 |
 | 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 / March 2004NASA Urged to Reconsider Hubble Decision
http://www.sunspot.net/news/health/bal-hubble0128,0,6220079.story?coll=bal-local -headlines "NASA urged to reconsider Hubble decision" The Associated Press January 28, 2004 Maryland's congressional delegation sent a letter to NASA administrator Sean O'Keefe urging him to reconsider the space agency's recent decision to cancel the final servicing mission for the Hubble Space Telescope. "The scientific returns we have received from Hubble's service thus far have exceeded our expectations. Given the President's recent pronouncement of a vision to rededicate the Nation's commitment to space exploration, we believe that NASA should make every possible effort to retain this proven window on the universe," reads the letter, which was sent Tuesday and made available to The Associated Press on Wednesday. Earlier this month, NASA announced it won't send the space shuttle in 2006 to service the orbiting telescope, a mission needed to enable it to keep operating. Without the servicing mission the orbiting telescope is expected to stop working several years before its scheduled 2010 retirement. Hubble's scientific operations are conducted at the Space Telescope Science Institute, located at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore. The telescope is managed and operated by the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt. After NASA's decision was announced, Mikulski, the ranking minority member of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee that oversees NASA's budget, sent a letter to O'Keefe last week, asking him to reconsider the decision. The Baltimore Democrat said she was shocked by the decision given the extraordinary contributions to science by the Hubble, which has revolutionized the study of astronomy with its striking images of the universe. Mikulski is also scheduled to meet with employees of the Space Telescope Science Institute on Friday. The lawmakers noted the next generation space telescope, the James Webb Telescope, is not scheduled to be launched until 2010, several years after the Hubble is now expected to stop working. "The gap created between the operation of these two telescopes will rob scientists of several years of invaluable data," the letter reads. The lawmakers also noted about $200 million has already been spent on two new instruments that were to be brought to the Hubble by the space shuttle, and it may cost more than $300 million for a mission to return the Hubble safely to earth. "In light of these costs, which total approximately a half-billion dollars, as well as the several decades of funding already devoted to Hubble, a decision to cancel the Hubble program several years shy of its goal appears to make little economic sense," the letter reads. In addition to Mikulski, the letter was signed by Sen. Paul S. Sarbanes and Representatives Steny Hoyer, Ben Cardin, Wayne Gilchrest, Roscoe Bartlett, Albert Wynn, Elijah Cummings, C.A. "Dutch" Ruppersberger and Chris Van Hollen. [end of article] -- Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com It's silly isn't it... You know any savings from the launch will just fall thru the cracks, so what do they do with the stuff they already got built? Seems like an aweful waste to me. Kris my Energia HLLV site: http://www.k26.com/buran/ http://www.sunspot.net/news/health/bal-hubble0128,0,6220079.story?coll=bal-local -headlines > "NASA urged to reconsider Hubble decision" > The Associated Press [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com > Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com > It's silly isn't it... You know any savings from the launch will just fall > thru the cracks, so what do they do with the stuff they already got built? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > http://www.sunspot.net/news/health/bal-hubble0128,0,6220079.story?coll=bal-local -headlines <snip above article> The issue is not the cost of the extra flight, but that of the additional safety hoops the current environment would demand for such a "unique" flight. The shuttle is basically required to complete the ISS, and in the remaining "life span" ,as dictated by the CAIB and reinforced by the President's speech, there are not many non-ISS slots available. How many of the congress folk quoted in this article joined the "how could NASA let this happen" dog pile following the Columbia breakup? Funny how their tune changes when the solution negatively affects folks in their districts. If they really want to save Hubble, maybe they should be supporting a faster schedule for the proposed ApolloR2 vehicle as a ISS/shuttle assured return vehicle. Mostly I suspect that this was simply a "free" opportunity to whine about the actions of the current administration without having to commit to an alternative solution. >...The shuttle is basically required to >complete the ISS, and in the remaining "life span" ,as dictated by >the CAIB and reinforced by the President's speech, there are not >many non-ISS slots available. The number of flights available is not something that is dictated by God; it is itself a decision. A modest investment of additional resources can make more flight slots available, within limits.  SignatureMOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. | henry@spsystems.net I suspect a lot will depend on who is in the Whitehouse after the election. I'd be amazed if they could not actually find the people willing to crew the mission, I guess it really depends on the availability of a Shuttle and the cost commitment involved, not any eye on safety. Brian -- Brian Gaff.... graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them Email: briang1@blueyonder.co.uk ____________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________ http://www.sunspot.net/news/health/bal-hubble0128,0,6220079.story?coll=bal-l ocal-headlines | "NASA urged to reconsider Hubble decision" | The Associated Press [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] | Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com | Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com IMHO a further HST service mission would not take any more risks like the five previous HST successful missions (including launch) especially the foam issue is solved. albert > I suspect a lot will depend on who is in the Whitehouse after the election. > > I'd be amazed if they could not actually find the people willing to crew the > mission, I guess it really depends on the availability of a Shuttle and the > cost commitment involved, not any eye on safety. The one issue I can see is that of schedule. It isn't just a question of slotting a shuttle to go up there, but also ensuring that the mission occurs after NASA has completed development of independant inspection/repair capabilities. Consider that NASA was very lucky that the shuttle was grounded at a time when the station was symetrically assembled. Had the truss been asymetrical, it would have posed interesting issue, especially when you consider the CMGs's fragile health. With the requirement to launch daytime, this may present interesting scheduling requirements between ISS and Hubble launches as well as maintenance schedules. On the other hand, if on can launch hubble during a long period when you can't go to ISS due to daytime launch requirement, it would not have much impact on ISS assembly. > With the requirement to launch daytime, this may present interesting > scheduling requirements between ISS and Hubble launches as well as maintenance schedules. > > On the other hand, if on can launch hubble during a long period when you can't > go to ISS due to daytime launch requirement, it would not have much impact on > ISS assembly. I was under the impression that *only* STS-114 had the daytime launch requirement....from then on out it'll be back to whenever is necessary. Hubble repair flights have all launched and landed at night, but I'm sure that's more of a coincidence...or is it?? John > I was under the impression that *only* STS-114 had the daytime launch > requirement....from then on out it'll be back to whenever is > necessary. The daytime launch requirement will remain in place until NASA is confident that it can get adequate ascent photography at night. > Hubble repair flights have all launched and landed at night, but I'm > sure that's more of a coincidence...or is it?? Ground-up rendezvous launch windows shift predictably around the clock due to the Earth's equatorial bulge. The shift is a function of the altitude and inclination of the target vehicle's orbit: ~24 minutes per day for ISS, ~30 for HST. So, whether a given launch occurs during day or night depends totally on the launch date. 