Hubble Upgrade mission

NASA has decided to spend over $100M on an unmanned mission to
de-orbit the HST instead of peforming the previously scheduled upgrade
mission. The excuse they give is that the Shuttle cannot safely
travel anywhere but to the ISS.

Let us review the reasons why.

1) After docking at the ISS, it is easy to have a full visual
inspection of the entire TPS. There is no established non-ISS
in-space procedure for inspecting the TPS.

2) If the TPS is damaged, the Shuttle crew can use the ISS as a
lifeboat, living in relative comfort until a Soyuz capsule or second
Shuttle can arrive to return them to Earth.

It is almost trivially easy to surmount these problems.

1) Perform self-inspection after separating from the HST. Carry a
cargo that includes remotely operated video cameras attached to long
poles that can be deployed by the robot arm. Inspect the entire TPS.

Payload reduction ~ 200kg

2) Lifeboat. Carry a cargo that includes a full Soyuz capsule.
Include full space suits for all 3 astronauts.

Cost: ~15 million for a Soyuz capsule. After a successful mission, the
capsule could be sold back. - Payload reduction ~ 8000kg

That's all. Although the payload to Hubble's orbit is reduced by
almost half, there is still enough capacity to complete the mission.

"Charlie" wrote in message
om...
NASA has decided to spend over $100M on an unmanned mission to
de-orbit the HST instead of peforming the previously scheduled upgrade
mission. The excuse they give is that the Shuttle cannot safely
travel anywhere but to the ISS.

Let us review the reasons why.

1) After docking at the ISS, it is easy to have a full visual
inspection of the entire TPS. There is no established non-ISS
in-space procedure for inspecting the TPS.

2) If the TPS is damaged, the Shuttle crew can use the ISS as a
lifeboat, living in relative comfort until a Soyuz capsule or second
Shuttle can arrive to return them to Earth.

It is almost trivially easy to surmount these problems.

1) Perform self-inspection after separating from the HST. Carry a
cargo that includes remotely operated video cameras attached to long
poles that can be deployed by the robot arm. Inspect the entire TPS.

Payload reduction ~ 200kg

2) Lifeboat. Carry a cargo that includes a full Soyuz capsule.
Include full space suits for all 3 astronauts.

Cost: ~15 million for a Soyuz capsule. After a successful mission, the
capsule could be sold back. - Payload reduction ~ 8000kg

Yeah, it sounds easy...except it isn't. The things you describe above will
cost about two years to design and implement and probably upwards of $150
million in R&D (i.e. mission planning, remotely operated camera development,
Soyouz mounting inside the Shuttle). And that's aside the political issues
such as a U.S. spacecraft having to carry a Soyouz as a lifeboat (thereby
implying that it isn't safe and that we have to rely on the Russians to bail
us out if something goes awry). That will not go down well in Washington,
erro: it won't happen.

(Charlie) wrote in
om:

1) Perform self-inspection after separating from the HST. Carry a
cargo that includes remotely operated video cameras attached to long
poles that can be deployed by the robot arm. Inspect the entire TPS.

NASA is already working on this.

Payload reduction ~ 200kg

400 kg.

2) Lifeboat. Carry a cargo that includes a full Soyuz capsule.
Include full space suits for all 3 astronauts.

A crew of three isn't enough for a Hubble servicing mission. You need two
EVA teams and a CDR/PLT at a minimum, so you'd need two Soyuzes. That would
take up the room in the payload bay you need for the Hubble upgrades. It
would also make evacuating to the Soyuz somewhat problematic, to say the
least.

Cost: ~15 million for a Soyuz capsule.

That's the cost for *one seat* in a Soyuz. No way the Russians will sell
you an entire Soyuz for that.

And you're not including the cost of the boom/sensor system above, which is
approaching $100 million. Granted, that is being developed anyway.

After a successful mission, the
capsule could be sold back.

The Russians wouldn't buy it back. They much prefer the hard currency.
Besides, once you fill the H2O2 tanks in the descent module, the clock
starts ticking on the spacecraft's six month lifespan.

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message ...

1) Perform self-inspection after separating from the HST. Carry a
cargo that includes remotely operated video cameras attached to long
poles that can be deployed by the robot arm. Inspect the entire TPS.

NASA is already working on this.

I know. It is an obvious idea, even to NASA. The robot arm itself
has built-in remote controlled cameras, albeit not suitable for TPS
inspections.

....
400 kg.

Whatever. I haven't been in the loop at NASA for over a decade. I'll
take your word for it.

....
And you're not including the cost of the boom/sensor system above, which is
approaching $100 million. Granted, that is being developed anyway.

I should have guessed that NASA would charge 9 figures to develop a
joystick controlled video camera on a glorified fishing pole. How
typical. Does anyone else find that somewhat INSANE?

