![]() |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Starlord" wrote in message ... That's the idea I've been pushing, not only could it be serviced but also controled from the ISS, have it maybe about a mile from it in same orbit. And what happens the first time you reboost ISS? And not only that, except on a perfect sphere, with a separation of 1 mile or so, that will gradually change over time. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote:
"Starlord" wrote in message ... That's the idea I've been pushing, not only could it be serviced but also controled from the ISS, have it maybe about a mile from it in same orbit. And what happens the first time you reboost ISS? And not only that, except on a perfect sphere, with a separation of 1 mile or so, that will gradually change over time. Even over a "perfect sphere", the differential drag would move ISS and HST apart rapidly. Roger -- Roger Balettie former Flight Dynamics Officer Space Shuttle Mission Control http://www.balettie.com/ |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Even over a "perfect sphere", the differential drag would move ISS and HST apart rapidly. Roger Would they not slowly depart one another but eventually end up close again? |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Boost it into Geo, it can still crosslink to Tedris, be further out of the
atmosphere and won't need fuel to keep from re-entering ... "Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote in message ... "Starlord" wrote in message ... That's the idea I've been pushing, not only could it be serviced but also controled from the ISS, have it maybe about a mile from it in same orbit. And what happens the first time you reboost ISS? And not only that, except on a perfect sphere, with a separation of 1 mile or so, that will gradually change over time. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Chuck" wrote:
Boost it into Geo, it can still crosslink to Tedris, be further out of the atmosphere and won't need fuel to keep from re-entering ... That won't work for four basic reasons (and I'm sure there are more...) -- 1) No booster attachment on HST available 2) HST is too fragile to withstand that sort of translational acceleration 3) VERY expensive to boost something that heavy from 300 miles to over 22,000 miles altitude 4) "TDRS" wouldn't be able to see it easily if it were at the same altitude Roger -- Roger Balettie former Flight Dynamics Officer Space Shuttle Mission Control http://www.balettie.com/ |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Brian Gaff" wrote in
: Ancillary question... Why was the Hubble placed in the orbit it is in. Pity nobody thought about access when it was put up. I'd have thought that there could have been orbits that would be reachable from ISS without the huge thrust requirements that the current one requires. Or is it just a case of nobody knew which orbit Iss would use at the time, so then the question could be asked about the orbit chosen for the ISS?? HST was placed in a 28.45 degree orbit back in the days when that was the planned orbit for Space Station Freedom, though there was no plan to keep them in-plane. When SSF became ISS, it was moved to 51.6 degrees to accommodate the Russians. -- JRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Hi Roger, sorry about the spelling, I knew it was wrong, but it was
pre-coffee and didn't look it up. The attachment and acceleration are the killers, with the sunk cost in the Hubble, I don't think cost is such a driver, what is it about $250 million to boost to Geo? "Roger Balettie" wrote in message ... "Chuck" wrote: Boost it into Geo, it can still crosslink to Tedris, be further out of the atmosphere and won't need fuel to keep from re-entering ... That won't work for four basic reasons (and I'm sure there are ore...) -- 1) No booster attachment on HST available 2) HST is too fragile to withstand that sort of translational acceleration 3) VERY expensive to boost something that heavy from 300 miles to over 22,000 miles altitude 4) "TDRS" wouldn't be able to see it easily if it were at the same altitude Roger -- Roger Balettie former Flight Dynamics Officer Space Shuttle Mission Control http://www.balettie.com/ |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Roger Balettie" wrote in message news ![]() "Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote: "Starlord" wrote in message ... That's the idea I've been pushing, not only could it be serviced but also controled from the ISS, have it maybe about a mile from it in same orbit. And what happens the first time you reboost ISS? And not only that, except on a perfect sphere, with a separation of 1 mile or so, that will gradually change over time. Even over a "perfect sphere", the differential drag would move ISS and HST apart rapidly. Fair enough. Ok, perfect sphere in a vacuum. :-) |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Roger Balettie" wrote: "Chuck" wrote: Boost it into Geo, it can still crosslink to Tedris, be further out of the atmosphere and won't need fuel to keep from re-entering ... That won't work for four basic reasons (and I'm sure there are more...) -- 1) No booster attachment on HST available 2) HST is too fragile to withstand that sort of translational acceleration 3) VERY expensive to boost something that heavy from 300 miles to over 22,000 miles altitude 4) "TDRS" wouldn't be able to see it easily if it were at the same altitude Oh boy, are there more! ;-) Most importantly, HST's thermal system was specifically designed for LEO. Hubble isn't "dressed" appropriately for any other orbit -- some parts would either be too cold or too hot, and the heaters would necessarily be on longer away from the warm Earth. Then again, if it was at GEO, you could just bolt on a high-gain antenna and transmit direct to Earth -- that would actually simplify communications and permit a higher data volume. Frankly, we have the money for SM4, and NASA has every intention of returning the Shuttle to flight. All that needs to happen for Hubble to continue operations to 2010 and beyond is for O'Keefe to give the nod. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Roger Balettie" wrote:
"Chuck" wrote: Boost it into Geo, it can still crosslink to Tedris, be further out of the atmosphere and won't need fuel to keep from re-entering ... That won't work for four basic reasons (and I'm sure there are more...) -- 1) No booster attachment on HST available 2) HST is too fragile to withstand that sort of translational acceleration The two snipped are real, but the first two can be somewhat overcome (in theory anyhow). In *theory* one could a frame that would mimic the Shuttle's cargo bay, replace deployed items with deployable items, install the Hubble in the frame, and then boost the whole thing to GEO. Tain't anywhere near *practical*, but it's not *impossible*. D. -- The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found at the following URLs: Text-Only Version: http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html Enhanced HTML Version: http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html Corrections, comments, and additions should be e-mailed to , as well as posted to sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for discussion. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NASA Details Risks to Astronauts on Mission to Hubble | Scott M. Kozel | Space Shuttle | 174 | May 14th 04 09:38 PM |
NASA Urged to Reconsider Hubble Decision | Scott M. Kozel | Space Shuttle | 116 | April 2nd 04 07:14 PM |
Don't Desert Hubble | Scott M. Kozel | Space Shuttle | 54 | March 5th 04 04:38 PM |
Hubble Question... | Bruce Kille | Space Shuttle | 67 | February 29th 04 05:30 AM |
The Hubble Space Telescope... | Craig Fink | Space Shuttle | 118 | December 6th 03 04:41 PM |