Hubble service back on robotically

O'Keefe said NASA engineers are vetting several suggestions for a robotic
mission to replace the gyroscopes and batteries aboard the scientific
instrument. The mission would allow the Hubble to continue scanning the
universe beyond 2006 or 2007.


http://www.floridatoday.com/news/spa...yN0422NASA.htm

At what point do we no longer need humans?
:
:
:
My opinion is right

On 22 Apr 2004 11:37:35 GMT, (bob haller) wrote:

O'Keefe said NASA engineers are vetting several suggestions for a robotic
mission to replace the gyroscopes and batteries aboard the scientific
instrument. The mission would allow the Hubble to continue scanning the
universe beyond 2006 or 2007.


http://www.floridatoday.com/news/spa...yN0422NASA.htm

At what point do we no longer need humans?

A point much later than 2006 or 2007. The technology for this won't be
around in time to save Hubble, period.

Brian

I cannot see this working, as the Hubble was not designed for robot
servicing, it needs people.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________
__________________________________


"bob haller" wrote in message
...
| O'Keefe said NASA engineers are vetting several suggestions for a robotic
| mission to replace the gyroscopes and batteries aboard the scientific
| instrument. The mission would allow the Hubble to continue scanning the
| universe beyond 2006 or 2007.
|
|
|
http://www.floridatoday.com/news/spa...yN0422NASA.htm
|
| At what point do we no longer need humans?
| :
| :
| :
| My opinion is right


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.659 / Virus Database: 423 - Release Date: 15/04/04

In message , Brian Gaff
writes

"bob haller" wrote in message
...
| O'Keefe said NASA engineers are vetting several suggestions for a robotic
| mission to replace the gyroscopes and batteries aboard the scientific
| instrument. The mission would allow the Hubble to continue scanning the
| universe beyond 2006 or 2007.
|
|
|
http://www.floridatoday.com/news/spa...yN0422NASA.htm
|
| At what point do we no longer need humans?

I cannot see this working, as the Hubble was not designed for robot
servicing, it needs people.

Isn't that the point? All Hubble (or anything else) needs is something
which can remove the old component and install the new one.
I hate to say it, but Bob's right. It may not be ready for Hubble, but
it will come.
--
Save the Hubble Space Telescope!
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 20:57:48 +0100, Jonathan Silverlight
wrote:


I cannot see this working, as the Hubble was not designed for robot
servicing, it needs people.

Isn't that the point? All Hubble (or anything else) needs is something
which can remove the old component and install the new one.
I hate to say it, but Bob's right. It may not be ready for Hubble, but
it will come.

I can't see any way such a thing would cost less than simply building
Hubble II.

It's not going to happen.

Brian

"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...
I cannot see this working, as the Hubble was not designed for robot
servicing, it needs people.

Brian

I wonder what the robot's going to do when Hubble's service doors won't
close. There's no robot that could've pulled off the previous servicing
missions. I've designed/built some pretty cool robot systems myself, but
nothing I know of, including tele-operated systems, could do
this--especially in the time left before Hubble dies.

This smells like O'Keefe playing politics. This ridiculous idea will get
dropped later when congress isn't so hot on it. Hmmm, is this the NEW NASA
culture we've been hearing about? Sounds frighteningly familiar to me!

Mike

Mike Dennis wrote:


This smells like O'Keefe playing politics. This ridiculous idea will get
dropped later when congress isn't so hot on it.


Are you just talking about the robot servicing mission to Hubble, or the "MARS
or bust NASA" scheme?

Where is U.S. Manned spaceflight going to be in about 10-15 years when the
shuttle and ISS are abandoned and congress yanks the MARS/CEV program as the
money keeps being poured into a program that won't give the one big payoff for
yet another 15-20 years? If they have the patience to even allow it to even go
for 10-15 years?

For that matter, congress hasn’t even approved it yet. Does anyone at NASA have
a "Plan B" if Congress says no to MARS?

Back to Hubble though. Beyond the gyros, the other part that need replacement
are the batteries aboard the "scientific instrument". I'm not familiar enough
to know how those batteries are used and if they are so bad off that even if
the gyros could be fixed, would hubble be useless without replacing them?