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 daytime launch requirement will remain in place until NASA is confident > that it can get adequate ascent photography at night. Sounds to me like "never a night-time launch again", then - it seems extremely difficult to obtain images with sufficient contrast without ambient lighting. Jan >> The daytime launch requirement will remain in place until NASA is >> confident that it can get adequate ascent photography at night. > > Sounds to me like "never a night-time launch again", then - it seems > extremely difficult to obtain images with sufficient contrast without > ambient lighting. Difficult, but not impossible with aerial photography. The SRBs provide more than enough light to illuminate the stack; the big problem is that ground-based cameras have to look up through the plume. NASA plans to use WB-57 aircraft to get night photos, but this capability won't be validated in time for return-to-flight. SignatureJRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. >I was under the impression that *only* STS-114 had the daytime launch >requirement....from then on out it'll be back to whenever is >necessary. No daylight is now mandatory The BBC has an interesting article about mounting support for Hubble, including a petition. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/science/nature/3437309.stm Save the Hubble' campaign soars By Dr David Whitehouse BBC News Online science editor A petition website calling for the Hubble Space Telescope to be saved is attracting a growing number of hits. http://www.SaveTheHubble.com was established by University of Brasilia lecturer Fernando Ribeiro following the US space agency's decision to abandon the scope. "I hope it will become a forum about Hubble's prospects and a launch pad (so to speak) for a campaign to save it." Left alone, Hubble, called the most important scientific instrument ever, could only survive another three years. Safety concerns Astronomers were stunned when Nasa's chief, Sean O'Keefe, decided on 16 January to cancel the fifth, and final, visit of the space shuttle to service the Hubble Space Telescope (HST). A service call is essential to ensure Hubble's smooth operation until the end of the decade. The telescope has only three working gyroscopes, down from its compliment of six, and cannot afford to lose any more. " Let the voters say: "We don't want to go to the moon! We want to go to infinity and beyond!" " Fernando Ribeiro O'Keefe decided that in the wake of the Columbia disaster it was unwise to send astronauts on a shuttle mission that could not reach the safety of the International Space Station in the event of a problem. Dismayed astronomers understood O'Keefe's logic, but many pointed out that there would now be a gap of several years between the demise of Hubble and its replacement reaching orbit. They also wondered if there was any way to save the telescope. Noise from Brazil In Brazil, Fernando Ribeiro also wondered if Hubble could be saved. "The HST is such an important, complex, fascinating and cost/benefit effective instrument that it is hard to imagine someone could ever suggest it should be dumped into the ocean, let alone Nasa itself," he told BBC News Online. "I am fan of science and of space. I was standing in front of a huge black and white TV set when Neil Armstrong took the small step (or the giant leap if you prefer) on the Moon. I was seven and never forgot the thrill of the moment." Mr Ribeiro first heard about Hubble's demise from the internet. "I sat in front of the monitor and stared at it for several minutes recollecting all the facts I knew about Hubble. Its planning, building, the flawed mirror, the device to fix it, the book I had: Gems of the Hubble. I thought about the loss it meant to the whole human race." So www.SaveTheHubble.com was born. "I imagined that it could be a good idea to build up a site where people could voice their feelings and ideas about the whole story. My role would be to put together as many references as I could about the struggle to save the telescope." "There has been an exponential growth of the public outcry in favour of the instrument, and it is just the beginning! Since the matter is obviously political, public pressure will certainly play a big role, especially in an election year." The petition will be sent to Nasa and US politicians. "Let the voters say: 'We don't want to go to the moon! We want to go to infinity and beyond!'," said Mr Ribeiro. So just slip one extra Shuttle mission in with the rest - the Hubble's good science, and more importantly for NASA, good PR. > The BBC has an interesting article about mounting support for Hubble, > including a petition. [quoted text clipped - 81 lines] > "Let the voters say: 'We don't want to go to the moon! We want to go to > infinity and beyond!'," said Mr Ribeiro. > So just slip one extra Shuttle mission in with the rest - the Hubble's good > science, and more importantly for NASA, good PR. Unless we lose another orbiter and 7 astronauts because we couldn't inspect and repair tile damage on-orbit without an ISS visit. Or unless we spend potentially $1B dollars to specifically design and implement a non-ISS on-orbit inspection, repair, and potential rescue scheme, which would only be used ONCE. To keep the HST operating for 4-10 more years at a cost of $250M/year. These billions could be spent more wisely on other programs. Bruce > Unless we lose another orbiter and 7 astronauts because > we couldn't inspect and repair tile damage on-orbit [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > be used ONCE. To keep the HST operating for 4-10 > more years at a cost of $250M/year. What is your proposed inspection/repair system in case of an ATO abort on a station mission? You can't make it to the station, and you may have catastrophic TPS damage. What do you do? ISTM that a standalone tile-repair solution is required *even for station missions*. --Chris >> Unless we lose another orbiter and 7 astronauts because >> we couldn't inspect and repair tile damage on-orbit [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > ISTM that a standalone tile-repair solution is required *even for > station missions*. Not quite. If that were the case, standalone capability would be required prior to RTF, and there would have been no need for the CAIB to distinguish them. The CAIB recommendation was that a standalone repair capability be in place prior to the first non-ISS flight. Their *intent* was that such capability also be available for subsequent ISS flights that, for whatever reason, could not reach ISS. We are now seeing the cascading effects of the law of *unintended* consequences, as applied to that recommendation. SignatureJRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. > Not quite. If that were the case, standalone capability would be required > prior to RTF, and there would have been no need for the CAIB to distinguish [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > reason, could not reach ISS. We are now seeing the cascading effects of the > law of *unintended* consequences, as applied to that recommendation. So is the standalone capability dead? From a casual viewpoint, the RMS extension looked like being the most useful repair technique, even at the station. --Chris >Not quite. If that were the case, standalone capability would be required >prior to RTF, and there would have been no need for the CAIB to distinguish [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >reason, could not reach ISS. We are now seeing the cascading effects of the >law of *unintended* consequences, as applied to that recommendation. Are you expecting/hoping that Admiral Gehman might clarify things in his response to O'Keefe about reconsidering the servicing mission? Dale On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 