Hubble Marching orders

On 6 Feb 2005 13:09:43 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Alfred
Montestruc" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

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...

Rand Simberg wrote:
On 6 Feb 2005 13:09:43 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Alfred
Montestruc" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

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.

Ever heard of electric drives (ion for example)? How about doing a
burn in orbit to change orbital inclination? How about launching to a
a highly elliptical orbit, and doing the burn to change inclination of
the orbit at the apogee of a highly elliptical orbit, then
circularizing it?

If they use some form of electric drive, then the high delta vee part
in orbit becomes less of a big deal.

Don't tell me electric drives are "unavailable" I saw a part of one
that had been built and successfully tested (according to my professor)
sitting on my professor's desk in the late 1980's while I was in
engineering graduate school.

Ok, you assert a minimum inclination from a Russian pad of 51.6
degrees. That would imply the pad is at latitude of 51.6 degrees north
latitude. IIRC they have a pad at or near Armivir which is at a
latitude of 40.47

http://www.fallingrain.com/world/AJ/...u_Armavir.html

I do not buy that given the Russians have at least access to a lot of
potential launch pad land at about 40.5 degrees north latitude that
they cannot launch to an orbital inclination of less than 51.6 degrees.


11 degrees of latitude corrisponds to 660 nautical miles, I do not buy
they have no pad further south than 51.6 degrees north.

That they may *normally* launch to a higher inclination say 51.6
degrees, probably has to do with issues about landing, not launching,
and this need not be a manned mission, and need not land.

Using your values the difference in vector is 23.1 degrees, the
required delta vee to change from an 8 km/sec orbit at 51.6 degrees to
one at 28.5 degrees is 3203 m/s for a more realistic one of 40.5
degrees the deflection of vector required is 12.0 degrees, for a
delta-vee of 1672 m/sec.

All that is without doing a high apogee change of inclination manuver.
Even without that or electric drives a 1672 m/s burn is not
impractical. With an isp of 300 seconds this results in a top stage
"tugboat" mass ratio of 1.76:1. Not at all impossible to still have a
good amount of delta vee left to burn to push the Hubble into a higher
orbit.


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.

Who cares? You just need to push Hubble to a higher orbit. Robot arms
that are remote operated are good enough.


That's why the ISS is at 51.6 degrees. They also don't have any
"large spacecraft" capable of safely docking to Hubble...

Safety is relitive. If the alternative is 100% chance of loss of
Hubble, and no human lives are at stake, safety has a different
meaning.

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

Alfred Montestruc wrote:
They have no capability to do that.

Well that is obviously false. 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. We supply the codes and any parts and supplies needed for
Hubble in excahnge for time on the telescope.
[snipper-snap]

No, it's quite true. Hubble is in the wrong orbit for
Russian rendezvous, Hubble cannot be serviced by the
Russians, and Hubble cannot be boosted by the Russians
without developing a new berthing adapter. Hubble also
needs to be boosted to an altitude higher than either
Soyuz or Progress is capable of reaching. Indeed, right
now Hubble is higher than either Soyuz or Progress can
reach easily, even ignoring the extreme orbital
inclination problems. Moreover, Hubble's orbital decay
is only one factor leading to its near demise, it is also
losing capability with its gyros. There are only four
reasonable options on the table: a servicing which
replaces, at least, the gyros and includes an orbital
boost; an orbital boost alone designed to preserve a dead
Hubble for future retrieval and placement in a museum;
letting it deorbit on its own and take the risk of
potential damage on the ground; a deorbit manouver. The
last is the only thing that could reasonably be done with
Russian equipment, and then only with a Soyuz launched
out of Kourou.

In article ,
Christopher M. Jones wrote:
...a deorbit manouver. The
last is the only thing that could reasonably be done with
Russian equipment, and then only with a Soyuz launched
out of Kourou.

And although there is work underway to build a Soyuz pad at Kourou, it
doesn't yet exist.
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |

In article .com,
Alfred Montestruc wrote:
Well that is obviously false. They can get a large spacecraft into
orbit more reliably than we can at this point in time...

Into *some* orbits, not including the one Hubble is in.

...and the big issue with Hubble is her orbit is decaying.

Actually, no. That will be a long-term issue. The short-term issue is
that her gyros are dying and her batteries are aging. The medium-term
issue is that a couple of nice new instruments are sitting on the ground
waiting to go into her.

If they can get a large spacecraft to join up with Hubble...

They can't. Not in that orbit. And their only operational manned
spacecraft has nearly zero cargo capacity.

...We supply the codes and any parts and supplies needed for
Hubble in excahnge for time on the telescope.

Uh, who *operates* it? This isn't just a matter of "supplying codes".
Hubble is a complex one-of-a-kind device that needs a sizable staff of
specially trained people; the only such staff in existence is at STScI.
Anyone else would need years, and extensive help from STScI, to come up
to speed enough to operate Hubble effectively.