That is, if a robot could fix just the gyros, would that be enough to keep it
useful for a few more years?

I ask that because rather than a robot, I wonder why a self-docking module
could not be used to permanently assist Hubble. The module containing its own
gyros, batteries, and electronics to do the attitude positioning that Hubble's
internal gyros do. This assumes that Hubble's gyros could be commanded to go
offline, and some inconvenient but not impossible software and hardware
interaction would be worked out (possible kludges like perhaps Hubble and its
module not being able to communicate directly, so they'd have to do it via
relays to the ground or perhaps a TDRS). It probably means that any such module
would need to carry its own solar panels for power since there’s probably no
practical way to externally plug into Hubble’s power. I figure there probably
would be some show-stopper technical reason (or reasons) why it may not be
practical, so if there are, what are they?

Of course if the scientific instrument batteries will make Hubble become
useless once they go, and would likely go bad by or shortly after a gyro module
docked, then the above idea is of no use.

- George Gassaway

(GCGassaway) wrote in
:

Where is U.S. Manned spaceflight going to be in about 10-15 years when
the shuttle and ISS are abandoned and congress yanks the MARS/CEV
program as the money keeps being poured into a program that won't give
the one big payoff for yet another 15-20 years? If they have the
patience to even allow it to even go for 10-15 years?

You can ask that question about *any* path NASA might choose to take,
including the status quo. NASA could stick to shuttle/ISS and Congress
could still yank the program in 10-15 years, or at any time of their
choosing, for that matter. So this is not a valid question for choosing
between different paths; it is equally valid for *all* paths.

For that matter, congress hasn’t even approved it yet. Does anyone at
NASA have a "Plan B" if Congress says no to MARS?

Not explicitly, no. But the "spiral development" path of the current
proposal offers myriad "off-ramps" if Congress balks at the cost of the
overall plan. Plan B could be to continue the Constellation/CEV program up
to the establishment of a moon base, but not proceed to Mars. Plan C could
be to limit CEV to LEO-only servicing of ISS and continuing participation
in ISS beyond 2016 while still retiring the shuttle in 2010. Plan D could
be to limit CEV to an ISS CRV/CTV and recertify the shuttle in 2010 per the
CAIB recommendations (essentially restoring the status quo prior to the
Columbia accident). Plan E could be to cancel CEV, recertify the shuttle,
and continue to use Soyuz as an ISS CRV. Plan F could be to cancel CEV,
retire the shuttle, and use Soyuz as an ISS CRV/CTV (essentially the
situation we are in now with the shuttle fleet grounded; not sustainable in
the long run). Plan G could be to cancel CEV, retire the shuttle, and
withdraw from the ISS program, leaving the ISS partners to their own
devices. And there are intermediate options in-between. This is not an all-
or-nothing program; the "buy-it-by-the-yard" characteristic is a feature,
not a bug.

Back to Hubble though. Beyond the gyros, the other part that need
replacement are the batteries aboard the "scientific instrument". I'm
not familiar enough to know how those batteries are used and if they
are so bad off that even if the gyros could be fixed, would hubble be
useless without replacing them?

The batteries are used to store solar power during the day to keep the
telescope's instruments alive at night. HST would indeed be useless without
them.

That is, if a robot could fix just the gyros, would that be enough to
keep it useful for a few more years?

The gyros are gradually failing and the batteries are gradually degrading.
The answer critically depends on what power-conservation measures can
be/would be taken to prolong battery life. Right now it looks like the
gyros will fail first, but that could change - the remaining gyros could
well surprise us and last longer, or the batteries could start degrading
faster.