2) Lifeboat. Carry a cargo that includes a full Soyuz capsule.
Include full space suits for all 3 astronauts.

A crew of three isn't enough for a Hubble servicing mission. You need two
EVA teams and a CDR/PLT at a minimum, so you'd need two Soyuzes. That would

Yes, a crew of 6 would be required if you are performing the mission
the way NASA says it should be done. However, I don't agree that
three people couldn't complete the mission. In fact, I think the job
could be completed in the same amount of time by 3 people as it could
by six.

Even if you HAD to carry two Soyuz capsules, you still would not use
up the entire cargo capacity of the shuttle. The replacement gyros
are not especially heavy or bulky, nor are the other planned Hubble
upgrade components.

take up the room in the payload bay you need for the Hubble upgrades. It
would also make evacuating to the Soyuz somewhat problematic, to say the
least.

Cost: ~15 million for a Soyuz capsule.
That's the cost for *one seat* in a Soyuz. No way the Russians will sell
you an entire Soyuz for that.

Wasn't that the cost for one seat on a Soyuz mission? The capsule
itself is just a fraction of the cost of a mission.

I seem to recall the purchase price of a flight-ready Soyuz capsule as
under $20 million. I forget where I read that. If you have a
reference for a different unit cost, feel free to post it.

After a successful mission, the
capsule could be sold back.

The Russians wouldn't buy it back. They much prefer the hard currency.

They wouldn't WANT to buy it back. If you offered to buy the capsule,
on the condition that if undeployed it could be returned for half(?)
the purchase price, I suspect that an agreement could be reached.

Besides, once you fill the H2O2 tanks in the descent module, the clock
starts ticking on the spacecraft's six month lifespan.

Of course. Throw out the unused lifeboat after one standby mission.
It's the NASA way.

A capsule that is prepped for space, but never faces re-entry could
surely be refurbished for less than the cost of building a new one.
Or maybe not. I have no inside information, only educated guesses.

---
What I was trying to show by this is that:

The issues keeping NASA from servicing the Hubble are not safety.
The issues keeping NASA from servicing the Hubble are not technical.

The issues are political and fiscal. In that order.

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004, Charlie wrote:

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message ...

1) Perform self-inspection after separating from the HST. Carry a
cargo that includes remotely operated video cameras attached to long
poles that can be deployed by the robot arm. Inspect the entire TPS.

NASA is already working on this.

I know. It is an obvious idea, even to NASA. The robot arm itself
has built-in remote controlled cameras, albeit not suitable for TPS
inspections.

...
400 kg.

Whatever. I haven't been in the loop at NASA for over a decade. I'll
take your word for it.

...
And you're not including the cost of the boom/sensor system above, which is
approaching $100 million. Granted, that is being developed anyway.

I should have guessed that NASA would charge 9 figures to develop a
joystick controlled video camera on a glorified fishing pole. How
typical. Does anyone else find that somewhat INSANE?


Not particularlly considering that said system has to operate in close
proximity to the shuttle tiles and RCC, and may at some point have an
astronaut at the end of it to do repair work.


2) Lifeboat. Carry a cargo that includes a full Soyuz capsule.
Include full space suits for all 3 astronauts.

A crew of three isn't enough for a Hubble servicing mission. You need two
EVA teams and a CDR/PLT at a minimum, so you'd need two Soyuzes. That would

Yes, a crew of 6 would be required if you are performing the mission
the way NASA says it should be done. However, I don't agree that
three people couldn't complete the mission. In fact, I think the job
could be completed in the same amount of time by 3 people as it could
by six.

Even if you HAD to carry two Soyuz capsules, you still would not use
up the entire cargo capacity of the shuttle. The replacement gyros
are not especially heavy or bulky, nor are the other planned Hubble
upgrade components.

The hardware for the HST servicing has to have carriers to hold it in the
payload bay, that takes up quite a bit of room there on it's own. Adding
in the Soyuz capsules, even without the service and orbital modules, will
take up quite a huge chunk of the cargobay's volume, and those descent
modules on their own will require some kind of a carrier of their own in
order to be held in the shuttle payload bay. Bear in mind that whatever OV
makes the trip to HST, it will likely still be configured with the ODS
external airlock, which in turn takes up quite a bit of the forward
payload bay as well.


take up the room in the payload bay you need for the Hubble upgrades. It
would also make evacuating to the Soyuz somewhat problematic, to say the
least.

Cost: ~15 million for a Soyuz capsule.
That's the cost for *one seat* in a Soyuz. No way the Russians will sell
you an entire Soyuz for that.

Wasn't that the cost for one seat on a Soyuz mission? The capsule
itself is just a fraction of the cost of a mission.

