Hubble may be parked at 2500 KM

In article ,
Eric Pederson deZ to respond wrote:
...As the RTF date continues to slip,
reaching ISS complete before the CAIB "life limit" becomes more
difficult...

Remember that there is a hidden assumption the "at the planned flight
rate". The shuttle is flying well below its maximum sustainable rate; the
only obstacle to *adding* a Hubble repair flight to the schedule (as
opposed to substituting it for an already-planned flight) is money.
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |

2500 km is right smack dab in the worst part of the inner Van Allen belt.
HST's solar arrays will degrade quickly in this environment, and its
avionics will fry.

I wonder if they intentionally picked this parking spot to eminate any
possiblity of possibe reuse?

Brian Thorn ) wrote:
: On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 09:54:15 -0000, "Brian Gaff"
: wrote:

: However, it will be interesting to see what happens if we get a change of
: administration at the Whitehouse in November.

: Just want to point out something that's been bugging me about your
: recent posts...

: It's "White House", not "Whitehouse." :-)

Maybe the confusion started with the fact that the "President in the White
House" is different than the "resident in the Whitehouse"?

Eric

: Brian

Brian Thorn ) wrote:
: On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 18:04:55 +0000 (UTC),
: (Eric Chomko) wrote:

: The timidity of this adminstration regarding astronauts as compared to
: combat troops is a little baffling. I think they forget that astronauts,
: also, are volunteer. No one is forcing them into space.

: By all accounts, the Administration had little to do with the Hubble
: decision, other than to follow the CAIB's recommendation of not
: continuing Shuttle past 2010 without recertification. This

The CAIB decision is not law it is as you say, a recommendation. Further,
the siggestion to abandon HST was NOT part of the recommendation. Policy
after the CAIB recommendation is NOT the recommendation.

: Administration selected a new manned spacecraft rather than expensive
: Shuttle recertification. I think the odds are good that a Gore
: Administration would have made the same choice (just without the
: long-term Moon goal.)

I was reading that the Moon goal was first stated by Bush Sr. back in
1989. What happened to that and what makes us believe that a Bush Jr.
decision is going to be taken more seriously?

: The fear of losing astronauts isn't at all limited to the current
: Administration.

No doubt. But the lack of fear of losing troops by this administration
makes me question the whole thing.

Eric

: Brian

Henry Spencer ) wrote:
: In article ,
: Brian Thorn wrote:
: On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 09:54:15 -0000, "Brian Gaff"
: wrote:
: ...at the Whitehouse in November.
:
: It's "White House", not "Whitehouse." :-)

: I'm sure the Brits should get a special dispensation on this, since
: they're the reason why it's white. :-)

: (For those unaware of this bit of history: the President's house was
: originally natural stone color. But after the Royal Marines burned
: Washington during the War of 1812, the rebuilders couldn't get the soot
: off the somewhat-porous stone. So they whitewashed it instead, and it
: became the White House as a result.)

Why those lime... b@$tar^$!! Hey, wasn't that the second of the two wars
they lost to us?

Eric

: --
: MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
: since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |

Henry Spencer ) wrote:
: In article ,
: Eric Pederson deZ to respond wrote:
: ...As the RTF date continues to slip,
: reaching ISS complete before the CAIB "life limit" becomes more
: difficult...

: Remember that there is a hidden assumption the "at the planned flight
: rate". The shuttle is flying well below its maximum sustainable rate; the
: only obstacle to *adding* a Hubble repair flight to the schedule (as
: opposed to substituting it for an already-planned flight) is money.

But that money as compared to a flight to ISS is negligible.

Eric

: --
: MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
: since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |

In article , Eric Chomko wrote:
Henry Spencer ) wrote:
: In article ,
: Eric Pederson deZ to respond wrote:
: ...As the RTF date continues to slip,
: reaching ISS complete before the CAIB "life limit" becomes more
: difficult...

: Remember that there is a hidden assumption the "at the planned flight
: rate". The shuttle is flying well below its maximum sustainable rate; the
: only obstacle to *adding* a Hubble repair flight to the schedule (as
: opposed to substituting it for an already-planned flight) is money.

But that money as compared to a flight to ISS is negligible.

Um. How? A flight to ISS costs pretty much the same as any other shuttle
flight; the docking hardware's installed as standard, and it's not as if
it needs an extra battery of ground controllers or a second SRB pair.

What Henry's referring to, it seems, is taking your manifest for a year:

STS-120 ISS Assembly 94.5c
STS-121 ISS Assembly 92.8h
STS-122 ISS Logistics Flight mumble
STS-123 Entirely Gratuitous ISS Flight

and shoehorning in an *extra* flight, so:

STS-120 ISS Assembly 94.5c
STS-121 ISS Assembly 92.8h
STS-124 * Hubble Polishing & Dusting Mission
STS-122 ISS Logistics Flight mumble
STS-123 Entirely Gratuitous ISS Flight

It's going to cost money, something in the ballpark of a hundred mil
plus anything you want as payload and that's the argument. No technical
reason, assuming sufficent orbiters are ready, you can't do it.

But if our hypothetical STS-124 went to ISS, rather than to Hubble, it'd
cost about the same. Crew training requirements would likely be slightly
less, but that's most all I can think of.

Buying a new load of ISS hardware for it to carry would be more
expensive, of course, but that doesn't factor into it... it's a marginal
theoretical flight.

--
-Andrew Gray

In article , Eric Chomko wrote:
Henry Spencer ) wrote:
: In article ,
: Brian Thorn wrote:
: On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 09:54:15 -0000, "Brian Gaff"
: wrote:
: ...at the Whitehouse in November.
:
: It's "White House", not "Whitehouse." :-)

: I'm sure the Brits should get a special dispensation on this, since
: they're the reason why it's white. :-)

: (For those unaware of this bit of history: the President's house was
: originally natural stone color. But after the Royal Marines burned
: Washington during the War of 1812, the rebuilders couldn't get the soot
: off the somewhat-porous stone. So they whitewashed it instead, and it
: became the White House as a result.)

Why those lime... b@$tar^$!! Hey, wasn't that the second of the two wars
they lost to us?

I believe that to consider a war a victory, you have to remember that
you need to win battles *before* it's over...

(1812 was weird. Both sides achieved their more rational war aims, both
sides got kicked hard...)

--
-Andrew Gray

John Doe wrote


Also, considering the size of Hubble and its proposed 2500km altitude, would
it obscure telecom satellites as it passes between them and receiving
stations ?

This was looked at as a possible method of finding stealth satellites.
IIRC, the diffraction pattern on the ground might, given sufficient
resources and the right circumstances, have been detectable. But not
noticeable in ordinary circumstances.

Andrew Gray wrote:
It's going to cost money, something in the ballpark of a hundred mil
plus anything you want as payload and that's the argument. No technical
reason, assuming sufficent orbiters are ready, you can't do it.

There are a few technical differences between Hubble and ISS flights.

1-Because Hubble is higher, when the shuttle de-orbits, it enters the
atmosphere at higher speeds, thus more heating on tiles.

2-If the shuttle is much lighter since it has little cargo for a Hubble
mission (is that correct ?), that too would have impacts on re-entry. However,
wouldn't a lighter shuttle make re-entry cooler since it could decelerate
faster ? Or would they be forced to adjust the re-entry to lengthen the
process to reduce G-forces on the crew/orbiter ?


However, Unless NASA knows something about damage to tiles when coming back
from Hubble vs ISS, I personally see no reasons to avoid going back to Hubble.
And I think that the shuttle's final flight should be bringing back Hubble.
Heck, they might aven be able to put in 2-3 paying tourists.