02:54:25 -0800, I wrote: >>Not quite. If that were the case, standalone capability would be required >>prior to RTF, and there would have been no need for the CAIB to distinguish [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Are you expecting/hoping that Admiral Gehman might clarify things in his >response to O'Keefe about reconsidering the servicing mission? Sorry- I would suck as a journalist. Maybe I could followup. If the assumption of the CAIB was that a stand-alone capability would be developed for the Hubble mission, and that that capability would be needed for the remainder of STS's life, shouldn't they still require the stand-alone capability to be developed regardless of whether they fly to Hubble or not? And if that is the case, is the difficulty/expense of developing this the main reason the Hubble mission was cancelled? Is it so difficult that it may never be developed, and perhaps should really be a "show-stopper"? Dale > > Unless we lose another orbiter and 7 astronauts because > > we couldn't inspect and repair tile damage on-orbit [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > station mission? You can't make it to the station, and you may have > catastrophic TPS damage. What do you do? You wing it. But that's an emergency situation. > ISTM that a standalone tile-repair solution is required *even for station > missions*. You are incorrect. It's not. Bruce Plus, it would be a real shame not to get this into the Smithsonian. I think everyone just assumed this would happen. But would that have to be an entire mission itself...just to bring it back? I agree with another post...I astronauts would jump at the opportuity to not only fly a mission to service the HST, but to also bring it home. If I wold hate to see it just die and burn up, I can't image how folks in the organization feel. Mark >Plus, it would be a real shame not to get this into the Smithsonian. I think >everyone just >assumed this would happen. But would that have to be an entire mission >itself...just to bring >it back? Use the ghubble retrieval to launch something else firstr then pick up hubble and bring it home > Plus, it would be a real shame not to get this into the Smithsonian. I think everyone just > assumed this would happen. But would that have to be an entire mission itself...just to bring > it back? The short answer is yes. It would require a whole new mission above and beyond any service mission which might be flown. And it would likely require a series of EVAs to remove and jettison some of the instruments to bring the HST's weight in line with CG requirements. The other alternative being explored is the development of an unmanned deorbit stage that would be launched on an ELV, automatically dock with HST, and then deorbit the observatory into an area of the Pacific ocean where debris will not pose a hazard. > I agree with another post...I astronauts would jump at the opportuity to not only fly a > mission to service the HST, but to also bring it home. If I wold hate to see it just die and > burn up, I can't image how folks in the organization feel. I think they just want to ensure having a productive observatory until at least the James Webb Telescope is launched and proven to be doing well on it's own. That means that Hubble has to last until 2011 at the earliest. -Mike >I agree with another post...I astronauts would jump at the opportuity to not only fly a >mission to service the HST, but to also bring it home. The astronaut corps evidently has already weighed-in against a Hubble Retrieval Mission. I'm sure they'd agree to fly SM-4, but they clearly are against risking their lives just to bring home a trophy for the Smithsonian. >If I wold hate to see it just die and >burn up, I can't image how folks in the organization feel. Hubble is a great instrument, but what makes the Hubble team special compared to, say, the IRAS, COBE, or Compton folks? Brian >>If I wold hate to see it just die and burn up, I can't image how folks >>in the organization feel. > > Hubble is a great instrument, but what makes the Hubble team special > compared to, say, the IRAS, COBE, or Compton folks? And for deep space missions, they deliberately crashed Galileo and Magellan. Lunar Prospector too at the Moon. Signaturerk, Just an OldEngineer "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." -- R. Feynman, Appendix F. >>>If I wold hate to see it just die and burn up, I can't image how folks >>>in the organization feel. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >And for deep space missions, they deliberately crashed Galileo and Magellan. >Lunar Prospector too at the Moon. Galileo and Magellan were at the absolute end of their missions, and the method of destruction was designed to produce the maximum reward. Similarly, any infrared telescope has a strictly defined lifespan. SignatureSave the Hubble Space Telescope! Remove spam and invalid from address to reply. On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 17:05:58 -0600, in a place far, far away, Brian Thorn <bthorn64@cox.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: >>I agree with another post...I astronauts would jump at the opportuity to not only fly a >>mission to service the HST, but to also bring it home. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >are against risking their lives just to bring home a trophy for the >Smithsonian. Then I'd say we need some new astronauts. They've certainly risked their lives for lesser causes, and I'd risk my life just to go into space. > On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 17:05:58 -0600, in a place far, far away, Brian > Thorn <bthorn64@cox.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > their lives for lesser causes, and I'd risk my life just to go into > space. So I'm glad you're willing to risk theirs :) When the new Smithsonian museum opened it was mentioned that Hubble wouldn't be brought back down, as iirc the shuttle has never landed with that much weight in it and it just wasn't worth the risk. I'd like to bring it down, but I have an image of it not tied down enough in the cargo bay and shifting at the wrong time... SignatureChris Mack "Refugee, total sh.t. That's how I've always seen us. 'Invid Fan' Not a help, you'll admit, to agreement between us." -'Deal/No Deal', CHESS > So I'm glad you're willing to risk theirs :) When the new Smithsonian > museum opened it was mentioned that Hubble wouldn't be brought back > down, as iirc the shuttle has never landed with that much weight in it > and it just wasn't worth the risk. This claim doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It's been waved about these parts on a regular basis of late, and it's time to debunk it. According to Jenkins' Space Shuttle, 3rd ed., the landing weight of STS-31R - Hubble's deployment mission - was 189,118 lbs, and the payload (including Hubble and some smaller bits and pieces) was 25,517 lbs. According to http://hubble.nasa.gov/faq.html, Hubble weighs about 24,000 lbs on orbit now, but I'll go the higher figure. So in the STS-31R configuration, we would be looking at a potential landing weight of 214,635 lbs. According to Jenkins' book, during the first 100 flights there were *forty* missions with landing weights over that! A few had landing weights over 230,000 lbs. So it appears that landing weight isn't the great problem it's made out to be. > I'd like to bring it down, but I > have an image of it not tied down enough in the cargo bay and shifting > at the wrong time... Not to worry, the weight isn't an issue, and Hubble would be secured with the same payload bay attachments it was launched with. --Chris > > On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 17:05:58 -0600, in a place far, far away, Brian > > Thorn <bthorn64@cox.