A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » History
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Hubble to be abandoned



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old January 18th 04, 05:45 PM
Charles Buckley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

OM wrote:
On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 17:37:41 -0700, Charles Buckley
wrote:


What would it really cost to use Soyuz to boost Hubble in
the 2008 timeframe? Can they service the gyro's with Soyuz,
or will it require an additional launch from another source?



...Here's a question: are the current Soyuz versions EVA-capable?

OM



Don't think so. But, this would be a known mod to the system.
They do have an airlock and if they use this in combination with
an ATV as a work platform, they might be able to manage something.


  #22  
Old January 18th 04, 05:55 PM
Charles Buckley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Henry Spencer wrote:
In article ,
Scott Lowther wrote:

It doesn't matter *how* the servicing is done or from where using what
launcher, just so's it's done economically. I mean, jeez. A Shuttle HST
mission costs $500M.



Remember that the shuttle cost is almost all fixed annual overhead. The
cost of *adding* one more flight to existing shuttle operations is nowhere
near $500M; last I heard, it was estimated at $50-100M, depending on how
much custom preparation is needed.

The Hubble-specific side of preparations, which isn't trivial, is the same
regardless. (If it can be streamlined with another vehicle, it can be
streamlined with the shuttle.) Except that lots of little bits of
existing support equipment and operations procedures are shuttle-specific,
and modifying or rebuilding them is an extra cost of using something else.

Pushing this off the shuttle and saying "use something else" is either
major false economy, or an attempt to kill the mission without actually
quite saying so. It actually doesn't cost that much to use the shuttle
for it; I doubt greatly that you can do it much more cheaply on something
else, all other things being equal.

The way I read it is that O'Keefe sees the safety argument as a great
excuse to head the astronomers off at the pass, firmly eliminating any
possibility that he will later be lobbied for extended Hubble operations,
more servicing flights, more improvements and extensions, etc. He might
have been inclined to go ahead with the one planned servicing flight...
but if he permits one visit, that ruins his silver-bullet argument that
reliably kills all later pleas for more money. So even that one flight
has got to go; the grief he'll take over canceling it will pay off in
avoiding later hassles.




I am looking at using other platforms from the perspective of:

Shuttle isn't doing this. Is there anything else?

NASA is going to follow all the parts of the CAIB that they agree
with. After all the flack they have taken to date over following
procedures and best practice, cancelling Hubble is a good easy
way for them to show they are following as many of the recommendations
from the CAIB as possible. By spending nothing and freeing up the
incremental costs of another flight, they meet all the recommendations
about having an independant inspection and repair capbility for all
flights not going to ISS. Since this is the only one slated, all they
have to do is not fly it and comply with CAIB without spending anything.

  #23  
Old January 18th 04, 06:15 PM
Brian Thorn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 09:45:48 -0700, Charles Buckley
wrote:

Don't think so. But, this would be a known mod to the system.
They do have an airlock and if they use this in combination with
an ATV as a work platform, they might be able to manage something.


I don't see this as feasible. Shuttle can support up to six spacewalks
per mission (not including contingency EVAs) and has historically
needed at least five to service Hubble. Soyuz will never have anything
close to that capability.

And where would nthey carry replacement instruments, gyros, batteries,
and other things Hubble needs?

Brian
  #25  
Old January 18th 04, 06:28 PM
Andrew Gray
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , Brian Thorn wrote:

I don't see this as feasible. Shuttle can support up to six spacewalks
per mission (not including contingency EVAs) and has historically
needed at least five to service Hubble. Soyuz will never have anything
close to that capability.


One HST mission involved planning for seven (!) spacewalks, and will
presumably have had consumables for eight (the door-close contingency)

That's pushing close to the on-orbit lifetime of a Soyuz in and of
itself, not counting anything else...

--
-Andrew Gray

  #26  
Old January 18th 04, 06:35 PM
Scott Lowther
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Darren J Longhorn wrote:

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 02:32:35 -0600, Pat Flannery
wrote:



Scott Lowther wrote:

Oh for... see, this is what I was afraid of. Granted, something like HST cannot
last forever, but it seems we're sacrificing something....



So, fly repair missions with something other than Shuttle.


Okay.. what do you know that the Air Force has that _we_ don't know about?


Wouldn't YOU like to know...


No, no, think Navy:
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/spauiser.htm


About that... I've got the layout drawings, and started cobbling
together a 1/18 scale model. Anybody interested?


--
Scott Lowther, Engineer
Remove the obvious (capitalized) anti-spam
gibberish from the reply-to e-mail address
  #28  
Old January 18th 04, 07:15 PM
Darren J Longhorn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 17:35:43 GMT, Scott Lowther
wrote:

Darren J Longhorn wrote:

No, no, think Navy:
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/spauiser.htm


About that... I've got the layout drawings, and started cobbling
together a 1/18 scale model. Anybody interested?


Absolutely. I'm still working on my flying model. My current plan is
approximately 1/7.5 scale, though I've been considering boosting the
scale to 1/6 so I can include a pilot. Want to share anymore of the
material you have?

Incidentally, I recently got a drawing from Hamilton Sundstrand that's
similar to the low-res one you were good enough send me a while back.
You probably already have it, but if not you're welcome to a copy.



  #29  
Old January 18th 04, 07:27 PM
Jorge R. Frank
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Dave Michelson wrote in
news:vxtOb.154295$JQ1.7310@pd7tw1no:

OM wrote:

...Here's a question: are the current Soyuz versions EVA-capable?


And can they even get up to Hubble's altitude?

IIRC, Hubble nominally orbits at 550+ km. Soyuz's ceiling is only 425
km, which sets the maximum useful altitude for ISS.


Inclination is a bigger barrier, but point well-taken.

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.
  #30  
Old January 18th 04, 07:28 PM
Charles Buckley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Brian Thorn wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 09:45:48 -0700, Charles Buckley
wrote:


Don't think so. But, this would be a known mod to the system.
They do have an airlock and if they use this in combination with
an ATV as a work platform, they might be able to manage something.



I don't see this as feasible. Shuttle can support up to six spacewalks
per mission (not including contingency EVAs) and has historically
needed at least five to service Hubble. Soyuz will never have anything
close to that capability.

And where would nthey carry replacement instruments, gyros, batteries,
and other things Hubble needs?



That is why I mentioned ATV. It is a pressurized cargo carrier
that would provide all of the missing components you mentioned.



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
NASA Is Not Giving Up On Hubble! (Forwarded) Andrew Yee Astronomy Misc 2 May 2nd 04 01:46 PM
Congressional Resolutions on Hubble Space Telescope EFLASPO Amateur Astronomy 0 April 1st 04 03:26 PM
Don't Desert Hubble Scott M. Kozel Space Shuttle 54 March 5th 04 05:38 PM
Don't Desert Hubble Scott M. Kozel Policy 46 February 17th 04 06:33 PM
Hubble images being colorized to enhance their appeal for public - LA Times Rusty B Policy 4 September 15th 03 10:38 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:40 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.