Death Sentence for the Hubble?

In article ,
"Christopher M. Jones" wrote:

Henry Spencer wrote:
In article ,
Paul F. Dietz wrote:

The US is bound to honor its committments.

Or what? They attack us?

Or they stop considering US promises to be worth anything. Which they're
pretty close to doing already.

Does the US really want a reputation for dishonesty?

Not to get into a game of "tu quoque" here, but doesn't the
whole goddamn world have a reputation for dishonesty? I'd
rather the US hold itself to a higher standard (and I think
it does, and will), but using the standard of the
international community, the US still has plenty of room to
spare.

This amounts to saying that the US doesn't have to be better than anyone
else.

So much for the superiority of American values and principles.

Dextre costs $154 million (US$). Its mass is about 1662kg.
At 10000$/kg, launching Dextre into low Earth orbit will cost
about $17 million. The total cost of Hubble repair mission, not
counting the cost spare parts (which have already been made) is
about $200 million. The total cost includes additional tools
that will be made in 31 months (with penalties for late delivery).

ACCORDING TO ANTI-CANADIAN PROPAGANDA DEXTRE WILL COST MORE THAN
TWO BILLION DOLLARS AND ITS ADDITIONAL TOOLS CANNOT BE MADE SOONER
IN THAN 66 MONTHS. PLEASE CHECK THE FACTS. THIS IS THE BEST PLACE
TO START:
http://www.house.gov/science/hearing...PaulCooper.pdf

The actual cost of the Hubble repair mission is probably MINUS
billions of dollars because Dextre can repair many other
satellites and it can remove space junk. In other words NASA
can make lots of money on Dextre.

Dextre costs $154 million (US$). Its mass is about 1662kg. At
10000$/kg, launching Dextre into low Earth orbit will cost about
$17 million. The total cost of the robotic Hubble repair mission,
not counting the cost of spare parts (which have already been made)
is about $200 million. The total cost includes additional tools
that will be made in 31 months (with penalties for late delivery).

ACCORDING TO ANTI-CANADIAN PROPAGANDA DEXTRE WILL COST MORE THAN
TWO BILLION DOLLARS AND ITS ADDITIONAL TOOLS CANNOT BE MADE SOONER
THAN IN 66 MONTHS. PLEASE CHECK THE FACTS. THIS IS THE BEST PLACE
TO START:
http://www.house.gov/science/hearing...PaulCooper.pdf

The actual cost of the robotic Hubble repair mission is probably
MINUS billions of dollars because Dextre can repair many other
satellites and it can remove space debris. In other words NASA
can make lots of money on Dextre.

There was important Hubble hearing before the Committee
on Science of the U.S. House of Representatives on
February 2, 2005. Six scientists testified before the
full committee: Gary Pulliam, Lou Lanzerotti, Steven
Beckwith, Paul Cooper, Colin Norman, and Joseph Taylor.
Details: http://www.house.gov/science/hearings/full05/

The vice president of the Aerospace Corporation,
Gary Pulliam, favored the shuttle repair mission
and lied about the cost of Dextre's mission by one
order of magnitude.

Lou Lanzerotti, professor of physics and the chair of
the controversial Hubble report repeated the same lies.

Steven Beckwith, director of the Space Telescope Science
Institute was impartial:

"At present, there is no other mission planned or under construction to duplicate Hubble’s
capabilities and major strengths. The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) is designed to have
the same angular resolution – or sharpness of image – as Hubble covering a different wavelength
band and with greater light gathering power. The tremendous advances enabled by Hubble have
driven the scientific community to pose questions that were not even imagined a decade ago, but
now form the basis for the JWST mission.

The James Webb Space Telescope complements the Hubble Space Telescope as part of a
continuous, balanced program to study the universe with flagship observatories. Hubble’s
sensitivity to ultraviolet and visual light and its high performance now make it an enormous
value to astronomy. JWST’s coverage of infrared wavelengths and large collecting area will
make it an essential asset when it is launched. JWST’s anticipated success in the future
guarantees its high priority for the next decade...

