Hubble rescue mission change

Remember how we were going to have the Endeavour rescue Shuttle on 39B
ready to go in case Atlantis got marooned in orbit?
Well, guess what?
Maybe we don't need to do that after all:
http://www.space.com/news/081219-sn-...x-impacts.html
If something does go wrong with Atlantis, we had better hope we can do
one quick turnaround on pad 39A.

Pat

On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 15:19:31 -0600, Pat Flannery
wrote:

If something does go wrong with Atlantis, we had better hope we can do
one quick turnaround on pad 39A.

....IIRC - and Jorge can confirm/deny this - we've done thought
exercises on this in the past over on .shuttle, and IIRC the quickest
"safe" turnaround was ~4 days. Of course, there's quite a few
x-factors here, such as when in the mission the need for a rescue
occurs, how much pad refurb can be done while the rescue vehicle is
being moved from either the VAB or the other pad, and how much can
either be slapdashed or skipped over altogether in order to get the
rescue shuttle launched in time.

....Also, here's one I think we discussed, but I can't recall the
answer right off, is whether a Progress resupply could be launched to
Hubble orbit on short notice. This goes back to all the talk about
"What If?" in the weeks following Columbia, and the n00b/Press
questions about "why couldn't they just throw up food/water/fix-a-flat
kits/etc until another shuttle could be launched?"


OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

On Dec 21, 5:21�pm, OM wrote:
On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 15:19:31 -0600, Pat Flannery
wrote:

If something does go wrong with Atlantis, we had better hope we can do
one quick turnaround on pad 39A.

...IIRC - and Jorge can confirm/deny this - we've done thought
exercises on this in the past over on .shuttle, and IIRC the quickest
"safe" turnaround was ~4 days. Of course, there's quite a few
x-factors here, such as when in the mission the need for a rescue
occurs, how much pad refurb can be done while the rescue vehicle is
being moved from either the VAB or the other pad, and how much can
either be slapdashed or skipped over altogether in order to get the
rescue shuttle launched in time.

...Also, here's one I think we discussed, but I can't recall the
answer right off, is whether a Progress resupply could be launched to
Hubble orbit on short notice. This goes back to all the talk about
"What If?" in the weeks following Columbia, and the n00b/Press
questions about "why couldn't they just throw up food/water/fix-a-flat
kits/etc until another shuttle could be launched?"

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � OM
--
� �]=====================================[
� �] � OMBlog -http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld� [
� �] � � � �Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* � � � � [
� �] � � � � �an obnoxious opinion in your day! � � � � � [
� �]=====================================[

boy not having a rescue shuttle and rushing ares? hopefully ares that
disgrace of a bad idea will be killed by the new obama adminstration
before then

OM wrote in
:

On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 15:19:31 -0600, Pat Flannery
wrote:

If something does go wrong with Atlantis, we had better hope we can do
one quick turnaround on pad 39A.

...IIRC - and Jorge can confirm/deny this - we've done thought
exercises on this in the past over on .shuttle, and IIRC the quickest
"safe" turnaround was ~4 days. Of course, there's quite a few
x-factors here, such as when in the mission the need for a rescue
occurs, how much pad refurb can be done while the rescue vehicle is
being moved from either the VAB or the other pad, and how much can
either be slapdashed or skipped over altogether in order to get the
rescue shuttle launched in time.

More like 7, I think. But still possible. Both single-pad and dual-pad
plans were considered for 125/400 the first time around, and dual-pad won
out since it would take less labor on short notice, and there wouldn't be
much impact on Ares I-X. Now that the slip has increased the impact of
dual-pad ops for 125/400, single-pad is being reconsidered.

...Also, here's one I think we discussed, but I can't recall the
answer right off, is whether a Progress resupply could be launched to
Hubble orbit on short notice. This goes back to all the talk about
"What If?" in the weeks following Columbia, and the n00b/Press
questions about "why couldn't they just throw up food/water/fix-a-flat
kits/etc until another shuttle could be launched?"

No. Progress can't launch to 28.5 from Baikonur, Kourou has no handling
facilities for Progress, and no deal is being negotiated.

The problem with the progress idea is pressurisation. I do not think there
are facilities to unpressurise it on orbit unless its connected to a docking
port.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


"OM" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 15:19:31 -0600, Pat Flannery
wrote:

If something does go wrong with Atlantis, we had better hope we can do
one quick turnaround on pad 39A.

...IIRC - and Jorge can confirm/deny this - we've done thought
exercises on this in the past over on .shuttle, and IIRC the quickest
"safe" turnaround was ~4 days. Of course, there's quite a few
x-factors here, such as when in the mission the need for a rescue
occurs, how much pad refurb can be done while the rescue vehicle is
being moved from either the VAB or the other pad, and how much can
either be slapdashed or skipped over altogether in order to get the
rescue shuttle launched in time.