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > have an image of it not tied down enough in the cargo bay and shifting > at the wrong time... It's not the weight, it's the center of gravity (CG) that's a concern. Many shuttle missions have landed with weights comparable to, or greater than HSTs, but had a different weight distribution so that the CG would not be too far foward and stress out the foward landing gear or something like that. -Mike > It's not the weight, it's the center of gravity (CG) that's a concern. > Many shuttle missions have landed with weights comparable to, or greater > than HSTs, but had a different weight distribution so that the CG would > not be too far foward and stress out the foward landing gear or something > like that. Handling in flight is a bigger concern than on the runway. Still, the shuttle was certified to launch with Hubble, and that certification meant that the shuttle was permitted to perform a reentry with the payload still on board. If the mass distribution of Hubble hasn't changed much since it was deployed, then it shouldn't be a major issue. --Chris > When the new Smithsonian > museum opened it was mentioned that Hubble wouldn't be brought back > down, as iirc the shuttle has never landed with that much weight in it > and it just wasn't worth the risk. Incorrect. HST was carried *up* in a shuttle, and the payload upmass is *always* within landing limits, in the event an engine failure during ascent forces an abort landing with the payload still in the bay. HST's size (read *volume*) is deceiving. The telescope tube is mostly empty space; HST's *mass* (11,000 kg) is *far* lighter than many other payloads that have flown in the shuttle. It's less than half the mass of Chandra/IUS from STS-93, for example. > I'd like to bring it down, but I > have an image of it not tied down enough in the cargo bay and shifting > at the wrong time... Why would you think that? Once again, HST was carried *up* in a shuttle, and ascent loads are worse than entry loads. HST still has the trunnion pins used to secure it in the payload bay for ascent; *why* do you think it would need to be "tied down" for entry? SignatureJRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 17:43:03 -0500, in a place far, far away, Invid Fan <invid@localnet.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: >> >The astronaut corps evidently has already weighed-in against a Hubble >> >Retrieval Mission. I'm sure they'd agree to fly SM-4, but they clearly [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >So I'm glad you're willing to risk theirs :) I'm willing to risk those who are willing to risk their own. "The astronaut corps" is not a monolithic entity. Anyone want to take a bet that they couldn't find a crew of astronauts willing to do the mission? One way to bring it back, would be to go up, and wrap it in asbestos or like material in a cacoon like structure, and bring it back, with maneuver rockets attached for control,a and then a few parachutes once you get it thru the upper atmosphere? Mike > > On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 17:05:58 -0600, in a place far, far away, Brian > > Thorn <bthorn64@cox.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > 'Invid Fan' Not a help, you'll admit, to agreement between us." > -'Deal/No Deal', CHESS >> > On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 17:05:58 -0600, in a place far, far away, Brian >> > Thorn <bthorn64@cox.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >> I have an image of it not tied down enough in the cargo bay and >> shifting at the wrong time... > One way to bring it back, would be to go up, and wrap it in asbestos > or like material in a cacoon like structure, and bring it back, with > maneuver rockets attached for control,a and then a few parachutes once > you get it thru the upper atmosphere? *Who* goes up? There isn't going to be a shuttle mission there. Soyuz can't get there from Baikonur. Soyuz could get there from Kourou, *if* the Soyuz pad gets built there, and *if* Kourou is equipped to handle the manned Soyuz spacecraft (both of which are *far* from done deals). But even then, Soyuz doesn't have the lift capacity to carry EVA suits, much less the "coccoon-like structure with maneuver rockets" you propose to attach to HST, nor the ability to stage a standalone EVA. SignatureJRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. This is generally correct, but Soyuz has supported a standalone EVA in the past, and its only largely economics and the small hatch that prevent future such EVAs. >> *Who* goes up? There isn't going to be a shuttle mission there. Soyuz > can't get there from Baikonur. Soyuz could get there from Kourou, *if* the > Soyuz pad gets built there, and *if* Kourou is equipped to handle the > manned Soyuz spacecraft (both of which are *far* from done deals). But even > then, Soyuz doesn't have the lift capacity to carry EVA suits, much less > the "coccoon-like structure with maneuver rockets" you propose to attach to > HST, nor the ability to stage a standalone EVA. >>> *Who* goes up? There isn't going to be a shuttle mission there. > Soyuz [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > the past, and its only largely economics and the small hatch that > prevent future such EVAs. "Only?" In the context of a standalone EVA to service HST, those economics will be quite formidable. Especially the type of mission Abrigon Gusiq proposes. SignatureJRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. > > This is generally correct, but Soyuz has supported a standalone EVA in > > the past, and its only largely economics and the small hatch that > > prevent future such EVAs. Not sure where the myth of the small hatch came from. From this past EVA, one of the exercises done prior to the EVA was Soyuz ingress wearing the EVA suits. And during the EVA, the orbital module was supposedly set to vacuum so that it could be ingressed should the crew need to ingress the soyuz should DC1 fail to repressurize. >> > This is generally correct, but Soyuz has supported a standalone EVA >> > in the past, and its only largely economics and the small hatch [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > EVA, one of the exercises done prior to the EVA was Soyuz ingress > wearing the EVA suits. That's the forward hatch - the same one that would be attached to HST, in this scenario, so there's nothing to egress out of. I agree that a *true* standalone Soyuz EVA could use the forward hatch, but a hypothetical HST servicing EVA would need rather more elaborate mods, either to size up the smaller side hatch or allow egress out the forward hatch. SignatureJRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. > This is generally correct, but Soyuz has supported a standalone EVA in > the past, The very distant past. AFAICT, the only time that Soyuz has ever supported an EVA was in the January 1969 Soyuz 4/5 double mission. The Soyuz spacecraft and Russian spacesuit technology has come a long way since then, and I doubt the ability to conduct EVAs from Soyuz remains. --Chris > >I agree with another post...I astronauts would jump at the opportuity to not only fly a > >mission to service the HST, but to also bring it home. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Brian What makes Hubble different is that it is the most successful scientific instrument in the history of the world. Jason >What makes Hubble different is that it is the most successful scientific >instrument in the history of the world. That is very much debatable. In astronomy alone, Hale and Mt. Wilson give it a run for its money. Brian >>What makes Hubble different is that it is the most successful scientific >>instrument in the history of the world. > >That is very much debatable. In astronomy alone, Hale and Mt. Wilson >give it a run for its money. I doubt that the Hubble can even compare to the simple Telescope, which has for a very long time offered scientific insight into this part of the Universe that we can see. The Hubble is just the latest brief item of wonderment in the much larger history of the Telescope, where you can rest assured the much better telescopes are to follow. Cardman http://www.cardman.com http://www.cardman.co.uk > >What makes Hubble different is that it is the most successful scientific > >instrument in the history of the world. > That is very much debatable. In astronomy alone, Hale and Mt. Wilson > give it a run for its money. There's this German astronomer on TV over here who makes the point that the biggest influence the really large and expensive telescopes have is their taking the economic pressure off the smaller, cheaper ones. That should give astronomers more time to concentrate on their research rather than on fighting for time slots and funding. So in his opinion