Death Sentence for the Hubble?

To the Group:

I'm wondering if you couldn't simply put up an extra Soyuz, with a little
bit of manuvering fuel, toddle over from the ISS, and simply change the
battery (and more?) via an EVA...

No real need in running the 18-wheeler over, if the station's tow truck is
capable.

And it is nice and adviseable to have a fleet of in-orbit maintenance
craft, makes plenty of jobs and so on, but if Hubble is still doing good
astronomy with a small band-aid, why not?

Could a Soyuz (or a contraption) be delivered to space, and provide the
conveyance from the ISS at an opportune time, to save the Hubble? Even if
they towed the Hubble to the ISS, they've got a robot arm that might do the
trick without an EVA...

I just hadn't seen this discussed...

David A. Smith

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote in
news:uvIQd.69764$Yu.7668@fed1read01:

To the Group:

I'm wondering if you couldn't simply put up an extra Soyuz, with a
little bit of manuvering fuel, toddle over from the ISS, and simply
change the battery (and more?) via an EVA...

You can't, for many reasons.

I just hadn't seen this discussed...

This has been discussed many times in this group over the last year, so I
will not needlessly repeat the details. Google is your friend.


--
JRF

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

To the Group:

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 07:10:54 -0700, in a place far, far away, "N:dlzc
D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N: dlzc1 D:cox made the
phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

To the Group:

I'm wondering if you couldn't simply put up an extra Soyuz, with a little
bit of manuvering fuel, toddle over from the ISS, and simply change the
battery (and more?) via an EVA...

No. The ISS is in a completely different orbit than Hubble, and it's
so far from it that it's generally easier to get to it from earth than
from ISS. There is no way to get to it at all with a Soyuz, given
their launch latitude.

We really need to put this in an FAQ somewhere, so many people
continue to ask it.

Sorry folks.

Hubble's altitude: ~600 km
ISS altitude: ~390 km

You might consider this link as a starting point for your FAQ:
URL:http://www.aura-astronomy.org/nv/hubble.pdf
.... if you agree with it.

Also, most discussions are echoed he
URL:http://www.spacepolitics.com/mt-comm...i?entry_id=174
I wonder if you couldn't put Hubble into a flat spin, so that the "elements
that can delaminate" are occasionally exposed to direct sunlight. Might
allow reservicing over an extended period of time, up until it reenters the
atmosphere. Buy you 10 years or so.

And some more tidbits:
URL:http://www.interesting-people.org/ar.../msg00156.html

I suppose someone should put up some responses, however. There are a
number of "save the Hubble" websites, but no "RIP Hubble" websites.

David A. Smith

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 07:10:54 -0700, in a place far, far away, "N:dlzc
D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N: dlzc1 D:cox made the
phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

To the Group:

I'm wondering if you couldn't simply put up an extra Soyuz, with a little
bit of manuvering fuel, toddle over from the ISS, and simply change the
battery (and more?) via an EVA...

No. The ISS is in a completely different orbit than Hubble, and it's
so far from it that it's generally easier to get to it from earth than
from ISS. There is no way to get to it at all with a Soyuz, given
their launch latitude.

We really need to put this in an FAQ somewhere, so many people
continue to ask it.

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 09:13:01 -0700, in a place far, far away, "N:dlzc
D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N: dlzc1 D:cox made the
phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

I'm wondering if you couldn't simply put up an extra Soyuz, with a little
bit of manuvering fuel, toddle over from the ISS, and simply change the
battery (and more?) via an EVA...

No. The ISS is in a completely different orbit than Hubble, and it's
so far from it that it's generally easier to get to it from earth than
from ISS. There is no way to get to it at all with a Soyuz, given
their launch latitude.

We really need to put this in an FAQ somewhere, so many people
continue to ask it.

Sorry folks.

Hubble's altitude: ~600 km
ISS altitude: ~390 km

The altitude is almost completely irrelevant. It's not just in a
different orbit, it's in a different orbital *plane*.

http://www.aura-astronomy.org/nv/hubble.pdf

That site has the orbital mechanics right, but doesn't seem realistic
about costs. It's a non starter.

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote in
message news:YhKQd.69775$Yu.56269@fed1read01...
To the Group:

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
.. .
No. The ISS is in a completely different orbit than Hubble, and it's
so far from it that it's generally easier to get to it from earth than
from ISS. There is no way to get to it at all with a Soyuz, given
their launch latitude.

Sorry folks.

Hubble's altitude: ~600 km
ISS altitude: ~390 km

Altitude isn't a big issue. Orbital inclination is the big issue here.
Look up the orbital inclination of ISS and Hubble, then figure the (minimum)
delta-V necessary to do the plane change maneuver. This number will be much
larger than the delta-V to go from ISS altitude to Hubble altitude.

Rand knows all of this, but is just tired of answering the same old
questions. Speaking of which, you could try to Google the sci.space.*
newsgroups to find a better answer. ;-)

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.

On 2005-02-16, N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) N wrote:

Hubble's altitude: ~600 km
ISS altitude: ~390 km

As people have commented, there's an issue of the orbital planes to
consider here as well; probably the most effective way I've seen it
suggested to visualise this is that, once you figure in the "expense"
(ie, energy needs) of plane changes, it looks efficient to launch a
Shuttle, deorbit Hubble, and relaunch it to the "correct" inclination...