I ask that because rather than a robot, I wonder why a self-docking
module could not be used to permanently assist Hubble. The module
containing its own gyros, batteries, and electronics to do the
attitude positioning that Hubble's internal gyros do. This assumes
that Hubble's gyros could be commanded to go offline, and some
inconvenient but not impossible software and hardware interaction
would be worked out (possible kludges like perhaps Hubble and its
module not being able to communicate directly, so they'd have to do it
via relays to the ground or perhaps a TDRS). It probably means that
any such module would need to carry its own solar panels for power
since there’s probably no practical way to externally plug into
Hubble’s power. I figure there probably would be some show-stopper
technical reason (or reasons) why it may not be practical, so if there
are, what are they?

The external module could plug into the same umbilical port used by the
shuttle to provide "keep-alive" power to HST while it's being serviced in
the payload bay, so there's no need to fix HST's batteries (which would be
highly problematic; they are hard enough for EVA astronauts to get to, let
alone robots).

The biggest obstacle, which has been discussed in this newsgroup several
times, is that all existing automated rendezvous and docking (AR&D) systems
require that the target vehicle be equipped with a docking mechanism and
some form of navaids - laser retroreflectors, RF transponders, GPS (for
long range), or some combination.

HST has no docking mechanism and no docking navaids. It has a shuttle RMS
grapple fixture and an FSS berthing mechanism, neither of which is designed
for docking loads, and its grapple/berthing aids are purely visual. So any
AR&D system to dock to HST must have a pretty soft touch (by about an order
of magnitude compared to what existing systems can do) and must have the
capability to perform prox ops using purely visual/topographic features of
the target vehicle.

This is seriously stretching the AR&D state-of-the-art. It is not
impossible, but it may make it impractical to develop something to get to
HST before it dies, unless an expensive crash program is mounted. This
could well be more expensive than a replacement telescope and would not be
worth it for HST's sake alone; it must be at least partially justified by
potential spinoff applications for the AR&D technology (i.e. Code T must
buy-in).

Note that NASA is legally obligated to prevent an uncontrolled re-entry for
HST, so at some point the telescope *must* be revisited, if only to attach
a deorbit propulsion system. But if there is no requirement to keep HST
itself alive, this mission does not have to fly before the gyros/batteries
fail. Its deadline would instead be driven by HST orbital decay; HST is
currently predicted to re-enter around 2013. That is a lot more time to
advance AR&D technology, and would not require a crash program.

--
JRF

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

"Jorge R. Frank" writes:

The external module could plug into the same umbilical port used by the
shuttle to provide "keep-alive" power to HST while it's being serviced in
the payload bay, so there's no need to fix HST's batteries (which would be
highly problematic; they are hard enough for EVA astronauts to get to, let
alone robots).

Great!

HST has no docking mechanism and no docking navaids. It has a shuttle RMS
grapple fixture and an FSS berthing mechanism, neither of which is designed
for docking loads, and its grapple/berthing aids are purely visual. So any
AR&D system to dock to HST must have a pretty soft touch (by about an order
of magnitude compared to what existing systems can do) and must have the
capability to perform prox ops using purely visual/topographic features of
the target vehicle.

How close can a standard Progress manouver with neglible risk for
colission?
Can it be launched docked with a HST-support-sattelite?
The mission profile woule be to lauch the Progress empty exect for a
full fuel load and docked with the support sattelite. The progress
manouvers close to the HST, the support sattellite somehow reels in
HST and docks to it, the progress empties its fuel tanks boosting the
HST orbit and then detaches.

Trying to figure out a way to reel in a HST is an intresting problem
well suited for a newsgroup. Lets begin with ignoring the law that
forbids NASA to buy Russian hardware.

Would it help to have a more complicated mission profile that docks a
very light micro sattelite to HST with its low mass giving a smaller
impulse during the docking moment and have it connected to the
progress with a tether that is reeled in? Somtheing like a beefed up
versions of the ISS inspection "ball".

Best regards,

Magnus Redin wrote:

Trying to figure out a way to reel in a HST is an intresting problem
well suited for a newsgroup. Lets begin with ignoring the law that
forbids NASA to buy Russian hardware.

I we are going to ignore that, we might as well start figuring out how
the Enterprise (NCC-1701) is going to accomplish the rescue.

These newsgroups function well for evaluating realistic proposals, for
others try the rec.arts.sf.* hierarchy.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.