the greatest contribution of telescopes like Hubble is a trickle-down effect that smaller projects eventually profit from that aren't even directly connected with Hubble... (He's also very much for setting up telescopes on the Lunar far side.) Signature__ "A good leader knows when it's best to ignore the __ ('__`> screams for help and focus on the bigger picture." <'__`) //6(6; ©OOL mmiv :^)^\\ `\_-/ http://home.t-online.de/home/ulrich.schreglmann/redbaron \-_/' > > Retrieval Mission. I'm sure they'd agree to fly SM-4, but they clearly > > are against risking their lives just to bring home a trophy for the > > Smithsonian. Thing is that NASA has a responsability to bring Hubble down. The shuttle is capable of doing so. And I think that it would be a fitting last flight for the shuttle. The idea of a space tug that would somehow attach itself to Hubble and de-orbit it is fine, but just how realistic is it ? What happens if it fails to grapple itself ? Didn't NASA have to improvise with one satellite where the arm couldn't grapple it because it was spinning and it took humans to get the job done ? Imagine if Hubble isn't stable anymore, can you really expect some automated robot to be able to find the one grapple point and then bring itself in tight enough contact that it can use its thrusters to get the right attitude and then fire its de-orbit engine ? Until there is a real space tug readyto be launched at KSC with whatever launcher, the shuttle mission to take Hubble out of orbit should remain in the books and planning. >Thing is that NASA has a responsability to bring Hubble down. The shuttle is >capable of doing so. And I think that it would be a fitting last flight for [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Didn't NASA have to improvise with one satellite where the arm couldn't >grapple it because it was spinning and it took humans to get the job done ? You're referring to the Spartan satellite on STS-87, I think. To nitpick, it wasn't spinning until a failed grappling attempt imparted the motion to it. Kalpana Chawla was the arm operator, FWIW. But it was a very small satellite, making grappling difficult but the manual retreival possible. >Imagine if Hubble isn't stable anymore, can you really expect some automated >robot to be able to find the one grapple point and then bring itself in tight >enough contact that it can use its thrusters to get the right attitude and >then fire its de-orbit engine ? Hubble is alot bigger than Spartan. I think they'd need to match its spin, if that's possible, and use the arm. I can't imagine they'd maneuver the shuttle so close to a spinning Hubble as to bring it within reach of EVA astronauts, even at the end of the arm. >Until there is a real space tug readyto be launched at KSC with whatever >launcher, the shuttle mission to take Hubble out of orbit should remain in the >books and planning. I'd be satisfied if they can just do the servicing mission, and install a propulsion module on it at the same time. Dale On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 01:41:22 -0800, I wrote: >Hubble is alot bigger than Spartan. I think they'd need to match its spin, >if that's possible, and use the arm. I can't imagine they'd maneuver the >shuttle so close to a spinning Hubble as to bring it within reach of EVA >astronauts, even at the end of the arm. That wasn't very well written- sorry. The scenario I can't imagine is more one of a tumbling HST being approached by a shuttle that wasn't in a "matching tumble". And is it possible for a shuttle to match the motion of a tumbling object in order to make it relatively stable and retrieve it? They could film a great IMAX movie while doing it, I suppose- assuming IMAX theaters have motion sickness bags available for the viewers :) Dale > And is it possible for a shuttle to match the motion of >a tumbling object in order to make it relatively stable and retrieve it? They >could film a great IMAX movie while doing it, I suppose- assuming IMAX >theaters have motion sickness bags Ahh if both were matching tumbling hw much would the movie watcher see? It sure wopuld be a interesting movie >> And is it possible for a shuttle to match the motion of >>a tumbling object in order to make it relatively stable and retrieve it? They [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Ahh if both were matching tumbling hw much would the movie watcher see? It sure >wopuld be a interesting movie Well, I was thinking the Earth would be whizzing by, and a half-topless Janet Jackson would be positioned 180 degrees away. But even if they have the bags already, maybe they'd need to get bigger ones :) Dale > >Didn't NASA have to improvise with one satellite where the arm couldn't > >grapple it because it was spinning and it took humans to get the job done ? > > You're referring to the Spartan satellite on STS-87, I think. No... he's thinking of the IntelSat retrieval on STS-49, where three crewmen stood in the payload bay and captured it by hand. > Hubble is alot bigger than Spartan. I think they'd need to match its spin, > if that's possible, and use the arm. I can't imagine they'd maneuver the > shuttle so close to a spinning Hubble as to bring it within reach of EVA > astronauts, even at the end of the arm. HST is not spin-stabilized (i.e., it doesn't spin), so this doesn't matter. Roger SignatureRoger Balettie former Flight Dynamics Officer Space Shuttle Mission Control http://www.balettie.com/ >> Hubble is alot bigger than Spartan. I think they'd need to match its >> spin, if that's possible, and use the arm. I can't imagine they'd [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > HST is not spin-stabilized (i.e., it doesn't spin), so this doesn't > matter. NASA Hubble Space Telescope End of Mission (EOM) Options HST End of Mission (EOM) Options HST Program Office NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center July 21, 2003 http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=9909 Because the HST must be stable and safe for shuttle retrieval, this option must be executed while the HST is functional and possesses sufficient redundancy in key systems to ensure it remains so during mission execution – e.g. thermal control, pointing stability sufficient for grappling, communications, commanding and telemetry. With complete loss of pointing control, HST would be semi-stable in a "gravity gradient" mode and still could be grappled with the Shuttle's remote arm. However, extended periods of gravity gradient operation could lead to HST structures becoming too cold, and possibly unsound, so that they would no longer be safe for landing within the Shuttle payload bay. Thus, the loss of redundancy in key systems, or the threat of irrecoverable entry into gravity gradient mode, would require an early "call-up" mission to assure that HST can be safely retrieved and returned to earth by the astronauts. There is a small but non-negligible chance (of order 10%) that a retrieval mission would be unsuccessful, and that the HST would subsequently undergo an uncontrolled re-entry. Signaturerk, Just an OldEngineer "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." -- R. Feynman, Appendix F. > be grappled with the Shuttle's remote arm. However, extended periods of > gravity gradient operation could lead to HST structures becoming too cold, and > possibly unsound, so that they would no longer be safe for landing within the > Shuttle payload bay. Can someone explain this to me ? Hubble was designed to be returned by Shuttle after a couple of decades in space, correct ? Hubble was designed to widthstand the rigours of space, correct ? If Shuttle goes back to pickup Hubble on schedule, wouldn't hubble still be in fair condition ? We're not talking about going to pickup Hubble after 200 years hidden from the sun behind the moon, right ? Even if Hubble is no longer controllable , why wouldn't he be heated by the sun as it rotates around the earth ? Even if the "Bottom" portion doesn't get direct sunlight, wouldn't the portions that do get direct sunlight provide radiative heating of the other side ? (the insides are mostly empty, right ? Besides, wouldn't there be radiative heating from the earth as well as brief period of sunlights during sunrise and sunset where there would be sun illumination from below ? Also, even if Hubble, left by itself were to gradually cool to near 0 Kelvin, wouldn't placing it back in the cargo bay then result in it gradually heating up again to be within tolerance for re-entry ? I can understand an extremely cold metal shattering during an impact. But if you take an extremely cold metal and gradually warm it up again, won't it again be able to widthstand an impact ? And just how big an impact does the Shuttle impart to a piece of cargo when it lands ? Seems to me that NASA used some extreme excuse to justify cancelling a Shuttle mission that would have occured well before extreme conditions would have occured anyways. > With complete loss of pointing control, HST would be semi-stable in a > "gravity gradient" mode and still could be grappled with the Shuttle's > remote arm. What attitude would Hubble assume in a gravity gradient mode? Where is the CG? >> With complete loss of pointing control, HST would be semi-stable in a >> > "gravity gradient" mode and still could be grappled with the >> Shuttle's > remote arm. > > What attitude would Hubble assume in a gravity gradient mode? Long axis toward the Earth, solar arrays edge-on to the velocity vector. Mind you, it will still oscillate substantially about that attitude. > Where is > the CG? Near the upper end of the fat part of the cylinder. SignatureJRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. > >> With complete loss of pointing control, HST would be semi-stable in a > >> > "gravity gradient" mode and still could be grappled with the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Near the upper end of the fat part of the cylinder. Could you recommend a website that has detailed info' on Hubble's design and construction? Thanks. > Could you recommend a website that has detailed info' on Hubble's design > and construction? Thanks. Try this for starters: http://hubble.gsfc.nasa.gov/technology/schematics.html Signaturerk, Just an OldEngineer "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." -- R. Feynman, Appendix F. >> You're referring to the Spartan satellite on STS-87, I think. > >No... he's thinking of the IntelSat retrieval on STS-49, where three crewmen >stood in the payload bay and captured it by hand. Thanks. >> Hubble is alot bigger than Spartan. I think they'd need to match its spin, >> if that's possible, and use the arm. I can't imagine they'd maneuver the >> shuttle so close to a spinning Hubble as to bring it within reach of EVA >> astronauts, even at the end of the arm. > >HST is not spin-stabilized (i.e., it doesn't spin), so this doesn't matter. I know it isn't spin-stabilized. John was talking about capturing Hubble if it had become unstable (I later re-posted and replaced "spinning" with "tumbling").. He seemed to be suggesting, with his "it took humans to get the job done" comment, that it might be better under such circumstances to do use the shuttle. Dale On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 04:23:00 -0500, in a place far, far away, John Doe <jdoe@jdoe.info> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: >> > Retrieval Mission. I'm sure they'd agree to fly SM-4, but they clearly >> > are against risking their lives just to bring home a trophy for the >> > Smithsonian. > >Thing is that NASA has a responsability to bring Hubble down. No, it has a responsibility to ensure that it doesn't come down in an uncontrolled manner. There's no requirement to bring it down, per se. > > > Retrieval Mission. I'm sure they'd agree to fly SM-4, but they clearly > > > are against risking their lives just to bring home a trophy for the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > capable of doing so. And I think that it would be a fitting last flight for > the shuttle. Even if the shuttle and Hubble end up in pieces strewn over half a dozen US states due to a repeat of Columbia? It's a safety decision. It's a bit silly to risk the lives of the astronauts (even the many EVA's required will be tedious and there is always a risk with EVA's) and a shuttle just to bring back a piece of hardware that's outlived its usefulness. > The idea of a space tug that would somehow attach itself to Hubble and > de-orbit it is fine, but just how realistic is it ? What happens if it fails > to grapple itself ? You figure out what went wrong, fix the problem, then send up another tug and try again. Jeff SignatureRemove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply. If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie. >> Thing is that NASA has a responsability to bring Hubble down. The shuttle is >> capable of doing so. And I think that it would be a fitting last flight for >> the shuttle. > >Even if the shuttle and Hubble end up in pieces strewn over half a >dozen US states due to a repeat of Columbia? Nit: Hubble only overflies Texas and Florida. Brian >>Even if the shuttle and Hubble end up in pieces strewn over half a >>dozen US states due to a repeat of Columbia? > >Nit: Hubble only overflies Texas and Florida. Oops, forgot Hawaii. Not that Hawaii would have a debris issue. Brian > Even if the shuttle and Hubble end up in pieces strewn over half a > dozen US states due to a repeat of Columbia? It's a safety decision. If europeans stopped sending ships to explore the americas because so many were dying of disease during the trips, you wouldn't have NASA and KSC in Florida today. But they persevered and eventually found that providing iron in nutrition prevented the diseases that killed so many seaman. And eventually, by doing more and more trips, they improved the ships and with each gradual improvement, they were able to cut travel time. Did they stop after Apollo 1 ? No. They persevered. Yes, the Shuttle has issues. But with smart decision making, they must be able to overcome these weaknesses. And the more you learn about the shuttle, the better you can design its successor. When a military fighter jet crashes, do they make a huge fuss about it and decide to no longer fly military fighter jets ? Have F18s permanently been retited because some people named them "lawn darts" ? Airbus aircraft had a lot of issues in the the early days of their FBW family. But they overcame those and now those planes are very reliable and in fact Airbus has surpassed Boeing as the number 1 commercial aircraft provider. Why is it that NASA requires billions to replace the hydraulic system with electric pumps ? If NASa identified those as costing a lot to maintain and identified electric system as the solution, how come it hasn't been implemented ? Is it because NASA is micro managed by the government and isn't given the latitude to make smart decisions, leaving it only with silly choices ? When Kennedy set out to send a man to the moon, did NASA abandon at the first explosion of a rocket ? did NASA abandon at the first problem which caused the requirement of more money ? Why is it that when NASA set out to replace the shuttle with the X-33 which could have lead to the Venture Star, they stopped because they encountered technical problems which would have required more money to fix ? The CEV will fail the same way "Venture Star" failed. There just isn't a commitment to give NASa such large sums of money. That leaves minor but progressive shuttle upgrades. And eventually, once they've tested many new technologies on the shuttle, they will be much closer to being able to develop a new vehicle based on those tested technoogies. I think that they should give NASA money to proceed with shuttle upgrade program, including electric APUs. This will not only make shuttle safer, cheaper to operate, but it will also bring the replacement to the shuttle closer to reality. NASA needs to move forwards with spaceship technology. The failure of X33 proves that NASA doesn't yet have all the proven technologies to build a new spaceship. So, is NASA capable only of using 1960s technolgies to rebuild Saturn-5 launcher to give it heavy launch capability ? What would it be used for in the short term, until assembly of a new space station or mars expedition ship begins ? > But they persevered and eventually found that providing iron in nutrition > prevented the diseases that killed so many seaman. Um, no. Paul > > But they persevered and eventually found that providing iron in nutrition > > prevented the