Inflatable Heat Shield

On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 9:11:45 PM UTC+13, bob haller wrote:
On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 11:20:52 PM UTC-5, JF Mezei wrote:
I wasn't imagining things before.

This is more than to o help smooth landing or to float Orion.

NASA Tests Inflatable Heat Shield Technology for Deep Space Missions
http://www.nasa.gov/feature/langley/...space-missions

Hypersonic Inflatable Aerodynamic Decelerator, or HIAD, it works like a
parachute, using the drag of a planet's atmosphere to slow the space
vehicle as it descends toward the surface.

POSTERS HERE LAUGHED AT MY SUGGESTIONS OF THIS IDEA glad to see its being investigated.

a good use would be return of hubble at end of useful life.....

although i would prefer hubble gets a future service


http://www.gizmag.com/nasa-irve-3-in...-system/22974/

Here's more on gizmag!

Now, the interesting thing about this is even though Hubble cost $2.5 billion to build and launch, what is it worth as scrap?

Well, back in the day an oil Sheik offered $100 million to bring one of the lunar rovers back to Earth. Would other enthusiasts pay similar amounts for a used Hubble Space Telescope to hang out front of their corporate HQ, or perhaps their home?

http://www.thenational.ae/arts-lifes...roving-vehicle

Maybe Makush Abani would like putting the HST in front of Antilia surrounded by a reflecting pool?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antilia_(building)

Below are some prices people paid for pieces of artwork. Now, a Falcon 9 costs $61 million. But a secondary payload can be had cheap! Sometimes for as little as $1 million. The IRVE-3 weighs 680 lbs, and the entire programme, including launch, cost $17 million. So, its a sure bet that you could likely put up a satellite to retrieve the space shuttle for less than $20 million once you got NASA to release it to you, for the trouble of deorbiting it at your risk. Then retrieve it (I would favour central Australia) put it up for auction for say $60 million through Sotheby's or Christie's.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/...load-manifest/

You could even do a two stage approach, sell the rights to it pre-flight for $30 million and retain the right to re-sell it at $60 million or more once you had it in hand.

* * *

Sculpture Prices - Highest Paid

Adjusted price (in millions US) Original price (in millions US) Sculpture Image Artist Year Date of sale Seller Buyer Auction house Refs

$141.3 $141.3 L'Homme au doigt Alberto Giacometti 1947 11 May 2015 Private collection Private collection Christie's, New York [1]

$113.2 $104.3 L'Homme qui marche I Alberto Giacometti 1961 3 February 2010 Commerzbank Lily Safra Sotheby's, London [1]

$64.6 $59.5 Tête Amedeo Modigliani 1910–1912 14 June 2010 Gaston Levy Private collection Christie's, Paris [11][12]

$59.3 $58.4 Balloon Dog (Orange)[note 1] Jeff Koons 1994–2000 12 November 2013 Private collection Private collection Christie's, New York [13]

$65.3 $57.2 Guennol Lioness Guennol Lioness.jpg Unknown c.3000 BC 5 December 2007 Alastair Bradley Martin Private collection Sotheby's, New York [5]

$57.8 $53.3 Grande tête mince Grande tête mince front and side views.jpg Alberto Giacometti 1955 4 May 2010 Sidney F. Brody Private collection Christie's, New York [14]

$50.8 $50.0 Grand tête mince (Grand tête de Diego) Alberto Giacometti 1955 6 November 2013 Private collection Bill Acquavella Sotheby's, New York [15][16]

$53 $48.8 Nu de dos, 4 état (Back IV) Henri Matisse 1958 3 November 2010 Private collection Private collection Christie's, New York [17]

$41.5 $37.6 Madame LR (Portrait de Mme LR) Constantin Brâncuși 1914–17 24 February 2009 Yves Saint Laurent and Pierre Bergé Private collection Christie's, Paris [18]

$34.7 $33.7 Tulips Jeff Koons 1995-2004 14 November 2012 Christie's, New York

$31 $30.1 Reclining Figu Festival Henry Moore 1951 7 February 2012 Private collection Private collection Christie's, London [4]

$33.2 $29.1 Tete de femme (Dora Maar) Tete de femme (Dora Maar).jpg Pablo Picasso 1941 7 November 2007 Private collection Franck Giraud Sotheby's, New York [4]

$32.6 $28.6 Artemis and the Stag Artemis Met Museum.jpg Unknown c.100 BC – 100 AD 7 June 2007 Albright-Knox Art Gallery Private collection Sotheby's, New York [3]

$33.3 $27.5 Bird in Space Constantin Brâncuși 1922–1923 5 May 2005 Private collection Private collection Christie's, New York [2]

$30.1 $27.4 Grande Femme Debout II Alberto Giacometti 1959–1960 6 May 2008 Private collection Gagosian Gallery Christie's, New York [19]

$28.5 $23.5 Cubi XXVIII David Smith 1965 November 2005 Private collection Gagosian Gallery Sotheby's, New York

$22.6 $20.8 Le Chat Alberto Giacometti 1955 4 May 2010 Sidney F. Brody Christie's, New York

http://www.gizmag.com/nasa-irve-3-in...-system/22974/

Here's more on gizmag!