I seem to recall the purchase price of a flight-ready Soyuz capsule as
under $20 million. I forget where I read that. If you have a
reference for a different unit cost, feel free to post it.

Jorge can confirm this, and you can look this up in AvWeek as well, but
NASA about 5 years ago was quoted a price of about $60 million for a full
up Soyuz spacecraft for ISS.


After a successful mission, the
capsule could be sold back.

The Russians wouldn't buy it back. They much prefer the hard currency.

They wouldn't WANT to buy it back. If you offered to buy the capsule,
on the condition that if undeployed it could be returned for half(?)
the purchase price, I suspect that an agreement could be reached.

I doubt that unless the spacecraft were returned free of charge the
Russians would take it back.

Besides, once you fill the H2O2 tanks in the descent module, the clock
starts ticking on the spacecraft's six month lifespan.

Of course. Throw out the unused lifeboat after one standby mission.
It's the NASA way.

That is not the "NASA way", that is the Russian way.

A capsule that is prepped for space, but never faces re-entry could
surely be refurbished for less than the cost of building a new one.
Or maybe not. I have no inside information, only educated guesses.

But is it worthwhile? What are the costs of requalifying a Soyuz
spacecraft? How easy is it?
-Mike

On 11 Feb 2004 12:33:57 -0800, (Charlie)
wrote:

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message ...

1) Perform self-inspection after separating from the HST. Carry a
cargo that includes remotely operated video cameras attached to long
poles that can be deployed by the robot arm. Inspect the entire TPS.

NASA is already working on this.

I know. It is an obvious idea, even to NASA. The robot arm itself
has built-in remote controlled cameras, albeit not suitable for TPS
inspections.

And it isn't long enough to reach everywhere under the Orbiter without
an arm extender. Which means one 50-foot arm has to pick up a second
one, doubling its length (more or less) which will need cameras, etc.
And you have to make sure that this long object is not going to flex
and impact the tiles, making more damage or, worse, damage where none
ever existed.

A crew of three isn't enough for a Hubble servicing mission. You need two
EVA teams and a CDR/PLT at a minimum, so you'd need two Soyuzes. That would

Yes, a crew of 6 would be required if you are performing the mission
the way NASA says it should be done. However, I don't agree that
three people couldn't complete the mission.

I do. All of the HST servicing missions required at least four EVAs by
a pair of astronauts. Most of those EVAs were 6+ hours, a few over 8
hours. NASA's experience is that EVA is physically exhausting, which
is why the Hubble and ISS EVAs are split among two pairs of astronauts
on non-consecutive days. You can't expect two astronauts to do that
four days in a row.

In fact, I think the job
could be completed in the same amount of time by 3 people as it could
by six.

You risk an exhausted crew, and exhausted people tend to make
mistakes. They could very easily severely damage Hubble on the last
two EVAs, or they could make a mistake that gets someone killed.

Even if you HAD to carry two Soyuz capsules, you still would not use
up the entire cargo capacity of the shuttle.

No, but you'd use up the available *volume* of the payload bay.

The replacement gyros
are not especially heavy or bulky, nor are the other planned Hubble
upgrade components.

Keep in mind Hubble's high orbit reduces payload capacity
significantly. 300 miles was about the limit when Discovery launched
the 24,000 lbs. Hubble in 1990.

Cost: ~15 million for a Soyuz capsule.
That's the cost for *one seat* in a Soyuz. No way the Russians will sell
you an entire Soyuz for that.

Wasn't that the cost for one seat on a Soyuz mission? The capsule
itself is just a fraction of the cost of a mission.

Officially, one seat costs $20 million on a mission that is already
paid for by Russia (i.e., a Space Station lifeboat swap mission) and
has the third seat available. However, if you want your own dedicated
Soyuz, you have to pay for the whole thing, and that's logically going
to cost more than just one seat.

How much a Soyuz costs is the subject of debate. How much Russia
charges for one is another matter. Its reportedly $60 to $100 million.
Of course, NASA is banned from buying from Russia by the Nuclear
Non-proliferation Treaty. Russia is happily selling nuclear and
missile technology to Iran.

I seem to recall the purchase price of a flight-ready Soyuz capsule as
under $20 million.

That's the price Dennis Tito reportedly paid for his flight. He
probably didn't actually pay that much, since he was the first
customer and got a discount.

The Russians wouldn't buy it back. They much prefer the hard currency.

They wouldn't WANT to buy it back. If you offered to buy the capsule,
on the condition that if undeployed it could be returned for half(?)
the purchase price, I suspect that an agreement could be reached.

I strongly suspect not. The Russians are really hurting for cold, hard
cash and will not be interested in *loaning* you a Soyuz or two.

Besides, once you fill the H2O2 tanks in the descent module, the clock
starts ticking on the spacecraft's six month lifespan.

Of course. Throw out the unused lifeboat after one standby mission.
It's the NASA way.

