Probably Stupid Idea for Saving Hubble

Instead of making saving Hubble dependent on the successful design of an
elaborate telemanipulator device that will completely recondition the whole
telescope... and probably wreck it if it does one thing wrong...

if it is possible to launch a simple robot probe to Hubble to cause it to fall
into the sea...

and if the Space Station meets NASA's safety standards as a place to send
astronauts even if they have to fly there in the superannuated Shuttle...

why not send a robot probe to the Hubble Space Telescope that will simply shift
it into the Space Station's orbit?

Then, it can be repaired at the Space Station, and then sent back up into its
usual high orbit. In fact, if this is successful, it could be sent back up into
an even higher orbit, so we wouldn't have to worry about having to make it fall
into the sea later. After all, we don't have to worry about the Moon falling
down.

Of course, that would use more fuel, and a really advanced telemanipulator would
be useful for other things; sending people into space, but only when necessary,
with some work done ahead of time for them.

John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html

John Savard wrote:

if it is possible to launch a simple robot probe to Hubble to cause it to fall
into the sea...

and if the Space Station meets NASA's safety standards as a place to send
astronauts even if they have to fly there in the superannuated Shuttle...

why not send a robot probe to the Hubble Space Telescope that will simply shift
it into the Space Station's orbit?

The delta-V to reach ISS is much larger than the deorbit delta-V.

It's also not worthwhile to launch a robot mission solely for the purpose
of deorbiting the telescope.

The underlying problem here is that HST-as-a-serviced-spacecraft doesn't
make sense with the shuttle-as-it-is, rathern than -as-it-was-promised-to-be.
Now, ISS also doesn't make sense, but that's not a justification for
also using the shuttle on HST.

Paul

Paul F. Dietz wrote:

why not send a robot probe to the Hubble Space Telescope that will
simply shift
it into the Space Station's orbit?


The delta-V to reach ISS is much larger than the deorbit delta-V.

Actually, depending on when you do it, it's larger than the delta-V
required to get it into orbit from the earth...

It's also not worthwhile to launch a robot mission solely for the purpose
of deorbiting the telescope.

The underlying problem here is that HST-as-a-serviced-spacecraft doesn't
make sense with the shuttle-as-it-is, rathern than
-as-it-was-promised-to-be.
Now, ISS also doesn't make sense, but that's not a justification for
also using the shuttle on HST.

If we're going to continue to fly Shuttle at all, it makes as much sense
to use it for Hubble as anything else.

Rand Simberg wrote:

If we're going to continue to fly Shuttle at all, it makes as much sense
to use it for Hubble as anything else.

This is called 'damning with faint praise'.

Paul

Paul F. Dietz wrote:

If we're going to continue to fly Shuttle at all, it makes as much
sense to use it for Hubble as anything else.

This is called 'damning with faint praise'.

Indeed.

(Royalties to Instapundit)

Paul F. Dietz a écrit dans le message :
...
John Savard wrote:

if it is possible to launch a simple robot probe to Hubble to cause it
to fall
into the sea...

and if the Space Station meets NASA's safety standards as a place to
send
astronauts even if they have to fly there in the superannuated
Shuttle...

why not send a robot probe to the Hubble Space Telescope that will
simply shift
it into the Space Station's orbit?

The delta-V to reach ISS is much larger than the deorbit delta-V.


And I don't want to be the guy responsible for the design, analysis and/or
operations of the close navigation or docking system for Hubble to ISS.
I'm working on the docking system for ATV, so I know the rules and
regulations and multiple checks and analyses required in this case. I don't
want to even imagine the ones required for something like Hubble ).

It's also not worthwhile to launch a robot mission solely for the purpose
of deorbiting the telescope.


Why? If the purpose is controled deorbitation, as opposed as a risk of
crashing it on NYC?

In article ,
HAESSIG Frédéric Pierre Tamatoa wrote:
And I don't want to be the guy responsible for the design, analysis and/or
operations of the close navigation or docking system for Hubble to ISS.
I'm working on the docking system for ATV, so I know the rules and
regulations and multiple checks and analyses required in this case. I don't
want to even imagine the ones required for something like Hubble ).

It's not unreasonable to put Hubble in a similar orbit while not actually
locating it *at* the station. Yes, this means a Hubble visit would need
some maneuvering to reach the station, but NASA seems unconcerned about
that issue in general -- the CAIB thought it was important for the shuttle
to be entirely self-sufficient in case a station flight in trouble
couldn't actually reach the station, but NASA has quietly swept that issue
under the rug.
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |

Henry Spencer a écrit dans le message :
...
It's not unreasonable to put Hubble in a similar orbit while not actually
locating it *at* the station. Yes, this means a Hubble visit would need
some maneuvering to reach the station,

True, but as long as you put hubble in the ISS vincinity, why don't you
actually put it close enougth to have the servicing done by ISS cosmonauts,
instead of ones from shuttle. That would cut down on the repair time a lot.
Need a new gyro? Send it up in a progress.

In article ,
HAESSIG Frédéric Pierre Tamatoa wrote:
It's not unreasonable to put Hubble in a similar orbit while not actually
locating it *at* the station. Yes, this means a Hubble visit would need
some maneuvering to reach the station,

True, but as long as you put hubble in the ISS vincinity, why don't you
actually put it close enougth to have the servicing done by ISS cosmonauts,
instead of ones from shuttle.

Remember that the station crew has no off-station mobility. To make it
serviceable by them, you have to *attach* it to the station, either
permanently (undesirable for a number of reasons) or temporarily (which
involves its own problems, as an earlier poster commented, notably
maneuvering a large and heavy spacecraft near the station).

A station designed as a transportation and servicing hub would almost
certainly have its own little tug to handle such local transport jobs.
ISS does not.
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |

HAESSIG Frédéric Pierre Tamatoa wrote:

It's also not worthwhile to launch a robot mission solely for the purpose
of deorbiting the telescope.


Why? If the purpose is controled deorbitation, as opposed as a risk of
crashing it on NYC?

The risk of HST crashing on NYC is zero.

The risk of HST crashing somewhere and killing someone is about .001.
It's idiotic public policy to spend (say) $100 M to prevent 1/1000th
of a death.

Paul