Once the Russians have her in a higher stable orbit, they then put her
time of use up for sale on a pay-per-view basis.

Do remember that at present, the US government is forbidden by law to buy
services from Russia.
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |

Henry Spencer wrote:
In article .com,
Alfred Montestruc wrote:
Well that is obviously false. They can get a large spacecraft into
orbit more reliably than we can at this point in time...

Into *some* orbits, not including the one Hubble is in.

...and the big issue with Hubble is her orbit is decaying.

Actually, no. That will be a long-term issue. The short-term issue
is
that her gyros are dying and her batteries are aging. The
medium-term
issue is that a couple of nice new instruments are sitting on the
ground
waiting to go into her.


Ok I can see that is something of a show stopper if the issue is
replacement parts, batteries and new instruments.

How about the getting a consordium of Russians and ESA, Russian
equipment from the French pad in South American right by the Equator?

From there a manned russian mission could get to the right orbit, and I
do not think modification of the pad for a russian booster will be all
that difficult.

As to more fuel, they can launch a manned ship and a smaller unmanned
ship with extra fuel. Rigging up a fuel x-fer system should not be
that bad.


If they can get a large spacecraft to join up with Hubble...

They can't. Not in that orbit. And their only operational manned
spacecraft has nearly zero cargo capacity.

...We supply the codes and any parts and supplies needed for
Hubble in excahnge for time on the telescope.

Uh, who *operates* it? This isn't just a matter of "supplying
codes".
Hubble is a complex one-of-a-kind device that needs a sizable staff
of
specially trained people; the only such staff in existence is at
STScI.
Anyone else would need years, and extensive help from STScI, to come
up
to speed enough to operate Hubble effectively.

Fine, let the US continue to operate it, but Russians get residuals
from the salvage. I am just trying to find a way to fund it. Russians
work cheaper and perhaps the income from renting out Hubble might be
enough to pay for it.



Once the Russians have her in a higher stable orbit, they then put
her
time of use up for sale on a pay-per-view basis.

Do remember that at present, the US government is forbidden by law to
buy
services from Russia.

Buying service is not the same as allowing salvage, and IIRC
universities and private firms are allowed to buy services from Russian
corporations (which is the case in this instince) or the Russian
government.

Universities can then divert grant money (public or private) to pay for
astronomy on Hubble.

"Alfred Montestruc" wrote:

:
:Rand Simberg wrote:
: On 5 Feb 2005 23:54:16 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Alfred
: Montestruc" made the phosphor on my monitor
: glow in such a way as to indicate that:
:
:
: Charles Buckley wrote:
: http://www.space.com/news/hubble_budget_050121.html
:
: "WASHINGTON - The White House has eliminated funding for a mission to
: service the Hubble Space Telescope from its 2006 budget request and
: directed NASA to focus solely on de-orbiting the popular spacecraft at
: the end of its life, according to government and industry sources."
:
: 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. They can get a large spacecraft into
rbit more reliably than we can at this point in time, and the big
:issue with Hubble is her orbit is decaying.

Yes, but can they get a large spacecraft into THE RIGHT orbit?
Remember, the reason ISS is in the high inclination orbit that it is
in is so they can get to it. The reason for not using STS to service
HST is because the orbits of ISS and HST are so very different and a
vehicle going to one cannot simply go to the other if something goes
wrong on orbit.

:If they can get a large
:spacecraft to join up with Hubble they can boost her into a higher
rbit.

And perhaps if we all wave our hands hard enough the wind will push
HST up into a more stable orbit. You say the preceding as if it is a
simple thing.

:We supply the codes and any parts and supplies needed for
:Hubble in excahnge for time on the telescope.

And the Russians accept all future responsibility for where she comes
down if they fail? Unlikely.

: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'd suggest you might need to check your grip, since you don't seem to
have a firm grasp of the facts.

--
"The odds get even - You blame the game.
The odds get even - The stakes are the same.
You bet your life."
-- "You Bet Your Life", Rush

Alfred Montestruc wrote:

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

Not a chance. This is way, way beyond their capabilities.

Mike

-----
Michael Kent Apple II Forever!!
St. Peters, MO

Rand Simberg simberg.interglobal wrote:

On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 04:10:40 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Michael Kent) made the phosphor on
my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Didn't NASA Watch quote Sean O'Keefe as saying NASA got the 5%?

In the submittal. It remains to be seen whether Congress will
actually appropriate it.

Yes, I know. That's what I was talking about. It'll be September (at
least!) before we know what Congress will be willing to appropriate.
But since we were talking about Bush's commitment to NASA, I thought
that was implied.

Others have said, no, O'Keefe only said an increase, not a 5% one.
I guess we'll find out tomorrow.

Mike

-----
Michael Kent Apple II Forever!!
St. Peters, MO