diseases that killed so many seaman. > > Um, no. Sure it was, that's why the English seamen were known as Nailies from all the rusty nails added to their food. Everybody laughed at us - but we had the last laugh when we didn't end up pale and interesting with frequent fainting fits. > If europeans stopped sending ships to explore the americas because so many > were dying of disease during the trips, you wouldn't have NASA and KSC in > Florida today. > > But they persevered and eventually found that providing iron in nutrition > prevented the diseases that killed so many seaman. Close, but no cigar. Think limes. The British were called limeys for a reason. >If I wold hate to see it just die and >burn up, I can't image how folks in the organization feel. I would *much* rather see a final upgrading mission that allowed the Hubble to operate indefinitely unattended - but with reduced capabilities in some areas to make that possible - and boosted it into a higher orbit. John Savard http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html >I would *much* rather see a final upgrading mission that allowed the >Hubble to operate indefinitely unattended - but with reduced >capabilities in some areas to make that possible - and boosted it into >a higher orbit. Ahh they should service it once more while keeping a backup shuttle on the pad prepped for launch. Then send the backup to ISS after the hubble service mission is back safe and sound. attach a dock point to hubble for later operations too. Boost its orbit to the max our shuttle can. That should keep iit operational till the new launch system is working and the decision can be made then wether to destroy it. heck a final shuttle flight might be retrieving hubble. it could take something else up, send it on its way then go pick up hubble and bring it home. A mission like this would be a BIG PR splash. Better than destroying hubble. > Ahh they should service it once more while keeping a backup shuttle on the > pad prepped for launch. Then send the backup to ISS after the hubble > service mission is back safe and sound. Well, that would eliminate the perceived "schedule pressure" on NASA to finish the station that seems to be felt around these parts. Heck, why bother finishing the station if it's going to be ditched in the Pacific a few years after completion? What's the point? > attach a dock point to hubble for later operations too. Boost its orbit to > the max our shuttle can. Very good idea. HST has attachment hardware for shuttle repair missions, but it would appear to be sorely inadequate for an unmanned deorbit mission. Why not attach some guidance/capture hardware - suitable for use by an unmanned tug - during SM4? It would make things much easier. > That should keep iit operational till the new launch system is working and > the decision can be made then wether to destroy it. HST should continue flying until a suitable UV astronomy replacement is planned and funded. > heck a final shuttle flight might be retrieving hubble. it could take > something else up, send it on its way then go pick up hubble and bring it > home. They did that for the LDEF retrieval. The only issue is that there's nothing suitable to be launched. A couple of Starshines in gascans? > A mission like this would be a BIG PR splash. Better than destroying > hubble. Definitely. It would be great publicity, and would make a fitting final shuttle mission. --Chris >> Ahh they should service it once more while keeping a backup shuttle >> on the pad prepped for launch. Then send the backup to ISS after the >> hubble service mission is back safe and sound. > > Well, that would eliminate the perceived "schedule pressure" on NASA > to finish the station that seems to be felt around these parts. No, it wouldn't have. It would have been a processing nightmare, unless it were performed during the (rare) periods with all three orbiters available. The schedule pressure to get the mission off in the window before the next orbiter goes into OMM would have been immense. > Heck, why bother finishing the station if it's going to be ditched in > the Pacific a few years after completion? What's the point? Why do you think that? The proposal is that the US would withdraw from ISS around 2016. There is *no* requirement to ditch it in the Pacific at that point - that would be up to the remaining international partners. They could continue to operate it as long as they could afford to. Besides, the US doesn't even have the *capability* to deorbit ISS - *only* the Russians (and once ATV is available, ESA) can do that. The US does not have the technical capability to deorbit ISS. >> heck a final shuttle flight might be retrieving hubble. it could take >> something else up, send it on its way then go pick up hubble and >> bring it home. > > They did that for the LDEF retrieval. The only issue is that there's > nothing suitable to be launched. A couple of Starshines in gascans? I don't think HST leaves enough clearance in the payload bay for that, unless the gascans themselves are also jettisoned. >> A mission like this would be a BIG PR splash. Better than destroying >> hubble. Hallerb once again reveals his true colors: PR over safety. He is both an imbecile *and* a hypocrite. SignatureJRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. > >> Ahh they should service it once more while keeping a backup shuttle > >> on the pad prepped for launch. Then send the backup to ISS after the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > available. The schedule pressure to get the mission off in the window > before the next orbiter goes into OMM would have been immense. I don't see why three would be required. Slow down the HST processing flow so that the two orbiters involved were around two weeks apart in processing flows - this could be achieved easily if one orbiter was coming out of OMM. The third could be in OMM or a processing flow. > > Heck, why bother finishing the station if it's going to be ditched in > > the Pacific a few years after completion? What's the point? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > (and once ATV is available, ESA) can do that. The US does not have the > technical capability to deorbit ISS. I know that. I don't think the Russians have the means to keep the ISS going without shuttle support, and I don't think the ESA would be prepared to foot the whole bill either. The way I see it, once the US pulls out of the ISS, it's abandonment and deorbiting will follow quickly. Note that I didn't say that the US would deorbit the ISS. > >> heck a final shuttle flight might be retrieving hubble. it could take > >> something else up, send it on its way then go pick up hubble and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I don't think HST leaves enough clearance in the payload bay for that, > unless the gascans themselves are also jettisoned. I think you're right. STS-31R went up with a very-nearly empty payload bay. Still, the STS-31R press kit lists Hubble's length as 43.5 ft, so even considering the external airlock and the required clearance aft of it, there may still be some space left. > Hallerb once again reveals his true colors: PR over safety. He is both an > imbecile *and* a hypocrite. It's been interesting the transformation - pre-STS-107 he was paranoid over safety, now he seems to care little about it. I like to think I've maintained a nice medium throughout :-). >Ahh they should service it once more while keeping a backup shuttle on the pad >prepped for launch. Then send the backup to ISS after the hubble service >mission is back safe and sound. This would be in violation of CAIB recommendations, which say they must have stand-alone repair capability. Are you now urging NASA to ignore outside safety advice. Quite a departure for you, Bob. Brian >This would be in violation of CAIB recommendations, which say they >must have stand-alone repair capability. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Brian Juast what will happen to a shuttle going to ISS that cant for whatever reason get to station? A extra shuttle should be ready to go for EVERY future shuttle flight. So stand alon repair capability is still needed. Frankly I dont beliecve we should return to flight till a fast supplies parts ship to orbit is ready. Not only would it be useful for a stranded shuttle but ISS as well. Imagine loosing ISS because of the lack of a $100 part. Crew evacuated and another problem comes up station tumbles and is lost. Boy will nasa look stupid. > Juast what will happen to a shuttle going to ISS that cant for whatever > reason get to station? > > A extra shuttle should be ready to go for EVERY future shuttle flight. How would you suggest doing that? Do you unerstand the implications for flight rates? Do you understand the implications to orbiter maintenance schedules? Do you understand the implications for the ISS assembly sequence? > So stand alon repair capability is still needed. Do you have a "stand alon" repair cabability for your minivan when you take it out on a lonely stretch of interstate? Come on, Bob - people have been trying to get you to understand the concepts of "risk management" for a year now. Sometimes the risks *don't* justify the means. > Frankly I dont beliecve we should return to flight till a fast supplies > parts ship to orbit is ready. Do you understand orbital mechanics enough to recognize the difficulties with this concept? What ELV do you propose to use? What launch facility(ies) do you propose to use? If you propose something new, do you use solid or storable-liquid propellants? How do you propose to fund you new "Space Guard"? > Not only would it be useful for a stranded shuttle but ISS as well. No doubt it would be useful to hire someone to follow you in a rescue car wherever you drive, too. > Imagine loosing ISS because of the lack of a $100 part. Crew evacuated and > another problem comes up station tumbles and is lost. What "$100 part" do you think could "tumble" the station? Do you have any concept of the true ISS maintenance and spares requirements or are you just talking out of you rear end again? On second thought, don't bother answering that. I think most of us already know the answer. > Boy will nasa look stupid. *sigh* You really need to look up the word "irony" in a dictionary before you make another post like this. SignatureHerb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D. Reformed Aerospace Engineer Remove invalid nonsense for email. >>I would *much* rather see a final upgrading mission that allowed the >>Hubble to operate indefinitely unattended - but with reduced [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >prepped for launch. Then send the backup to ISS after the hubble service >mission is back safe and sound. If there is a serious enough risk to warrant having a second shuttle ready to fly, is it really a good idea to attempt the mission? A second shuttle might be able to save the crew, but not the damaged shuttle. It would be lost, leaving us with only two. Which brings up the question; how difficult would it be to complete ISS if another Shuttle is lost? Or two? Also, regarding ISS, I've seen it mentioned on this group that the US plans to withdraw from it in 2016? Why would that even be considered after spending so much to build it? (Unless a new station is planned to be operational by then?) For some ideas on how to help our troops, check out http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,82385,00.html SignatureChris J......... > Which brings up the question; how difficult would it be to complete > ISS if another Shuttle is lost? Or two? The schedule for completion would stretch significantly if another shuttle were lost. You'd have two remaining, with one down for OMM a significant percentage of the time. > Also, regarding ISS, I've seen it mentioned on this group that the US > plans to withdraw from it in 2016? Why would that even be considered > after spending so much to build it? (Unless a new station is planned > to be operational by then?) The idea is to focus remaining ISS research on areas that will support the new moon/Mars initiative. This should be complete around the time of the first lunar landing (2015). This nicely coincides with ISS reaching the end of its 15 year design lifetime (first element launch was in 1998). That's not to say that ISS will suddenly start falling apart in 2013 - it will probably greatly exceed its design lifetime, as Mir did - just that the costs of maintaining it will start to escalate after that. I own a 2001 model car. I don't *plan* on junking it in the summer of 2008 - but I know that it will be pushing 100k miles by then, its trade-in value will drop to nearly nil, and the costs to maintain it will go up after that. SignatureJRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. > Plus, it would be a real shame not to get this into the Smithsonian. I think everyone just > assumed this would happen. But would that have to be an entire mission itself...just to bring [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Mark The astronauts (via Grunsfeld) I believe said they would service the HST but did not want to bring it back. They told this to the Bahcall committee last year that was exploring the future of HST. Jason >> Plus, it would be a real shame not to get this into the Smithsonian. >> I [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > HST but did not want to bring it back. They told this to the Bahcall > committee last year that was exploring the future of HST. More or less correct. The exact quotes are here: http://hst-jwst-transition.hq.nasa.gov/hst-jwst/Grunsfeld_HST-JWST1.pdf If astronauts are going to risk their lives to service the Hubble Space Telescope, we should do it in order to enable great science. For the upcoming SM4 mission the Astronaut Office has signed up for and is excited about the prospects of sending a team up to Hubble to install the Cosmic Origins Spectrograph, the Wide Field-3 Camera, and replace the gyros, batteries, and install the Aft-shroud Cooling System. The Space Shuttle Program is aggressively working towards improving the safety of the Shuttle system and to provide solutions to the tile issues, brought to light by the Columbia accident, which will enable an SM4 mission to the Hubble. If there were to be a mission after the SM4 for the purpose of returning Hubble to earth in the Shuttle Payload bay, the Astronaut Office would have reservations supporting the mission. Initial analysis shows that perhaps four spacewalks are required, significant hardware would have to be jettisoned, and a heavyweight return through the atmosphere would have to be performed. In a sense this mission would be risking human lives, and a unique national resource (the Space Shuttle), for the purpose of disabling great science, albeit due to necessity at end-of-life. For this reason the Astronaut Office favors the alternate approaches being investigated by the Office of Space Science, including an autonomously installed propulsion module mission, or a Shuttle based combined servicing/propulsion module installation mission. As astronauts we place our trust in the astronomical community, the NASA Office of Space Science, and the Office of Space Flight to examine the end- of-life options for the Hubble Space Telescope. And if it is determined that the science case drives an additional Hubble servicing mission, the astronauts will be there to help enable the scientific exploration of the Cosmos. SignatureJRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. > http://hst-jwst-transition.hq.nasa.gov/hst-jwst/Grunsfeld_HST-JWST1.pdf I think the balance here is a good one. Yes, I'd love to see Hubble in the Smithsonian someday. But the risks probably aren't worth it. On the other hand, gaining more years of better science out of it seems to be worth the risk, both of lives and of an orbiter. Probably the best idea is to attach an active docking mechanism to allow a Progress to dock. Then you can later use the Progress to reboost it or to re-enter it. >Probably the best idea is to attach an active docking mechanism to allow a >Progress to dock. I agree completely. Do the service mission as scheduled. Attach progress adapter. Then use hubble till its end of life.... Lots of time to re evaluate safety, new options as the new manned launcher shiould be operational by then too. will give hubble some time to work with the webb observatory too. besides the equiptement is mostly all built for the service mission, so not much saved on that |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message