The robotic mission would be able to install new instruments, batteries and gyroscopes, although
it would not be able to repair some of the infrastructure items normally done by astronauts. Thus,
Hubble’s lifetime following a robotic mission is likely to be shorter than that following SM4,
although an exact number is a matter of debate. The chances of mission success with robots are
likely to be smaller than for SM4, simply because robotic servicing is untested and without the
flexibility that humans bring to any task with unforeseen problems.

On the other hand, a robotic servicing mission would demonstrate new technology that could be
important to NASA’s new exploration initiative and to future scientific facilities that are not
accessible to humans. Thus, the potentially higher cost and risk would be offset by the future
potential of using this technology for other missions. Indeed a whole generation of future
scientific missions might be enabled by a robotic capability initiated in this decade. The robotic
option also has the advantage of providing Hubble with the de-orbit module capability it needs to
be safely de-orbited at the end of its life.

The third option, re-hosting, could recover some of the science capabilities of a fully serviced
Hubble. I assume here that re-host means building an equivalent sized telescope to Hubble
containing the two new instruments already built, the Cosmic Origins Spectrograph (COS) and
the Wide Field Camera 3 (WFC3) as assumed in the Aerospace Corporation study of alternatives
to Hubble servicing. Such a telescope will deliver less scientific capability at a much later time
with higher risk than servicing Hubble. The new telescope would have to have a 2.4m mirror
with a pointing stability of a few milliseconds of arc, the most challenging part of Hubble’s
construction. That mission would be launched in approximately 8 years, according to the
Aerospace study. Thus, we would have a Hubble Lite with two working instruments in 2013
rather than a full Hubble with four to five working instruments (depending on STIS) in 2007 or
2008."

Dr. Paul Cooper, general manager of MDA Space Missions
(the canadian firm that made the Dextre telerobot) was
the star of the hearing. He really made Pulliam and
Lanzerotti look like idiots. Here is his presentation:
http://www.house.gov/science/hearing...PaulCooper.pdf

Colin Norman is Professor of Physics and Astronomy at
The Johns Hopkins University and Astronomer at the Space
Telescope Science Institute. He talked about new
instruments for the Hubble Space Telescope.

Joseph H. Taylor is professor of physics and co-chair
of the Astronomy and Astrophysics Survey Committee.
He said that Hubble is important, but not more
important than other NASA's astronomical programs.

__________________________________________________ ________________________________________________

PS. Here is good NASA page about Hubble's servicing
missions: http://hubble.nasa.gov/missions/intro.php

Andrew Nowicki wrote:

:The actual cost of the Hubble repair mission is probably MINUS
:billions of dollars because Dextre can repair many other
:satellites and it can remove space junk. In other words NASA
:can make lots of money on Dextre.

And presumably so could anyone else. Yet we don't see people lining
up to sponsor this. There seems to be an obvious hole in your logic.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

Andrew Nowicki wrote:

The actual cost of the Hubble repair mission is probably MINUS
billions of dollars because Dextre can repair many other
satellites and it can remove space junk. In other words NASA
can make lots of money on Dextre.

"Fred J. McCall" wrote:

And presumably so could anyone else. Yet we don't see people lining
up to sponsor this. There seems to be an obvious hole in your logic.

"There are two things that are infinite: the universe and
human stupidity, and I am not so sure about the universe."
Albert Einstein

The Space Shuttle and the International Space Station
are the most glaring examples of stupidity and corruption.
It seems that anyone could make cheap rocket launcher
that would render the expensive Space Shuttle obsolete,
and yet it did not happen. Having a good idea does not
change the status quo. Good ideas are ignored unless
they are supported by those who have enormous financial
resources and political connections.

Dear Andrew Nowicki:

"Andrew Nowicki" wrote in message
...
....
It seems that anyone could make cheap rocket launcher
that would render the expensive Space Shuttle obsolete,
and yet it did not happen. Having a good idea does not
change the status quo. Good ideas are ignored unless
they are supported by those who have enormous financial
resources and political connections.

So if "anyone could make a cheap rocket launcher", why does it require
"enormous financial resources"?

Note that a rocket launcher is a tower, and fuel delivery system. The
rocket and fuel are much more expensive.