Now, the interesting thing about this is even though Hubble cost $2.5 billion to build and launch, what is it worth as scrap?

hubble would be a awesome display article at KSC or houston..

it would increase tourism as a display

do note i would still prefer additional service flights

In article ,
says...


http://www.gizmag.com/nasa-irve-3-in...-system/22974/

Here's more on gizmag!

Now, the interesting thing about this is even though Hubble cost $2.5 billion to build and launch, what is it worth as scrap?

hubble would be a awesome display article at KSC or houston..

It was only designed to be launched, and possibly be brought back, by
the shuttle. Any vehicle which brought it back would have to mimic the
shuttle's payload bay structurally and thermally. On top of that,
landing loads would have to be minimized to within those of a shuttle
touchdown on a runway.

This inflatable heat shield isn't nearly enough to bring hubble back.
It would just be one tiny piece of the puzzle.

it would increase tourism as a display

The Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum already has the Hubble
Structural Dynamic Test Vehicle
http://airandspace.si.edu/collections/artifact.cfm?
object=nasm_A19870193000

do note i would still prefer additional service flights

This is more likely than an attempt to bring it back that will either
fail, or will severely damage the telescope.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

This is more likely than an attempt to bring it back that will either
fail, or will severely damage the telescope.

Jeff
--

isnt a recovered slightly damaged hubble. better than burned up after re entering over pacific ocean

On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 11:56:12 AM UTC+13, JF Mezei wrote:
On 2016-03-11 16:09, bob haller wrote:

isnt a recovered slightly damaged hubble. better than burned up after re entering over pacific ocean

Good for display in a museum, doubt it would be of much use though

Assuming it were landed safely, could it be used to peep at a
neighbour's wife undressing across the street ? (Just wondering around
the range of focus and whether such a range can be mechanically adjusted
if beyond current movement ? Is there even the concept of "focus" on a
mirror designed solely to look at "infinity" ?


Alternatively, could the mirror be used as a solar cooker ? Pass a black
pipe at the convergance point and generate lots of steam ?

Would it be orders of magnitude hotter than existing convex mirror on
earth used in solar steam plants or more or less in line with what
exists today ? (obviously, such convex mirrors don't need to precision
that Hubble has so likely possible to make something the same size or
larger to focus the sun's rays onto a steam production aparatus.

More seriously, assuming the Shuttle had returned Hubble, could its
mirror be of any use in an earth observatory or is it too small compared
to what earth observatories already have ?

I agree it wouldn't be useful as an operating telescope, however, it would make a dandy exhibit, especially if properly displayed.

HST

Size: Length: 43.5 ft (13.2 m)
Weight: At Launch: ~24,500 lb (11,110 kg)
Post SM4: ~27,000 lb (~12,247 kg)
Maximum Diameter: 14 ft (4.2 m)
Spaceflight Statistics
Low Earth Orbit: Altitude of 340 miles (295 nautical miles, or 547 km), inclined 28.5 degrees to the equator

https://prod.nais.nasa.gov/eps/eps_d...FT-001-001.doc
http://www.ssdl.gatech.edu/papers/co...-2015-0204.pdf

From IRVE-3 SOW

IRVE-3 will be launched on a Black Brant XI with a 22in (0.55m) shroud. The target ballistic number of the reentry vehicle is double that of IRVE-II, so the payload being decelerated by the aeroshell will be roughly 200kg (441lb), more than the mass allocated for the aeroshell. Preliminary estimates of the peak deceleration are on the order of 25g (and this is the value to be used for preliminary aeroshell/payload interface loading).

On August 17, 2009, the IRVE-II project (with a 2.93m (115in) inflatable aeroshell) was launched on sounding rocket out of Wallops Flight Facility, with a goal of demonstrating the concept of inflatable reentry vehicles. During the IRVE-II flight, the aeroshell inflated as designed and maintained stability not only through hypersonic reentry but also through the supersonic, transonic and subsonic flight regimes. With this IRVE-II proof-of-concept demonstration, a next logical step would be a flight test to increase the heat flux on the inflatable (to get closer to a more operationally realistic flight environment).

Some of the goals include;

Develop a mass estimation tool for a range of inflatable aeroshell sizes, up to 50 meters (165 feet) in support of the Entry-Descent and Landing Systems Analysis studies.

Develop a engineering development unit of a larger scale aeroshell (on the order of 15 meters (50 feet)).

A 12 meter diameter system massing 3,300 kg overall, should be capable of attaching to the same points that were planned to be used by robotic missions that were intended to maintain the shuttle with less expensive launch hardware.

That was cut to save money for manned missions to the moon by 2015.

Of course that didn't happen either.

http://www.spacetoday.org/DeepSpace/...le/Hubble.html


* * *

It seems to me that the contracting officers for the IRVE-3 should be contacted and asked, would they like to help build a larger IRVE to recover the HST if private money could be found to pay for it? Could they do a preliminary study? Something someone could use to promote a Public Private Partnership? To raise the money to recover the HST as a museum piece offered for sale?

http://hubblesite.org/the_telescope/...cs/optics2.php

Now, no doubt the HST once recovered would need to be torn apart and reassembled, to put in display condition. However, the main baffle, can be removed from the telescope without any change in its general appearance, and a substitute put in its place. The main baffle is a cylinder of aluminum that's 3 m in diameter and 4 m long, that has an undulating surface and some considerable depth.

