NASA Urged to Reconsider Hubble Decision

"John Doe" wrote in message
...

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.

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

(John) wrote in
om:

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.


--
JRF

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

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote:

starman wrote in :

rk wrote:

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.

Could you recommend a website that has detailed info' on Hubble's design
and construction? Thanks.


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

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

Jan C. Vorbrüggen wrote in
:

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.


--
JRF

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

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


Invid Fan wrote:

In article , Rand Simberg
wrote:

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 17:05:58 -0600, in a place far, far away, Brian
Thorn made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 11:53:32 -0500, Mark Lopa wrote:

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.

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.

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...

--
Chris Mack "Refugee, total ****. That's how I've always seen us.
'Invid Fan' Not a help, you'll admit, to agreement between us."
-'Deal/No Deal', CHESS

Abrigon Gusiq wrote in
:

Invid Fan wrote:

In article , Rand Simberg
wrote:

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 17:05:58 -0600, in a place far, far away, Brian
Thorn made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 11:53:32 -0500, Mark Lopa
wrote:

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.

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.

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...

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.


--
JRF

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.


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