NASA's X-38-derived lifeboat was intended to be reusable, for your
information. But the CRV was cancelled in 2002.

Brian

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004, Brian Thorn wrote:

Even if you HAD to carry two Soyuz capsules, you still would not use
up the entire cargo capacity of the shuttle.

No, but you'd use up the available *volume* of the payload bay.

Even if using only the decent capsule portion of the Soyuz, you'd still
need a carrier for it to remain locked down in the shuttle's payload bay,
taking up even more room than just the decent capsule alone. Never mind
the carriers for the HST hardware and the ODS external airlock.


The replacement gyros
are not especially heavy or bulky, nor are the other planned Hubble
upgrade components.
Of course. Throw out the unused lifeboat after one standby mission.
It's the NASA way.

NASA's X-38-derived lifeboat was intended to be reusable, for your
information. But the CRV was cancelled in 2002.

Sadly we don't have CRV when we need it most...
-Mike

(Charlie) wrote in
om:

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message
...

And you're not including the cost of the boom/sensor system above,
which is approaching $100 million. Granted, that is being developed
anyway.

I should have guessed that NASA would charge 9 figures to develop a
joystick controlled video camera on a glorified fishing pole. How
typical. Does anyone else find that somewhat INSANE?

I misread the article. The $100 million is for the entire tile/RCC
inspection/repair effort, of which the boom is only one part.

2) Lifeboat. Carry a cargo that includes a full Soyuz capsule.
Include full space suits for all 3 astronauts.

A crew of three isn't enough for a Hubble servicing mission. You need
two EVA teams and a CDR/PLT at a minimum, so you'd need two Soyuzes.
That would

Yes, a crew of 6 would be required if you are performing the mission
the way NASA says it should be done. However, I don't agree that
three people couldn't complete the mission. In fact, I think the job
could be completed in the same amount of time by 3 people as it could
by six.

EVAs remain very strenuous activities; it is risky to schedule them on
back-to-back days unless you *really* have to, and the practical maximum
for a single EVA team on a shuttle mission is three EVAs. HST servicing
missions typically require 4-5 EVAs. The next mission, if it occurs, will
need two just to change out the failed gyros - then you can start
installing the new equipment. And the training time required for a smaller
crew will grow prohibitively. In my opinion, your plan is risky to the
point of being reckless.

Even if you HAD to carry two Soyuz capsules, you still would not use
up the entire cargo capacity of the shuttle. The replacement gyros
are not especially heavy or bulky, nor are the other planned Hubble
upgrade components.

Really? Including the pallet to secure the gyros/upgrades in the payload
bay, the hubble FSS, *and* the external airlock?

I don't think so.

Besides, once you fill the H2O2 tanks in the descent module, the
clock starts ticking on the spacecraft's six month lifespan.

Of course. Throw out the unused lifeboat after one standby mission.
It's the NASA way.

No, that's the Russian way. The US hasn't deliberately thrown out a manned
spacecraft since 1975.

What I was trying to show by this is that:

The issues keeping NASA from servicing the Hubble are not safety.
The issues keeping NASA from servicing the Hubble are not technical.

The issues are political and fiscal. In that order.

I agree, but for completely different reasons.


--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

Mike Dicenso wrote in
zona.edu:

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004, Charlie wrote:

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message
...

take up the room in the payload bay you need for the Hubble
upgrades. It would also make evacuating to the Soyuz somewhat
problematic, to say the least.

Cost: ~15 million for a Soyuz capsule.
That's the cost for *one seat* in a Soyuz. No way the Russians will
sell you an entire Soyuz for that.

Wasn't that the cost for one seat on a Soyuz mission? The capsule
itself is just a fraction of the cost of a mission.

I seem to recall the purchase price of a flight-ready Soyuz capsule
as under $20 million. I forget where I read that. If you have a
reference for a different unit cost, feel free to post it.

Jorge can confirm this, and you can look this up in AvWeek as well,
but NASA about 5 years ago was quoted a price of about $60 million for
a full up Soyuz spacecraft for ISS.

Correct, I think. It's been a fairly consistent number (IIRC Rockwell was
quoted a similar number when they were investigating a Soyuz CRV for SSF in
1992).

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

Mike Dicenso writes:

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004, Brian Thorn wrote:
NASA's X-38-derived lifeboat was intended to be reusable, for your
information. But the CRV was cancelled in 2002.

Sadly we don't have CRV when we need it most...

It was never a high enough priority given the overconfidence in the
shuttle. CRV's only forseen mission was ISS evacuation, and that was
only in an emergency situation. Again, because shuttle was seen as
the safest way to transport crews to and from ISS.

This is especially true when you really didn't expect to have the
budget to test the CRV (re-entry) more than once or twice.

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.