exposure data. A minor, but relatively valid point... the debris environment is *much* lighter at HST's altitude. Therefore, we would most like receive *less* data from which to extract meaningful information. > Hubble would also be better for interplanetary data than LDEF. In the grand scale of things, the difference between LDEF's and HST's altitudes, when compared to interplanetary distances is microscopic. There is nothing that can be gained by examining HST's debris impact data that would be any more applicable to interplanetary travel than that from LDEF or other extrapolations that have been done. > Obviously neither would be as good as a mission designed and orbited for > the purpose. How well will we be able to study the vehicle itself that > returns the comet sample? The collection plate will, hopefully, have a great amount of information on both the materials *and* the impact data when it's returned. We'll see, though. :) Roger SignatureRoger Balettie former Flight Dynamics Officer Space Shuttle Mission Control http://www.balettie.com/ > YTeah BUT the pres plan doesnt call for anothewr service mission to attach a > grabble spot. The word, Bob, is "grapple"... and there are several grapple points on HST. > What do we do if it maklfunctions and brings the hubble ointo someones head? Buk... buk... buk-kaw! > Besides which Hubble is a IDEAL long duration test instrument for study.... What would you study... and how would you quantify/qualify the results without precise knowledge of the "pre-test" conditions with respect to the predicted environmental results? Roger SignatureRoger Balettie former Flight Dynamics Officer Space Shuttle Mission Control http://www.balettie.com/ >> YTeah BUT the pres plan doesnt call for anothewr service mission to >> attach a grabble spot. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Buk... buk... buk-kaw! Bob does not appear to have "connected the dots" that the decision to cancel HST servicing missions was an inevitable consequence of the "crew safety uber alles" policy he's been advocating all along. SignatureJRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. > The word, Bob, is "grapple"... and there are several grapple points on HST. has NASA succesfully tested fully automated grappling ? Woudln't they need a shuttle mission just to test that before sending an automated tug to grapple Hubble ? Seems to me that a more likely scenario is that the tug would harpoon Hubble's "bottom", then reel it in to some smooth receptacle. Since you're about to burn/destroy it, there is no problem in shooting arrows through its exterior skin. > > YTeah BUT the pres plan doesnt call for anothewr service mission to attach > a > > grabble spot. > > The word, Bob, is "grapple"... and there are several grapple points on HST. Actually it's dawned on me, you don't need any sort of grapple points to de-orbit Hubble. And everyone so far I've seen has been focusing on the wrong end of Hubble. Seems to me if you want to come up with a way of de-orbiting Hubble you fly a modified Progress up to it. Fly into the viewing end. You've got a nice ~3+ meter opening. You don't need to be overly accurate. Once you detect soft-dock you inflate a large ballon that now fills the void. Viola, instant docking. De-orbit at leisure. > > > YTeah BUT the pres plan doesnt call for anothewr service mission to > attach [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Seems to me if you want to come up with a way of de-orbiting Hubble you fly > a modified Progress up to it. Sparky, Soyuz can't get there. > > > > YTeah BUT the pres plan doesnt call for anothewr service mission to > > attach [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Sparky, Soyuz can't get there. I don't know who you think you're calling Sparky. But if you're so smart, you might realize that the reason a controlled de-orbit of Hubble is necessary is because its orbit decays. Which means from Korou a Progress could easily make it. The real thing you can't do with Soyuz or Progress is an effective reboost. > Which means from Korou a Progress could easily make it. That Kourou facility won't be up and running until at least 2006, probably much later. Personally, I doubt it will happen even then. I'm looking into Vegas odds on where Hubble debris will be raining down. "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" <mooregr@greenms.com> wrote in news:660Pb.22438$Fe1.4755@twister.nyroc.rr.com: >> > Seems to me if you want to come up with a way of de-orbiting Hubble >> > you [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Which means from Korou a Progress could easily make it. A Progress won't be able to *find* Hubble - it requires a cooperative target. SignatureJRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. > A Progress won't be able to *find* Hubble - it requires a cooperative > target. Jorge, I'm going to pull an Ed Wright on you and say, "you don't think it's possible someone can some up with SOMETHING here?" "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" <mooregr@greenms.com> wrote in news:5v2Pb.23527$Fe1.8399@twister.nyroc.rr.com: >> A Progress won't be able to *find* Hubble - it requires a cooperative >> target. > > Jorge, I'm going to pull an Ed Wright on you and say, "you don't think > it's possible someone can some up with SOMETHING here?" I'll see your Ed Wright and raise you a Derek Lyons. :-) "Possible, yes. Practical, no. And handwaving the technical issues won't make them go away." And I haven't even *touched* the political issues yet... SignatureJRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. > "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" <mooregr@greenms.com> wrote in > news:5v2Pb.23527$Fe1.8399@twister.nyroc.rr.com: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > And I haven't even *touched* the political issues yet... And *I* trump *all* of you with a Brad Guth: "All this talk of the Hubble by you Borg just ignores the reality of life on Venus, as discovered by this Village Idiot . . ." :-P SignatureHerb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D. Reformed Aerospace Engineer Remove invalid nonsense for email. > I'll see your Ed Wright and raise you a Derek Lyons. :-) "Possible, yes. > Practical, no. And handwaving the technical issues won't make them go > away." > > And I haven't even *touched* the political issues yet... The politics is probably the biggest factor. With that I'll agree. >What do we do if it maklfunctions and brings the hubble ointo someones head? > >Besides which Hubble is a IDEAL long duration test instrument for study.... How is ideal? Every servicing flight has seen pieces of Hubble taken out and replaced. That equipment removed I would assume can be studied to look at the effects of long duration spaceflight on hardware. We've already had hardware dedicated to studying the long term effects of spaceflight on hardware. The LDEF...which was up what? 6 years? -A.L. > Single Shuttle flight to attach deorbit mechanism HST -- $300M > > Research, develop, fly, and deorbit HST with autonomous vehicle -- $300M > > Reusing autonomous vehicle technology in many other situations -- Priceless I don't know about the last point, but only a Shuttle servicing mission would provide for the $200 million worth of new instruments to be installed on Hubble. The new WFC would provide 10X the resolution. These instruments could be used until the de-orbit system were invoked, and that could be years after the servicing mission. ieve that a single shuttle trip to Hubble to do >> regular maintenance will be cheaper than these very risky, unproven >> elaborate programs. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > same cost. Launcher, development cost, mission cost, etc... appears to be > in the ballpark of about $300M which is roughly a single Shuttle flight. Since when has the price of a shuttle launch dropped to $300M? Last serious numbers I was had it between $500M and $600M not counting the ground crews, processing the orbiter and nonrecurring costs. > ieve that a single shuttle trip to Hubble to do > >> regular maintenance will be cheaper than these very risky, unproven [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > numbers I was had it between $500M and $600M not counting the ground crews, > processing the orbiter and nonrecurring costs. "it depends" Fixed costs seem to be in the $4 billion range. Fly one flight, it costs you $4 billion that year. Fly 6 flights and the marginal cost is about $200-$300 million/flight. > So NASA cancels a shuttle maintance mission and says it's cheaper to > > (1) re-write the shuttle software program to work with three gyros > operational instead of four; then probably with two instead of three > (we don't even know this is POSSIBLE yet) Sure we do. It's just more redundancy to have three or more. > (2) design, test, and built a new experiental robot spacecraft that > when launched will rendezvous with the Hubble, attach to it, then > guide it to splashdown in a remote part of the ocean (we don't know if > this is POSSIBLE either) Sure we do. Autonomous docking has been done. Autonomous deorbit of spacecraft has been done. It's just a matter of developing a useful tool that has technology we can *re-use*. > I'm as much of a fan of a mission to the moon and to Mars, but I > believe that NASA should not act on what the President says. Changes > in space policy of this magnitude must be approved by Congress, and > officially written into law after lengthy public debate. Actually... no. You're incorrect. NASA is part of the Executive Branch, and as such, is subject to the directives of the President. Changes in space policy come from the Executive Branch. Funding for such policy proposals is approved by Congress, but not the actual policy. Roger SignatureRoger Balettie former Flight Dynamics Officer Space Shuttle Mission Control http://www.balettie.com/ >So NASA cancels a shuttle maintance mission and says it's cheaper to No, they essentially said it was not worth the risk to the astronauts and that on-orbit repair capability couldn't be achieved before the Shuttle's new 2010 retirement date. Cost was not mentioned. >(2) design, test, and built a new experiental robot spacecraft that >when launched will rendezvous with the Hubble, attach to it, then >guide it to splashdown in a remote part of the ocean (we don't know if >this is POSSIBLE either) On the other hand, one might be commercially available and can be modified for the job... http://www.orbitalrecovery.com/ >I find it hard to believe that a single shuttle trip to Hubble to do >regular maintenance will be cheaper than these very risky, unproven >elaborate programs. Risky to whom? Worst case: Hubble cannot be de-orbited manually and falls at random. Hubble is mostly aluminum, little will survive re-entry, what does has a 75% chance of falling into the sea. The much larger Shuttle Columbia came down over Texas and didn't hurt anyone. >I'm as much of a fan of a mission to the moon and to Mars, but I >believe that NASA should not act on what the President says. Changes >in space policy of this magnitude must be approved by Congress, and >officially written into law after lengthy public debate. Otherwise >we're just chasing our tail like a dog. Congress will have to approve the budget, of course. They are free to tell the President what to do with his proposal. Until then, the President is boss. Brian |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.