37.7 sq meters in area it is easily cut into 40,559 squares 1 inch to the side and each mounted on a walnut base with brass label and a wonderful presentation case. It would make a handsome decoration at the home or the office! Complete with certificate of authenticity, and so forth.

Sold at $1,100 each (plus shipping) you'd collect $40,559,000 profit! Spending $100 on the packaging, promotion, selling 40,559 of them.

http://www.moneycrashers.com/product...works-qvc-hsn/

And remember, all money goes to the preservation of the HST at its new site! (to be determined by the highest bidder!)

I have some experience here;

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/01/22/sp...-analysis.html
https://www.google.ch/patents/US5067719

Starting price, at auction, after a professional restoration and display, $41 million!+

http://www.sothebys.com/en/buysell/sell.html


You could also sell parts of the recovery apparatus as well.

In article ,
says...


This is more likely than an attempt to bring it back that will either
fail, or will severely damage the telescope.

isnt a recovered slightly damaged hubble. better than burned up after re entering over pacific ocean

The cost to "do it right" would be prohibitively high. Since the mirror
is so heavy and dense, reentry should be attempted over the ocean. This
would mean failure likely puts the "slightly" damaged Hubble at the
bottom of the ocean.

Better to leave it where it is until we have all of the bits of
technology, then decide if it is worth it to bring it back. We aren't
there yet. Inflatable heat shields are a research topic and is *one*
piece of the puzzle.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

In article m,
says...

On 2016-03-11 16:09, bob haller wrote:

isnt a recovered slightly damaged hubble. better than burned up after re entering over pacific ocean

Good for display in a museum, doubt it would be of much use though

But that's what Bob wants. To bring back the perfectly preserved Hubble
from earth orbit and possibly destroy it completely so that people can
look at it in a museum. I say let it stay in orbit.

More seriously, assuming the Shuttle had returned Hubble, could its
mirror be of any use in an earth observatory or is it too small compared
to what earth observatories already have ?

It would have ended up in a museum. It's too tiny to be of much use as
an earth bound mirror. That and the mirror was flawed, remember?

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 9:41:58 AM UTC-5, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article m,
says...

On 2016-03-11 16:09, bob haller wrote:

isnt a recovered slightly damaged hubble. better than burned up after re entering over pacific ocean

Good for display in a museum, doubt it would be of much use though

But that's what Bob wants. To bring back the perfectly preserved Hubble
from earth orbit and possibly destroy it completely so that people can
look at it in a museum. I say let it stay in orbit.

More seriously, assuming the Shuttle had returned Hubble, could its
mirror be of any use in an earth observatory or is it too small compared
to what earth observatories already have ?

It would have ended up in a museum. It's too tiny to be of much use as
an earth bound mirror. That and the mirror was flawed, remember?

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

actually at end of operational life i want its orbit raised to a long term storage orbit. while many want it deoribited and burned up with heavy parts in the bottom of the pacific.

although i would prefer it gets future service mission

On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 3:17:34 PM UTC-5, JF Mezei wrote:
On 2016-03-12 09:39, Jeff Findley wrote:

Better to leave it where it is until we have all of the bits of
technology, then decide if it is worth it to bring it back.


Unless someone decides to bring it back, the technology won't be
developped to bring it back safely.

Out of curiosity, Does Orion have any cargo capacity ? Say they wanted
to attach de-orbit engine and parachites to Hubble, could that come up
on an Orion and have crews EVA to bolt the things on Hubble ?

or would the parts have to be shipped separately and parked next to
hubble so that Orion crews could EVA and somehow translate between the
parked parts, Orion and Hubble ?

I take it SpaceX has the technology to ship the parts up and park next
Hubble ? Or does Hubble lack the space equivalent of an ILS to allow
Dragon to station keep next to Hubble as it does with the station before
being grappled ?

As Hubble's altitude slowly goes down, does it pose any risk to other
orbiting vehicles such as ISS ? aka: is there some priority to manage
its re-entry, or can it "safely" allowed to decay until low enough that
it re-enters like Skylab did ?

the last service mission bolted on a docking attachment to allow remote docking for a deorbit engine.

but rather than deorbit it to a firey end its better to save it for history.

place in higher stable orbit, say 100 years. for future recovery

In article ,
says...

actually at end of operational life i want its orbit raised to a long term storage orbit. while many want it deoribited and burned up with heavy parts in the bottom of the pacific.

Long term storage is still a risk since it could be hit by orbital
debris, which would create even more debris. Considering your
propensity to be risk averse, you should side with safely deorbiting
Hubble at the end of its useful life.

although i would prefer it gets future service mission

That likely will not happen given NASA's desire to fly "replacements".
The only way this might happen is for a "make work" flight for
SLS/Orion, especially since ARM is *not* being warmly received by the
politicians (or anyone else).

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.