--
-Andrew Gray

Dear Andrew Gray:

"Andrew Gray" wrote in message
. ..
On 2005-02-16, N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) N wrote:

Hubble's altitude: ~600 km
ISS altitude: ~390 km

As people have commented, there's an issue of the orbital planes to
consider here as well; probably the most effective way I've seen it
suggested to visualise this is that, once you figure in the "expense"
(ie, energy needs) of plane changes, it looks efficient to launch a
Shuttle, deorbit Hubble, and relaunch it to the "correct" inclination...

Understood. Conservation of momentum is not to be taken lighty. Not only
does it have too much "vectorless" energy, but its momentum is in the wrong
direction. We don't have another mass necessary to carom it into the right
orbit, and it woudn't survive the bank shot anyway. And if we had the
means to deorbit (or reposition) it, we could simply repair it where it is.

Could it be spun in such a way to prevent delamination, so that the
possiblity of reservicing it in the future could be extended. Using the
Sun's energy... we manage to stay temperate, yes we have our blanket of
atmosphere, but the energy input is sufficient to match our outlay to a 3 K
background. Or would the Sun damage the goodies inside?

Thanks to all for their thoughtful responses.

David A. Smith

Eric Chomko wrote:
Charles Buckley ) wrote:
: Eric Chomko wrote:
: Charles Buckley ) wrote:
: : David M. Palmer wrote:
: : In article , Max Beerbohm

: Generally, sudden halts in construction projects are bad. They can
: sometimes allow things backlogged to catch up, but that is not the case
: here. They have the parts and are ready to roll. Arbitrarily stopping
: construction to do a sideline task in a life extension program on
: something that has already been extended is not really something that
: makes a large amount of sense, or even a small amount. Shuttle is there
: for ISS now. Nothing else.

Right, and that is a political decision. HST was designed to be repaired
by the shuttle. The decision to not fix it now is politcal in favor of
ISS. Where is each mission based out of? Maryland - blue state. Texas -
red state. I'll let you guess which one is which.


This one is not even close to red/blue.

ISS has 10+ years of international construction and backlogged equipment
that has to be flown to meet existing obligations. Hubble is a piece of
equipment well past it's original lifecycle.

It's a *PROJECT MANAGEMENT* decision. If you take 2 shuttles (of the
2 in operation in 2007, IIRC) out of shuttle processing for 2 months,
then you have a 3-6 month break in ISS construction as they will
have to prep two shuttles for non-ISS flights, then send the rescue
shuttle back through processing to load the payload and refly. It
simply does not make sense to divert resources to an ancillary task.
This is especially important in that there is a finite end to the
Shuttle. It is not an arbitrary end. They will only fly through the
current certification cycle. They are operating within the constraints
of the CAIB and that was a bipartisan commission.

ISS is political. It is also politically the *only* reason Shuttle
is even considered worth flying. Hubble is, at best, a side issue
to anyone paying the bills. No matter what party they belong to.

Charles Buckley ) wrote:
: Eric Chomko wrote:
: Charles Buckley ) wrote:
: : Eric Chomko wrote:
: : Charles Buckley ) wrote:
: : : David M. Palmer wrote:
: : : In article , Max Beerbohm

: : Generally, sudden halts in construction projects are bad. They can
: : sometimes allow things backlogged to catch up, but that is not the case
: : here. They have the parts and are ready to roll. Arbitrarily stopping
: : construction to do a sideline task in a life extension program on
: : something that has already been extended is not really something that
: : makes a large amount of sense, or even a small amount. Shuttle is there
: : for ISS now. Nothing else.
:
: Right, and that is a political decision. HST was designed to be repaired
: by the shuttle. The decision to not fix it now is politcal in favor of
: ISS. Where is each mission based out of? Maryland - blue state. Texas -
: red state. I'll let you guess which one is which.


: This one is not even close to red/blue.

: ISS has 10+ years of international construction and backlogged equipment
: that has to be flown to meet existing obligations. Hubble is a piece of
: equipment well past it's original lifecycle.

But Hubble isn't borken and ISS will get built. Is it worth trashing
Hubble for single launch? A true leader would do both, fix Hubble and
finish ISS.

: It's a *PROJECT MANAGEMENT* decision. If you take 2 shuttles (of the
: 2 in operation in 2007, IIRC) out of shuttle processing for 2 months,
: then you have a 3-6 month break in ISS construction as they will
: have to prep two shuttles for non-ISS flights, then send the rescue
: shuttle back through processing to load the payload and refly. It
: simply does not make sense to divert resources to an ancillary task.

Sure it does. It makes as musch sense as what they are doing on ISS. What
are they doing on ISS? The Hubble produced loads of astronomical science.

: This is especially important in that there is a finite end to the
: Shuttle. It is not an arbitrary end. They will only fly through the
: current certification cycle. They are operating within the constraints
: of the CAIB and that was a bipartisan commission.

Yes, I have the book. I read it. No where does it say not to fly to
Hubble. They warn about the age of the fleet, etc. Fine, the fleet is old.
But to claim that one, albeit differently configured, shuttle of the 27
missions remaining can't be sent to Hubble because of the ISS places too
much importance on ISS and not enough on Hubble. THAT is political.

: ISS is political. It is also politically the *only* reason Shuttle
: is even considered worth flying. Hubble is, at best, a side issue
: to anyone paying the bills. No matter what party they belong to.

You obviously don't live in Maryland or anywhere near it. I wonder what
would be said in Texas if ISS was to be canned in lieu of the Hubble? Care
to guess?

Eric