...Also, here's one I think we discussed, but I can't recall the
answer right off, is whether a Progress resupply could be launched to
Hubble orbit on short notice. This goes back to all the talk about
"What If?" in the weeks following Columbia, and the n00b/Press
questions about "why couldn't they just throw up food/water/fix-a-flat
kits/etc until another shuttle could be launched?"


OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

nasa should keep 2 ads operational till hubble service mission is
complete.

lets say they dont, shuttle has a problem and the rescue mission fails
for any reason. the lack of a second pad will be blamed, and nasa gets
slammed as careless..........

On Dec 22, 2:24*am, "Brian Gaff" wrote:
The problem with the progress idea is pressurisation. I do not think there
are facilities to unpressurise it on orbit unless its connected to a docking
port.

It kind of makes it hard to dock a Progress or a Soyuz to a stranded
shuttle orbiter when they use two different types of docking
mechanisms. Rigging up tethers to an unmanned vehicle, never mind
depressurizing it are the least of the problems to consider in this
scenario. As Jorge has pointed out, launching a Progress or a Soyuz
down into a 28.5 degree inclination and at the Hubble altitude is well
out of the Soyuz launcher's capability.
-Mike

wrote:

scenario. As Jorge has pointed out, launching a Progress or a Soyuz
down into a 28.5 degree inclination and at the Hubble altitude is well
out of the Soyuz launcher's capability.

Is that the case even if the progress only carries very light cargo like
a bunch of replacement tiles and a tube of krazy glew ?

I terms of depresurization, if there are truly no operable valves to
depressurise a progress in space, couldn't they just use a space hammer
and a long nail to punch a hole in the pressure vessel ?

In 1G environment, would it be easy for an adult to use hammer to punch
a hole through a progress wall with a long nail ?

John Doe wrote:
I terms of depresurization, if there are truly no operable valves to
depressurise a progress in space, couldn't they just use a space hammer
and a long nail to punch a hole in the pressure vessel ?


As soon as the air starts shooting out, the Progress will start moving
around from the thrust of the escaping gas.
You might be able to store stuff in the unpressurized section of the
Progress that replaces the Soyuz reentry module though (the pressurized
section is a modified Soyuz orbital module), but it's not designed to go
into that orbital inclination.
So you would have to give the Russians a lot of advance notice (months)
to even attempt it.
On the other hand you could stick a grapple fixture on it for the
Shuttle's RMS to grab and lower it into the cargo bay after rendezvous.
But payload would be very limited to that high of a orbit at that low
of a orbital inclination.
We're pretty much counting on Atlantis working right or a very quick
turnaround for pad 39A.
Worth it?
Hard to say.
Recent Shuttle flights have been going very well as far as ascent damage
goes.
So the HST repair mission's overall risk is pretty low, but certainly
not nonexistent.
On the other hand, HST is getting long in the tooth and needs
replacement...the recent failure of the communications system luckily
occurred a few weeks before - not a few weeks after - the planned repair
flight.
It really does need to be replaced with the new generation Webb Space
Telescope*, as we can learn a whole lot from having operated HST over
the past 20+ years and its basic technology is getting pretty dated,
having come from the late 1970s-early 1980s.
For starters, we can grind the mirror correctly next time around.

* http://webbtelescope.org/webb_telescope/

Pat

wrote in message
...
On Dec 22, 2:24 am, "Brian Gaff" wrote:
The problem with the progress idea is pressurisation. I do not think
there
are facilities to unpressurise it on orbit unless its connected to a
docking
port.

It kind of makes it hard to dock a Progress or a Soyuz to a stranded
shuttle orbiter when they use two different types of docking
mechanisms. Rigging up tethers to an unmanned vehicle, never mind
depressurizing it are the least of the problems to consider in this
scenario. As Jorge has pointed out, launching a Progress or a Soyuz
down into a 28.5 degree inclination and at the Hubble altitude is well
out of the Soyuz launcher's capability.

What about a Progress or Soyuz launched from Guyana?

http://spaceports.blogspot.com/2007/...ch-guyana.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17421968/from/ET/

From the above article by James Oberg:

Although the purpose of the new launch pad is mutual profit
through commercial payload delivery to space, Russian
officials make no secret of their long-range goal for the
facility. It is human space flight - more Gagarins, on
Russian-European spacecraft - using a new access highway
to space that bypasses existing political bottlenecks in
Kazakhstan and in Florida.

Of course, wishful thinking on the part of the Russians wouldn't be enough.
You'd have to have a Progress or Soyuz nearly ready to launch in order to
make this work. Plus there are all othe other problems like how to grab
Progress (you'd want a grapple fixture for the RMS to snag) and how to
depressurize it and open the hatch.

Jeff
--
"Many things that were acceptable in 1958 are no longer acceptable today.
My own standards have changed too." -- Freeman Dyson