Hubble Marching orders

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On 7 Feb 2005 20:10:27 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Alfred
: Montestruc" made the phosphor on my monitor
: glow in such a way as to indicate that:

: 11 degrees of latitude corrisponds to 660 nautical miles, I do not
: buy
: they have no pad further south than 51.6 degrees north.
:
: I'm sorry that you're ignorant of orbital mechanics.
:
: The whole reason one cannot launch (economically) to a low inclination
: orbit from a high latitude is that the smallest inclination is that of
: the latitude, and that only if you launch due east. FYI 28.5 degrees
: is about the latitude of cape canaveral.
:
: http://www.astronautix.com/sites/capveral.htm
:
: ---------------quote--------
: Launch Complex 37 Cape Canaveral LC37. Latitude: 28.4998 N. Longitude:
: 80.5531 W. Launch Pads: 1. Delta IV Medium+ (4.2), Saturn I, Saturn IB.
:
:
: Launch Complex 39 Cape Canaveral LC39. Latitude: 28.6178 N. Longitude:
: 80.6125 W. Launch Pads: 2. Saturn IB, Saturn V, Shuttle.
: ------------------end quote
:
: So, perhaps you should take a refersher course in orbital mechanics?

: No, I don't think so. The Russians can't launch out of Cape
: Canaveral. They have no launch sites from which they can reach
: Hubble.

: I'm sorry that you're ignorant of orbital mechanics.

: Don't be. Unlike you, I'm not. I've in fact given courses in the
: subject.

: Hubble is in a 28.5 degree inclination orbit. The Russians have
: no
: launch systems or pads capable of getting humans to that orbit.
:
: Who cares? You just need to push Hubble to a higher orbit. Robot
: arms
: that are remote operated are good enough.
:
: No, they're not, considering the risk.
:
: Risk of losing a space telescope we are going to lose anyway if nothing
: is done??

: No, risk of wasting tremendous amounts of money to no purpose.

HST has purpose, the money is of issue.

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 19:56:00 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
: (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
: monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:


: : Risk of losing a space telescope we are going to lose anyway if nothing
: : is done??
:
: : No, risk of wasting tremendous amounts of money to no purpose.
:
: HST has purpose, the money is of issue.

: I didn't say HST has no purpose. I'm saying that the mission has an
: excellent chance of failing.

Why do you believe that?! On what do you base that claim?

Further, do you think that the ISS-bound shuttles are inherently safer?
And please make a distinction as to which type of HST repair mission you
are addressing; shuttle or robot-repair, as you tend to be vague too
often.

Eric

On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 19:56:00 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
(Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:


: Risk of losing a space telescope we are going to lose anyway if nothing
: is done??

: No, risk of wasting tremendous amounts of money to no purpose.

HST has purpose, the money is of issue.

I didn't say HST has no purpose. I'm saying that the mission has an
excellent chance of failing.

Rand Simberg wrote:

How about letting the Russians salvage it with our blessing and
cooperation as long as we can pay-per-view use it?

They have no capability to do that.

Well that is obviously false.

No, it's quite true.

They can get a large spacecraft into
orbit more reliably than we can at this point in time, and the big
issue with Hubble is her orbit is decaying. If they can get a large
spacecraft to join up with Hubble they can boost her into a higher
orbit.

They can't.

I can agree that the cost of the mission might not generate enough
revenue for the Russians to be wiling to do that, but not have the
capability? Get a grip dude!

I've got a grip, thanks.

Hubble is in a 28.5 degree inclination orbit. The Russians have no
launch systems or pads capable of getting humans to that orbit.
That's why the ISS is at 51.6 degrees. They also don't have any
"large spacecraft" capable of safely docking to Hubble...

What about the Progress re-boost modules used for the ISS? You wouldn't
need the full boost for the much lighter Hubble, and so could use some of
the fuel to change the orbit to match Hubble.

Obviously you'd need some way of accurately attaching to the end of Hubble
and aligning the combination before firing. Obviously it's not easy nor
likely.

But I don't think it's as impossible as you think.
--
Malcolm Street
Canberra, Australia
The nation's capital

On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 22:03:20 +1100, in a place far, far away, Malcolm
Street made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:


Hubble is in a 28.5 degree inclination orbit. The Russians have no
launch systems or pads capable of getting humans to that orbit.
That's why the ISS is at 51.6 degrees. They also don't have any
"large spacecraft" capable of safely docking to Hubble...

What about the Progress re-boost modules used for the ISS? You wouldn't
need the full boost for the much lighter Hubble, and so could use some of
the fuel to change the orbit to match Hubble.

Nope. A Progress has nowhere near enough propellant to do that big a
plane change.

Obviously you'd need some way of accurately attaching to the end of Hubble
and aligning the combination before firing. Obviously it's not easy nor
likely.