David A. Smith

Andrew Nowicki wrote in
:

Dextre costs $154 million (US$). Its mass is about 1662kg. At
10000$/kg, launching Dextre into low Earth orbit will cost about
$17 million. The total cost of the robotic Hubble repair mission,
not counting the cost of spare parts (which have already been made)
is about $200 million. The total cost includes additional tools
that will be made in 31 months (with penalties for late delivery).

ACCORDING TO ANTI-CANADIAN PROPAGANDA DEXTRE WILL COST MORE THAN
TWO BILLION DOLLARS AND ITS ADDITIONAL TOOLS CANNOT BE MADE SOONER
THAN IN 66 MONTHS. PLEASE CHECK THE FACTS. THIS IS THE BEST PLACE
TO START:
http://www.house.gov/science/hearing...PaulCooper.pdf

Umm, aren't you forgetting something, Andrew? Like, maybe, about
*ninety*percent* of the spacecraft? You can't just launch Dextre and a
bunch of tools and HST spare parts into space and call it a day. You need a
propulsion system capable of getting the spacecraft to HST's orbit,
performing rendezvous/prox ops with it, and providing safe deorbit
capability at the end of HST's life. You need an electrical power system to
run the whole thing. You need computers with a guidance system capable of
performing rendezvous/prox ops/capture of a completely uncooperative target
like HST, something that no one has ever done before (all previous robotic
rendezvous/capture systems require navaids on the target, which HST lacks).
In short, HST robotic servicing isn't all about Dextre, or even mostly
about Dextre. It's about the complete spacecraft you have to build *around*
Dextre so it can do its job.

The actual cost of the robotic Hubble repair mission is probably
MINUS billions of dollars because Dextre can repair many other
satellites and it can remove space debris. In other words NASA
can make lots of money on Dextre.

Dextre's spacecraft, if it is ever built, will use conventional propulsion
and thus will have very limited orbit-change capability. Furthermore, last
I heard, Dextre won't actually attempt to install the new gyros or
batteries inside HST - that job is too delicate. Instead, the gyros and
batteries will stay in the servicing spacecraft, with umbilical connections
to carry power to HST. Once docked, the servicing spacecraft will remain a
permanent part of HST.
--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

Andrew Nowicki wrote:
Dextre costs $154 million (US$). Its mass is about 1662kg.
At 10000$/kg, launching Dextre into low Earth orbit will cost
about $17 million. The total cost of Hubble repair mission, not
counting the cost spare parts (which have already been made) is
about $200 million. The total cost includes additional tools
that will be made in 31 months (with penalties for late delivery).
[snip]

Gee, that's great. Meanwhile, we have a spare Hubble-class
mirror and spare Hubble instruments already in existence,
so their incremental cost is zero. We can just shoot those
into space, ummm, for free I guess, and we'll have us a
Hubble replacement for zero dollars!

I'm pretty sure I haven't forgotten anything in this detailed
plan, we should begin on it right away.

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote:

Umm, aren't you forgetting something, Andrew? Like, maybe, about
*ninety*percent* of the spacecraft?

The total mass of Dextre, new instruments for the Hubble,
ejection module which houses Dextre, a small-scale version
of the shuttle remote manipulator system called the
robotic grapple arm, de-orbit module, and everything else
is 23,000 lbs. The grapple arm costs $25 million, but its
cost is included in the $154 million price tag for Dextre
and all its new tools. The ejection module is just a big
container, so it costs peanuts. The new instruments for
the Hubble (COS, WFC3, batteries, and 6 gyros) have been
made already. If they are not launched soon, they will
probably be wasted. At $5000/lb the cost of launching
the whole thing is $115 million. The total cost is
$154M + $115M = $269 million -- still peanuts compared
with the media claim of over $2 billion!!!

In my opinion the de-orbit module is poorly designed and
too heavy. Passive electrodynamic tether (just a piece of
aluminum wire) can do most of the work. Tether's mass and
cost are negligible. When Hubble's orbit is very low, a
little push from a rocket engine will deorbit it safely.
If we replace the stupid de-orbit module with the smart one,
the total cost will be around $200 million.

You can't just launch Dextre and a bunch of tools and HST
spare parts into space and call it a day. You need a
propulsion system capable of getting the spacecraft
to HST's orbit,...

These things are little hydrazine catalytic decomposition
rocket engines. They should not cost more than a few million
dollars.

...performing rendezvous/prox ops with it,

Perhaps another few million dollars...

and providing safe deorbit capability at the end of HST's life.

The cost of deorbiting should not be included in the
cost of repair.

You need an electrical power system to run the whole thing.

How many billions of dollars will it cost?

You need computers with a guidance system capable of performing
rendezvous/prox ops/capture of a completely uncooperative target
like HST, something that no one has ever done before (all
previous robotic rendezvous/capture systems require navaids on
the target, which HST lacks).

You simply do not know what you are talking about!
Here is an excerpt from the Lanzeroti report,
("Assessment of Options for Extending the Life of
the Hubble Space Telescope: Final Report (2005)"
URL: http://www.nap.edu/books/0309095301/html/)
page 68:

"In 1970 the Soviet Union space program performed
rendezvous and capture with a non-cooperative target
with a human operator in control and with no communication
time delays. (A non-cooperative target is one without
transponders or active sensors to provide other space
vehicles with its location, identification, and/or
relative position) In 1998, collaboration between
ESA and NASDA produced a moderately successful
demonstration using the Japanese Engineering Test
Satellite (ETS) VII."

Dextre's spacecraft, if it is ever built, will use conventional propulsion
and thus will have very limited orbit-change capability. Furthermore, last
I heard, Dextre won't actually attempt to install the new gyros or
batteries inside HST - that job is too delicate. Instead, the gyros and
batteries will stay in the servicing spacecraft, with umbilical connections
to carry power to HST. Once docked, the servicing spacecraft will remain a
permanent part of HST.

This is another unsupported, outlandish claim. Laws of
physics and economics do not preclude the use of ion thruster
of even electrodynamic tether. (Joe Carroll wrote a few
good papers about removing space junk with the help of
the electrodynamic tethers.) Dextre is versatile enough
to dock with a variety of propulsion craft at any time.

You and your ilk really stand on the head to "prove"
that Dextre cannot repair satellites and remove space
junk 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Why are you
afraid of Dextre?

Here is the latest Hubble repair plan from Goddard:
(http://sco.stsci.edu/newsletter/PDF/2005/winter_05.pdf)

Two modules would be launched in tandem on either a Delta IV or an
Atlas 5 expendable launch vehicle. The de-orbit module (DM), containing
the sensors necessary for AR&D, the new Hubble batteries, and the
propulsion system ultimately needed to de-orbit Hubble, attaches to
the aft bulkhead of the Hubble spacecraft, to the same attachment
fittings (the so-called “towel bars”) used in prior shuttle-based
servicing missions. Below the DM is the ejection module (EM), which
houses Dextre, a small-scale version of the shuttle RMS, and the
payload destined to go into Hubble. The combined stack is almost as
large as Hubble itself, 25 feet in length with a fully fueled weight
of 23,000 lbs. Tentatively, the payload would include, in addition
to COS and WFC3, a new set of six gyroscopes (mounted on the exterior
of WFC3). Consideration is also being given to include a replacement
Fine Guidance Sensor (FGS). Dextre, mounted on the end of the RMS-like
arm, would remove COSTAR (Corrective Optics Space Telescope Axial
Replacement, which implemented the fix for spherical aberration),
WFPC2, and perhaps FGS 2, replacing them with COS, WFC3, and a
refurbished FGS. Dextre would then stow the old equipment within
the EM... Most scientists and engineers have been skeptical when
they first hear about servicing Hubble with a robot. I certainly
was. My own epiphany came when I saw actual demonstrations of a real
robotic system, using relatively simple tools we had designed and
built in a very short time to open and close doors, to connect and
disconnect wiring harnesses, to guide instruments into and out of
the Hubble high-fidelity mechanical simulator—and to accurately
repeat these processes many times both under human and computer
control (see Figures 2–5). I had not been aware that the human
space flight program had already pioneered the design and
development of a robot that was simply waiting for a ride to the
ISS. It has been our experience that when previously skeptical
astronomers first see this system in action, uniformly their
response is, “Wow, I didn’t know we could do that.”