But I don't think it's as impossible as you think.

That's because you don't understand orbital mechanics.

Source: USA Today, http://www.rednova.com/news/display/?id=125725

Hubble, which was launched in 1990, is widely considered the
crown jewel of U.S. space science. Astronomers, politicians
and members of the public have been lobbying for a mission to
extend its life.

But O'Keefe says NASA's priorities are to meet President Bush's
call for exploration of the moon and Mars. He also said the
space agency had to meet obligations to finish construction of
the international space station and launch a space shuttle this year...

He publicly supported a robotic repair mission, which will get a
NASA review next month.

But by removing money from this budget for a robotic rescue, the
window of opportunity to revive such an effort before Hubble's
batteries or stabilizing gyroscopes fail becomes much narrower...

The House Science Committee plans a hearing on NASA's budget and
Hubble this month.

''Hubble's best days are ahead of it, not behind it,'' says Sen.
Barbara Mikulski, D-Md. ''I will fight in the Senate this year to
fund a servicing mission to Hubble by 2008.''

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 21:59:02 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
: (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
: monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

: : : Risk of losing a space telescope we are going to lose anyway if nothing
: : : is done??
: :
: : : No, risk of wasting tremendous amounts of money to no purpose.
: :
: : HST has purpose, the money is of issue.
:
: : I didn't say HST has no purpose. I'm saying that the mission has an
: : excellent chance of failing.
:
: Why do you believe that?! On what do you base that claim?

: On the history of space repair, and on the National Academy of Science
: report.

: Further, do you think that the ISS-bound shuttles are inherently safer?

: A little, but not much.

Chcicken Little WRT shuttle doesn't seem like you, but one never knows.

: And please make a distinction as to which type of HST repair mission you
: are addressing; shuttle or robot-repair, as you tend to be vague too
: often.

: Robot repair, which is what was under discussion, had you been paying
: attention. Shuttle repair has an excellent chance of success.

Given no track record for the former and given a good track record for the
latter I would agree. But this begs an earlier question about using the
ISS as a robot repair mission testbed. So, rather than DEXTRE or
equivalent being shelved due to being to risky, shouldn't we continue
development for future use, and use ISS to test it?

Eric

On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 18:55:05 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
(Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

: And please make a distinction as to which type of HST repair mission you
: are addressing; shuttle or robot-repair, as you tend to be vague too
: often.

: Robot repair, which is what was under discussion, had you been paying
: attention. Shuttle repair has an excellent chance of success.

Given no track record for the former and given a good track record for the
latter I would agree. But this begs an earlier question about using the
ISS as a robot repair mission testbed. So, rather than DEXTRE or
equivalent being shelved due to being to risky, shouldn't we continue
development for future use, and use ISS to test it?

Of course. But that has nothing to do with Hubble repair.

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 18:55:05 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
: (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
: monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

: : And please make a distinction as to which type of HST repair mission you
: : are addressing; shuttle or robot-repair, as you tend to be vague too
: : often.
:
: : Robot repair, which is what was under discussion, had you been paying
: : attention. Shuttle repair has an excellent chance of success.
:
: Given no track record for the former and given a good track record for the
: latter I would agree. But this begs an earlier question about using the
: ISS as a robot repair mission testbed. So, rather than DEXTRE or
: equivalent being shelved due to being to risky, shouldn't we continue
: development for future use, and use ISS to test it?

: Of course. But that has nothing to do with Hubble repair.

No, but might have something to do with a JWST, EOS, NPOES or any other
satellite system repair. The ONLY reason that it doesn't have application
to a Hubble repair is that Hubble needs attention before any realistic
robot mission repair could be thoroughly tested.

You do believe it testing, don't you, Rand?

Eric

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 17:22:18 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
(Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

: : And please make a distinction as to which type of HST repair mission you
: : are addressing; shuttle or robot-repair, as you tend to be vague too
: : often.
:
: : Robot repair, which is what was under discussion, had you been paying
: : attention. Shuttle repair has an excellent chance of success.
:
: Given no track record for the former and given a good track record for the
: latter I would agree. But this begs an earlier question about using the
: ISS as a robot repair mission testbed. So, rather than DEXTRE or
: equivalent being shelved due to being to risky, shouldn't we continue
: development for future use, and use ISS to test it?

: Of course. But that has nothing to do with Hubble repair.

No, but might have something to do with a JWST, EOS, NPOES or any other
satellite system repair. The ONLY reason that it doesn't have application
to a Hubble repair is that Hubble needs attention before any realistic
robot mission repair could be thoroughly tested.

You do believe it testing, don't you, Rand?

Yes.

Unlike you, I also believe in attempting to keep my comments and
questions on topic. When I do ask off-topic questions, I don't demand
answers to them as though they actually have something to do with what
someone else wrote, instead of what I fantasize that they wrote. But
that's just me.